Peter wrote:
May I suggest Fuji that is not going to fix anything. Currently, at a stretch, you can fly around the London area while getting a radar service from Farnborough East / West / whatever, and maybe Southend, and even Solent.
I think the point is that if a traffic service were available (and it is sometimes) then the controllers will usually be quick to call out a potential infringement and avert catastrophy. In reality, a service if often not available due to the usual controller workload, poor radar performance, or being on the landline 
It isnt their “fault”, as clearly they are sometimes hopelessly overworked.
While Farnborough is joined up, Solent and Southend arent, so you will also do well to get a handover.
I suspect it is partly that lack of joined up thinking that leads many pilots simply not to bother.
I also think that were a service available then the system could enbody more tolerance. The real risk is someone entering CAS appearing on the “radar” wihtout any history, so the ocntroller has little idea whether they are dealing with a complete muppet, and even less idea what they may do next.They dont even know what frequency they are on, so it all takes time to resolve. On the other hand, if the traffic was under a traffic service, and impacted on CAS by a few hundred feet, the controller has the entire history of the flight, and if the flight is a point to point to point it will be apparent that there hasnt been any intentional divergence from the “flight plan”, rather some slightly less precise wandering, while perhaps hand flying. Frequencies have also been established so telling the pilot “to get the hell out” is instant.
I have no illusions that is going to happen, but, if it did, I reckon it would reduce the number of infringements signifcantly.
On low pressure days you may risk infringing CAS with a floor using a Flight Level.
Conversely, if on a FL on a high pressure day you may infringe CAS with a floor using altitude. This last mainly a problem when IFR above the transition level and OCAS.
Not really. There is a thing called the transition level, and it makes sure that any assigned flight level will never be lower than 1000 ft above the transition altitude. See ICAO Doc 7030.
So you will never ever be assigned a flight level that makes you infringe some airspace below the TA from the top.
And any infringement of airspace with a bottom defined in FL from below (when flying at the TA) will never result in an actual loss of separation, although technically this may be treated as an infringement.
So what would you do or recommend as the next steps forward, out of interest?
Spread the word. The most likely way to kill off this crazy CAA initiative is widespread awareness.
Do you hope or expect readers here to do something specific about this?
Those from outside the UK may well take note of how to not do it.
will never result in an actual loss of separation
It will (or can) given that the UK adds 3000ft/5000ft to the Mode C altitude, initially until radio contact is established and altitude verified formally.
Only in the perverted minds of zero tolerance bureaucrats.
Peter wrote:
Spread the word. The most likely way to kill off this crazy CAA initiative is widespread awareness.
What “crazy initiative” do you mean? The GASCO course is a pain but hardly a crazy initiative.
Peter wrote:
It has always been normal to turn off a transponder if doing aerobatics – because the rapid climbs supposedly trigger RAs in TCAS systems of airliners flying in the CAS above
Must be a myth or something. We always fly aerobatics with transponder ON. We fly partly in CAS (in the TMA) with CAT above and on each side. Maybe an F-16 zooming vertically up at MACH 1.5 would trigger something, I don’t know.
Hang on for a minute:
Did I read it correctly that people get fined/sent to this course for busting an ATZ? This is uncontrolled airspace, not even a restricted area or danger area, so what legal base is there to bust people for this?
Also that airspace around London the way it is shown and the implications you guys give here where the limits can’t be really used would mean for me to avoid that area altogether when flying there or not to fly VFR at all in the London area but ONLY IFR. This is ridiculously complex and the figures they raise here may well be intended to justify a change in airspace structure to simplify things, which almost always means even more restriction.
Peter, was what you described earlier on a description of the course by someone else or did you attend one?
IFR will not do you any more good, unless it is IFR in CAS, in which case you will not be going around it, but above it, or a long way from it.
for busting an ATZ? This is uncontrolled airspace, not even a restricted area or danger area, so what legal base is there to bust people for this?
In the UK it is illegal to do this. I can’t quote the law however. It was never really enforced but now it is, and crucially it seems that “unrelated” radar units with the appropriate coverage are willing to supply the radar data to bust the pilot, after an eye witness has made a report.
was what you described earlier on a description of the course by someone else or did you attend one?
I did one.
IFR will not do you any more good, unless it is IFR in CAS, in which case you will not be going around it, but above it, or a long way from it.
Indeed, but you (practically speaking) need oxygen to get transits in CAS… so few people do it for short (say under 200nm) flights. I would go IFR say Shoreham to Oban – not least because it avoids the totally mad Manchester/Liverpool low level route with the Barton ATZ inside it
It’s a shame mode-S doesn’t (as far as I can make out) show which frequency your radio is tuned to.
