What is generally necessary in the surrounding zone is to squawk VFR with a Mode C transponder.
OK – I remember now the issue. The TMZs would cover much of the UK south east, and there are powerful objections to TMZs here. They would solve a number of issues:
but much fuss gets kicked up at the suggestion.
JasonC wrote:
However I think pilots have to assume responsibility for themselves too.
I don’t disagree with that at all. But we shouldn’t blame the offender and ignore the system, if the system makes it more likely for someone to offend unintentionally.
Peter wrote:
I have not verified it (don’t have US VFR charts to hand immediately) but it has been claimed that if you stuck the US upside down cake at every major UK airport location, there would be hardly any “OCAS” left.
But if GA had truly equal access to controlled airspace, that wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Cover the whole place in controlled airspace, say above 1500ft, and busts would be a thing of the past. But for that to be acceptable, GA would need to be treated as equal, with ATC simply organise people to operate in a safe manner, rather than prioritising traffic arriving at their own airport.
But I don’t ever see that changing.
Peter wrote:
How much space in the LGW/LHR area would a US-style upside down cake take up
It wouldn’t be a wedding cake, as these airports would be in Class B airspace, which is tailored to the individual needs and constraints (topography, etc). Class B aisparce can have any form. What you do have is the so-called ‘Mode C Veil’, which is a 30nm circle centered on the primary airport with the Class B airspace. Mode C transponder operation is mandatory within this circle. In the case of LHR/LGW this might well be a merged – and pretty big – Class B. However, and crucially, in the US there normally are VFR corridors through the Class B (not around it), where VFR traffic can transit these zones. In the case of LAX there are several, two of which go right over the center of LAX.
The smaller airports (LTN, STN, etc, comparable to Burbank, Long Beach. Orange County, etc here) would be Class C, where you can happily cross if you are in contact with ATC.
PS: I’ve written this in another post above already, if you don’t have US charts to hand you can see them in all their glory right here: skyvector.com
Peter wrote:
The TMZs would cover much of the UK south east, and there are powerful objections to TMZs here
There might be less fuss if exemptions applied, for instance for aircraft with no engine driven electrical system, and if it was a Mode C only not a Mode S requirement. What has happened in the US with those kinds of softening exemptions is that over time very few people take advantage of them, so the benefit accrues without the restriction on the few for whom the rule is a substantial problem.
The US ADS-B Out requirement starting in 2020 will apply to the same ‘TMZ’ airspace as the current Mode C requirement, and that one does worry me a bit even though the same exemptions will apply otherwise. I hear too many owners saying genuinely that continuous electronic aircraft identification to ATC is a step too far for their personal values and for their wallet, and although most people will do what they’re forced to do it’s still not going to be healthy for GA activity or aircraft values.
The navigation aspects of the PPL syllabus is utter dross.
GPS should be taught as the primary needs of navigation. With radio aids and dead reckoning as back up.
The current Nav aspects of the skills test are a joke and too distant from reality.
It should consist of a really technically difficult leg which can be flown using any means possible and should be flown with a high degree of accuracy.
Then for the unplanned diversion the GPS/vor/adf/dme should be failed and the candidate should demonstrate map, clock and compass navigation to the destination.
I have said for very many years that if airports had to pay a rent on the VOLUME of airspace they claim I bet it would reduce unbelievable quickly.
For the first time since frequenting these pages I wish for a “like” button. Really says it all, FF!
How very kind Jan. I remember “proposing” this at a meeting with the CAA (quite a lot of people there not just me!) and was properly laughed at. Made me wonder for whom the CAA actually works.
