ois wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 10:11 pm
Any explanation on the square zones other than "it's to protect IFPs
Yes! But you won't believe what the explaination was! (Well maybe you will!)
Mark asked what the justification was for expanding the circles into squares. The answer, very clearly was given as "The GA community said that they thought the circles were old and that they should be squares. So we decided to show what they would look like as squares!"
Mark, agasht like the rest of us on the call, basically ask if he had heard them correctly and that the only justification was "to show us what square CTRs look like" and they confirmed that that was the only justification! We were told to object if we don't like it.
Of course people had said that the CTRs should be square, but as in circles squared off inside the circle! Not circles expanded into rectangles.
Other interesting points to come out were
- that the justification for not considering any class of airspace beyond C or E was based on a task force that was abandoned in 2009!
- They mentioned that class E CTRs are not allowed by EASA, but failed to mention that nobody was asking for class E CTRs, only CTAs!
- the IAA insist tha the CTRs must include the SIDs/STARS and missed approach paths for all IFR approachs (NDB, DME, ILS and GPS). But there is no push back from the IAA on how much area these take up. So if a regional airport makes an approach proceedure based on an NDB that makes huge big circles then that is fine even though they could be much tighter, and the CTR must be made wide enough to cover that + 3nm. "Build it and we'll give you the airspace" seems to be the mantra. Basically as one commenter put it, the tail is wagging the dog.
- It was pointed out that while the original consultation was proposed to assist airlnes make continuous descent and climb operations, no airline had responded to the consultation supporting it. They were asked if no airline is supporring it, and it's for their benefit, then why is it proceeding? Now they are justying it on the basis of being forced to support these operations by EASA even if the airlines aren't pushing for it.
- It was asked why none of the current circular CTRs could be tightened in or corners cut off, and the contributor was (rudely in my opinion) told to go and hire their own planning consultants to design new proceedures and submit that as an airspace proposal!
- They plan to increase the airspace now, but are expecting that by 2030 (just 9 years away) that they'll have to start removing some of it again as navaids and their related proceedures are withdrawn! (I suspect this was more intended as a "Don't worry about giving up the class G now. You'll get most of it back in a few years" type of argument, that will fail to materialise).
- General points will not be all that helpful in the consultation. If you want to make a suggestion then you need to explicedly state which CTR/CTA you think should be changed and in which area and which way. Not a more general comment on how to reduce CTR sizes but list each one and which side/space you'd remove and why.
I've had a very positive view of the IAA in the past. Obviously not perfect, but I've always thought that they were a pretty decent regulator. In my other dealings, I've found the host today is a decent and pleasant man, and I found the ATC guy who made the first series of briefings (also involved today) to come across as an honest and fair minded person.
But this briefing today was very unprofessional, very biased and really unbecommig of the authority. To be frank, if it wasn't a public body but a private company, then there would be very difficult conversations tomorrow between this team and the big bosses. I doubt that will happen in the IAA.
But if nothing else, they at least got a pretty solid view of how GA sees their proposals. If nothing else, at least they know that we are not all signing off the same hymn sheet and the GA community is not very impressed with their work.