What I see is airspace reserved for IFR jets for something like 90 miles from a commercial airport, from unnecessarily low altitudes up to 45,000 feet. I don’t see any real world reason why most of that needs to be anything than uniform Class E airspace.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
To be precise, the ANO specifies that flights under VMC within Class C airspace must be undertaken in accordance with the Instrument flight Rules (IFR). The IFR are prescribed at SERA 5015. That is pretty much common practice across many other Staes who operate Class C.
SERA 5015 does not say anything about class C. SERA is very clear that VFR is permitted in all airspace classes except A, so this part of the UK ANO seems to contradict EU legislation and is thus void.
I don’t know what “many other States who operate Class C” refers to, but it certainly does not refer to Germany, Norway or Sweden. (Essentially all controlled airspace in Sweden below FL 195 is class C .)
Dave_Phillips wrote:
To be precise, the ANO specifies that flights under VMC within Class C airspace must be undertaken in accordance with the Instrument flight Rules (IFR). The IFR are prescribed at SERA 5015. That is pretty much common practice across many other Staes who operate Class C.
As other have pointed out, that is the definition for class A. Just wondering, could this be speed-related? The speed limit for VFR below 10k ft is 250 kt IAS in C. There are no such limit for IFR in C.
Perhaps it is worth looking at ICAO Annex 2, notably Chapters 3, 4 and 5. From Ch 4 (Visual Flight Rules):
4.8 VFR flights shall comply with the provisions of 3.6:
a) when operated within Classes B, C and D airspace;
Then Ch 5 (Instrument Flight Rules)
5.2 Rules applicable to IFR flights within controlled airspace
5.2.1 IFR flights shall comply with the provisions of 3.6 when operated in controlled airspace.
Which moves us nicely over to Ch 3 (para 3.6, including sub-paras) which is entitled 3.6 Air Traffic Control Service. That’s rather a weighty set of pages but can be found here
Saving a bit of reading, the only bit of 3.6 that specifically relates to VFR flights is 3.6.2.4 which prescribes what should be done if a VFR flight in CAS cannot remain VMC; ask for a re-route, leave CAS or ask for a change to IFR. Everything else applies equally to both VFR and IFR flight within CAS.
Taking a trot over to ICAO Annex 11 (Air Traffic Services), two useful definitions are:
Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class C. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights.
So, getting back to the UK, the difference they have chosen is to apply is providing separation to all aircraft in Class C rather than only providing traffic information to VFR/VFR interactions; they manage it like Class B. They do this by requiring compliance with the IFR which, in simple terms are: safety altitudes, cruising levels (semi-circular) and aircraft equipment. There was a discussion about a decade ago regarding pilot licence privileges but the specifics of that one escape me.
So, what does all that practically mean? From a pilot’s perspective and in accordance with ICAO SARPs, the requirements and conditions for operating in Class C should be pretty much the same whether IFR or VFR. From an ATC perspective, the UK doesn’t like the thought off VFR/VFR interactions in Class C and gets around this by insisting own compliance with the IFR, this taking you nicely back to the (almost) common requirements for operating within Class C.
Confused? Good. :)
Is it possible/feasible to obtain numbers of CAT movements in any piece of controlled airspace? We often hear of stupidly low base levels that are a real pain for GA (Portsmouth CTA for one). Perhaps if such figures are available they may be a closely guarded secret since publication would have some vested interest running for cover. Cynical? Perhaps.
I don’t know whether FlightRadar 24 has an API from which you can pull flight route/altitude data, but a site like FlightAware or FR24 will have the data.
I’ll try and simplify. 
For this paragraph forget everything but Flight Rules. There are VFR and there are IFR (let’s not confuse with SVFR). To be VFR you must have certain weather minima (the VMC), the variables mostly based upon speeds and altitudes. If you don’t have a weather minima (VMC), you must operate under IFR. The basics of IFR are “Terrain Safe” and “Semi Circular”.
Now add Airspace. Despite certain countries not warming to the concept, you can fly VFR and IFR in all types of Airspace apart from Class A where you can only fly IFR; funny-old-thing, Class A airspace is designed such that you can only be in it if you are terrain safe, hence you will (almost) automatically meet the IFR. As you climb the classification ladder from Class G to B, the criteria for operating within a particular class also rises but about the only thing that changes is what separation standards are required of ATC. However, the ICAO criteria for entering and operating within a particular Class of airspace are pretty much the same regardless of whether you want to be VFR or IFR – you need to have permission and you need to comply with ATC instructions.
At about this point things start to get a bit complicated as national regulations tend to diverge as far as separation standards and equipment requirements are concerned. For example, in the USA separation standards to be applied within Class C airspace take into consideration, amongst other things, the weight of aircraft involved (FAR AIM):scratch:. In the UK, they tend to operate Class C like Class B (and also Class D like Class C). BUT, from a pilot’s perspective the criteria for entry are pretty similar regardless of Flight Rules (Class E is an odd-ball).
As I said before, I think there is an irritating licensing issue which I’m sure someone will pick-up on and, of course, there’s always a required equipment faff. But, getting back to UK airspace, I think you will find that the Class C imposed below FL195 is quite specific and, despite FASVIG’s fanfare of trumpets, was never going to make any noticeable difference.
Finally, at this point I often embed the attached image, which clearly demonstrates how EASA states diverge from common standards. The image shows Eglington Airport which is ‘protected’ by a 2.5nm radius Class G ATZ in the Scottish FIR but has the enhanced protection of a Class C CTR/CTA in the Shannon FIR; complete nonsense.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
From an ATC perspective, the UK doesn’t like the thought off VFR/VFR interactions in Class C and gets around this by insisting own compliance with the IFR, this taking you nicely back to the (almost) common requirements for operating within Class C.
I’m sorry, but this sentence doesn’t make sense to me.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
you need to have permission and you need to comply with ATC instructions.
Is this correct? You need clearance, but IMO only IFR flights must be able to follow ATC instructions. This is more of an equipment issue. A VFR flight isn’t necessarily equipped to follow ATC instructions, but an IFR flight has to be for separation to work. Separation is done by radar/transponder, and all VFR flights must have a transponder in class C. The whole point of having class C is to allow VFR, and to separate IFR from VFR, but not necessarily VFR from VFR (other than information). If VFR isn’t allowed, then it is class A. How class B is supposed to work is a mystery to me.
