arj1 wrote:
What is wrong with that one?
Because it’s Class G airspace and flying in the vicinity should not require a call to Oxford (who I often call, and who are usually very helpful).
If on the FAT under a TMZ or RMZ they will not ‘advise you on conflicting traffic’, they will ask you to hold or move out of the way.
It’s not a safety case, it’s a convenience/priority/business case. Oxford has primary and secondary radar and their turbine inbounds have TCAS. If there’s traffic close to the desired vectoring track or the FAT then they’ll see it and they have the usual Class G mitigations available – route around it or in extremis break off. They just want different mitigations – ones that create cost and inconvenience for someone else instead of them and their customers.
Graham wrote:
If on the FAT under a TMZ or RMZ they will not ‘advise you on conflicting traffic’, they will ask you to hold or move out of the way.
Sorry, I don’t understand, if it is a TMZ and YOU are flying an IAP, then you are on frequency and talking to them.
But in TMZ a transponder-equipped OTHER traffic could easily be not on frequency, so how could they ask that conflicting traffic to hold?
They can ask YOU to hold as you are talking to them, but how could they ask other pilots to talk to them?
Sorry @arj1, it’s not clear to me exactly what scenario you’re getting at. TMZ or not, ATC just give the callsign (or aircraft squawking 7000 in the vicinity of X if Mode C) and ask if they’re on frequency. There’s a good chance they are, and trying to move them out of the way will always be tactic number one ahead of deconflicting the jet.
My over-arching point is (I hope) clear enough. The purpose of all this stuff is to facilitate them (ATC) moving you (the puddlejumper) out of the way of the VIP (the jet). None of it is geared towards equitable use of the air as an operational objective.
Graham wrote:
Sorry @arj1, it’s not clear to me exactly what scenario you’re getting at. TMZ or not, ATC just give the callsign (or aircraft squawking 7000 in the vicinity of X if Mode C) and ask if they’re on frequency. There’s a good chance they are, and trying to move them out of the way will always be tactic number one ahead of deconflicting the jet.
Well, there is a good chance that its not on frequency! :)
And even if you are, then it depends on how cooperative you are that day. “Unable”.
My over-arching point is (I hope) clear enough. The purpose of all this stuff is to facilitate them (ATC) moving you (the puddlejumper) out of the way of the VIP (the jet). None of it is geared towards equitable use of the air as an operational objective.
Graham, I got it now. But, agree to disagree!
1. I don’t mind if most of the airspace is TMZ (haven’t flown an a/c without a transponder in my life).
2. Not necessarily VIP – any instrument (or non-instrument) traffic could be on long final. Can you offer ANY solution (that does not include Primary surveillance radar) that would insure that traffic is visible on FAT? TMZ I’d say is a very good compromise.
3. I see nothing wrong when they ask politely to adjust the trajectory slightly, in the end they’ve got no authority to demand things OCAS, whether its TMZ or not.
arj1 wrote:
1. I don’t mind if most of the airspace is TMZ (haven’t flown an a/c without a transponder in my life).
2. Not necessarily VIP – any instrument (or non-instrument) traffic could be on long final. Can you offer ANY solution (that does not include Primary surveillance radar) that would insure that traffic is visible on FAT? TMZ I’d say is a very good compromise.
1. I do mind about TMZ because I don’t have a transponder. Installing one would cost around 25% of the cost of my aircraft. So on this aspect I prefer RMZ.
2. The usual opening your eyes, electronic conspicuity, radio, PSR but all in a relax good airmanship way. Not in a mandatory risk-assement control freak way.
Xtophe wrote:
1. I do mind about TMZ because I don’t have a transponder. Installing one would cost around 25% of the cost of my aircraft. So on this aspect I prefer RMZ.
Right, so TMZ, and if unable, then you contact, for example, on radio and talk to them, right? Or is it still no good?
2. The usual opening your eyes, electronic conspicuity, radio, PSR but all in a relax good airmanship way. Not in a mandatory risk-assement control freak way.
My problem with Eye Mk-1 is that its useless. Especially with gliders. And with PSR – its incredibly expensive. The only response to a request for a PSR is “go and buy a transponder”, sorry.
Could you elaborate on the other points?
I’m not talking about a person that flies UL A-A, but a person that wants to get from A to B, IFR, under existing regulatory regime?
Yes, if we had better CAA, then a way forward would have been for them get PSR, ADS-B out, PAW, FLARM, navy semaphore information IN, and then relay it TIS-B to all to get, but its not the case, is it? I’ve bought a PAW box, but not sure if its going to be enough.
arj1 wrote:
Right, so TMZ, and if unable, then you contact, for example, on radio and talk to them, right? Or is it still no good?
It’s less good than pure class G, for non-transponder aircraft it is effectively class D because the controlling agency can refuse me transiting non-transponder or with some restrictions. In a perfect world it would happen only if really needed, in the real world the jet operator burning 100£ per minutes will complain to the point that ATCOs are forced to controlled very defensively to avoid any delay to the jets.
Could you elaborate on the other points?
Let it be known that the ATSU is nice and relaxed with puddle-jumpers and value them calling (maybe provide LARS), have some smart long-term engagement and communication with all parts of GA. Then you’ll find the puddle jumpers know where is your IFR traffic and give you a call when relevant.
Xtophe wrote:
It’s less good than pure class G, for non-transponder aircraft it is effectively class D because the controlling agency can refuse me transiting non-transponder or with some restrictions. In a perfect world it would happen only if really needed, in the real world the jet operator burning 100£ per minutes will complain to the point that ATCOs are forced to controlled very defensively to avoid any delay to the jets.
@Xtophe, is it really such a massive problem? Or you mean in general?
Xtophe wrote:
Let it be known that the ATSU is nice and relaxed with puddle-jumpers and value them calling (maybe provide LARS), have some smart long-term engagement and communication with all parts of GA. Then you’ll find the puddle jumpers know where is your IFR traffic and give you a call when relevant.
Well, my experience is that for non-airways traffic most of the non-airfield ATSU are prctically useless… “Unable due to controller workload”. APP/Radar for specific airfield might be useful, especially if you are arriving into some Class D (Southend never failed me).
I still don’t see a solution that works for certified world, someone is always going to be unhappy… I was thinking TMZ is the least disruptive.
Do you know how the other countries do that?
@Airborne_Again, how is it done in Sweden?
How the traffic is separated? TMZ? Class E? Or just nothing and you can only rely on your eyes?
As they say in the US, when god made the sky, he made lots and lots of it 
Lots of previous threads but basically one wants to fly not below 2000ft, to avoid most traffic. Unfortunately, around the London TMA there is a lot of 2500ft-base CAS and you can’t go near that due to the new CAA no prisoners policy. You also must not go near any of the ATZs otherwise you will get busted for that.
I talk to radar units and nobody else.
However, the above CAA policy has almost stopped me flying VFR in the UK. It’s too dangerous to one’s license.
Maybe RMZ like the one in LeHavre/Cherbourg or Calais Class E
For non-TXP inspiration, Switzerland operates load of RMZ and southern Germany operates RMZ Class G with Class E shelf on top, they have more VFR gliders in every 1km^3 around their IFR airports than 10years Bizjet mouvement to Oxford
TMZ or even Radar Services OCAS are pretty useless for “IFR approach protection”, anyone who wants “full ATC IFR approach/departure protection” needs to fly from Class D CTR on ground joined to airways TMA on top anything else does is not immune to late unknown traffic pop-up from bellow at 1500ft agl, the typical bizjet going to Oxford is better served with their own TCAS/ADSB/FLARM/PAW (situational awareness as they said not active traffic avoidance 
) as they work face-to-face near ground and should just fly happily with other VFR traffic on radio only with no 5NM/5kft Deconfliction Service non-sense, close the whole ATZ and constrained airways CAS joins…
Germany & Switzerland operates VFR gliders and IFR bizjets in many RNP airports with zero radar services due to the obvious topography or remote ATC radars, it’s 10min descent to runway threshold or 2min climbs to 10kft MSA
If one really lost track, FAA land will offer some redemption
