Implement a formal process to support applications for ‘Transponder Mandatory Zones’ (TMZs) outside of controlled airspace.
The CAA already has the authority to introduce these zones but has not used it often. This policy option does not propose to introduce TMZs but to develop a process to allow bodies such as NATS to apply for TMZs in a similar way that they currently apply for controlled airspace. They say they consider that the current Airspace Change Process (ACP) should be the basis for this and the LAA agrees because we are involved in that and would be consulted on every occasion. However, the CAA goes on to say that the process could be “scalable to reduce the burden on applicants”. We have been told that the CAA intends to apply TMZs around airspace incursion hot spots and that NATS wants TMZs under “stubs” the areas of TMA that extend out from CTRs.
In addition to helping to mitigate airspace infringements, the consultation proposes that TMZs would be used:
- To provide airspace in which all traffic can be detected by TCAS
- To provide airspace in which all traffic can be detected by ATC
- To mitigate risk in busy airspace
- To provide detection when primary radar is inadequate for national security
On that basis, TMZs could be established anywhere. Moreover, the CAA has not told us what a TMZ will be. Will it be mode S only or will other transponders be satisfactory? Will procedural clearances be available for non-transponding aircraft? Will access be available though standing agreements and if so how will they be established? It does say that ATC service may need to be available and risk assessments may be needed. We believe these would be fundamental to such proposals but they are only possibilities according to the consultation.
Now you would expect any proposal would be for the purpose of reducing risk but we have already shown that the UKAB does not consider any specific action necessary for the purpose of avoiding collisions. Neither do we. However, this part of the consultation is about the process not the actual TMZs themselves.
The LAA considers that the current Airspace Change Process (CAP 725) should be used to consider possible TMZs and that risk analysis and the provision of an ATC service and access for non-transponding aircraft should be mandatory requirements. We recommend you take a similar line.
This part of the consultation has been difficult because it does not actually say what is being consulted on. It asks for opinions but offers no actual firm proposal but the consultation says “once it has been developed it will be effective immediately”. So whilst you may offer views as to what might be done, you have no way to put a contrary view to any specific proposal. Although it is titled as an option it is actually one of the policy strands being proposed and there are no real alternative options being proposed, in particular there is no “do nothing” option which would involve an analysis of retaining the status quo in this area alone. This is a mandatory item for consultations.
As there is no actual proposal and there is no clear definition of the TMZ which would result from that process, this not in accordance with the Cabinet Office guidelines on consultation which requires the CAA to “be clear about what your proposals are”. If you feel strongly about this, in addition to sending your comments to the CAA you may want to email the DfT consultation coordinator to say so. He is:
Andrew D Price (Departmental Consultation Co-ordinator)
Department for Transport
Zone 9/9 Southside
105 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DT
Email: consultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Option 1 - Option 2 - Option 3 - Option 4