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

[Liemberg 0]

Since a search didn't turn up anything:

Is it true that due to ICAO regulation which stipulate that in Class A Airspace only IFR flights are permitted and VFR flights are not allowed in that type of Airspace an appropriate authority – like the local equivalent of the F.A.A. - has no possibility to put into place differing provisions locally. (i.e. Allow VFR flying into Class A Airspace under certain conditions)?

Diverdriver, Airtwardo, Anyone?

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Concerning Class A airspace controlled by USA law -

91.135 begins by saying:

Quote

Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person operating an aircraft in Class A airspace must conduct that operation under instrument flight rules (IFR) and in compliance with the following:

91.135(d) says:

Quote

ATC authorizations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. In the case of an inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an operation within a Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue, if desired, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made, or both. Requests for deviation from any provision of this section must be submitted in writing, at least 4 days before the proposed operation. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight.

Of course, they can always deny a request for a deviation. But paragraph (d) seems to say that there is at least a procedure to follow to try to get a deviation, which seems to imply that a deviation is not strictly impossible.

[totter 2]

In the US, let's say for High Altitude jumps, the DZ would need to file a waver with the FAA (the local FSDO). This is basically to receive permission to operate in Class A airspace for jump ops and also to seek relief from the IFR requirements.
Diverdriver can probably give you the fine details on this.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Or file an IFR filight plan

[bfilarsky 0]

There are exceptions to the rule. I know, for instance, that the Soar Minden (Gliders at Minden Lake Tahoe) have a Letter of Agreement with Oakland Center where they have a box up to (I think 50k) somewhere in the flight levels where they can get the VFR gliders up high.

I don't know the details on it, but I know Skydance Skydiving does 30k jumps every once in a while. I would imagine they have a letter of agreement with Oakland Center for those as well.

So yes, exceptions are made to that rule (as well as nearly every other rule in FAR Part 91)

[pchapman 261]

High altitude glider flights have been authorized above FL 180 into class A. This has happened on a regular basis over parts of the Rockies where wave soaring is possible. But I know nothing about the procedures and difficulty involved either authorizing individual flights, or (as has been done) temporarily reserving a block of airspace for gliders.

[quade 3]

Quote

Is it true that due to ICAO regulation which stipulate that in Class A Airspace only IFR flights are permitted and VFR flights are not allowed in that type of Airspace an appropriate authority – like the local equivalent of the F.A.A. - has no possibility to put into place differing provisions locally. (i.e. Allow VFR flying into Class A Airspace under certain conditions)?

You have to understand what the regulations are actually saying and the ramifications of certain rules. It also helps to understand that VFR / IFR has multiple meanings; the amount of ATC control and weather. (For the anal, it's VMC / IMC vs VFR / IFR but seriously for 99% of everything we use them interchangeably in "normal" conversations.)

On the ATC involvement;

In a nutshell, VFR means you have certain visibility and can operate without communicating to Air Traffic Control. There are still some exceptions like around controlled airports at altitudes where you'd swap paint with arrivals and departures and for takeoff and landings But that's it in its most basic form. You aren't really going to have to talk to anyone and nobody is telling you which way to fly.

IFR means that (again with some exceptions for the anal out there) you absolutely ARE going to be in contact with ATC and you'll do exactly what they say when they say it like "turn left heading 270, climb and maintain flight level 190."

A "Pop up" IFR clearance can be gotten in most places unless the system is swamped. Say for instance you're flying around happy as a clam in VFR and for some reason you want to (and obviously you have to be qualified to do this as well) want to fly into an area with less than VFR weather. You just call up ATC on the radio and ask for it. It's not horribly difficult and back when I was flying I think there never was a single time I had ever been refused (and this is in the very high traffic area around Los Angeles).

The way that high altitude jumps are done is by working with ATC. This can be done in any one of a number of ways but if you're going to be doing something like a 100-way out at 18k, your best bet is to contact the ATC that is in charge of that particular piece of sky well in advance and get what is known as a "letter of agreement" about what you're going to do and how you're going to go about it. This might mean anyone of a number of things like you just have to call them up and can get a "pop up" clearance anytime you want or the restrictions might be more draconian requiring the flights to be actually "filed" with specific times before take off.

In ANY CASE, the weather from jump run to drop zone will need to be (at least in the US) VFR as there are NO IFR PARACHUTE OPERATIONS (in the US). The specific rules in any given country may vary.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

You have to understand what the regulations are actually saying and the ramifications of certain rules.

Well, in this case I'm only interested in what the (ICAO) rules are actually saying since the Dutch Civil aviation authorities are taking the position that ICAO has no "legal provision" in its legislation to allow ANY VFR activities in Class A airspace.

In short, not what is actually HAPPENING "in the real world" but whether their are rules and regulations that allow it.

From the part of US law mentioned by Riggerpaul {91.135(d)} it would logically follow that either that part of US law is in contradiction with what is laid down in the ICAO (as is the Dutch C.A.A.'s interpretation, apparently - at least that is how it is written down in a paper they sent to all the skydiving centers / clubs in the Netherlands) or it is not (and for all our other aviation laws we sort of always look up what the F.A.A. is saying...
So my question really is: Is it written down like that in the ICAO treaty, or not?

Any international aviation lawyers in the house? Or already all on their way to Schiphol / the Netherlands?

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

[jumpwally 0]

I thought i heard jumps from 30k were done for good ? No ?

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[RMK 3]

Speak to the guys at Skydance in California. I did a 30K HALO there late 2004. They were doing them two weekends a year - Don’t know if they’re still active.

Also, I can’t be bothered the search for the exact rule change, but I remember that in 2007 or 2008 the FAA implemented a new reg requiring some type of expensive equipment to be installed on planes for flights of 30K or above. I think the cheat now is is to do the jump from 29K.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[riggerpaul 1]

For what it is worth, Wikipedia says that ICAO allows Special VFR in Class A airspace.

Somebody mentioned gliders doing wave soaring. Though they mentioned it in the context of USA airspace control, you might try contacting the soaring people to see if they have any better information for your area. As I understand it, soaring is big in Europe.

[bfilarsky 0]

Quote

Speak to the guys at Skydance in California. I did a 30K HALO there late 2004. They were doing them two weekends a year - Don’t know if they’re still active.

Also, I can’t be bothered the search for the exact rule change, but I remember that in 2007 or 2008 the FAA implemented a new reg requiring some type of expensive equipment to be installed on planes for flights of 30K or above. I think the cheat now is is to do the jump from 29K.

I'm too lazy to look up the reg, but I'm pretty sure you need RVSM equipment above 28k. RVSM stands for reduced vertical separation minimums - where aircraft can now be separated by only 1,000 ft instead of 2,000 ft vertically when at those altitudes. In order to get the required accuracy to keep aircraft from swapping paint, they need VERY expensive RVSM equipment.

I can't imagine that if a block of airspace was allowed to be used for jump operations, that they would require RVSM. All they would need to do is protect an extra 1,000 ft of airspace above you.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

I'm pretty sure you need RVSM equipment above 28k. RVSM stands for reduced vertical separation minimums - where aircraft can now be separated by only 1,000 ft instead of 2,000 ft vertically when at those altitudes. In order to get the required accuracy to keep aircraft from swapping paint, they need VERY expensive RVSM equipment.

I can't imagine that if a block of airspace was allowed to be used for jump operations, that they would require RVSM. All they would need to do is protect an extra 1,000 ft of airspace above you.

You've got it pretty much right. For high altitude jump operations, the easiest thing is to block a chunk of airspace. At the old Kapowsin location, we had designated airspace and a letter of agreement with Seattle Center for jumps up to and including 25K. Once cleared to operate in the airspace, you just do what you want until you're done. That way we (controllers) don't have to worry about the people jumping out.


*** Whether or not the pilot and aircraft have to be IFR qualified or not, well, I don't know. That's not my side of the job.

[Baksteen 84]

Peter isn't talking about jumps from above 28k, but if the CAA have their way about jumps from above 3500 feet. In addition to this, the CAA would like to extend the class "A" airspace all the way down to 1500 feet and to an area that encompasses almost all of the Dutch airspace above land (which is approx. 13,000 sq. miles or 34,000 sq. km according to www.anvr.nl).

Two Dutch DZs have already been restricted to 6k and one of these has been forced to close down.
CAA sent them a letter on March 28 2007 stating that "by the end of March 2007" skydivers would only "sporadically" be allowed to exit from altitudes higher than 6k. In practice, "sporadically" turns out to mean "when the entire radar at Schiphol Airport is empty".

At least one other DZ is currently feeling the breath of the CAA hot in their neck, while again others are now experiencing the same problems the restricted DZs had a few years ago: holdings and temporary height restrictions that can and do vary from day to day.

Out of the blue CAA recently presented a new Parachuting Regulation (RVS), trying to make all skydiver flights IFR "so that, if necessary, they can redirect a [jumpship] into less-than-VFR conditions, such as a Cb cloud".
The Royal Dutch Aeronautical Association (KNVvL) which is the USPA equivalent had to submit a protest in about a single day (which they did).
Because a skydiver is by definition always a VFR "aircraft", the CAA is considering to drop the IFR regulation, but fact of the matter remains that they will keep trying to formulate their new RVS in such a way that skydiving will be made near impossible.

The reason?
CAA states that they do not have any experienced air traffic controllers left, so they lack the facilities to accomodate skydiving flights, or ideally all GA traffic especially considering the planned increase in the number of flights from Schiphol Airport. Because of safety, or so they claim, they need all that airspace so they can "randomly redirect" a Boeing when they need to, without having to take any of that annoying GA traffic into account.

Funny thing is, the number of flights from Schiphol is actually predicted to DEcrease and the CAA has laid off 100 people (how many [if any] air traffic controllers are among these is unknown) in anticipation to this.

Another thing, last week an airliner crashed while on final near Schiphol Airport, possibly due to a technical fault in the altimeter. While I feel really sorry for the families of the deceased and wish them and the survivors the best of luck in dealing with the tragedy, part of me can't help but wonder how many other airliners were "randomly redirected" that day...

Disclaimer: In this post I state my views and my views only. In no way are my views, opinions and the information available to me representative for those of my home DZ or any other, that of any other skydiver, or those of the KNVvL.

"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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

The reason?
CAA states that they do not have any experienced air traffic controllers left, so they lack the facilities to accomodate skydiving flights, or ideally all GA traffic especially considering the planned increase in the number of flights from Schiphol Airport. Because of safety, or so they claim, they need all that airspace so they can "randomly redirect" a Boeing when they need to, without having to take any of that annoying GA traffic into account.

That's a scary prospect, and a very good reason for American skydivers to join or otherwise support the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). That group is especially effective in fighting for general aviation, and especially so with regard to airspace access. See their web site at http://www.aopa.org/.

AOPA has been working well with USPA, and that's a super good thing because so many of our concerns as skydivers are shared by general aviation pilots, as the Dutch case above points out.

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

[bfilarsky 0]

Another resource you can look into is IAOPA (International Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association). Sounds to me like the gubmint over there just doesn't feel like dealing with skydivers. What a shame!

[riggerrob 558]

In Canada, "Class A Airspace is that airspace in which only IFR flight is permitted."

In practical terms, the only scheduled commercial flights that high are routinely equipped for flight in IMC.

Only a pragmatic level, jump pilots should be IFR-qualified if they want to fly that high, just so that they understand the system and can gracefully fit in between airliner traffic.

In practical terms, it sounds like the Dutch Civil Aviation Authorities are inventing their own local definition in an effort to get those pesky little airplanes off the radar screen.
Telling jump planes that they need full IFR instrument panels - to allow to steer them into clouds at their leisure - is just a subtle way of making it prohibitively expensive to operate jump planes.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

The reason?
CAA states that they do not have any experienced air traffic controllers left, so they lack the facilities to accomodate skydiving flights, or ideally all GA traffic especially considering the planned increase in the number of flights from Schiphol Airport. Because of safety, or so they claim, they need all that airspace so they can "randomly redirect" a Boeing when they need to, without having to take any of that annoying GA traffic into account.

In response to a midair collision in terminal airspace, the FAA tried to do a similar thing in the U.S. in the 1970's. They tried to lower Class A airspace, then called PCA, or Positive Control Airspace, from 18K down to 10K East of the Mississippi river, and 12,5K West of that. GA, skydivers, and many others protested the proposed rule making, and it went away. Ironically, the new rule would not have prevented the crash that happened. It was just a power grab justified by waving the safety flag.

At busy terminal locations in the U.S. we have Class B airspace, typically within 30 miles or less of the major airports. In Class B airspace, all flights, VFR and IFR, are controlled, with VFR often restricted to certain corridors. We jumped for years in this airspace with very few problems. There is a learning curve for both the pilots and controllers as to what each other needs to operate smoothly, but it can be done.

I've got over 25 years in as an air traffic controller. I often see requests from pilots denied that could have been accommodated legally with a little creativity, but not all controllers are created equal. Nothing is more frustrating for me professionally than someone rationalizing their laziness or lack of confidence by hiding behind the banner of "safety."

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

Peter isn't talking about jumps from above 28k, but if the CAA have their way about jumps from above 3500 feet.

Close, but no cigar...

According to the official report from Air Traffic Control / the Netherlands with the title "Parachuting in the Netherlands - January 2009 version 1.0" (here on my desk) in a table named "outphasing*) designated area's for skydiving from Class A aerospace" it says:

Location Baarn - Class A / E current 3500ft AMSL, incidently 9000ft - Desired maximum altitude 3000ft

Location Hilversum - Class A / E current FL90, incidently FL 130 - Desired maximum altitude 3000ft

Location Westbroek - Class A / B/C/ E current FL 90, incidently FL 130 - Desired maximum altitude 3000ft

Location Oostelijk Flevoland - Class A / F current FL 60, incidently FL 90 - Desired maximum altitude 1000ft

Base, anyone...?

*) I really do not know if "outphasing" exists as a proper word in English / American. In Dutch it seems to be a euphemism for putting a stop to certain activities, almost like when you want to say something blunt without sounding... well... to blunt... - telling the people involved in such a way that they do not wake up, do not find out what you are up to and do not become angry with you...

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

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

Only a pragmatic level, jump pilots should be IFR-qualified if they want to fly that high, just so that they understand the system and can gracefully fit in between airliner traffic.

According to Dutch (proposed) regulation Jump pilots should be single engine IFR qualified whereas the trusted ol ' C182 also should be IFR qualified - packed with gizmo's that cost twice as much as the actual airplane itself. They are even planning/contemplating to mandate IFR qualification for all the jump pilots, since you could run into clouds and than you have to be guided out of them by ATC...

Meanwhile we found out that flying multi engines commercially doesn't mean that during weekends you can help out the club or the parachute center if you want to keep your single engine ratings current; even if the airplane were fully IFR, you would have to be "single engine IFR"...

"We are from the government. We are here to help..."

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi John,

It was worse than that. Back in the mid-50's there was a mid-air over the Grand Canyon. The FAA response/proposal would have shutdown all GA in this country. Fortunately, cooler minds prevailed.

When you say: Nothing is more frustrating for me professionally than someone rationalizing their laziness or lack of confidence by hiding behind the banner of "safety."

you are right on the money. With 30 yrs of federal employment behind me it was always so frustrating how some people only wanted the money and not do the work. CYA to the extreme.

It is always safe to say 'No' because then there is no risk.

This will be a never-ending battle all over the world.

End of rant,

JerryBaumchen

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

Hi John,

It was worse than that. Back in the mid-50's there was a mid-air over the Grand Canyon. The FAA response/proposal would have shutdown all GA in this country.

Ironically, it was 2 airliners that collided, not GA.

Quote

It is always safe to say 'No' because then there is no risk.

No bureaucrat ever got fired for saying "No." And they know it.

Quote

End of rant,

That's no rant, that's you saying the truth.
John

[Baksteen 84]

I'm sorry that it appeared that I put words in your mouth, such was not my intention .

But I stand by what i said.
I haven't got access to the actual document. But insofar as the "outphasing" (I don't know the proper translation either) is concerned, we have all seen the type of 'negotiations' CAA likes to conduct, and the kind 'deals' you can make with them.

Just wait and see - the locations you refer to are merely the first pebble of the avalanche. Once CAA got their way at these locations, they have created a very nasty kind of precedent.

Additionally, the rule you refer to deals with skydivers only and says nothing about other GA traffic.
As you know, skydivers are affected the worst by the proposals because they need the most altitude to conduct a healthy business. That doesn't mean however, that only skydiving is threatened - and GA knows it. Though I cannot find the official document online, the plans to extend the class A down to 1500 feet and to most of the surface area of the netherlands are real.

I'd also like to stress that the stated "current" and "incidental" max. altitudes are complete BS, even though they are written down in the official document. In practice, for location Baarn we don't get over 3500 and we get 3500 only because the class "A" airspace doesn't extend lower than that so they can't refuse us entry. Yet.
Locations Westbroek and Hilversum don't get any altitude over 6k - and even that is at the whim of LVNL. Theoreticaly, CAA can't deny us 9000ft a priori; we have the right to ask for altitude each flight, and CAA will determine the 'safety' of allowing us access per flight. In practice that means that CAA will deny us access per flight instead of being done with it in a blanket statement.

DZ Flevoland has been shut down jan 2009. The 'desired maximum altitude' is irrelevant now - except for the occasional demo.

And it's true what I said about holdings and temporary height restrictions at certain other DZs...they are at the same stage we were a few years ago, just listen to the jumpers bitch about being refused 13k.
By a very, very strange coincidence those DZs are also the ones that will be closest to the Schiphol TMA once the two other DZs that are currently threatened have been bullied into shutting down as well.

"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

Nothing is more frustrating for me professionally than someone rationalizing their laziness or lack of confidence by hiding behind the banner of "safety."

Quote

..you are right on the money[..]It is always safe to say 'No' because then there is no risk.

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).

"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

[Ronald 0]

AFAIK, it is EU regulations that ATC people are personally liable for accidents due to their work. For some years now.
The problem is that in Holland Airspace Class A is so low compared to other countries that skydiving planes, which fly there on a " controlled VFR basis" (which I think is comparable to class B). That means that a skydiving plane is mostly flying VFR, and sometimes getting directions. Then, if an accident happens between an IFR (airliner) and an VFR skydiving plane, the controller is liable, while they can not control is as much as they want.
As the juridical department of Dutch CAA does not like to be liable at all, from their point of view it makes perfect sense to get rid of us....
Ronald