This is an A320 departing from EGKK.
The green circle is the glide range, for 10:1, displayed by Foreflight
The CAS base at that point is 1500ft and the CAS it is entering is 2500ft. As you can see, it is at nearly 8000ft.
The wonderful thing about the 5000ft add-on is that this is a “serious infringement” because if you are at say 3000ft (infringing the 2500ft LTMA) you are also in conflict with that A320 
I had some conversations with a UK ATCO about this who soon stopped talking to me but before he did so, he claimed that ATC don’t actually apply this rule, since there is obviously no problem. But they still write out the MOR, as is required.
Now the above is a departure. Arrivals are considerably lower; here the aircraft is 2000ft above the 1500ft CAS base (just turning onto the LOC)
Above was captured on my Samsung phone because the Ipad could not get any GPS reception
There you could have a real conflict, but the 5000ft add-on keeps everybody nice and busy MORing at least 2x more people
I am having trouble understanding this.
IIUC you have 2 sections of class D up to 2500ft, one starting at 1500ft and the other sfc.
Above 2500ft you would be in class A airspace, which is a no go area for VFR traffic (normally)
Why could I not transit the class D zones at 2000ft either with ATC clearance or sticking to the external class D?
I don’t understand rhis 5000ft thing at all. Please explain.
gallois wrote:
I don’t understand rhis 5000ft thing at all.
Peter is referring to the alleged requirement for UK ATC to apply 5000 ft vertical separation to unknown aircraft infringing controlled airspace.
A search for “5000ft” finds lots of hits – example.
In the UK, if you infringe CAS, the system places a cylinder around you, 5000ft high and 5nm radius (or diameter?), and if there is a big jet within that, it is deemed to be a loss of separation (maybe not the exact term used within ATC tactically, but it is what you get busted for).
But if you are obeying the rules of the rules of the air/ANO, it is the responsibility of ATC to maintain separation, whatever gap that might be. The responsibilty of a PIC is surely just to obey the rules not to worry about ATSOs job.
gallois wrote:
But if you are obeying the rules of the rules of the air/ANO, it is the responsibility of ATC to maintain separation, whatever gap that might be. The responsibilty of a PIC is surely just to obey the rules not to worry about ATSOs job.
This whole thread is about infringements.
(VFR in class D it is your responsibility to avoid other IFR and VFR)
UK does vectoring at the base of airspace in most places as the MRVA is very low as such, usually there is about 2ft separation between B747 (IFR) and “unknown” PA28 (VFR or IFR) when both flying at 2499ft and 2501ft at Class Alpha TMA
The moment that PA28 goes into +1ft into airspace without clearance, separation is lost and this happens for any aircraft flying between 2500ft-7500ft, the ATC is thrown in a cell for 2h and will not get released until mummy comes to pick him up, if no ModeC, the PA28 is deemed VFR OCAS under TMA and things are back to 2ft separation !
This also applies the moment some VFR aircraft nips a bit of Class Delta CTR for 30 seconds while bimbling VFR in VMC at 1000ft agl, the whole holding stack in Class Alpha TMA up to FL70 will melt down (7 aircraft?), I am glad we are lucky there are no holds these days…
Personally, I love this system
Xtrophe wrote:-
bq. QuoteThis whole thread is about infringements.
(VFR in class D it is your responsibility to avoid other IFR and VFR)
I accept in class D I am not separated from other traffic and “see and avoid” is the duty of the PIC.
But if I am flying in this Class D at 2000ft and have been cleared through that zone by ATC surely it is the job of the ATCO to maintain that separation, not mine. After all I am relying on ATC to warn me of other traffic, especially if they are supposed to be 5000ft or more away from me. I do not have a TCAS system, I have a transponder so others can see me but I cannot necessarily see them. I doubt if I am alone in this. Any other system is totally bizarre, especially if I’m going to have my licence suspended for something out of my control.
ATS must do its job, but a lot of people seem to be excusing them because they are busy.
But it seems to work well enough in other countries.
Ibra wrote:
UK does vectoring at the base of airspace in most places as the MRVA is very low as such, usually there is about 2ft separation between B747 (IFR) and “unknown” PA28 (VFR or IFR) when both flying at 2499ft and 2501ft at Class Alpha TMA
I don’t think that is the case. The lowest usable IFR altitude assigned by ATC in any controlled airspace should be 500ft above the lower boundary of controlled airspace, so you have at least 500ft between VFR and IFR traffic. The only exception is if you are about to leave that airspace, for example on an approach. Unless you are in Germany, where they refuse to even do that.
The lower minimum altitudes on an approach chart are for terrain clearance but not are normally assigned – for example here is London Heathrow, the MRVA is 1,800-2,000 ft, and in a large part of that area this is below the TMA which starts at 2,500ft. They won’t be vectoring around B747s around there other than in an emergency.
Cobalt wrote:
I don’t think that is the case. The lowest usable IFR altitude assigned by ATC in any controlled airspace should be 500ft above the lower boundary of controlled airspace, so you have at least 500ft between VFR and IFR traffic.
Do you have a reference to that? I know they aim to achieve it by construction: you are given 3000ft with base at 2500ft
I doubt there is 500ft separation written somewhere? I have been in/out of LTMA while on vectors (let say technical shallow climbs & descents where ATC let you know you are going out for 10s before coming back: propeller in CAS and tail OCAS)
