Ibra, the only challenge with pure RMZ in the UK is that unlike TMZ (RMZ if unable), ATSU will in effect turn it into Class D by refusing the entry.
That’s why I think the TMZ is better option – should work for all traffic with transponders.
The whole U.K. lower airspace is conceptually broken.
The safety cases of large / commercial aircraft operations highlight they shouldn’t be operating in ‘bandit country’
ATC provider says ‘you need a known traffic environment’
PPL Dave and his mates insist on exercising their ‘rights’ to emulate the 1930s and fly around the South of the U.K. non radio and non transponder. Developments in technology in the last 90 years that are working wonders for everyone else are dismissed as unworkable due to ‘power requirements’
Airport operator says ‘we will have to get CAS because of the non radio and non transponder types’
New CAS is designed by consultants who employ ex ATCOs
GA lobby groups kick off about new CAS
CAS is redesigned by consultants to just fit instrument procedures. This creates a design so complex that no one understands it and it is a massive infringement risk.
And round and round….
The answer is in airspace and multi user integration, exploiting new technologies and operating airspace properly – not segregation. Some better thinking is required from all parties I contend.
If I understand the uAvionix ADSB in/out kit is relatively cheap, and probably if government sourced would be even cheaper? Presumably 80-90% of UK airspace would require aircraft to carry this type of equipment if the UK were in FAA land, so perhaps this transatlantic solution would work here?
Well RMZ elsewhere just means position reports or blind calls 
EC (ADSB/FLARM) is one way to go forward for fragmented CAS flying better than chapters and versets of RT calls for basic service or reliance on one-sided ATC service OCAS !
For those who are afraid of the jungle, the usual understanding is that OCAS ATC will provide Traffic Service only to everybody, not just the happy few, and leave the thermodynamics do it’s magic, it’s what the other 200 countries in the world do…
In UK, there is no IFR or VFR, there is “paying IFR” and “assumed VFR”, any form of light GA is defacto “assumed VFR” and they are treated as essential traffic or unkown traffic, hence, needs 5NM/5kft bubbles, from the “paying IFR” perspective: Class G (Rule11 ATZ + IAP PPR) gets managed like Class D while Class D (CTR) gets managed like Class B 
Did we forgot about Pink Airways
@arj1 [personal opinion] the whole Gloucester / Kemble / Fairford / Brize / Oxford / Weston on the Green collection needs a coherent solution that delivers a known traffic environment and facilitates GA access. That would also require less ‘controlling’ and more ‘electronic cooperation’ from GA. Class D and E if used appropriately has the means to do all of that.
arj1 wrote:
What is your personal view on Oxford solution? What would you propose as a workaround?
My view is that Oxford doesn’t have a problem. And even less now with the demise of gliding at Bicester. So no solution to be found.
arj1 wrote:
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?
Ibra, the only challenge with pure RMZ in the UK is that unlike TMZ (RMZ if unable), ATSU will in effect turn it into Class D by refusing the entry.
@arj1, so you agree with me.
On whether it is a reality or urban legend, I don’t know. Cross-country gliding days are limited by weather and further limited by work, family, …
So on the good days the aim is to enjoy it and not test the ATC system, so CAS transit is avoided if possible. So it is hard to get an opinion based purely on my experience. Added to that that 1 ATSU might be good and 1 bad. Or that I might be asking transit just at the bad moment. So from a scientific point of view, not enough data, no conclusion possible.
So I rely on hearsay. And here’s where the problem start. The distrust between ATC and pilots. I’m sure the same happen in the other way. The ATC manager will focus on the one VFR transit which happened badly and write a new rule against it rather than focussing on the 20 transit given without problem on that day.
This year, I had no problem with Bristol which as bad reputation. I don’t know if it just the low commercial traffic due to Covid, a new boss, some pushback from the CAA, luck, …
Agree with most of that with regard to how it’s working (or how it’s broken) but with just one key difference:
They aren’t safety cases, they’re business cases. The jets presently operate in bandit country without safety concerns significant enough to stop them operating. They have TCAS and their approach controller has primary and secondary radar. There’s nothing out there that, one way or another, they can’t see. They’re not looking for a “known” environment, they’re looking for a “nothing in my way” environment.
This is what the ATC and airspace management / consulting businesses are trying to give them.
We could put a transponder in the Vagabond. It would cost a couple of grand, all for someone else’s benefit. It’s not about pretending it’s 1930, it’s about acknowledging that commercial operators do not have inherent priority and thus private operators should not be forced to spend money to create the environment that commercial operators want.
If the DVLA (or the DVLA lobbied by the road haulage industry) said to you “fit this £2k box in order to be allowed to continue using your car on the road”, what would you say?
As long as people stubbornly refuse to carry transponders or switch them on because “commercial operators do not have inherent priority”, this haas exactly the opposite effect.
If the DVLA (or the DVLA lobbied by the road haulage industry) said to you “fit this £2k box in order to be allowed to continue using your car on the road”, what would you say?
The aviation equivalent is “because most of you don’t fit this £2k box, nobody can now use the motorway except for lorries or you if the controller feels like it, even IF you carry the £2k box”
