Five things you need to know about the London CTR reclassification

With the introduction of SERA, I understand the reason for the airspace classification change. However, we now introduce something new called an `inner area`. How does that comply with SERA and standardise the rules? Is it a recognised term and used in other European countries?

You mention SERA will prohibit VFR traffic entering Class A airspace – has this not always been the case?

The Inner Area is already in use within the London Control Zone and provides us a method of ensuring that we can avoid excessive airborne holding, and reduce delays to both Heathrow movements and helicopter operators wishing to use landing sites within the London CTR. Re-classification to Class D means that while we do not need to provide standard separation between IFR and VFR traffic, we do still need to ensure we have robust procedures for the safe integration of all traffic within some of the busiest airspace in the country.

In answer to Terry Log, you are correct, however I believe under SERA Special VFR is now classed as a type of VFR flight and therefore would be prohibited from the Heathrow CTR unless the airspace was changed.

Thank you for your comments, Jonathan. I understand your reasoning entirely.
What I am still unclear about, however, is how this term `inner area` helps to standardise ATC phraseology. I repeat- is this term a recognised ATC phrase which is in use throughout EASA or is it UK, indeed Heathrow, specific?

Julia, you make a good point. I suppose we have simply attached a name to a volume of airspace that has some additional procedures associated with it. Many segments or portions of Class D airspace are differentiated like this. Perhaps other similar examples would be the Dunstable Downs area in the Luton CTR? I feel it makes it simpler to interpret for the user than just burying a set of additional requirements in a textual description.

Thank you for your comments, Jonathan.
As an airborne user of your services, what I expect from ‘standardisation’ is one set of rules which apply throughout EASA – otherwise it is not ‘standardisation’.
What we appear to have here with the reclassification of the Heathrow control zone is an attempt to maintain the status quo whilst pretending to comply with European legislation.
It does not help my understanding or use of the airspace without having to learn a new set of Heathrow specific procedures.

Colin, don’t many CTRs have ‘idiosyncracies’ such as local flying areas, low level transit lanes, standard VFR departure routes? Is this any different?

Adam,
You hit the nail straight on the head, but It is because of these “idiosyncracies” that I understood “standardisation” was being introduced.
However, my experience of EASA standardisation suggests we are merely replacing one set of rules with another set of “idiosyncratic” rules. Hence my comments.
It is happening throughout EASA land and I was hoping NATS might be able to lead the way and show how to do it sensibly..

NATS, thank you for the update, perhaps you would be so kind as to now answer the excellent question Julia put to you on 01st August last year (2014) as there is no reply showing on this blog..her query was
“…how this term `inner area` helps to standardise ATC phraseology. I repeat- is this term a recognised ATC phrase which is in use throughout EASA or is it UK, indeed Heathrow, specific?”
Thank you