Air traffic and airspace

Airspace questions, answered with the reasoning attached

Air traffic management consulting on classification, airspace design, service provision and capacity. This is the area where an assertion is cheapest to make and most expensive to be wrong about.

The problem

Airspace proposals fail on evidence rather than on ambition. A change is described in terms of what the proposer wants, not in terms of what happens to every other user of that volume. The traffic sample is a good week rather than a representative one. The interaction with adjacent airspace and with existing procedures is left for somebody else to notice.

The same gap shows up in capacity discussions. A number is produced, but not the assumptions behind it, so nobody can tell whether it describes a sustainable rate or a good day.

Classification is a constraint, not a label

The airspace classes A to G differ in which flights are permitted, which receive an air traffic control service, and which are separated from which. In Class A, only IFR flights are permitted, all flights receive an air traffic control service and all are separated from each other. Class E may not be used for control zones.

Those distinctions decide what a proposal can even ask for. European rules of the air sit in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012, which lays down the common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation.

What NorthSky does here

Operational analysis and documentation from an air traffic controller with a background in operational concepts, requirements and risk analysis.

Airspace change assessments: affected users, adjacent airspace, procedures and the safety argument.
Concepts of operation for a new service, a changed service or a new user group in existing airspace.
Capacity and movement analysis with the assumptions written down where they can be challenged.
Reviewing somebody else’s airspace or capacity submission before it goes to consultation.

Who this is for

Aerodromes and airspace users proposing a change who need the case argued in the terms the reviewing authority will use.
Service providers and operators assessing a new service level, a procedure change or a capacity constraint.
New entrants sharing existing airspace including unmanned operators whose plans depend on how a volume is classified and served.

Articles in this area

There are no articles in this area yet, and this is the newest of the five. The hub exists so the area has a proper entry point rather than an empty promise elsewhere on the site. Until articles are published here, the safe movement numbers screening tool is the closest thing to a starting point, and a short conversation will get further than reading.

Describe the volume and the change

What airspace, which users, and what you want to be different. That is usually enough to say whether this is an analysis, a documentation task or a conversation about feasibility first.

Get in touch

Frequently asked questions

What decides whether an airspace change is realistic?

Mostly whether the proposal accounts for the users who are already there. A change that improves one operation while quietly degrading two others will be found out during consultation. Testing the case against the other users first is cheaper than testing it in public.

Which official sources should we be working from in Norway?

Avinor’s aeronautical information service portal publishes AIP Norge, supplements, circulars and obstacle data, and handles permits for operations at category B and C airports. That is the reference set an assessment should cite rather than paraphrase.

Does NorthSky decide airspace classification?

No. Classification and airspace structure are authority decisions. What advisory work produces is the operational analysis and documentation that a decision can be made on, and an honest view of how strong the case actually is.