In ICAO terms a FIS. In UK terms, a UK FIS (Basic, Traffic, Deconfliction) which only provides information and advice. We then fudge the conditions of a TS/DS bit by saying there is a contract between pilot and controller such that the pilot will comply with ATC Instructions, which are actually just ‘advice’, in order for ATC to provide separation between participating traffic. That’s why foreigners get so confused with our services outside CAS. UK is …………… unique. :rolls eyes:
here is a list of the 30 airfields that will require Class D
I’d be perfectly happy with having mostly Class E and a bit of Class D.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Nothing new in Part ATS.
At least not in the parts that Timothy quoted. They say exactly the same thing that SERA already says and the International Rules of the Air (ICAO Annex 2) have always said.
If there is something in part-ATS that requires controlled airspace around a controlled airport, that’s not it.
So, when Gloucester Approach says “Cleared for the Approach” what does it mean?
Or “Clear to land” for that matter?
And how does your view tie in with Rule 183?
The point is that derogations need to be agreed, and after March there may be no appetite for that.
It means that if you obey them, and screw up, you get 1 biscuit with the tea at the CAA interview, and if you don’t obey them, and screw up, you get no biscuits.
Within an ATZ, ATC can order you around, even in a Class G ATZ.
Class E will not be implemented widely in the UK because it needs ATC coverage for IFR traffic and nobody will pay for that. Even if they put route charges on below 2000kg that would not anywhere near pay for it, because there is way too little IFR GA, in the UK or anywhere else in Europe.
So, when Gloucester Approach says “Cleared for the Approach” what does it mean?
As you quoted in Part-ATS earlier, at controlled aerodromes (even those without CTR) the trafic pattern is controlled.
It means you can join the bit of controlled airspace (the final approach path) by flying a straight in IAP (even if most of the IAP lies OCAS).
What “cleared to land” means is self explicit at controlled aerodromes.
Part-ATS brings no change in that area.
There is absolutely no need to change airspace design.
Where is that “bit of controlled airspace”? How does that apply to the rest of the IAP procedure (ie Initial and Intermediate segments)?
The bit of controlled airspace is the traffic patern at controlled aerodromes (downwind, base, final….) .
The (short) final flight path belongs to the traffic pattern and is controlled as such.
The approach clearance doesn’t apply to non-controlled airspace (initial, intermediate segment in class G). Only FIS is provided (basic service, or whatever you have in the UK 
)
Peter wrote:
Even in taxpayer “pays for everything” countries, somebody will wonder if this makes sense. Most GA doesn’t pay, after all.
We do pay – massive fuel duty and VAT that goes into the general fund more than pays for the services we use.
