I think the FL035 base was set as high as they could, while keeping the shagged Trilanders just inside CAS after climbing out of EGHI 30 miles earlier, while scud running to Jersey 
The other benefit of this is that 74.9% of flight planning software on the market, and the current French IGN charts, will finally now, after about 25 years, be correct 
That’s very good news indeed. There seems to have been a lot of pragmatic decisions made over the last couple of years.
I might venture to suggest that perhaps the real problem lies with an over-reliance on Class A airspace in the UK. Something less than Class A could have been implemented years ago and kept everyone happy. Perhaps this would have been a good case for Class B airspace, which we seem to have ignored entirely – yes, I know it would have meant more work for a NATS controller.
It’s hard to know because all this goes back more decades than most can remember, but I think at least a component of the issue, since 1969, is the UK IMC Rating which, without UK’s extensive Class A CAS, would be a full IR in all but name, and we obviously can’t have that because IMCR pilots are amateurs taught by amateurs while full IR holders are professionals taught by professionals. Tongue fully in cheek now but you get my drift… IMHO absolutely no way the IMCR would have ever been allowed to happen had UK’s “professional pilots’ airspace” been Class D.
I realise this will be shot down fairly quickly, but I’m struggling to see any advantage of this proposal for VFR flight.
Flights from SE England can route ABSAV (OK, abeam Sandown), KATHY, ORIST at any altitude they need, then into the Channel Islands CTA/CTR Class D.
Likewise, from SW England, BEVEL, MARUK into the CI CTA/CTR Class D – without alt. restriction.
Arguably quicker in both cases.
What don’t I see?
(Apologies for bringing IFR reporting points into a VFR flight)
PS
The other benefit of this is that 74.9% of flight planning software on the market, and the current French IGN charts, will finally now, after about 25 years, be correct
Is the 25.1% Sky Demon?
2greens1red wrote:
The other benefit of this is that 74.9% of flight planning software on the market, and the current French IGN charts, will finally now, after about 25 years, be correct
Is the 25.1% Sky Demon?
I believe that SD does show it correctly, but so do most others now. I believe that PocketFMS was the first moving may system to show it correctly….many years before SD came along.
Regarding the advantages for removing this airway, it just removes a chunk of airspace that meant that VFR flights needed to descend low, to transit through this area….exactly when they should be trying to stay as high as possible.
Interesting that the only airline that uses it, couldn’t be bothered to reply to the consultation. Makes me wonder why they don’t bother.
Peter wrote:
The other benefit of this is that 74.9% of flight planning software on the market, and the current French IGN charts, will finally now, after about 25 years, be correc
I just recently discovered the differences between the French and British charts. And Q41 is not the only thing missing from the French chart. See for yourselves
Some years ago the French charts only covered airspace up until 5000 feet, which was yet another reason for me to use the Jeppesen VFR+GPS series. Now however, they are supposed to cover airspace up to FL115.
And, yes; I do know about the CTA above the Isle of Wight! Need to get a new UK chart
You mean this bit
The current French charts don’t show that either. They say they are not obliged to be current for foreign airspace but still….
It is interesting, surely the purpose of an airway (or class D) is to seperate known traffic (and almost certainly transponding traffic) from each other and CAT “assuring” the users of the airspace of a traffic service and, if they have TAS, that “all” traffic will be visible. While there are examples of regular CAT routes without this protection there arent many. Since from this POV there is no difference between the airway designation and class D it would seem to make very good sense to reclassify the airspace regardless of the availability of other routes because from a practical point of view it opens up the airspace to a much wider group of users whilst not diminishing its original purpose. So I think in answer to the earlier question while there are other routes available without any change to the existing airspace where possible the airspace should be available to as many users as possible regardless of whether it is possible to take alternative routes.This would be achieved by the change and would seem to fit in well to the changes to the CI zone as well.
I think there are other swathes of airspace that would benefit from a similiar reclassification. One of the busiest routes to France is Lyd across the channel and yet the base keeps most non CAT relatively low. Is there not a case for a class D airway, or even some sort of VFR route, for the benefit of GA?
