You don’t do an initial call. Just monitor the frequency and set the listening squawk. Never heard of it outside UK but I’d certainly like it to be implemented elsewhere.
Even better under ADS-B. In Australia I was monitoring the Melbourne frequency. Heard ATC tell another aircraft that was IFR that there was an aircraft passing right to left VFR 8500 ft unverified. He then called me by callsign, asked if I was in frequency. Then asked my altitude, and passed the verified alt to the other aircraft.
I never called him. That is the future.
Have a look at the sectional and terminal area charts for the L.A. area (skyvector.com if you don’t have them, check the TAC side panel for the corridors). While there is a big block of class B (LAX) in the middle, there are numerous VFR corridors to cross it. There certainly is no shortage of airports around here (for a list see here) and it all works fine.
Yes, i have flown there, but its different than the gatwick, heathrow, luton, stansted, conglomerate, around which there is also no shortage of corridors. How is la specifically different and better?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
around which there is also no shortage of corridors.
Overhead the airport? News to me. Anyway, bottom line is that here (L.A.) there is no problem mixing CAT (and a lot of it) with GA (also a lot of it).
This is another way of saying that airspace has gotten so complex that veteran Spitfire pilots would have been grounded for airspace busts were they flying for fun today.
I think it’s a good idea to continue teaching pilotage. What happens when your GPS breaks? I bet those hardcore guys would manage better than the magenta line addicts.
I think the availability of transits is not related to busts, because
veteran Spitfire pilots would have been grounded for airspace busts were they flying for fun today.
Very true, but in the WW2 era there wasn’t any or much CAS; one could fly around freely (actually GA was banned during WW2 anyway).
Fuji_Abound wrote:
There does seem to be two distinct catgories of pilots in the UK, those that embrace GPS and sensible radio and mode C use, and those if not against GPS, certainly against using the radio if they can possibly avoid doing so and their transponder, assuming they have one. This is all very well, until they infringe, when they make the job of AT far more difficult and give the rest of GA a bad name. I dont think that class of pilot is as large in the States or in Europe
That class of pilot is hugely bigger in the United States – a great body of pilots refuse to talk to ATC because “gummint control”. Americans are generally ten times more anti-authority than British people, and view ATC as “authority” (which is unhelpful: I think ATC as part of a team – we both want the same thing to happen, for an aircraft to go from A to B without banging into another aircraft).
However, they still tend to use the GPS and turn the transponder on.
I think at least some of the problem of infringements is self-inflicted. The airspace especially in the south of the UK – in the words of Douglas Adams – does not look so much designed as congealed. The UK has one of the best mapping agencies on the planet (Ordnance Survey) and if they can’t make a clear aeronautical chart, it’s really saying something – the chart is incredibly cluttered in many parts of the country to such an extent it can be easy to miss that irregularly shaped sliver of airspace.
The other problem is the sheer amount of airspace taken for an airport is absurd, which compounds the problem. If EGNS/Ronaldsway were in the United States, it would have a standard “inverted wedding cake” Class C airspace and that would be about it. It wouldn’t have this tremendous (and useless) surface area – is CAT really going to be flying at 1500 feet AMSL over the hills? Absolutely not. Also, comparing the US approach with the UK approach: compare Houston’s airspace (two busy major airports in close proximity) with Liverpool/Manchester which is a similar situation. The comparison is like night and day.
GPS makes it easier (and with the modern tablet based GPS software that gives a large and clear chart to look at) but this should be no excuse: I think the CAA/NATS need to do a bit of introspection and wonder if such vast amounts of airspace designed in such bitty piecemeal fashion is really justified. Also, when is that review of Doncaster’s airspace happening? The predicted level of CAT never materialised, yet there is still this gigantic swath of airspace.
It has been said by ATC that the sizes and shapes of the CAS around UK airports are governed by the published SIDs, STARs, and missed approaches.
Of course. And they will always say that they can’t do with less, since they have to assume the crappiest DC3 with one engine failed, in summer, gone NORDO, on a hot summer day…
The question is merely what amount of realism is applied there and much “willingness” to reduce controlled airspace (A-D) has gone into it. Mind you, Italy is even worse; their CTRs are bigger than some metropolitan TMAs.
It seems the UK doesn’t want to do that, since they want the dreaded “known traffic environment” as far as possible…
