Ibra wrote:
I think AA meant you should translate pressure altitude with +27*(QNH-1013) to get DA for performance calculations
Yes… The POH diagrams must use pressure altitude,
I am planning a flight Shoreham EGKA to Wellesbourne EGBW.
I have done this many times and the usual route is MID WOD WCO DTY at 2300ft.
But now we have the new CAA policy to work under…
Here is the first bit (in magenta)
If you fly it at 2300ft you are ok above Farnborough ATZ (needs 2238) but you will bust Blackbushe ATZ (needs 2325). You cannot fly it at 2400ft because you have no idea whether that will show as 2500 on NATS radar and then you get busted for busting the LTMA. And there is now a 100% ATZ bust policy too, and on the Gasco course they showed an example where an eye witness alleged an aircraft was in the ATZ (Barton) and a nearby radar unit (Manchester) was then willing to corroborate that with radar data, and the pilot got busted.
Also if you say you need to be 200ft below CAS then you also need to be 200ft above ATZs! This is because you don’t know which way some radar unit will be implementing the 100ft Mode C resolution. They might add 100ft or they might subtract 100ft. And with radar corroboration of ATZ busts you cannot afford to bust either.
And talking to Farnborough isn’t going to help with what happens to you if you get reported.
Blackbushe has no radar but they may well make a report (plus they are watching FR24 for sure, like most GA airfields in the UK are). So this route is a no-go.
The rest of it is ok
One can avoid the DTY detour with a bit of hands-on nav, of course.
A route which avoids all this is
EGKA GWC HAZEL KENET EGVN (BZ) EGBW and fly that at 5300ft.
I posted about this issue on a UK domestic aviation chat site and got a lot of gloating from NATS staff posting under nicknames about how “serial infringers” deserve all they are going to get 
@Peter, thankyou for detailed post 645 but can you explain how a foreigner would know that those numbers you have ovaled in red either a) refer to altitudes or height limits of an ATZ and b) how you know that there should be a 2 in front of three numbers and not a 1 or a 3. Is this standard on aviation charts in the UK? Are there any other gotchas we should look out for? I have to admit all I see is the class A airspace and I have no doubt that I would have busted those ATZ’s if I was to fly that route and if you had not pointed it out.
Or you could go via Odiham. I’ve never had a MATZ crossing request turned down.
Doing the narrow route notams, turns out there is a vast prohibited area (RA (T) actually, but you have to plan to avoid it so de facto a P) for the Fairford airshow
So I am now looking at this which (needs to be double checked) should work at 4300ft
Gallois – yes those numbers are the airport elevation. You have to add 2000ft to those to get the top of the ATZ. Under the new UK CAA regime you have to add 2200ft IMHO as I am in no doubt that e.g. Farnborough would deliver your Mode C return if an eye witness alleged an ATZ bust
The only way to fly in the new regime on the old routes is with the transponder off – which is what most traffic down there is doing.
Peter wrote:
The only way to fly in the new regime on the old routes is with the transponder off
Or, I don’t know – call the owners of the various bits of airspace on the radio? They don’t bite :-) Well, they don’t bite too hard.
What a bloody mess that chart is;
CTRs, TMAs, CTAs, ATZs, RATs, RMZs, MATZs, TMZs, DAs, RAs, HIRTAs, gliding sites, parachuting sites, venting sites, terrain, obstructions, ….
It’s nigh on impossible to go anywhere these days.
Yes, the UK CAA chart is very confusing and overloaded. (Of course, most UK pilots will disagree, but that‘s just because they are used to them from day one). There are indeed hundreds of ATZs sprinkling the country, and avoiding them (plus all the controlled airspace above) is very difficult. The fact that the CAA chart does not directly show the ceilings of the ATZs is but one of these aspects.
I can only advise visitors not to fly there with just the CAA chart (and maybe a GNS430 in the panel). One needs a good moving map VFR GPS, with profile view, airspace details and everything. In other words: Skydemon.
call the owners of the various bits of airspace on the radio?
No assurance of a transit, and in Class G you can’t “get a transit” anyway. Plus an infringement while talking to a radar unit is no defence. So you have to plan to avoid, with a fully programmed route.*
CTRs, TMAs, CTAs, ATZs, RATs, RMZs, MATZs, TMZs, DAs, RAs, HIRTAs, gliding sites, parachuting sites, venting sites, terrain, obstructions, ….
The new issue is the new CAA policy, so to be sure you have to subtract 200ft from any CAS base, while adding 200ft to the top of any ATZ or DA. That buggers many old routes.
In other words: Skydemon.
I am using EasyVFR which is a similar product. I am still learning the user interface… but I rarely fly in the UK nowadays VFR, except along the coast. This route is one I do maybe once a year and normally I would drive but it is a 2-3hr drive.
Also ad-hoc avoidance with a GPS moving map is dangerous. A distraction will produce a bust.
* I don’t want to do “stepped” routes anymore in this area. One distraction and you go to Gasco, and on a 3rd time the CAA guy will probably tear up your license pending some “retraining” and a flight with a CAA examiner.
No wonder there is so much forum chat about the handheld EC devices. They enable non-TXP flying while still seeing some % of traffic.
alioth wrote:
I’ve never had a MATZ crossing request turned down
I don’t even think he need to request a MATZ transit: as long as you stay outside ATZ no need for a request (assuming he is not flying F16) but tuning/call on RT would be helpful
Yes, passing on top of most of ATZ under LTMA is no-go even if you missed CAS you will be just 100ft from those on free fall from standard overhead joins…
