I don’t know about FlyBe from Exeter, but they don’t constitute “most”. The normal thing is a handover to Approach who then either clear you or hand you on to an Area controller for that.
Silvaire wrote:
The issue is not communication, which is just a last ditch response to predictable system failure, but poor airspace design that led to that failure being predictable.
We’ve done airspace design to death too, and unfortunately it’s a political problem. It’s ended up such that even the CAA cannot drive any changes, they can just say yay or nay to various proposals (which are expensive to research and make) put forward by the various commercial interests.
Timothy wrote:
I don’t know about FlyBe from Exeter, but they don’t constitute “most”. The normal thing is a handover to Approach who then either clear you or hand you on to an Area controller for tha
My point is there must be some sort of arrangement for the airlines launching in Class G. Surely they can’t just launch them with nothing more than “remain outside, contact X….”
The airspace is not the major issue.
The CAS shapes are drawn to contain the published sids, stars, approaches, missed approaches, etc, for the lowest performance cases.
The UK practice is to cut them tight to maximise Class G, not least because the less CAS there is the less ATC provision will cost. A fully costed NATS H24 radar desk is reportedly £1M+ a year.
The issue is ATC provision, with OCAS mostly not served by the CAS unit. This, together with the 3000ft/5000ft add-on, creates a crisis every time somebody nips the edge.
Graham wrote:
We’ve done airspace design to death too, and unfortunately it’s a political problem. It’s ended up such that even the CAA cannot drive any changes, they can just say yay or nay to various proposals (which are expensive to research and make) put forward by the various commercial interests.
Unfortunately I think proper airspace design is the key to fixing infringements, and that without it no amount of radio communication will do much except possibly to create more talk on this topic after 800+ posts, as well as in the air. Talking is not the solution, rational organization is the solution. There is no need for most traffic in the surrounding airspace to talk to ATC if the controlled airspace is designed properly. That’s just a band aid, not a solution, based on my experience in flying in the world’s most populated GA airspace.
I do think the idea of having ambiguously controlled airports in Class G is ridiculous, they should be Class D (or nothing) and that would require more ATC. The cost is about the same as having a couple of extra people leaning on shovels at road works, as done everywhere daily. The ATZ, CTZ (and whatever) redundant classification system could then be eliminated, with all airspace classified A-G only, removing additional confusion in the airspace system – and thereby serving the primary need.
Graham wrote:
My point is there must be some sort of arrangement for the airlines launching in Class G. Surely they can’t just launch them with nothing more than “remain outside, contact X….
Exacly like that, but at a UK towered airfield [in Class G] “X” is the frequency for the controlled airspace you wish to join, will have your flight plan, will issue the sqawk to the tower, and will release you so you will get the clerarance immediately on contact. Not really different from a departure in Class D airspace, except that the initial altitude you are cleared to might be lower until you talk to Approach / Radar / whomever.
Sometimes, depending on the local arrangements, the tower can relay the clearance from that unit.
Silvaire wrote:
I do think the idea of having ambiguously controlled airports in Class G is ridiculous
There is nothing ambiguous. They are controlled, and have an ATZ, which for all practical purposes works like Class D, except it has lower weather minima, which is a good thing, because otherwise these fields would only be accessible with “special VFR” hassle whenever the ceiling is below 1,500ft or visibility is less than 5 km.
I would very much prefer US style Class D (radio contact = clearance) and the corresponding service attitude, though, together with the more sensible minimal ceiling
My proposal for most airports anywhere would be uncontrolled, Class G – E. Class D is appropriate at those airports where traffic volume is measurable with a database of less than 8 daylight hours 
Controlled airports located in Class G airspace via a redundant airspace classification overlay (e.g. ATZ) are not a good solution. I think the overlay system should not be accepted by ICAO and its elimination would force ATC to treat lettered airspace as per its design intent – not for example treating Class D like Class B.
Class A in the US sits at FL180 while in the UK it sits roughly at MSA so hardly comparable structures?
Class G sitting near class A with zero means of timely communication or warning from the CAS operator (not LARS) is a receipt for disaster whatever education/disciplinary actions
Ibra wrote:
Class A in the US sits at FL180 while in the UK it sits roughly at MSA so hardly comparable structures?
Quite comparable. Virtually every single flight I make involves being close to Class B while in Class E, and not in radio contact with any ATC. Class A near Class G is no different in this respect. I am densely surrounded by other planes doing the same thing. It works fine.
Ibra wrote:
Class G sitting near class A with zero means of timely communication or warning from the CAS operator (not LARS) is a receipt for disaster whatever education/disciplinary actions
What’s needed to make it function is competent airspace design and near universal use of moving map GPS, either portable or installed. It actually worked fine in my area and others before moving map GPS, because the basic geometry of the Class B airspace has been carefully developed to match GA traffic flows and so on.
