Yes more like “why UK ATS treats Class D like Class B and now they apply new SERA Class D minima instead of legacy ANO Class G minima”
Both statements are BS. Class D in the UK is no different than class D in any other country, and they all have the same issue.
The rule itself is the problem. It prohibits general flying in class D airspace when self-separation between VFR flights would be entirely possible (good visibility below a 1,200ft cloud base), just to ensure separation of an IFR flight which might pop out of cloud, regardless of if there are any such flights.
In practice – as pointed out above – that IFR flight will be well separated from the VFR flights by other means, either using radar or procedure (no tower will clear a VFR flight beyond downwind with an IFR flight on the later stages of the ILS), but the rule is still in place. Or in the LLR by simply not clearing IFR flights anywhere near or in it.
Cobalt wrote:
In practice – as pointed out above – that IFR flight will be well separated from the VFR flights by other means
I.e. it is operated as class B (or maybe C).
The exact statement you says is BS
Surely, and regardless of technicalities as to who is responsible for separation, UK Class D is TOTAL CONTROL BY ATC.
You get assigned a custom squawk, you need a clearance to enter, get a Radar Control Service, the service terminates when you leave. It is exactly what happens in Class A (except VFR can’t go into Class A, on paper).
I don’t believe there is any UK CAS which does not have radar cover and this is why they always give you a RCS.
Cobalt wrote:
Both statements are BS. Class D in the UK is no different than class D in any other country
It is Class D in name only: otherwise why VFR can’t just access on simple radio call clearance then self navigate/separate from other VFR/IFR? in practice, in UK Class D you get get explicit route clearance, assigned max/min level, radar control and routed away from everything else (still that is not Class B separation 
)
I am sure Class D in other places, ATC are less concerned about separating IFR from VFR or VFR from VFR, I was given an airliner straight in the face and own navigation with visual traffic/wake separation (need to get that picture from my wife’s camera ), I think observing distance from clouds that day did make lot of sense there (there was around 6 VFR traffic and 3 IFR in the same box with few clouds), but it make less sense when you are 1 or 2 VFR traffic allowed in Class D zone under “radar control” as GA_Pete mentioned….
That “Class D Airspace is operated like Class B [in the UK]” is a myth.
While it certainly feels like it, the frequent (IMO, largely unnecessary) micromanagement of VFR traffic, however, does NOT provide formal separation of traffic to IFR standards.
Radar separation standards are 3 NM, and 2.5 NM between two aircraft on final; and in a non-radar controlled control zone, only one aircraft in a zone / sector at a time.
Cobalt wrote:
Both statements are BS. Class D in the UK is no different than class D in any other country, and they all have the same issue.
They have very different issues
“Separation” in the context of airspace classes is a precise concept. That “separation” is not applied between a VFR aircraft and other traffic doesn’t mean that ATC doesn’t care what happens. ATC always has a responsibility to prevent collisions. Now, how this is done can differ a lot between different countries. It may well be that British ATC does it in a way that is essentially the same as they would do in class B – I wouldn’t know. From what I’ve heard is that US ATC in class C (which also doesn’t have VFR-IFR separation) is not permitted to let VFR and IFR radar targets merge. That is a very different way of preventing collisions compared to what would happen in class B.Down to our ‘airspace regulators’ (snigger) to sort this one out…
However, I suspect the CAA has actually fixed the issue; the Manchester LLR now appears on Skydemon as class G airspace.
EasyVFR and Garmin/Jeppesen are still showing the LLR as Class D. And if there’s a NOTAM, it’s well hidden.
Cobalt wrote:
While it certainly feels like it, the frequent (IMO, largely unnecessary) micromanagement of VFR traffic, however, does NOT provide formal separation of traffic to IFR standards.Radar separation standards are 3 NM, and 2.5 NM between two aircraft on final; and in a non-radar controlled control zone, only one aircraft in a zone / sector at a time.
Separation of VFR traffic from IFR traffic is to ‘VFR standards’ not ‘IFR standards’. Although we all know this doesn’t happen in practice and that VFR traffic in UK Class D is vectored to remain well clear of IFR traffic (at least outside the TCAS ‘bubble’). The separation ranges you quote are for separation between IFR traffic.
The evidence is that the free flow of VFR traffic within Class D in the UK does not happen, that VFR traffic is tightly constrained and that, in effect, the Class D is operated as Class B. Here are the ICAO definitions of 2 different classes of airspace. In your experience in UK airspace, which is Class D and which is Class B?
Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. All flights are subject to ATC clearance (country-specific variations notwithstanding). Aircraft operating under IFR and SVFR are separated from each other, and are given traffic information in respect of VFR flights. Flights operating under VFR are given traffic information in respect of all other flights."
Operations may be conducted under IFR, SVFR, or VFR. All aircraft are subject to ATC clearance. All flights are separated from each other by ATC.
The irony is, if Class B existed in the UK, the Class D would likely be operated correctly.
