Cool. This does make some sense of sorts maybe, but it does not solve the CTR issue 
LeSving wrote:
Do we really need anything expect controlled and not controlled? I can’t sea any real reasons.Well, one question is if all traffic is controlled or only IFR.
Before the ATS Airspace Classification was introduced, ICAO defined three kinds of controlled airspace – Instrument Restricted, Instrument/Visual and Visual Exempted – roughly corresponding to today’s classes A, B and E. This was not suitable in practise and most countries – at least in Europe – had their own variants which of course all differed slightly making it a complete mess for international VFR flights. E.g. Sweden had what would today roughly be C, E+RMZ and E. The national variations – even before SERA – are much smaller today.
Interesting topic.
My view is that ATZ and CTR are designed and setup for different purposes, so they can and do coexist. Then there is the figure of the FIZ, which I believe doesn’t exist in the UK, at least not formally. But most UK ATZs are in fact FIZs.
The way the UK does ATZs is extremely weird to me. I don’t understand how airports like Gloucester or Oxford can have an ATZ that is both controlled and Class G, with ATCOs, approach, tower, radar, instrument approaches and all the lot. My brain explodes when I say this.
In Spain, most ATZs and most CTRs are Class D. ATZs are usually the responsibility of the TWR controller, and CTRs are usually the responsibility of the APP controller, although sometimes delegated to the TWR.
LEAS Asturias is an example of an airport with ATZ and CTR where the ATZ is NOT entirely contained within the CTR:
LETL Teruel is the one example I can think of of an uncontrolled Class G ATZ (and this is “proper” Class G ATZ as opposed to those “fake” Class G ATZs in the UK that turn out to be controlled…). LETL has no instrument procedures and admits both IFR and VFR traffic. To “protect” the ATZ, an RMZ (radio mandatory zone) is co-located and an air-to-air frequency established.
GCGM is an example of a FIZ aerodrome. Other examples are LEBG, LEHC, LESU and GCHI (this last one only during the weekends):
You can have ATC for airports in Class G (even without ATZ), they can control “airport ground” & “airport vicinity”, you can have controlled airports in uncontrolled airspace under ICAO & SERA, and you will need clearance “in the vicinity”, I think CAA decided to plot what that means
I think Toussus & StCyr in France both fall under this, both controlled airports with ground & tower ATC while in Class G, Toussus (LFPN) is controlled busy IFR/VFR airport OCAS, it’s AIP has 100 pages maybe the most controlled & busy GA airport after FortLauderdale KFXE (and Sandown IoW 
)
Alpha_Floor wrote:
Interesting topic.
The situation is unfortunately not uniform enough that your description of ATZ, CTR and FIZ are generally correct,
I have to agree with @Silvaire there are far too many types of “Zones” and “Areas” in Europe these days. CTR, CTA, ATZ,FIZ, TMZ, RMZ and so on, without even mentioning the military areas.
Many of the problems don’t necessarily stem from the Zones/ Areas, but from the dreaded “Standby” or “Remain outside controlled airspace” when everyone can hear that there is no-one else in the area, or are the ATS dealing with a whole bunch of non radio aircraft.
Which brings me to the possibility that GA pilots are their own worst enemy.
Would ATZ’s really be necessary if all aircraft carried radios and pilots gave accurate position reports. But being mandated to carry radios and/or transponders?
Even then you have the jobsworths on one side and the totally stubborn on the other.
Wouldn’t it be good if instead of an ATZ, a pilot wishing to transit a sensible area around an airfield could call up the ATS on that airfield and not get “standby” unless there are obviously others talking on the frequency, and transit or integration given quickly and efficiently. Eg “We have 4 in the circuit and 1 overhead 2000’, suggest 1500ft and pass directly overhead the threshold, report crossing runway axis” The rest is down to see and avoid. Oh yes, isn’t that what happens in the U.S.A.
gallois wrote:
I have to agree with @Silvaire there are far too many types of “Zones” and “Areas” in Europe these days. CTR, CTA, ATZ,FIZ, TMZ, RMZ and so on, without even mentioning the military areas.
The US has just as many different zones and areas, if not more. The thing (which should be clear from my and Silvaires discussion from 2016 in this thread) is that the US doesn’t use these names, but instead use descriptions. So in Europe we talk about “Control Zones” while in the US, they talk about "airspace associated with an airport that extends to the ground”. I really don’t see that this makes things any easier to understand. Sure, there is one less abbreviation to learn, but you still have to learn the rule and you have to use a long and cumbersome description instead of a short name.
(Historical note: The US also used the term “Control Zone” etc. once upon a time.)
Would ATZ’s really be necessary if all aircraft carried radios and pilots gave accurate position reports. But being mandated to carry radios and/or transponders?
Many (most?) countries don’t use ATZs or use them very sparingly, so they don’t seem to be necessary even today.
From back in 2016 !!
Peter wrote:
Whether a prosecution is possible is doubtful because it is Class G so you cannot possibly ask for a clearance.
This is quite amusing to read now we know that the CAA did actually nail several pilots a couple of years ago due to the Barton Interpretation and sent them on the GASCO course…
Regards, SD..
Well, that “CAA process” worked by intimidation; it was never tested in a court. That’s how the CAA much prefers it, and the whole scene (CAP1404 included) is rigged to make sure it stays outside the legal system.
It has been extensively written about here (that discussion was pretty well suppressed on the UK sites). In short, what happens is that if you try to get it to a court, the only way is to stick a middle finger up to the CAA, which results in your license being removed and staying removed, for a minimum of 6 months, and then the legal outcome is obviously not assured. How many pilots will risk that? And a decent barrister will cost you 10k just to get started.
The CAA has always had a policy of not getting things to a court (“settling on the court steps” is the metaphor used for this method) because it avoids creating case law, which is usually an undesirable result for the CAA. But the recently changed infringements policy has made this process much more aggressive.
An ATZ in Class G is an area within which ATC has some level of authority over airborne traffic even though it is OCAS. It is the quid pro quo for having Class G everywhere. The unsavoury aspects of recent events are to do with misapplication of the process, especially when the “tower” is not ATC.
We have an ATZ in the middle of a class D CTR here (at least as charted by Skydemon).
Why?
Well, for manned aviation, it doesn’t really matter (you can’t get to the ATZ without flying through the class D), but for drones it does. Drones (and traditional RC models) can fly in the class D without having to contact ATC, but to fly in the ATZ, a drone operator must have ATC permission.
