Peter wrote:
I would not overfly airfields at 2000ft AAL. This is really the same thing. A PPL should already be taught to not overfly Shoreham at 2000ft AAL (2000ft QNH more or less).That’s very much a UK thing because of the specific UK circuit joining procedure. In most countries it would be perfectly fine to overfly an airfield at 2000’ AAL. I wouldn’t think twice of it.
We don’t have that problem in Belgium yet because all above 3500ft and all IA are controlled area.
Excuse me for nitpicking, but still:
Germany used to have class F around aerodromes in class G with instrument approaches; that must have worked “less than perfectly” as they now switched to RMZ’s and even TMZ’s – and the BE authority follows suit.
And let’s be honest, it is damn hard to fly in today’s CAS structure using the PPL-taught WW1 nav methods, so GPS use is implicit.
That’s an over-generalisation. Even in the complex Belgian airspace I manage well enough without GPS, as I sometimes do just to keep the skills sharp. The tight places (around Mechelen, for instance) I know well enough visually, where it is less complex there are sufficient visual reference points. Flight preparation is all-important, of course.
James_Chan wrote:
Instrument approaches in Class G should be banned full stop in my opinion.Why? Errr… For flight safety and fuel efficiency?
In class G anyone can and has every right to cross or hover on the approach path, non-radio and non transponding.
That could be lengthy go-arounds for some or an airprox. I have been on both sides of the fence myself.
In class G anyone has the right to cross or hover anywhere, so your lookout during cruise should be the same as during the IAP/straight-in. Or any descent for that matter.
James_Chan wrote:
Controlled airspace provides a known traffic environment and separates IFR from other IFR, at a minimum.
Peter wrote:
Shoreham at 2000ft AAL (2000ft QNH more or less). Why not teach them to also avoid 2200ft? It’s not rocket science.
Because the area is about 50 times bigger in the case of shoreham (i am doing full circle, but if you add the procedures for both runways at lydd you are not far off that), and you are suggesting having to fly over!
Airfields such as stapleford are getting their own LPVs , and you’d suddlently want to make everyone avoid the approach ends?
Keeping things sensible seems to have worked so far, and causes little disruption:
- If you cross a runway approach end, have a look for approaching aircraft.
- Same thing if you are flying the approach in VMC: The approach is there to save your ass in case the weather is bad. Don’t use it as a highway to get in front / priority over everyone else when the weather is nice. Keep your eyes out too, it’s better to have that approach and have to fly with eyes open in VMC than have priority on approaches but not have approaches. If you need practice, take a safety pilot with you, or do it in controlled airspace. If your safety argument is that an ILS approach is more stable and thus safer, then turn on your AP (which will fly it better than you), and use your eyes to look outside.
- On both ends: Radio / Transponder helps make things go even smoother.
Don’t forget that if you put the min crossing altitude on the MAP, someone will probably misinterpret it as the altitude to fly at / below / max.
G is see and be seen, unless it is also RMZ, then it is also hear and be heard. Flying IFR in G and expect others to stay clear of you, but not the other way around, is just silly. It’s also against the rules, and is poor airmanship. Flying IFR in G RMZ is another matter. You still cannot technically expect others to stay clear of you, but others will know where you are, what you are doing, and where you are going. They will also inform you that they know what you are up to, which is makes it a world of difference,
Besides, the problem itself (in this thread) is a bit weird. Good airmanship means to fly in a manner other traffic expects, especially at landing/departure. On the other hand, flying a long approach VFR or IFR at a field where a pattern is set up and normally used, makes no difference as long as other aircraft knows what you are doing. It’s just that in G, anything can pop out of the blue, while the chance of that is very small in G RMZ, literally zero with AFIS (although still in G, so the rules are clear). Where I live, even the airlines fly visual approaches in VMC, both in G and C/D, so they don’t do these 10 NM long descents that take for ever. (Don’t know exactly how though, probably in the same manner we fly “without” a GPS 
)
LeSving wrote:
On the other hand, flying a long approach VFR or IFR at a field where a pattern is set up and normally used, makes no difference as long as other aircraft knows what you are doing. It’s just that in G, anything can pop out of the blue, while the chance of that is very small in G RMZ, literally zero with AFIS (although still in G, so the rules are clear).
Lots of airlines are making instrument approaches in class G in both Norway and Sweden. It funny when people say that they will “never” fly IFR in class G or that IAPs in class G should be banned.
The problem in the UK is the fundamentally flawed airspace design. That isn’t solved by banning IAPs in class G.
It could be worth including on the CAA charts a box showing the platform height.
On the contrary, often it’s safer and more fuel efficient to go straight-in from most inbound tracks.
You are basically stating that it is safer to meddle with circuit traffic in the circuit area?
Where is the largest concentration of aircraft to be expected?
What do you mean by meddling? As I understand, ATC aims to achieve the following goals:
- Preventing collisions
- Improving fuel efficiency
- Maximising runway throughput
There is no way all traffic in Class G airspace can self-organise at a busier place and maintain a greater level of safety and efficiency in the absence of (properly funded and organised) ATC. You need someone there to sort out the traffic and remove / reduce the issues of airproxes and go-arounds. And you need controlled airspace for ATC to do their job effectively – otherwise it remains an unknown enviroment and instructions that don’t have to be followed – and makes a mockery of ATC.
The see and avoid principle has severe limitations as well. You can keep your eyes peeled right out of the window but still fail to see.
Are you saying this from an IFR pilot point of view or from a VFR pilot point of view?
I am saying this as both a IFR and VFR pilot.
This thread started because someone had to dodge traffic and basically asked if the other traffic should be taught to avoid such areas. My answer is no they shouldn’t. A better outcome is that they should instead be made to pick up the radio, talk to ATC (which is mandatory in controlled airspace) and negotiate a crossing. They could be cleared to an altitude that avoids the other aircraft. The alternative (short of a mid-air or an airprox) is that someone’s route is suddenly altered. When hand instrument flying down to the last few miles, that’s not ideal.
You can’t want controlled airspace everywhere!
That’s true too, but I didn’t say I wanted it everywhere. But in the absence of ATC / controlled airspace, as you say:
In class G anyone has the right to cross or hover anywhere.
Indeed and I may well indeed find myself crossing someone’s path with optional use of the radio.
To deal with the problem most effectively, my own belief is that the aerodrome should apply for CAS to stop these issues from happening. Exeter Airport is one such place going through that process. Maybe one day Shoreham or Gloucester would follow!
James_C a good post. I would however be reluctant to see more class D as more approaches at smaller airports become available. I think we have enough class D already – some might say too much.
Peter wrote:
It’s not a matter of IFR elitism or some such. It is an entirely pragmatic matter of avoiding traffic which has a good chance of being at altitude X and general area Y.
This is the obvious answer to problem.
James_Chan wrote:
A better outcome is that they should instead be made to pick up the radio, talk to ATC (which is mandatory in controlled airspace) and negotiate a crossing. They could be cleared to an altitude that avoids the other aircraft.
I’m surprised that such simple and obvious approach hasn’t been implemented in UK. I was under impression that it’s everywhere like that.
