AOPA Pilot Magazine - March 1958 - (Page 20) It i s the CAA view that, for safety and efficient operation, i t will be necessary to establish segments of the airspace i which positive air traffic separation will n be provided. Basically, the problem will be to determine the amount of control required within the aimpaw segments. These requirements will vary from the need for continuous, positive separation of all aircraft to the need for no control other than that provided by a minimum of regulations. In many places these requirements can be met with little or no conflict became aircraft users having varying operational needs do not mingle extensively i the same air space. n Therfe are, however, amad where all types of traffic mingle extensively, and, there, we roast either find an equitable way of dividing the airapace or accept some compromise on the positive separation concept. Now,this does not mean that the VFR flyer cant be permitted to go into areas under positive control provided that he follows certain basic regulations. I think the fundamental error, causing general aviation to fear positive control, comes from the misconception on the part of many persona that positive control means IFR-type control'by today's re go la ti on^. This, in my view, would be the death of all aviation. Now I say that positive control means controlled separation by the ground agency. It must be a simple, eaay to follow system 86 that a pilot wishing to avail himself of certain airspace can do mi although certain weather or visibility minim will be necessary for the VFR flyer as he must be able to get out of that airapace if the weather goes below his minims. Certain equipment will probably be inquired, such as a radio, lights and perhaps a radar reflector if it ia a fabric airplane. In m y book this is what we mean by positive control. I repeat, it doesn't need to be what we consider IFR-type flight today. A fvr VaetTum,ent fii$ht, and thà pQat mwt b e comvletely W f i d for iastrv,¥menflight even im perfect weather. l a this your personal connietion? Wotild.ym bar anny &craft f r t ~ flying above that dtitude unless it was Opemrtftfl fully and. completely i the I n m system, as know it today? I have just told you that 1 see w reason why under certain weather conditions aircraft meeting minimum requirements cant fly i positive control areas. n However, whether at a certain point there wifl have to be a cut-off-^naybe at 16,000, w 0 or 80,000 feetà 00 above which you have to be IFEquaIified, I don't know. I don't think any of us, the C M , the CAB or the Airways Modernization Board, ie ready to come up with the answers BOW. We don't have a positive answer as yet, and we're going: to have to work this out jointly and improve things i the light of experience. n However, this c u t 4 will probably not work much of a hardship on anyone. If you get a high-performaUce aircraft capable of flying at these altitudes, you would ridiiuloualy limit its we unless you had the proficiency to By instruments. If you get up to high altitudes you practically have to have instruments to navigate properly because you may very often be flyiny on top completely at the mercy of the weather. You must be able to spot your position accurately at all tinea. The point ia that there win be some regulations spelled out regarding the use of this positive-control airspace. They will probably be somewhat more restrictive than those remlating VPK flight today-such as flight planning, position reporting and so forth- But they will not newssarily be auch that it will be necessary to be an instrumeat pilot as we tam it today. ~<wld you be witling to ohmwe t o c ~ 8 flight rules so that a pilot could fly p d t t v e control in good weather without an Wtruww~t rating! b I won't gay that this i the answer, but this is the s approach I think should be taken. I don't think that positive control and 1FR are i any way synonymous. n This ie tile big problem. However, in the future, I think we are going to have three categories. We are going to have areas of positive control which require IFR rules i bad weather but in which a VFR pilot may fy in n l good weather as Ion? as he follows certain basic rules. There wl be another area which may be very similar il to what we have today. And there will be a third area where we may not have to exercise as much control aa we have today. I think the big probJem i how you aeps amte or differentiate between the& respective areas, by altitude atrattfichtion or some kind of horizontal separation. A Q . k You and other CAA officiatefcave been m t e d OB above a cersaying that ultimately, any OtTeraft tain &tit& wwt be reVm,red U be completely ewtiwoed A busy t e r m i d areas like those at New Y w k , Chicago, Lo8 Awfleles and Washington, vlttmately wW have to be closed to afl but those aircraft flown by highly-skilled professionals, ami that the, level of pFoj%tency of those wafessimals will have t o be ma-iwtained at a rigidly high- leveI i order t o keep out nonprofessionals who n might constitute a hctzard. Is this the general philosophy ? U. / t h a s b - s a i d m a n y t i m e s h r e c e n t y e a r s t h t h. There may, conceivably, be certain areas (by area, I mean an airport, for instance) which would be reatrieted to nothing but cargo aircraft, other areas restricted to nothing but air carriers. But then pro1-HE AOPA PILOT
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.