ICAO airspace classifications Class A airspace, NO VFR allowed, EVER?

[Baksteen 84]

IIRC, LVNL is trying to divert part of their traffic to Lelystad, Rotterdam and Eindhoven in order to make the corridors around Schiphol less congested.
Can I conclude from you post that getting rid of GA is indeed just a way to simplify procedures for them?
Yes, that would be the solution that requires the least effort on their part.

Ronald, you are in the KNVvL - what reasons does the CAA officially state that necessitates clamping down on GA?
It always went well enough in the past, and as far as skydivers are concerend, we just need a "column" of airspace in which we can jump. Why is it so difficult for them to direct the traffic a safe distance above such columns? As for flying, a jumpship just wants to get to 12k ASAP and down again ASAP to pick up the next load. We don't require elaborate flying zones.
I mean, we get these CAA-assigned climbing areas even if we only go to 3500 (preferably above villages instead of farmland - really clever of CAA, that) so what's the big deal in letting these areas extend all the way up to 12k? If we go to 12k there's no reason why an airliner shouldn't be able to pass the jumpship at, say, 14k without problems.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[davelepka 4]

Quote

so what's the big deal in letting these areas extend all the way up to 12k? If we go to 12k there's no reason why an airliner shouldn't be able to pass the jumpship at, say, 14k without problems.

Without problems for who? If an airliner is down at 12k or less, they're probably on approach, and expecting them to stay above 14k until they pass your location would create alot of problems.

An airliner cannot just wingover like an Otter and dive for the ground. Trying to keep them above your desired jump altitude is not a solution.

In the US, the jump pilots just communicate with ATC, and work around the commercial traffic. Skydive Dallas, for example, sits in between the appraoches for two paralell runways. It's not uncommon to see airliners at or below jump altitude just a couple of miles away on both the left and right side of the jump plane. It's a little odd at first to see airpliners around while in freefall, but they do it everyday and it seems to work out OK.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

You know, you can't even blame the air traffic controllers for playing it extremely safe - by some ludicrous rule the ATC on duty is now personally liable to prosecution if something happens. It's not the ATCs themselves that are to blame, it's the policy (and their boss).

ATC's should do their job. If they can't do it well, they should find a job they can do. You can be safe and still run your traffic. Sometimes the controllers just need some briefing on the procedures to be used and the scope of their responsibilities. In this country, a lot of VFR flights are controlled in Class B airspace. There is not a lot of problems with them flying into clouds inadvertently, even up here in the rainy Pacific Northwest.

In the U.S., controllers are liable for being negligent, but not for making mistakes. You have to really be a screwup to get fired or end up in prison.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

Without problems for who? If an airliner is down at 12k or less, they're probably on approach, and expecting them to stay above 14k until they pass your location would create alot of problems.

Most approaches start 2K-5K above the ground, with 2K being more typical for large terminal airports. I've routinely kept airliners at 14K instead of 12K for jump planes. Sometimes a small vector for traffic works around the problem, too, literally.

Quote

In the US, the jump pilots just communicate with ATC, and work around the commercial traffic. Skydive Dallas, for example, sits in between the appraoches for two paralell runways. .

Location, location, location. Yes, there are chunks of airspace amazingly close to large airports that can accommodate jump operations. Just a few miles one way or another can make all the difference.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

In the US, the jump pilots just communicate with ATC, and work around the commercial traffic.

Skydiving airplanes ARE commercial traffic. In the United States all users of the airspace are technically equals. Big commercial jets do not have any greater rights to the airspace than a small aircraft. Nor does a skydiving plane over a drop zone have priority over a private pilot flying a tiny Cessna.

In reality some preference may be given to larger traffic simply because of the time and space needed to make course changes, but that's not automatic, and ATC should not be managing traffic to favor one class of users. In many cases ATC will work to smoothen out the flow, and sometimes that means we hold jump operations for big jets, and sometimes larger traffic gets vectored around us. If ATC has adequate notice about what's happening a good controller can fit it all together and make all the users happy.

Just as good controllers manage to fit everybody together, so do good pilots, and so do responsible drop zones.

In some places there is a letter of agreement that gives priority to some form of traffic, and in others there are special procedures in place to mix differing traffic or approaches with skydiving. But these LOA's are arranged between ATC and the drop zone, and are not automatic.

It is important to understand that in our ATC system all users have rights. The airspace belongs to the public (that's us) and does not belong to the big commercial carriers. It's a shared resource that is not to be managed for the benefit of the big corporations flying expensive aluminum. We should be very protective of that shared resource and not allow it to be taken away, as has happened in some other countries, as evidenced by this thread.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

It is important to understand that in our ATC system all users have rights. The airspace belongs to the public (that's us) and does not belong to the big commercial carriers. We should be very protective of that shared resource and not allow it to be taken away, as has happened in some other countries, as evidenced by this thread.

Absolutely true, Tom. There was a big push by the Bush Admin. to privatize ATC and go to a fee based system. The airlines seemed quite happy about it, while GA screamed. I'm sure it would have been another chance for Big Business to screw over the average Joe again, jumpers included.

As aviators, skydivers need to keep up on the politics of the ATC system, and contact their representatives when necessary. There are some in the government that would love for us to go away.

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

In the US, the jump pilots just communicate with ATC, and work around the commercial traffic. Skydive Dallas, for example, sits in between the appraoches for two paralell runways. It's not uncommon to see airliners at or below jump altitude just a couple of miles away on both the left and right side of the jump plane. It's a little odd at first to see airpliners around while in freefall, but they do it everyday and it seems to work out OK.

I jump at Skydive Dallas. I also travel on the airlines a moderate amount. I don't know which has been odder... looking out the jump ship window and seeing an airliner nearby, OR being in an airliner passing near the DZ and realizing that I had probably jumped from that very spot. In the latter case, I just wanted my rig and an open door.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

Location, location, location. Yes, there are chunks of airspace amazingly close to large airports that can accommodate jump operations. Just a few miles one way or another can make all the difference.

One would agree, if airspace was the only thing one would have to consider. Unfortunatly, that is not the case.
If you could find a chunk of airspace near a larger urban area filled with potential customers (where they tend to build large airports also), an airstrip that can accommodate the jumpship an a large piece of real estate where the skydivers can land are both necessary. The problem in Holland is that one part of the government tells the skydivers they could go elsewhere, while every other part of the government / politics says: "Fine with me - but Not In My Back Yard!"...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[JohnMitchell 16]

In the U.S we are fortunate to have many small municipal airports. There is a requirement for any airport that receives federal funding to accommodate all users, not just the ones they like. It doesn't prevent all the access battles that skydivers may have, but it is a powerful tool on our side. We had a big war about 230 years ago over too much governmental control without having a voice. Hope you guys don't have to do likewise.

I also find that many ATC's are wary of new operations and procedures, due to the fear of having an operational error or accident. Once the procedures and operations become familiar, the controllers are much more efficient and accommodating.

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

Location

Perhaps it's time for some pics so that you can better visualise what we Dutch people are talking about.
Since my home DZ is physically the closest, I haven't shown the others on the first map. We jump at four locations, but I've only shown the primary two: the airport itself (northernmost) and Westbroek. The other two locations, Wijk bij Duurstede and Baarn are even further away and do not even fit on this map.
Nor do the other Dutch DZs, by the way.

These are shown on the second map. Schiphol and DZ Ameland were not shown on there, so i took a stab at the location.
The exact scale of the map is undetermined, but the distance between Schiphol and PCMN (our DZ) should be roughly 17 miles.

EDIT: Here's an overview of Dutch class A airspace as well. In the proposed new classifcation, Class A airspace will not only be expanded, but also forbidden for anything but IFR traffic - or ideally anything but airliners.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[JohnMitchell 16]

Thanks for the mapping. The proposed airspace looks pretty draconian if it limits itself to only IFR aircraft. Perhaps more important than the airspace is the actual flows, or flightpaths, of the aircraft into various airports. When you know the flows, then you can find gaps between them or adjust them to accommodate jumping operations.

Is there a lobbying group in your country that represents the interest of GA and sport flyers? We have several in this country and they have put a stop to more than one proposal by our FAA to severely restrict VFR airspace.

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

Perhaps more important than the airspace is the actual flows, or flightpaths, of the aircraft into various airports. When you know the flows, then you can find gaps between them or adjust them to accommodate jumping operations.

Source: www.crosnet.nl, a platform for consultation between Schiphol and its surrounding residential areas (text in Dutch) and written in 2006.
Since this website is still updated regularly, I reckon the information in the article is still current.

Funny thing is, there are no standardised flightpaths into Schiphol and therefore the actual flightpaths are not indicated on any map. (I guess that plotting all the flightpaths would mostly obscure such a map.)

Final approach is begun when the airliner is at 2k, or 3k at night (between 2300 and 600 LT).
Using the Instrument Landing System (ILS) ensures that the pilot can, if necessary, perform the final approach themselves. Before final approach is initiated, airliners approach the 'final zone' from all sides, a result of the ATC having to coordinate all inbound traffic.

Strangely enough, the departure flightpaths (Standard Instrument Departure, SID) are dictated - and by law. The airliners 'must' adhere to the SID up until 3k. Above 3k, CAA can if necessary redirect the aircraft. If CAA considers it necessary to redirect a/c below 3k, they can do so. At night, aircraft 'must' follow the SID until they are at 9k, 'circumstances permitting'.

So there is no way to officially know the flows and no way to determine whether there are any gaps between these flows. A fellow skydiver has however set up a website counting the 'fly-overs' at the airfied my home DZ operates at (EHHV).

Quote

Is there a lobbying group in your country that represents the interest of GA and sport flyers? We have several in this country and they have put a stop to more than one proposal by our FAA to severely restrict VFR airspace.

There are several and all are doing their damndest - but there's little they can do. Unfortunately, CAA is the only authority in the netherlands regarding air safety, and if they keep hiding behind the safety argument there's no court that will burn themselves by telling CAA where to shove it.
Besides, in order to negotiate, both parties must be willing to compomise and CAA has demonstrated again and again that they don't plan on budging even an inch.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[Baksteen 84]

Source: www.fab-europe-central.eu

Interesting: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland aspire to share thier ATC-resources, the 'Single European Sky'.

according to this article

Quote

Up to 230 experts from the various organisations shared their expertise and in 18 months they created a common perspective for the future of airspace and air traffic management.

Quote

The States authorities involved, having analysed the study, signed a Declaration of Intent on 18 November 2008. To create the final institutional basis, they will prepare a State Agreement, which is expected to enter into force in 2011[...]the States have to examine a number of issues in various fields such as legal aspects, regulation and oversight, decision-making. They also have to decide how the military are to be involved in the various cooperation models in order to enable a more flexible use of the airspace for military and civil aircraft.

According to the declaration of intent:

Quote

The Signatories intend to keep the users informed of the progress made and to consult them during the planning and implementation

my emphasis:

Quote

development shall take all efforts necessary to ensure an improved safety level. Despite the civil traffic growth the current absolute number of ANS-induced accidents and risk bearing incidents shall not increase or will even decrease.

Quote

development should offer an airspace capacity allowing to satisfy the demand of increased civil air traffic and taking into account the military needs.

What worries me is that skydiving or even General Aviation is not specifically mentioned anywhere in any of the documents on this site (I viewed nearly all of them), except in a flyer stating that 'general aviation representatives' were present at some presentation. That flyer continues to state that the concept 'received positive feedback', but fails to mention any questions raised.

Is skydiving (or indeed GA as a whole) to be shut down in this Single European Sky? Or are we included in the definition of "civil air traffic"?
Logic suggests the latter would be the case, but the current probelms with the Dutch CAA have made me quite leery of any official blanket document/definition.

So, as "users of the airspace are being kept informed about the development", I would like to know what our Belgian, French, German, Luxembourg, Swiss and other Dutch skydivers have heard so far about these plans and especially what difficulties (if any) skydivers in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Switzerland are currently having with their government. Obiously, your feedback would help enourmously in determining whether the Dutch CAA is acting on its own accord, or whether European skydivers are headed for dark times indeed...

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

A fellow skydiver has however set up a website counting the 'fly-overs' at the airfield my home DZ operates at (EHHV).

He just published the overfly report for weeks 3-12.

I don't know, but the number of planes we could interfere with when exiting from 12k doesn't seem to be very spectacular...
(Note that 'above 10k' is not the same as 'up to 13k')

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom