ATC at airports in Class G

[dublinpilot]

Not having trained in the UK, ATC at airports outside controlled airspace is not something I came across while training.

When arriving at such an airport, and ATC gives you an instruction, are you obliged to follow it, to the same extent as you would be, if it was within controlled airspace? I am assuming you would be, but not sure.

The thing that puts a doubt in my mind, is the fact that you will wind up being controlled in non-controlled airspace.:confused:

One more thing that I should know but don't, and want to put right.

dp

[FlyingForFun]

Good question.

You are obliged to follow instructions inside the ATZ (up to 2000' aal, with a radius of either 2nm or 2.5nm centred on the airfield), but not outside the ATZ. You need a specific clearance to land, take off or taxy.

The biggest difference from a practical point of view between an airfield with ATC in Class G and one in Class D is that there is no control zone to protect arriving/departing traffic - the ATZ is much smaller than a control zone, and only protects you in the circuit.

Very often the reason for having ATC will be because there is an instrument approach at the airfield. Although there is no guaranteed protection for IFR traffic, ATC will attempt to protect IFR traffic (and, if the traffic is under a RAS, are obliged to, by providing it with vectors half way around the world to avoid the conflicting traffic if necessary). So, in my experience, it's quite common for ATC to request you to remain clear of the area they are vectoring traffic in, or remain at specific levels in that area, and although you have no legal obligation to comply with them, I find it generally helps everyone if you do whatever you can to comply, so long as it is safe to do so.

Hope that helps - but if you fancy a flight over to Blackpool to try it out for yourself, let me know and we can have a beer once you arrive! (Unless you're going straight back again, in which case we'll make it a tea or an orange juice!)

FFF
---------------------

[dublinpilot]

Thanks FFF.

So basically the ATZ, while being class G, is operated as if it was class D. ie, I must comply with an instruction, unless I have a very good reason to refuse it.

Outside the ATZ, but in contact with ATC, ATC can not give me an instruction (even if inbound), just a request, and I'm under no obligation to follow it. Of course I would generally follow such a request out of nothing more than good manners, assuming it was not dangerous etc.

As for a trip to Blackpool, I probably will make it there some time next summer. I'm not too keen on going across the water this time of year. Better wait until May or so. I intend on seeing a lot more of the UK next year, so I'm sure I'll drop into Blackpool and say hello. ;)

dp

[jai6638]

quick question, what is an ATZ?


Thanks

[FlyingForFun]

Jai,

ATZ = Aerodrome Traffic Zone - a zone 2000' high, and either 2nm or 2.5nm radius, around every licensed airfield in the UK.

DP, yes that's right. There might be some legal differences on the requirements for separation from IFR traffic as compared to Class D or something like that, but now we're getting very technical and you're probably best asking in the ATC forum. As for the trip over water, very sensible - but remember water temperature in spring is not much different to winter, the warmer water occurs in summer and autumn.

FFF
----------------

[FREDAcheck]

If you are in contact with an approach control service, they are entitled to give you instructions which they can assume you obey unless you say otherwise. This applies in Class G, even outside an ATZ.

There was something about it on flyer.co.uk a few weeks ago, and someone quoted this (not sure where from):

1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise. Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly.

[chevvron]

Don't forget if placed under Radar Advisory Service in class G airspace, if you choose NOT to follow an ATC instruction, you MUST inform ATC.

[ShyTorque]

Chevvron,

You can't "be placed" by ATC under any type of service in Class G, except "no type of service".

In Class G ("the open FIR") the pilot has to request which type of service he would like. ATC may suggest a type of service, but can't actually mandate it; there is no legal requirement for a pilot to speak to ATC at all if he so chooses.

However, once an agreement is reached on the type of service, then yes, it is incumbent on the pilot to comply with "the terms of the contract", as it were.

[chevvron]

OK maybe I should have said 'being provided with', however, some operators of civil IFR flights in class G are 'required' by their Ops Manuals to be provided with RAS for arrival and departure, so 'placing' them under RAS on first contact is SOP.
The pilot does NOT need to actually request a particular type of service (some RAF pilots demand rather than request anyway) but it must be a tacit pilot/controller agreement as to what type of service is acceptable to both parties.

[vintage ATCO]

You can't "be placed" by ATC under any type of service in Class G, except "no type of service".

Yes, we can. It says so in MATS Pt 1 so it MUST be true. :D

In the case of an approach control service at an airfield in Class G airspace an inbound acft would place himself under control when he first called inbound, otherwise what is the point of calling. This could well be a procedural service and we assume that instructions will be complied with unless the pilot states otherwise.

A departing acft is 'under control' until the pilot no longer wishes to receive a service, or is 10 mins flying time away from the airfield, whichever is the sooner.

[ShyTorque]

Chevvron, agreed, but radar advisory can be a real pain in Class G, for both pilots and ATC due to high probability of other, uncontrolled traffic (ask a controller at EGBE, for example).

Our SOP requires Radar Information, rather than RAS, which gives us much more flexibility.

(I know YOU know the rules btw, I read your profile).

Vintage ATCO, "an inbound acft would place himself" - see, you agree! The point I was making is that ATC cannot mandate a service in Class G.

[IO540]

This thread contains a mix-up of private flying, and commercial (AOC) operations procedures.

I would just point out the obvious: an ATC service is not a "guarantee" of anything. Just because ATC is supposed to separate IFR traffic from IFR or VFR traffic or whatever, doesn't mean this actually happens. They can only try but if somebody decides to fly straight through the airspace, perhaps without a transponder, there is nothing they can do about it except to try to contact the offender and fill in some forms afterwards.

[englishal]

What always confuses me is when you have an ATZ around a "radio" field. The radio operator (or FISO) cannot legally issue you instructions, so whats the point of an ATZ? In otherwords they could not say "remain clear of the ATZ" because they have no authority to.

Equally some places where you have an ATZ, with a MATZ over the top, you are expected to remain below 1000' to clear the MATZ, yet the radio operator has no authority, and a MATZ is not really airspace which means anything to a civvy.

Don't get me wrong, you would be a fool to ignore "suggestions" or "recommended" procedures, but why not just make them some form of proper CAS?

PS. Happy Christmas

;)

[jb5000]

I thought it was illegal to fly into an ATZ if you had not made radio contact with the airfield, irrespective of whether its ATC/FISO/AG?

Merry Christmas!

[ShyTorque]

So if that were true, how would a non-radio equipped aircraft ever be flown on a landaway, or get back to base once it had departed from the circuit?

Or perhaps the pilot could observe any ground signals displayed, keep a good lookout and comply with the traffic pattern?

[vintage ATCO]

To enter an ATZ you either need permission from the ATC unit, or obtained information from the FIS or A/G to enable the flight to be conducted wuth safety. In the case of non-radio aircraft you would be expected to telephone first.

Shy Torque - OK fur enuf, if you want to be precise about the wording but I use to just get on with and expect to pilot to comply unless he said otherwise.

[ShyTorque]

I posted only because there does seem to be confusion in the minds of some pilots about what they can expect when talking to an ATC unit - you can sometimes tell by the inflexion in their radio calls. It's quite common to hear pilots requesting a climb or heading change in Class G airspace etc, when in fact no such permission is required.

One gripe from myself is the (thankfully rare) situation where a FIS is requested passing an ATC unit and instructions such as a large heading change or altitude are given in return. That is outside the remit of a FIS in Class G.

One such example occurred quite recently when we were flying at the correct quadrantal (IFR in marginal VMC) in busy Class G and requested a FIS from a nearby airfield which was known to have approach control but no radar. As soon as we passed our details, without any response about a service being provided, we were immediately told to change to a different level by descending because of opposite way traffic ten miles ahead, which was flying at an INcorrect quadrantal, i.e. the same level as us. We declined the instructions as the unit concerned had no radar and to do so would have put both aircraft in contravention of the instrument flight rules. We could easily have conflicted with further, un-notified traffic (showing on TCAS) and it would have been our fault. We asked for the other aircraft to be asked to change to the correct level or change track. Result? One very grumpy ATCO. (The other pilot continued seemingly oblivious that he was in contravention of the IFR quadrantal rule, confirming he was IFR/IMC when asked by ATC).

[ShyTorque]

ATC can only REQUEST that you "advise" climbing higher if you are not actually entering their airspace. If it's not their airspace you aren't legally obliged to be in contact with ATC at all, although good airmanship dictates that you do so where appropriate.

So your terminology COULD then be "G-ABCD, Climbing, altitude 3000 feet", for example.

I don't see why ATC would object to that; unless there is a specific reason, such as other traffic over the top of you.

Obviously, normal good airmanship dictates that a pilot should listen out and look out before actually making a manoeuvre so as not do anything to cause a conflict with other traffic. At the end of the day, we are all doing the same job, i.e. getting folks about the sky safely. :ok:

My point was that a pilot transitting Class G should know the rules so he doesn't clutter up a busy r/t frequency with unneccessary request calls to ATC.
:D

[FlyingForFun]

So your terminology COULD then be "G-ABCD, Climbing, altitude 3000 feet", for exampleI also tend to "request" a level change when IMC and receiving a RIS (or RAS, but that's rare).

The reason is that I have, generally, informed the controller of my level, and he will no doubt use that information when passing me traffic information. Hence, he may not have passed me information on traffic that is at a different level to me. When I "request" a climb or a descent, I expect the controller to reply by either giving me relevant traffic information, or if there is no relevant traffic by saying "Nothing known to affect". It's only after receiving that reply, and if necessary considering the traffic information, that I will tell the controller that I am "climbing" or "descending".

As noted, though, the fact that I "request" something does not mean that I expect "permission" - it's just a way of informing the controller what my intentions are, and checking that he doesn't have a problem with those intentions, in the absence of a better word.

FFF
-----------------

[Chilli Monster]

WR
But that's my point. I don't want to declare that I am going to do something that I'm not going to do if it's not to the liking (for whatever) of the area radar controller.

From the ATC point of View.

If you're in class 'G', and you're VFR, that's not a problem to ATC. Change level as much as you want. If ATC want to ask you to cap yourself "not above" a level (i.e for co-ordination against IFR trafic for example) then the onus is on them to do it. If you've got serviceable mode 'C' we can see what you're doing level wise, if not then we'll ask you.

The pilot / controller relationship is a team effort. It helps if one side knows what the other is trying to achieve. It's also important that BOTH sides know the rules in the airspace in which they're playing.

[Chilli Monster]

WR - you're missing the point.

If you're asked to remain below a level cap it's encumbent upon ATC to a) request it in the first place; and b) to tell you why. Once that cap is no longer required they should remove the requested "cap".

You shouldn't be "requesting" anything in that situation.

[High Wing Drifter]

ShyTorque,
So your terminology COULD then be "G-ABCD, Climbing, altitude 3000 feet", for example.
Or for example: "G-ABCD, ready to climb altitude 3000". It isn't a request, but it gives ATC a chance to tell you that, as far as they are concerned, it is clear.

[chevvron]

It always annoys me when RAF controllers phone up and say 'can you restrict your (squawk) not above XXXX ft?'; I reply 'it's on a FIS, so I can't restrict, I will REQUEST, but it's really up to the pilot'.
For my own RAS/RIS traffic against identified FIS I would say 'advise if you go above XXXX Ft; I'll be descending inbound traffic to 1000ft above you'. It's not an instruction but a reasonable (to my mind) request with safety in mind. If the FIS then decides to go above, I'll always have the bolthole of avoiding horizontally.

[cubflyer]

Back to the original question from DP. The first advice given by FFF is only correct for those airfields in class G which have an Air Traffic Control Service. These are perhaps a minority of airfields. Correct at these airfields you do have to have clearance to taxi, take-off and land.
However many airfields are either non radio or air to ground only. Here you do not need a clearance for anything. The airfield will have standard procedures which are probably published in the various flight guides or you can be told of if you phone up (some are PPR others are not) some will have standard overhead joins others will have diferent arrival procedures. The radio operator will probably only tell you the runway in use, circuit and QNH/QFE and then give you the wind when you are about to take-off/land. Seperation is up to you and consideration for other traffic.
There are often problems at these airfields with pilots who dont know what they are doing and ask for departure clearance or landing clearance which the controller cannot give them, they cannot even say "land at your discretion". You have to make your own decision. Air to ground airfields will use callsign "XXX Radio"

There is also the strange UK phenomenon of AFIS airfields, where the radio operator provides Flight information. This is similar to "air to ground in the air", but on the ground you are supposed to get a clearance to taxi. This type of service seems to provide even more confusion, especially as some of the radio operators tend to try to be controllers sometimes at some places.
They would be callsign "XXX info"

Someone asked what the point was of having an ATZ at somewhere where there was no ATC, just air to ground. This is obviously to "protect" the aircraft in the circuit, so they can go round the circuit without having to worry about tranist traffic. Without an ATZ anyone could fly through the middle of the circuit at 500ft. Also in an ATZ all turns must be in the same direction as the circuit which makes things a lot safer.

[FlyingForFun]

The first advice given by FFF is only correct for those airfields in class G which have an Air Traffic Control ServiceAbsolutely, cubflyer. That's because that's what dublinpilot asked about:Not having trained in the UK, ATC at airports outside controlled airspace is not something I came across while training;)

FFF
------------------

[cubflyer]

Yes FFF you are correct, given the exact wording of the question. However given that a lot of pilots in the UK seem to be confused regarding the status of the person answering on the radio, treating Air/Ground and AFIS as "Air Traffic Control", I thought perhaps someone who has not flown much in the UK might equally be confused and be using ATC as a generic term.

[dublinpilot]

Thanks guys.

FFF had it right, my question did specifically relate to Air Traffic Control.

I do understand that a AFIS & an Air/Ground station are not ATC (we have both in Ireland too). But thanks all the same Cub, much appreciated :ok:

dp

[chevvron]

ICAO Doc 4444 Section 8.11 refers to the use of radar in the provision of FIS.
It specifically says that radar 'may be used to provide identified aircraft with:
a)Information regarding any aircraft observed to be on a conflicting path with the radar identified aircraft, and suggestions or advice regarding avoiding action.'
b) Weather info.
c) Information to assist the aircraft in its navigation.' (funny, I thought the pilot or another crew member did the navigation!)

There is also an implication that Radar Advisory Service may only be provided in class F airspace (sections 8.11 and 9.1.4)

[bookworm]

There is also an implication that Radar Advisory Service may only be provided in class F airspace (sections 8.11 and 9.1.4)

It says that an Air Traffic Advisory Service may be provided to IFR flights in class F airspace. It doesn't say "only". ICAO doesn't recognise the Radar Advisory Service as such -- I don't think the UK's RAS is intended to meet the ICAO definition of an Air Traffic Advisory Service.

[chevvron]

Bookworm; why do you have to split hairs like that? I SAID implication, I didn't say it was the rule!

[englishal]

Someone asked what the point was of having an ATZ at somewhere where there was no ATC, just air to ground. This is obviously to "protect" the aircraft in the circuit, so they can go round the circuit without having to worry about tranist traffic. Without an ATZ anyone could fly through the middle of the circuit at 500ft. Also in an ATZ all turns must be in the same direction as the circuit which makes things a lot safer.
Although I am not sure how this will "protect" other aircraft. As PIC in this situation it would be up to me how I join, what runway I use etc.....The radio operator can say "7 right hand" and I could look at the windsock and say "nah, think I'll do 25 right hand thanks". Also at a Radio field, in theory a pilot could just call up and say "XYZ radio, GABCD coming through your ATZ at 1000, good day" and there is not a lot the radio operator could do about it.

It is a complete waste of time having an ATZ around a radio or FISO field in my opinion.

[tmmorris]

englishal, I can see why you would think that, but in an ATZ

1. all traffic is known (radio contact or PPR by telephone)
2. all traffic is turning in the same direction
3. all traffic has to conform to the circuit pattern (including published circuit height)
4. all traffic has to conform to any other restrictions published in the AIP (yes, I know they probably haven't read it...)

Surely all these are worthwhile additions to safety?

Tim

[englishal]

all traffic is known (radio contact or PPR by telephone)
2. all traffic is turning in the same direction


I don't see why traffic has to turn in the same direction. If one pilot wants to do a LH circuit for 25 and I decide it is in my best interest to do a RH circuit for 7 (assuming this is allowable) then there easily could be a conflict anyway. The Radio operator has no authority to give directions, but can only offer advice and the PIC is responsible to the safety of the flight.

Its nice to have an operator to pass weather info etc.., but at the end of the day, it is the pilots decision how to proceed and therefore an ATZ is meaningless at an uncontrolled field - and probably just adds to confusion and a false sense of security. Unlicensed fields don't have them.

Either get rid of them, or give Radio / FISO operators the authority to issue "clearances" (and make them responsible) within their ATZ. I'd be happy with that.

cheers

[eharding]

I don't see why traffic has to turn in the same direction. If one pilot wants to do a LH circuit for 25 and I decide it is in my best interest to do a RH circuit for 7 (assuming this is allowable) then there easily could be a conflict anyway. The Radio operator has no authority to give directions, but can only offer advice and the PIC is responsible to the safety of the flight.


I think you'd find that at most A/G places in the UK, your decision to
fly a RH circuit to rwy 07 knowing everyone else was flying LH for rwy 25
would get you and your a/c kicked off the field in short order, never
to return....in the best interests of *everybody*. :)

[Chilli Monster]

I don't see why traffic has to turn in the same direction. If one pilot wants to do a LH circuit for 25 and I decide it is in my best interest to do a RH circuit for 7 (assuming this is allowable) then there easily could be a conflict anyway.

Rule 17 (5)

Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome

Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39, a flying machine, glider or airship while flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably to know to be an aerodrome or moving on an aerodrome, shall unless, in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:

(a) conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome, or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and

(b) make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.