Here is the proposal.
This would give VFR (and IFR OCAS) flyers a little more space to climb to safe altitudes during Channel / North Sea crossings.
Interestingly, PPL/IR (which supports the “airways” group among pilots – I am one of them) is somewhat contrary. They write:
This will be greeted with rejoicing by the bulk of GA, of course, but, in some cases, will result in the lowest levels of airways no longer being available.
Be aware that any objection on our part may be seen very negatively by our friends and colleagues in the VFR and OCAS communities.
This is obviously off the mark. Nobody in the low-level IFR crowd really needs airways where the alternative is to fly OCAS at the same level. The old separation argument for airways is miniscule. And even if: this change would merely mean that a couple of affected airway minimum altitudes have to be increased by 1000/2000 feet. There really shouldn’t be anybody in the GA scene opposing this.
The (very tight) decision deadline is end of October. That’s because, if they don’t decide by that time, they will not be able to put it on the next edition of the sacred UK CAA maps out next spring and would have to wait another year…
I have put a local copy of the CAA doc here because they often disappear after a short time.
This is an ongoing CAA initiative – here
I don’t see the little bits which will be lowered affecting anybody.
But what does “will result in the lowest levels of airways no longer being available.” mean? An IFR FP in CAS is a good FP and you will get a service from London Control.
Nobody in the low-level IFR crowd really needs airways where the alternative is to fly OCAS at the same level.
There is a massive difference, to do with weather. If you are in G and you need to climb, there is no practical way to get an IFR clearance in the UK. But if you file for CAS (which needs an IR, not the IMCR, in most practical scenarios, because the IMCR excludes Class A, which is precisely why the IMCR was allowed to exist in the UK 
) then it is just a case of “request climb FL80” or whatever.
It is all about presenting ATC further down the route with a “fait accompli” in the form of an existing clearance.
Obviously if you are going from Shoreham to Lydd, you stay in G.
If you are going Shoreham to Le Touquet, you can also stay in G, unless LFAT wx has suddenly changed and needs an IAP and then you have to quickly call up Lille for that – which is why I go IFR there usually.
If you are going Shoreham to say Dortmund then you want to get into CAS ASAP so you have all the wx avoidance options. You don’t want to be calling up Brussels for the IFR clearance.
Be aware that any objection on our part may be seen very negatively by our friends and colleagues in the VFR and OCAS communities
That is the typical UK pilot group scenario. Most of the groups are dominated by big characters and don’t talk to each other, though multiple ones claim credit for anything good that pops up somewhere.
Peter,
The irony of what you write is splendid!
You are trying to stir up trouble between pilot groups by publishing a private conversation here (using Philipp as a stooge) then accuse others of being big personalities trying to cause trouble!
Love you!
The irony of what you write is splendid!
You are trying to stir up trouble between pilot groups by publishing a private conversation here (using Philipp as a stooge) then accuse others of being big personalities trying to cause trouble!
Love you!
I don’t understand the above at all.
Great to see you back Timothy!
I am only interested in discussion of the subject, which I think is interesting.
There is a massive difference, to do with weather. If you are in G and you need to climb, there is no practical way to get an IFR clearance in the UK.
Well yes, I get the “in the system vs. out of the system” point. But I don’t think this “problem” can be used as an argument for more controlled airspace and lower reaching airways. In a better world, everybody who files an IFR flightplan should have the right to request an IFR clearance for a higher altitude if he needs to. But that of course would – in this world – require all flightplans to go through Eurocontrol validation etc. Discussed here and elsewhere many times.
Of course, the alternative would be the “German” model, with low-reaching class E (which probably will never happen in the UK), where every IFR flight is “in the system”. But then we are back to basic airspace design philosophies. And of course the German system has its downsides, too.
The downside of lower level Class E is only caused by the boneheaded German ATC provider which refuses IFR clearances below MRVA, making class E inaccessible between MRVA and the Class E floor in IMC. This is the cause for a well-known weather phenomenon – Germany never has any cloud between 1000ft AGL and MRVA.
It works perfectly in the US.
As we have done here many times, the UK can never have widespread Class E because somebody would need to provide a service to IFR traffic in it (because IFR in Class E needs a clearance) and since 99% of GA pays no route charges, that idea is just not going to, ahem, fly… This may be my opinion but on the rare occassions somebody from NATS speaks out openly on airspace and services they make this point very fast.
But I don’t think this “problem” can be used as an argument for more controlled airspace and lower reaching airways
Agreed, but the CAA proposal doesn’t look like that to me, to any relevant extent.
In the south east, 97.12345% (I made up the bit after the decimal point) of VFR traffic is below 2000ft, and in the 14 years I have been flying there in the TB20 I have never ever seen anybody above say 4000ft. Well, not unless about to join or leave CAS on an IFR flight. And, oh yes, there is a guy who does aerobatics near Goodwood, up to the base of CAS, FL065, with Mode C fortunately. And I nearly always fly between 4300ft and 5300ft when I do a “local west” or “local east”, below the 5500ft CAS base.
@boscomantico, thanks for posting this.
However, from the POV of a PPL/IRR flying to/from the continent this NATS proposal looks like pointless tinkering by desk-weenies who haven’t bothered to analyse the problem they’re trying to fix.
To that extent PPL/IR would be right to oppose it (if indeed that’s what they intend to do).
The problem is that with UK Class A starting at 6,500 ft and, say, a layer of BKN from 4,000 to 5,600 ft, VFR traffic is condemned to cross the strait not above 3,000 ft – or to break the law.
With another couple of thousand feet to play with, even if Class D, we could fly over the top with a decent chance of gliding to a beach. Hell, we might even be able to fly correct semicircular levels…
So if the intention is to make crossing the straits of Dover in a typical SEP a bit safer, what is needed is to raise the base of Worthing CTA1 (Class A) to at least 8,500 ft. If need be, the slice from 6,500 to 8,500 ft could be Class D.
boscomantico wrote:
This would give VFR (and IFR OCAS) flyers a little more space to climb to safe altitudes during Channel / North Sea crossings.Interestingly, PPL/IR (which supports the “airways” group among pilots – I am one of them) is somewhat contrary. They write:
This will be greeted with rejoicing by the bulk of GA, of course, but, in some cases, will result in the lowest levels of airways no longer being available.
Be aware that any objection on our part may be seen very negatively by our friends and colleagues in the VFR and OCAS communities.
This is obviously off the mark. Nobody in the low-level IFR crowd really needs airways where the alternative is to fly OCAS at the same level. The old separation argument for airways is miniscule. And even if: this change would merely mean that a couple of affected airway minimum altitudes have to be increased by 1000/2000 feet. There really shouldn’t be anybody in the GA scene opposing this.
The (very tight) decision deadline is end of October. That’s because, if they don’t decide by that time, they will not be able to put it on the next edition of the sacred UK CAA maps out next spring and would have to wait another year…
Bosmomantico, I’m not going to discuss the reposting thing since I believe already done, but having read the original thread, you just seemed to have picked 2 sentences out of a message that didn’t seem to convey at all what you are trying to make it seem. It would have been less dishonest to paste everything since here you are just misinforming and deforming what someone else said.
One might ask whether Bosco is even in PPL/IR… I can’t even guess because I left Dec 2015 and have had no access to their site since then. But I don’t recall seeing him there.
