Solent Radar!

[expedite08]

Hi all,

I thought I woud post this one in here as Im hoping for a possible answer from a controller and not similar experiences from pilots.

Is it just me or is Solent Radar becomming increasing anti GA? Ive heard that at SOU the only flying club there is struggling to hold on as the airport is trying as hard as they can to rid itself of anyhtnig to do with GA, it appears they are trying to ban us from the airpace too!!

On numerous occasions I have been refused a transit through the airspace and generally been moaned at by the controller trying to find something wrong with my flying! Granted on one or two the occasions the contoller has been busy, but on others its just been a straight no at a relatively quiet time. I dont feel that its a capacity or traffic issue, just they dont want anything to do with GA.

The resident controllers at Bournemouth seem to be able to handle anything that is thrown at them! Quite a few are junior too! And as regards to airspace transits, they will often hold you at one of the VRP's until you can go through, an exceptional service from the home team, well done guys and gals!

Im a fairly new PPL so th learning curve is still pretty much vertical for me and, im more than prepeared to listen to advice and act upon it if it's good of course!

So is it just me or is Solent going to have NO GA written in its airspace on the next CAA chart!!??

Oh and just as a quick aside, if any Solent controllers are out there, where would you like us to call you up?? It seems just East of Hengistbury head is still inside BOU and New Milton is too close!! As I said more than williing to take advice and listen.

Many thanks

Expedite:ok:

[Gonzo]

My advice is to ring up and ask for a visit! I'm sure you'd get lots of answers to all your questions.:ok:

[BEXIL160]

Expedite....

A few things to take into account here.

Ive heard that at SOU the only flying club there is struggling to hold on as the airport is trying as hard as they can to rid itself of anyhtnig to do with GA,

Actually Solent Flight have moved already to Lee-on-Solent. Nothing to do with ATC, but all to to do with the airfield owner and operator, BAA. All down to availability of parking, which is severly limited at SOU.

The airfield itself is NOT anti GA, and nor is ATC. Read the recent experiences of Aerotech Flyer here : http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=23483&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Class D airspace transits are refused for a genuine reason, not because the controller doesn't like you. Ring them up subsequently and ask why, and no doubt you'll be given the reason why. Better still, as Gonzo suggests, ask for a visit. It will clear up a lot of questions you might have.

I'm curious as to which routes you asked for a transit on? Was the request strictly neccessary through airspace known to be congested, and the avoidance of which adds perhaps a few minutes to the overall flight time?

The resident controllers at Bournemouth seem to be able to handle anything that is thrown at them! Quite a few are junior too!

How do you KNOW that there aren't any less experienced people at SOLENT? Just curious.

In my own humble experience SOLENT have been more than helpful, and certainly are no worse, or better than their counterparts at Bournemouth. Remember, SOLENT is not a LARS unit and have little or no interest in a/c outside CAS.(not their primary task)

One more thing to remember. How's your RT? Sound like a professional? Confident, concise and crisp? Or part of the err.... ummm...follwed by a life story, brigade? Guess who's more likely to get a transit through busy airspace?

As Gonzo says, go and visit them. They won't bite, and you will learn much to your advantage.

Best rgds
BEX :O

[Squawk 2650]

I’ve never had a problem with solent always been very good and very helpful. If you pick a route that is sensible and call up early enough i’m sure they will let you through if you can.

S
:cool:

[anotherthing]

As stated above, Solent is not a LARS unit as such....

Just because a controller does not sound too busy on the R/T, it does not mean they are not busy with everything else they have to do.

Solent have had a huge increase in traffic and it is set to continue... In my dealings with them as a TC controller, I think they do an excellent job.

As for being anti GA - I doubt it, but they do not get paid to provide a LARS service by the Governement, so if they refuse for a valid (or even non valid) reason, then thats up to them, and good luck to them.

I am not anti GA myself or anti training flights, but I would love to ban A/C that can only climb at 300 - 500 fpm and do 120kts from my airspace... they pau less money and cause ten times more hassle than the airlines, because they are always at awkward levels and in the airspace for such a long time.

As a fairly new PPL, you should try to get yourself a visit to Bournemouth Tower, Solent radar, and even maybe TC... then you will see the sort of interaction that goes on, and the workload that can be present, even if it sounds quiet.

Enjoy your flying and remember, a refusal is usually for a good reason, whether is is obvious to you or not.... your transit may coincide with the planned departure of several A/C that you do not know about!!

[RebornCyclogenesis]

There are a lot of good comments on here, the best of which is to go and visit the unit. I am sure that the unit is very busy and growing at a pace However, if you and other are regularly refused access to Class D, then you should write to the CAA. Solent Radar have an OBLIGATION to allow access to other airspace users. Whilst this might upset some of the controllers concerned, it is a fact and if they are short of controllers and unable therefore to control GA as well as their own CAT movements, then they should provide more. Write to your MP as well!
Fuse lit........running like hell!!!


Edited to include extract from the Air Navigation Order!!

105 (1) After consultation with the Secretary of State the CAA may direct in accordance with
paragraphs (2) and (3) any person in charge of the provision of air traffic services to
provide air traffic services in respect of United Kingdom airspace or airspace outside
the United Kingdom for which the United Kingdom has undertaken in pursuance of
international arrangements to provide air traffic services.
(2) A direction under paragraph (1) may be made:
(a) in the interests of ensuring the efficient use of airspace; or
(b) to require that air traffic services are provided to a standard considered
appropriate by the CAA for the airspace classification.
(3) The CAA may specify in a direction under paragraph (1) the air traffic services and the
standard to which they are to be provided and the periods during which, the times at
which, the manner in which, and the airspace within which such services shall be
provided.
(4) The person who has been directed shall cause such a service to be provided in
accordance with the direction.

[anotherthing]

Not so much short of controllers, but short of airspace - which is very difficult to get more of because of military/governement/residents objections.

[Scottishjockey]

I have never had a problem with Solent and I use the SAM on a regular basis to keep my vor tracking up to date. Providing you are happy and willing to sit at the level they want you to there shouldn't be any issue. If there are any solent controllers reading this, then thank you for the transits.... as I leave you I always say thank you as transiting class D (IMHO) is not a right, it's a privilege :)

[DFC]

There overall is a big misunderstanding regarding what controlled airspace is for.

Controlled airspace is simply there so that pilots can tell that there is an area within which;

a) They may have to obtain a clearance to enter;

b) The VMC minima may change

c) The service provided by the ATS unit may change.

d) The equipment requirements may change.

It is not a no-go area.

Having said that, no pilot would say that an arriving flight at an aerodrome should be delayed or have an extended routing during the initial. intermediate or final approach phase or even the missd approach phase due to an enroute transiting aircraft.

Taking that in mind, a pilot is quite entitled to fie a plan and at the appropriate time request a clearance through controlled airspace within which their licence and aircraft entitles them to fly. If ATC are unable to issue the clearance, they are required to issue a time check and an expect onward clearance time. Often this will be a rough estimate of the delay.

If the delay caused by waiting is longer than it takes to fly round that airspace then I think it makes sense to fly round.

I have not seen flow restrictions in the Solent CTA and associated CTRs and consequently, they are below their IFR capacity all of the time. Note I am not talking training flights here!

A number of issues in the UK make the situation more difficult for units such as Solent -

Poor navigation by GA VFR flights

Poor Radio procedures

Lack of co-ordinated flight planning system i.e. file a VFR flight plan to transit solent airspace and they probably will not get it or if they do, they may ignore it.

Funneling of traffic due to Class A airspace, Military airspace and busy GA / glider aerodromes that surround the CTA.

The silly idea that the "recomended crosschannel route" starts overhead their field and is not far off the runway centerline!

ATC are required to issue a reason for refusing a clearance. If taking the whole picture into account, a pilot feels that they may have been wrongly denied a clearance to fly VFR in class D airspace, there is a form available from the CAA, GASCO and AOPA which they can fill in to report the matter.

As to the matter that Solent Radar is not a LARS unit - True.

FIS is not a LARS service.

Check out the Eurocontrol website for the future proposals regarding controlled airspace. See what the UK people attending the various meetings (you can read the minutes) are doing. Or more of what they are not doing or understanding! However, it will give yo and idea of what the future holds regarding airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[Aussie Andy]

Hi DFC, thanks for a very useful perspective provided by your post.ATC are required to issue a reason for refusing a clearance. I am sympathetic with their situation to an extent, but to the ears of a PPL who on several occasions has tried to contact Solent to request crossing a section of their airspace, they stand out as distinctly more reluctant to communicate with than comparable nearby units (e.g. Bournemouth) and this has led to a perception by many of us that they are actively discouraging VFR/GA from making contact.

Let me give a recent example: whilst tracking direct Benson -> Portsmouth Harbour at 4000' last weekend around lunch time, I wanted to request crossing Solent's western stub which lay across my track at that level because, given the large number of microlights at lower levels heading for the fly-in at Sandown, I just felt it might provide a safer and more straightforward route for me and my passenger. So this was not a "must have" but a "nice to have" clearance if I could get it.

So I called Solent "Solent Radar, G-FA, request" shortly after passing Farnborough and got the reply "G-FA standby - we are very busy; we will call you back". Nothing further heard, so I descended below the stub and continued "seeing and avoiding" (which is fine as that's what we do!). I continued monitoring Solent just for a bit of situational awareness. One or two others were also told to "standby, don't call us we'll call you" (to paraphrase) and I heard one inbound commercial jet, and one IFR being coordinated into the airways. Didn't hear much besides, but appreciate they may be on other freqs, coordinating on landlines, handing over to relief controller, etc.

I stayed on the freq for 20 / 30 minutes or so as we tracked around the island and under the 2000' section near Yarmouth - I was not called back, and I don't think the other chaps were either. I declined to re-call them as I don't want to add to their problems if they really are very busy (didn't seem so, but appreciate I can't tell from where I sit).

While I don't want to go casting aspersions, you can understand how the above situation (which is a common occurence in my weekend flying experience) leads people to wonder whether, perhaps, the chaps at Solent may have a policy of cynically telling passing GA traffic to "standby" without a real intention of calling them back, thus avoiding actually refusing a clearance request and the obligations that go with such requests as you have outlined?

Just a thought...

Andy :ok:

[DFC]

If ATC tell you to standby and don't get back to you, then you are entitled to think that they have forgotten about you.

What you need to do is give a gentle reminder.

However, "Solent Radar G-FA request" is not in the R/T manual and gives them no idea of what you want.

"Solent Radar G-FA request CTA crossing VFR Altitude 4000ft" while not being book perfect does give them a clue that you are not one of the 100s of flights that are going no where near the airspace but call anyway.

Even better, you could also ask Farnborough (the LARS unit for the area that abutts the Solent CTA) on initial call that you will require a transit of the CTA so that they can co-ordinate well in advance with Solent.

Did you know that you would require the transit pre-flight? If so did you file a plan or telephone the request to Solent yourself?

If ATC say "don't call us, we will call you" and fail to call you, they have forgotten about you or are ignoring you. ATC would not stand for a pilot saying that to them and would file an MOR. You can do the same if you feel the situation was worth highlighting.

Having said that, you could have moved just few miles east and stayed with Farnborough at 4000ft before talking to Bournemouth who are the next LARS unit for the low level transit below the Solent CTA 2000ft base. All outside controlled airspace with only an extra 2 or 3 minutes for the diversion.

Solent cause their own problems. They should not talk to aircraft who are not routing through their airspace. Every flight that calls them with no intention of routing via the CTA or CTR should be immediately told that FIS is available from London on 124.75. Once pilots get the idea, the frequency will quieten down a bit and those that do require a transit can be assured of getting their message through. Unfortunately, Solent talk to lots of VFR OCAS flights while they are quiet but then dump everything when the airways arrivals start pouring in. The simple answer must be not to get involved in the first place.

Regards,

DFC

[Aussie Andy]

Yep, all understood -- re the initial call though, often have found that the slightly longer initial call isn't always appreciated if freq is busy, whereas with other units (maybe Solent?) it can get a better approach. Opted not to stay with Farnboro' or ask him to coordinate as he was clearly WAY too busy (yet very obliging!) already :)

I think an issue with Solent might be as you say that non-transiting a/c call them too much... its an area of instruction that is always vague for students: "you should probably call some nearby unit for FIS" is about all you get told... and I think early solo students are encouraged to call rather than not so as they are talking to someone in case they need help and the instructor feels somehow safer if this is the case, maybe?

Andy :)

[chevvron]

Unfortunately too many people plan to route VFR via SAM without taking iinto account that it's in class D airspace on Southampton airport, and thus impacts their IFR arivals and departures, especially when they have to go procedural due to radar failure; why not route via GWC which is in class G airspace?

[Chilli Monster]

why not route via GWC which is in class G airspace?

Fuel at £1.30+ a litre might be a contributory factor ;)

[DFC]

why not route via GWC which is in class G airspace?


1. The CAA have in their wisdom published the recomended cross-channel VFR route from overhead SAM. It also crosses danger areas so one has to wonder about the wisdom.

2. You talk about separation. Please remember that VFR and IFR flights receive the same separation in Class D as they do in class G - none.

At a recent Eurocontrol meeting, the UK stated that it had a problem with class C airspace because it could not see how VFR flights could be integrated. The response was simply that the UK treats class D like class C. Simply renaming the airspace with current practice would do the trick! :D

The ironic bit is that Southampton keep VFRs out because despite the airspace being class D, they feel some urge to separate what is not to be separated. Just down the road, Farnborough also has IFR flights arriving but no controlled airspace and do not even separate IFR from IFR at times (cause not all IFRs talk to them). Overcontrol meets undercontrol (not having class E airspace for IFR).

Regards,

DFC

[Chilli Monster]

2. You talk about separation. Please remember that VFR and IFR flights receive the same separation in Class D as they do in class G - none.

Yawn! Ok - now a real world answer.

No - the minimum service required in Class 'D' is that VFR does not have to be separated from IFR, but that traffic information is passed - but the IFR can ask traffic avoidance (separation) and will be given it if requested. (MATS pt 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Para 2)

Now - rather than get the two blips nice and close to each other and then find out at the last moment that the guy wants separation it's often easier to do it at source, without him asking. Also healthier for licence protection (you have to posess one of those to realise what a good idea it is ;) ) More so with the advent of TCAS as the system gives an "RA" no matter what the flight rules are of the other aircraft. The magic box doesn't know after all, (and it's easier than the paperwork).

And as for not separating IFR from VFR in Class 'G' - what do you think you're doing when you have IFR traffic under a Radar Advisory Service?

Another time when theory and reality seem to miss each other quite nicely - eh?

[expedite08]

Some really good points here I must say. Aussie Andy it seems that you have had the same experiences that I have had.
With refrence to the airspace beng class D and not a LARS I fully understand and appreciate what has been said. I do however have to agree with Aussie Andy.

I think the trick is to maybe make the flight sound as 'official' and purposeful as possible. 'The G xxxx on a navex', I think will simply get the immediate 'oh no not them again' response in the controllers head going. Whereas if you sound like your on a route and 'need' to transit the airspace you may get a little more co operation What do people thinik??

Many thanks

Expedite :ok:

[oct]

I transit along the coast on a regular basis and have to say of all the atc units i have dealings with solent is the most unhelpful and in my opinion anti ga maybe we get in the way of their coffee breaks.

[Flybywyre]

I have to say that my experience of Solent is the opposite. I have always found them to be generally helpful and GA friendly.
This whole thing is somewhat subjective to say the least but I would say keep up the good work Solent :ok:
FBW

[DFC]

Yawn! Ok - now a real world answer.
No - the minimum service required in Class 'D' is that VFR does not have to be separated from IFR, but that traffic information is passed - but the IFR can ask traffic avoidance (separation) and will be given it if requested. (MATS pt 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Para 2)



It is not the "minimum" service, it is the service provided full stop. To provide a better service simply deignate the airspace class C so that the airspace class reflects the service level provided. That is why there are so many classes of airspace - you can't but find one that fits your situation.

Where does it say that separation is the same as traffic avoidance?

Regards,

DFC

[chevvron]

Yes why do we have so many airspace classifications? Why not merge B & C, leaving A as it is, then also merge D,E and F? This would reduce it to 4 classes from the present 7.

[CAP493]

Please remember that VFR and IFR flights receive the same separation in Class D as they do in class G - none.
Whilst this is indeed the requirement set out in MATS Part 1 (and derived from ICAO Annex 11) it's nowadays a highly dubious procedure. Expecting the flight crew of a high-performance glass-cockpit aircraft operating in complex terminal airspace, often adhering to onerous noise abatement requirements, to adopt a 'see-and-be-seen' technique against VFR traffic is frankly, a nonesense. Add to this the fact that an AIRPROX is filed if either pilot believes his aircraft was endagered by the proximity of another (i.e. it's got nothing to do with separation) and so just because the VFR pilot felt happy with the 'miss distance' if the IFR flight crew were not, the latter will file. In the new safety-aware environment that NATS (the ATS Provider at Solent/SOU) in particular now operates, no sensible ATCO is going to risk this sort of event occurring. Guess this is simply predictable (and understandable) 'defensive controlling'.

...they do not get paid to provide a LARS service by the Governement

anotherthing - just for info., the Government doesn't pay anyone for the provision of LARS. The airlines pay for it through the Eurocontrol Common Charging Scheme whereby a proportion of en-route charges gets siphoned off and handed out to ATS providers who particpate in the LARS Scheme. And the cash received doesn't in any way meet the actual costs of LARS provision which is why places such as NATS at SOU (funded by BAA), EMA, etc., can't justify doing it.

:8

[northernboyo]

Expedite08 you still don't state what transit you were refused, what was the route and height.

I don't use the solent airspace much but when I do I have always had a great service and no complaints.

Solent are not a LARS and those not entering the airspace should make use of Bournemouth Boscombe Farnbrough Plymouth Mil or use flight information.

[Chilli Monster]

It is not the "minimum" service, it is the service provided full stop.

WRONG

To save you looking up the document (location however quoted in my original answer), here is the actual wording cut and pasted - relevant word italicised

Classification of Airspace

The classification of the airspace within a flight information region determines the flight rules which apply and the minimum services which are to be provided.

Like I said before - you have to be a Licence holder to know that, and how to use it, unlike some of the pseudo experts here who have never even seen the inside of an ATC facility.

[mm_flynn]

Whilst this is indeed the requirement set out in MATS Part 1 (and derived from ICAO Annex 11) it's nowadays a highly dubious procedure. Expecting the flight crew of a high-performance glass-cockpit aircraft operating in complex terminal airspace, often adhering to onerous noise abatement requirements, to adopt a 'see-and-be-seen' technique against VFR traffic is frankly, a nonesense.

In another place the difference between the UK and US rules and airspace structures was summarised as ' The US believes see and avoid works, the UK doesn't believe it works'.

Where I grew up and learned to fly (KHPN), handles 180k movements a year (6.5 x Solents I think) in a class D zone, about the size and shape of a MATZ, and without the ability to refuse a zone transit (i.e. operated to ICAO spec). These movements are a wide mix of traffic, but with a lot of commercial and heavy biz jet traffic.

This philosophy difference appears to drive part of the relatively higher cost/movement of ATC in the UK vs. US and the very binary airspace structure (highly controlled or 'not' controlled)

[DFC]

Chilli,

The applicable standard which the UK claims to conform to is ICAO Annex 11. If the MATS 1 does not reflect that internationally agreed requirement then it is up to the UK to either change the MATS 1 or publish a difference.

To use your argument, controllers could impose an ATC service in classs G airspace. i.e. it is above the minimum service!

The same argument whould also permit a pilot to demand a higher level of service than FIS in class G airspace.

Annex 11 gives a clear requirement for the country to select an appropriate class or classes of airspace to suit their needs and then provide the services appropriate to that class of airspace.

Thus while I would agree ATC could offer to provide a level of service that is higher than the standards required for a particular class of airspace (and as a controller working with only an ATZ and class G, you no doubt do on a daily basis), a pilot can decline the offer. At the same time, pilots can (and often do) request a higher level of service than the class of airspace requires to be provided and ATC are entitled to say it is not available or to provide it as they think appropriate.

----------

mm_flynn,

You don't have to go that far away.

France has class E for much of the lower airspace including airways, cta's and ctr's. The controllers there do not feel the need to control VFR flights on the airways who are talking to them just because they have IFR traffic.

Ireland on the other hand has taken a slightly different line and everything is class C. However, they at least have told everyone that they will (and do) separate VFR from IFR in controlled airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[foghorn]

without the ability to refuse a zone transit (i.e. operated to ICAO spec).

No, ICAO spec class D requires an ATC clearance to cross, it's the US that differs on that one.

[Chilli Monster]

To use your argument, controllers could impose an ATC service in classs G airspace. i.e. it is above the minimum service!

No - to use my argument a higher service can be offered (and is). Nobody said impose - you on the other state that the service statement for the different classes of airspace is an absolute - which is where your incorrect understanding of airspace policy comes from

The same argument whould also permit a pilot to demand a higher level of service than FIS in class G airspace.

And a RAS is.......................................? (But many thanks for agreeing with me ;) )

Thus while I would agree ATC could offer to provide a level of service that is higher than the standards required for a particular class of airspace

I think the phrase you're looking for is "I was wrong" (come on, you can admit it - honest, it don't hurt).

(and as a controller working with only an ATZ and class G, you no doubt do on a daily basis),

Sorry - you must have me confused with somebody else :)

a pilot can decline the offer. At the same time, pilots can (and often do) request a higher level of service than the class of airspace requires to be provided and ATC are entitled to say it is not available or to provide it as they think appropriate.

So you are agreeing - no problems ;)

[mm_flynn]

No, ICAO spec class D requires an ATC clearance to cross, it's the US that differs on that one.

I stand corrected

[neilmac]

Never had a problem with Solent, always professional and friendly Class D is there for the protection of their planes ok when they are busy you accept thats the way it is and go around as Ive done before. If your maybe unsure of this in the air then always make up a back up plan before you fly. Im off to Channels Isles shortly my route encompasses Class D and Danger Areas where I may have probs so I think right how can I plan if things dont go my way and come up with plan B or C if required. A recent GA i talked to was in an active Salisbury Danger area and he didnt seem to comprehend the problem or another chap who thought he could plough thru them! How do these guys brief, or is it the GPS line from A to B? Support Chilli Monster in his words of wisdom about ATC services, well explained.

[DFC]

And a RAS is.......................................?

Not something that can be demanded only requested and flying within 30nm of a LARS unit does not in any way guarantee availability even when IFR and IMC.

Thus the services available depend almost on the time since last blue moon and not on any recognised system that one can use to plan.

However, getting back to Class D, you have not commented on my statement that;

Traffic avoidance is not the same as separation. Do you agree?

If so then you will see that if an IFR flight requests traffic avoidance against a VFR there is no requirement to provide standard IFR-IFR separation.

If you think that avoidance and separation are the same can you please pass on the laid down separation standards for weather avoidance :)

---------

I have been in and out of EGHI plenty of times and can say that when it gets busy (airways inbounds not split off), the main reason is that there are lots of VFR flights calling for FIS who are not going anywhere near the airspace and who unfortunately are not immediately told "FIS available from London on 124.75".

Don't call us we will call you or the never ending standby is poor practice. It makes what is normally an excellent service appear poor.

Regards,

DFC

[BDiONU]

Traffic avoidance is not the same as separation. Do you agree?
If so then you will see that if an IFR flight requests traffic avoidance against a VFR there is no requirement to provide standard IFR-IFR separation.
What, in the UK, is traffic avoidance? I have never heard of such terminology. Its 5NM (or 3NM dependant on what your unit is authorised to provide), which is what we ATC folks refer to as 'Standard Separation'. There is, in ATC, no difference between IFR/VFR VFR/IFR separation, its all 'standard', ie 3 or 5NM dependant on your unit.

If you think that avoidance and separation are the same can you please pass on the laid down separation standards for weather avoidance :)
No such thing in UK for ATC as 'weather avoidance'. Other than pilots asking for a reroute to avoid weather (obviously).

BD

[Chilli Monster]

However, getting back to Class D, you have not commented on my statement that;
Traffic avoidance is not the same as separation. Do you agree?
No.

If so then you will see that if an IFR flight requests traffic avoidance against a VFR there is no requirement to provide standard IFR-IFR separation.
Nobody said there was. If you avoid traffic, you must, by definition, separate (i.e - stop them banging together). It matters not that you do not achieve standard separation, you have just achieved some form of separation.

If you think that avoidance and separation are the same can you please pass on the laid down separation standards for weather avoidance :)

Whatever the captain of the aircraft asks for ;)

There's a big difference between reality and idealistic theory - Let's just leave it that I work in a world of reality, you live in a world of idealistic theory.

[Standby!]

A recent GA i talked to was in an active Salisbury Danger area and he didnt seem to comprehend the problem or another chap who thought he could plough thru them! How do these guys brief, or is it the GPS line from A to B?

Hmm...sound familiar?

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233411

[northernboyo]

Still would be interesting to find out what routes/routeing are being refused or granted..........

[Tuned In]

I have a friend who was refused clearance to route via SAM despite being IFR on a flight plan. He assures me this is not allowed, and he should know. It also suggests that some of the advice here would not be enough. A flight plan warns them you're coming, but doesn't give them extra controllers (I am informed, fairly reliably, that this is a problem at Solent).

Had he been a recently-qualified IMC pilot rather than an IMC instructor (nothing in the flight plan indicated his qualification, the type was a light single on the registration not a callsign) he might have had some difficulty routing in IMC unexpectedly around what is complicated airspace, with the proximity of Odiham and Wallop plus Bournemouth, danger areas and some HIRTAs and the lack of RNAV on the aircraft.

Having said that I have never had a problem with Solent, and was welcomed in as a professional GA pilot when I went to EGHI.

[Sky Wave]

I think the inconsistencies in service can sometimes come down to which controller is on. I fly with Solent Flight and when we used to be at Southampton there were some controllers who would orchestrate things superbly, slipping us GA in between the bigger boys, whilst other controllers would leave you orbiting for ages because they have an aircraft on 10 mile final. Perhaps they have been bitten in the past and they are now over cautious.

One particular controller at Solent is extremely helpful and I think rather amusing. I'm told he holds a PPL/IR which probably goes some way to explain why he's so helpful, Simon keep up the good work!:D

SW