ATC Hassle

[Fuji Abound]

Flying today I was surprised to hear AT receiving considerable hassle from Easyjet.

It was a short series of transmits that went something along the lines:

I am ready, I am really ready, I can accpet an immedaite NOW,

in the end the controller gave in and a helicopter that was trying to cross the active was turned away.

Now given that we are all paying for these services, and in this case a considerable sum of money, had I been the heli pilot I would have been pretty peeved.

In my view the Easyjet had no priority because he was commercial traffic and I would have told him to WAIT.

[gcolyer]

I have heard it from Easyjet loads of times. Must admit it gets my goat up as well.

[Tim Dawson]

"the Easyjet had no priority because he was commercial traffic"

What on earth? ATC give priority to whoever they like, and commercial traffic (for obvious reasons) normally has priority over GA in their eyes.

Having said that, this particular guy was pretty rude it seems.

[JW411]

How much fuel does a helicopter burn? How much fuel does an A319 burn even at ground idle?

Who has a slot to meet? The helicopter or the A319?

How many people were inconvenienced by delaying the helicopter by a few minutes? How many people would have been inconvenienced if the A319 had missed its slot?

Who pays the greater navigation charge; the A319 or the helicopter?

Was the helicopter actually paying ANY navigation charges?

Could it just be that CAT is actually subsidising GA?

[Chilli Monster]

I've found if you give the reason why they're getting delayed the aircrew become very amenable.

If not - pointing out who's trainset it is normally works ;)

[bookworm]

I've found if you give the reason why they're getting delayed the aircrew become very amenable.

Is this the old line about "due noise abatement"? ;)

[Roffa]

FA wrote..

in the end the controller gave in and a helicopter that was trying to cross the active was turned away.

Now given that we are all paying for these services, and in this case a considerable sum of money, had I been the heli pilot I would have been pretty peeved.

What's the definition of "we" in this scenario?

[Fuji Abound]

Who pays the greater navigation charge; the A319 or the helicopter?

This has nothing to do with enroute charges, the A319 was going to pay whatever and the heli was not. Different aircraft, different missions.


Who has a slot to meet? The helicopter or the A319?

The A319 driver had no idea why he was waiting, that became obvious later, he just didnt want to wait for anyone. For all he knew it could have been a medi copter which just might have had an even more important slot to meet.


What's the definition of "we" in this scenario?

I paid £130 for an aircraft with three people in it to land. Factor that up for a A319 and I reckon we were both paying a commercial rate.



I suppose the point that I was making is if you start to base it on commercial versus private etc where does it end. Does a triple 7 have priority over a 319because it is paying more, or burning more at ground idle? GA is either paying a "commercial" rate for an equal priority service, or with the rate table it should be published that you can expect a second class, second priority service, in case you want to pay for the remium service!

The controller was superb, and I increasingly find the quality of our controllers is of the very highest standard - in my view it was clear he was really unhappy with the attitude of the 319 driver, in the end he just gave in, and I dont blame him for that.

If I had been the heli driver I would have refused the orbit and thought of some good reason to do so, particularly having been cleared to cross and then told to orbit just short of the active because some Easyjet driver could not wait a few minutes! :):)

[Tiger_mate]

I did an ILS into Liverpool (IF Training sortie) recently (in a helicopter) and noticed an Easy Airbus held up at the holding point for several mins. I did feel quite guilty about time is money as we fought against a fair descent headwind. But I think I am right in saying that once anything is inside 3 miles and thus cleared to land/overshoot, you have to wait regardless of how big you are.

There was also a Dash 7 doing training visual circuits at the time who almost certainly followed me in and may well have held him up even more as I scuttled off to the peace and quiet of Hawarden.
I suppose that if your employment consists of doing a short haul route 6 or 7 legs in a day, all of these 'little delays' add up to one unhappy chappy.

What goes around comes around though, for an Auster taking 5 paces foward and 3 paces back held us up from a visual runway crossing a few days later. The differance was that I quite enjoyed watching the little chap make his 3rd and final landing (within 15 seconds) followed by a full stop in about 60 yards.

[Wing_Bound_Vortex]

Easy now, maybe they were just having a bad day, we've all had them! Bit of give and take works wonders in this business. We're not all like that, but sometimes it's nice to be expeditious if you can get away with it and depart in a gap.

WBV

[BeechNut]

Well I was once asked by a Lear to abandon an approach so he could take off, when I was flying a PA28 on night circuits, giving his ground fuel burn as excuse. I had the right-of-way; it was an uncontrolled airport.

While my PA28 burned less fuel in the air than his Lear at idle, I dare say his boss had greater capacity to pay than I do. With avgas running at about $60 per flight hour right now, and me being a humble IT worker, I'm sure my go-around pinched me more than his boss' Lear-at-idle...

[Slopey]

In the US on a downwind join at Ormond, from around 5 miles out, I had a guy in a Bonanza effectively tell me to get the hell out of his way - He then preceeded to fly *very* close, right up my back until I broke off for an orbit just outside the downwind.

The tower guys were not impressed and he ended up having to give them a call from the FBO.

There are impatient idiots in every hobby or profession though - flying's no different.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Rules of the Air are there for a reason. If a pilot is willing to forego his right of way then that's his choice to do so as a matter of courtesy. It's not the right of the other pilot to demand that the rules are ignored for his own benefit.

If another pilot asks if I can do something outside the rules, and it's put in a nice manner (as a request), and won't jeopardise the safety of my own flight, then I'll most likely comply. If it's not done in that manner then they can go look up the rules again whilst they're waiting for me to finish my manouevres ;)

[BeechNut]

This is an interesting viewpoint. Should the price of a beer be higher for you as an IT worker who can afford to fly than the same beer served to an unemployed person? If not why not? If this question is irrelevant then the ability of someone to pay for Jet fuel is irrelevant also. The Lear owner might also argue that his time is many times more valuable than yours, too!

The guy in the Lear might have a deadline to meet, and was probably looking to conserve every pound of fuel. There is a big debate to be had, but it is certainly true that business aviation adds value to the economy, and arguably should get priority.

Why do you fly? Is it for pleasure? If so surely the go around and extra 5 minutes for a circuit gave you even more pleasure!

Well, imagine the same situation applied to road traffic. I have a green light, driving alone in my VW on a pleasure trip. Waiting at the red light is a large transport truck carrying...oh shall we say beer. Arguably the transport truck is providing a greater economic benefit than my pleasure ride. Do we therefore allow him to go on the red, even though I have the green, and the right-of-way? If we did that, then traffic would be sheer chaos. On the other hand, if we put in rules of the road based on safety priorities, rather than situational priorities, then we have order. Exceptions are made for emergency vehicles.

In my case, I was flying for night currency, doing my 5 night takeoffs and landings. No other reasons; arguably that's so I can carry passengers at night for their...and my...good pleasure but the purpose of the flight was strictly currency.

What was asked of me was to execute a night go-around, a procedure that is not without risk. True, it was a valuable exercise for me to practice, but IMHO, it was an unreasonable request especially since I was on a touch-and-go, not a full-stop landing with backtrack; the delay would be minimal. As was mentioned, the rules of the air were written to ensure order. Of course, if he had preceded his callsign with "medevac", I would be obliged to give the right of way. But just for his good pleasure, I think it was within my right to insist on not having to do a night go-around just so he could make his boss happy about saving a few pennies on fuel burn...or due to poor planning and not taking on enough fuel (his destination was Montreal, about 10 minutes away in the Lear...).

In the event, I did, relucantly go around; and added a circuit to my flight.

To put it into perspective, I was once landing when Canada's Prime Minister was in the circuit, in a Citation. I was ahead of the Citation in the circuit. I knew who was on-board (it was obvious from all the RCMP security vehicles on the field; the former PM had a summer residence close to my home field, CZBM). I offered to let him go first, but the pilot said "no, you're ahead of us and have plenty of time to land, we'll extend our downwind". Rather gallant of them. Of course in that case I was the one (in part at least) footing the bill...my tax dollars at work.

[mm_flynn]

An interesting set of replies from the UK contingent on who has or should have priority.

The published guidelines suggest (training excepted) that it is broadly first come first serve with ATC flexing this to get the most capacity out of the system. Many places seem to do this. The comments from (some of) those that seem to be pilots and ATCOs suggest some places may have an undocumented Commercial First priority (and some airlines may think they should be first).


I personally think the based flag carrier should have priority over all other movements, except low fuel emergencies for competitors that have been holding to allow the Main User to stay on time (particularly up-start long haired competitors who should stay in music) :);)

[PPRuNe Radar]

The guy in the Lear might have a deadline to meet, and was probably looking to conserve every pound of fuel. There is a big debate to be had, but it is certainly true that business aviation adds value to the economy, and arguably should get priority.

and

but I don't get reasoning which suggests the poorest pilot should have priority.

I don't get the reasoning which puts it the other way around. If the commercial pilot has a deadline or fuel issues then he needs to factor those in to his planning and flight operation and not depend on others to get him out of the mire.

In the UK the Rules of the Air set priority, followed by tactical adjustment by ATC (if being provided) for the overall good of all airspace users. Some UK ATC do however then apply a further 'priority' which is presumably based on who pays the most (some regional airfields which will hold you forever for a commercial aircraft still on a 10 mile final come to mind). In the abscence of ATC, then the Rules apply unless the pilots agree to modify them.

[BeechNut]

Beechnut still hasn't said why ability to pay comes into it.
I can accept an air safety argument, and I can accept that rules of the air are all to do with safety, but I don't get reasoning which suggests the poorest pilot should have priority.
I wasn't suggesting that the poorest pilot have priority. I am suggesting that his using an economic argument for me to give up my priority was plainly wrong, and in the circumstances, he would be causing me a greater economic hardship that he would endure if we did things the way the rules of the air plan it (remember, this was an uncontrolled field). Of course, if he had legal priority, I would have been obliged to yield to him and would have and always do, without complaint.

As it was, I had legal priority and was under no obligation, as was said, to pay for his poor planning (assuming his planned fuel load was marginal).
It was his use of the economic argument that was wrong (in fact that was his argument: "we're sitting here burning xxx pounds per hour" were his words). Or maybe it was an operational argument...see above ref. marginal fuel load.

In any case he got what he wanted, and I got out of his way.

[Sky Wave]

I think the EZY bashing is a bit harsh. Considering they have around 150 aircraft I guess if there's was one or two bad eggs it doesn't make every pilot in the company that way. By the way, was this pilot English? Sometimes things can be lost in translation and what he/she was saying may have been perfectly reasonable in their native language (if you know what I mean).

It's not unusual for pilots to tell the tower that they can accept an immediate departure as this let's the tower know that you won't hang about completing checks, you'll enter and start rolling and it means the tower will perhaps squeeze you into a gap that they otherwise would make you hold for. This allows maximum utilisation of the runway and is good airmanship.

I would think that if the EZY was overly pushy it was because he was on a slot and if you miss your slot the next one is usually in excess of an hour away. If that was the case tho, it would be good for the controller to say to the Helicopter pilot that he had an aircraft on a slot to get away.

[Chilli Monster]

I would think that if the EZY was overly pushy it was because he was on a slot and if you miss your slot the next one is usually in excess of an hour away.

And what makes you think ATC don't take this into account. We know the slots (indeed, they're passed to the aircraft along with the clearance) and we update the aircraft as and when they change. With that in mind we have a window (-5/+10 mins) on a slot within which to depart the aircraft.

If a pilot is going to miss their slot I can assure you - it's normally down to reasons OTHER than ATC.

[Sky Wave]

Chillimonster.

I wasn't suggesting that ATC didn't know about the slot, I realise they do. I was suggesting that the EZY wanted the tower to know they'd be ready for an immediate departure so that the tower could then make their decision on the order of events, rather than the tower planning on letting the EZY go first only to find out that the cabin is not yet secure and it cannot accept the clearance.

In my experience the ground and tower controllers are excellent at sorting slots out. If they realise you're not quite going to make it they'll apply for a 5 minute extension, they plan well to make sure that aircraft on slots are not stuck behind non restricted aircraft at the holding point, and what's more once they've given you a start clearance they'll normally launch you off regardless of whether you are more than 5 minutes early or greater than 10 minutes late. I have the utmost respect for ATC and I think they do a superb job.

What I was really trying to point out for the benefit of those thinking "so what if the EZY misses it's slot" was that the subsequent delay could be a long one possibly causing the EZY to go back and get more fuel. This is why the pilot would be very keen to make sure the tower knew he was ready.

I guess it’s also possible that the captain asked the FO to tell the tower they’d be ready for an immediate departure but because the FO never used those words the captain wasn’t happy that the message was understood so asked the FO to tell them again using the exact phrase. Who knows, perhaps it was just a rude impatient FO, but that sort of personality doesn’t really sit well with the EZY culture and I’d be surprised if it would get through the selection process.

SW

[PPRuNe Radar]

and what's more once they've given you a start clearance they'll normally launch you off regardless of whether you are more than 5 minutes early or greater than 10 minutes late.

I would hope that they are not 'launched off regardless' but that any departure outside slot tolerance is either co-ordinated with CFMU or a local Flow Management Position, or is part of an agreed discretion scenario. The UK CAA have stated that a slot is part of a clearance and therefore has to be complied with.

The result of not complying is to cause a potential overload somewhere down the line. This results in a reduction of safety and the possibility of a more serious incident occurring because ATC are unable to cope with the traffic levels presented to them. The subsequent investigation will always then lead back to the ATC unit who didn't comply.

[Sky Wave]

pprune radar

You are correct of course. I was perhaps a bit flippant with my “launching them off” statement.

This is going somewhat off topic, especially as it's in the private flying forum and it's not often that GA get caught up in slots although it has happened to me once!

I can't say what goes on in the various towers regarding agreements with CFMU or flow control.

It seems to me that the ground controller has to make a decision on when to give start up clearance and once the aircraft is in the queue at the hold it's surely sensible to let the aircraft depart if it's only a couple of minutes adrift of it's CTOT margin. I realise that the commander shares this responsibility, however the commander does not know what sort of delays to expect at the hold or how many other aircraft are in queue.

There are two scenarios that give rise to the need for a small amount of flexibility. The first is that the push back and start went extremely quickly and the aircraft arrives at the hold 5 minutes before its CTOT margin (i.e. CTOT minus 10). All aircraft behind it in the hold get held up by delaying that 1 aircraft, and it's possible that another aircraft may miss its slot as a result.

The other scenario is that an aircraft arrives at the hold just before CTOT plus 10 minutes, but a landing aircraft reports debris on the runway meaning that a runway inspection is required, or perhaps there is just a lot of congestion at the hold. Is it really sensible to make the aircraft that's missed its slot taxy back to stand and refuel rather than let it go at CTOT plus 12?
Whilst I realise that you have to draw the line somewhere, it seems sensible to me that once the aircraft is in the system with engines running that it should be allowed to continue if it's only a couple of minutes off of its CTOT margin. If necessary slap it with a speed control, but don’t let it miss the slot and wait for a new one with engines running.

As I said before, ATC are usually extremely good at getting it just right and making sure that everyone arrives at the hold, in the correct order and within the correct time frames provided of course that the aircraft was ready to start on time.

[ATCO17]

Here at a secret military airfield in West London, the majority are IFR departures and as such are subject to slot times/CTOTs etc. Most of the delayed departures are down to the fact that the surrounding airspace is just so busy! If an aircraft is sat waiting for his release, we will endeavour to explain the cause of the delay. I am pleased to say that most pilots are quite understanding and accept that we are doing our best for them. After all, we find it just as frustrating - especially when it's the last movement of the day....
That said, I have little sympathy for the guys that really cut it fine and then grumble at us when they have missed their slot and are subject to huge delays because their pax have wombled in at the last possible minute.
We DO have a pecking order, ie Mil/Civil/VIP/ODV etc etc, this being a military airfield, but that is the nature of operations here.

[Chilli Monster]

The first is that the push back and start went extremely quickly and the aircraft arrives at the hold 5 minutes before its CTOT margin (i.e. CTOT minus 10). All aircraft behind it in the hold get held up by delaying that 1 aircraft, and it's possible that another aircraft may miss its slot as a result.

Any ATCO who manages to do that wants their a$$ kicked. You either hold the push and push in slot order, or you remote hold and get the earlier traffic past them that way. So - a competent ATCO won't let that happen and because of that the aircraft WILL NOT go outside slot.

The other scenario is that an aircraft arrives at the hold just before CTOT plus 10 minutes, but a landing aircraft reports debris on the runway meaning that a runway inspection is required, or perhaps there is just a lot of congestion at the hold. Is it really sensible to make the aircraft that's missed its slot taxy back to stand and refuel rather than let it go at CTOT plus 12?

In such a scenario you would get a slot extension from the Flow Desk - you would not "shoot them off" without reference to them.

As for congestion at the hold - see answer 1.

It's important to reiterate here for those that can't grasp the concept (and has been mentioned here before). The CTOT is actually an absolute as far as you the pilot is concerned - you should be working to be at the threshold at that time. The -5/+10 minutes belongs to ME - not the aircraft

[k12479]

ATCO17, what is an "ODV" ?
Thanks.

[Fuji Abound]

Considering they have around 150 aircraft I guess if there's was one or two bad eggs it doesn't make every pilot in the company that way.

Agreed.

By the way, was this pilot English?

Yes.

It's not unusual for pilots to tell the tower that they can accept an immediate departure as this let's the tower know that you won't hang about completing checks

Agreed. However the Easy was at the hold, and I seem to recall the exact exchange went something like this:

He reported ready, told to hold, with no more than 10 seconds, he said ready immediate, hold, I can accept an immediate now .. .. ..

It was the now that finally did it, and AT asked the heli to break off his crossing. He got his immediate. In consequence two other aircraft on non instrument approaches were also delayed.

The fact is the controller had clearly factored in the time required for the heli to cross, the Easy was the only aircraft at the hold, and so presumably the controller knew he was going to get her away without a slot extension or had already negotiated an extension.

I am happy to accept the Easy was just having a bad day, however this is not my first experience of commercials feeling they can "bully" AT.

[ATCO17]

K12479

"Other Distinguished Visitor"

[Chilli Monster]

however this is not my first experience of commercials feeling they can "bully" AT.

Like I said in a previous post - it's at that point you remind them who's trainset it is (and hold the b*****d for another 30 seconds to make the point).

[Fuji Abound]

Like I said in a previous post - it's at that point you remind them who's trainset it is (and hold the b*****d for another 30 seconds to make the point).

I like it!

[Sky Wave]

Any ATCO who manages to do that wants their a$$ kicked. You either hold the push and push in slot order, or you remote hold and get the earlier traffic past them that way. So - a competent ATCO won't let that happen and because of that the aircraft WILL NOT go outside slot

Lucky that ATCO's are perfect beings that don't make mistakes then.

In such a scenario you would get a slot extension from the Flow Desk - you would not "shoot them off" without reference to them.

I must have dreamt speaking to a tower watch supervisor that told me that they allow aircraft to depart slightly after their CTOT margin if they'd been delayed at the hold.
(Notice how I choose my words carefully, since despite the fact that I've heard tower controllers use the term "launching aircraft" it seems that people will jump down my throat if I use said term.)

The CTOT is actually an absolute as far as you the pilot is concerned - you should be working to be at the threshold at that time. The -5/+10 minutes belongs to ME - not the aircraft

Unfortunately, pilots are not perfect beings and working to a zero minute tolerance at the threshold is beyond most of us.

From your tone it seems that you want to cause a divide between pilots and ATCO’s, which is a shame. I’ve taken time to visit tower and approach controllers and I’ve also visited LTCC in order to better appreciate the job that you guys do. As I’ve said before I think you do a great job. I see us all as one team and it saddens me that you come out with comments like The -5/+10 minutes belongs to ME - not the aircraft

Anyway, let’s go back a few posts, and ignore my mistaken belief that ATCO’s will allow aircraft to depart outside of the CTOT -5/+10 minute margin. Given that I am incorrect on that front, do we agree on all other points of discussion here?

Back to the original topic, if the ATCO's own the -5/+10 minutes it’s no wonder that the EZY crew were desperate to be at the threshold at that time

[Sky Wave]

Fuji

It seems that this guy was out of order. But don't tar us all with the same brush.

SW

[Chilli Monster]

From your tone it seems that you want to cause a divide between pilots and ATCO’s, which is a shame.

If you looked at my profile you would realise that is not the case.

However, even if you have taken the time to visit ATC, some of your profession don't, and it is becoming more and more apparent that some members of the flying profession, (and I stress here it is only some, not the majority) be it due to company pressures or other reasons, think they are the only aircraft that matters when it comes to operating. It does come across as that way sometimes - and it's not endearing behaviour.

By the way - the -5/+10 comment saddens you? I wouldn't read http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275386 if I were you then ;)

[Fuji Abound]

But don't tar us all with the same brush.

and

(and I stress here it is only some, not the majority) be it due to company pressures or other reasons, think they are the only aircraft that matters when it comes to operating. It does come across as that way sometimes - and it's not endearing behaviour.

Exactly and very well said.

I never intended to tar everyone with the same brush but to illustrate a problem that from my perception is becoming more common.

Why this might be so I dont know.

There is also another aspect to this which may be relevant.

There is another thread about the trajic accident involving a student pilot.

AT do an excellent job organising the safe flow of traffic.

Whilst any pilot should be able to accept a change in his instruction, any change creates an increase in the pilot's workload. The same is true for the controller when he gives in to bullying of this sort (for whatever reason).
It would be most unfortunate were an accident to result from another pilot's impatience, particularly when of the persons involved it was potentially the one least able to cope that was suffering a change of clearance.

[PA38-Pilot]

Well I was once asked by a Lear to abandon an approach so he could take off, when I was flying a PA28 on night circuits, giving his ground fuel burn as excuse. I had the right-of-way; it was an uncontrolled airport.

On the other hand, I once was a few miles in front on a Learjet, both to land. The Learjet offered to do a 360 turn, to let me land (PA38), and he landed after... I did made a fast approach though, and cleared the runway as soon as possible.

[Sky Wave]

By the way - the -5/+10 comment saddens you? I wouldn't read http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=275386 if I were you then

lol, read it and now heart broken :)

Looking at that thread it was good to see that it's not only me that believes you can get away with a 2 minute over run.

You mention getting a 5 minute extension from flow control, however nine times out of ten if we know things are tight we'll ask for that extension whilst at the gate. If we are then subsequently delayed at the hold by 2 or 3 minutes I assume you are not able to get another 5 minute extension. What happens in this case? Do you send the aircraft to remote holding to wait for a new slot rather than let it depart 3 minutes late? Rules is rules, but that seems a little bit jobsworth.

[fireflybob]

From your tone it seems that you want to cause a divide between pilots and ATCO’s, which is a shame.

As a pilot who knows who Chilli Monster is I can categorically state that this is NOT the case! You could not find a more helpful and conscientous controller!

Chilli Monster has clearly informed us of the system with respect to CTOT. Most pilots are aware of this but, as ever, (and as Chilli Monster states) there is a minority of pilots who dont know the system (or dont care) and seem to think the whole system revolves around them and nobody else.

I have always believed as a pilot that there is more mileage in being polite and understanding when being "delayed" rather than winging on (usually in situations when doing so wastes valuable time on the RT!).

Ok sometimes we all have an "off" day but in any relationship it takes two to tango.

[IO540]

I don't think slot times have much of a meaning in the GA context. I've had slots myself - usually a ~ 10 minute delay - and it's a bit of a joke when you then spend the next 5 hours flying through airspace which is so obviously devoid of traffic at anywhere near that level.

Plus the fact that my GS is going to vary far more than the slot duration so if the slot was dictated by something a long way down the line, or even the destination, it would be meaningless.

ISTM that a lot of slots just pop out of the computer but have no connection to any real situation down the line. In N Europe, just about everything is under close radar control.

Back to the subject, airfields are desperate to make ends meet, and they will give all priority they can to any traffic that looks even remotely commercial. This isn't right but in the absence of a US-style taxpayer subsidy (or a French-style local chamber of commerce funding) this is only going to get worse.

This pressure also means that we are sure to get more idiotic managements like they have at Norwich, with loads of security staff standing around desperately trying to look important (and jacking up the landing fees), toothpaste confiscation on the way out to your spamcan, etc.

I see only one way out of this and that is a concerted effort on the planning system, to create completely new but small GA airfields. They will not have PPL training going on but will cater for everybody else.


Interestingly, the former Iron Curtain is opening up to GA, with avgas, cheap landings, and basically doing all they can to stimulate GA business at every level, from spamcans to bizjets. Clearly they are doing a taxpayer subsidy, but these people aren't stupid and they have obviously judged this is the future. Not exactly hard - one only has to look at what contribution GA is making to the US economy :ugh:

[Mike Cross]

They will not have PPL training going on but will cater for everybody else.


Why not? Old Sarum and Compton Abbas are good examples of a single grass runway unsuitable for CAT but licensed and doing PPL training. The situation WRT training and licensed a/d is under review. It's a bit of a blunt instrument. It would be a better idea, now that training has to be done at a FTO or Registered Facility for the FTO/RF to demonstrate suitability having regard to the aircraft types to be used. An a/d that's perfectly adequate for training in something slow might be totally unsuitable for something a bit quicker. A bumpy grass surface is fine for some types but not for others. A change to the regime could take this into account.

[Standard Noise]

This all seems a bit 'mountains and molehills' to me.
Manys a time I've lined up the commercial and said to the transit "319/737 shortly departing R/WXX route east/west of the XX threshold" or "pass behind the departing 319/737 R/WXX"
Ergo the commercial gets what they want and the transit has to turn a few degrees left or right but there is no major inconvenience to anyone.

I know GA pilots don't like it very much but there is one inescapable fact that these days which runs most ATC units (certainly mine and Chilli Monster's are good examples). We are first and foremost employed by (or contracted by) the Airport Authority to shift traffic into and out of their airfield. Everything else is becoming more and more secondary but that is not to say that we will go out of our way to be obstructive to GA traffic. After all, we don't 'own' the airspace around us, we merely manage little parts of it on behalf of the government (and their various bodies).

Take the controlled airspace we were granted a year ago at Brizzel. We have to keep records of all transits through our zone and we mark them down as 1) the pilot was allowed to continue as he requested, 2) the pilot's requested route was modified and what he was given and 3) the pilots CAS transit was refused. For the last two, we also have to give a reason why the pilot did not get what he asked for. It's a pain in the a**e, but we do it because we have to prove that we have not closed off the airspace we were granted control of to other traffic.

[IO540]

Why not? Old Sarum and Compton Abbas are good examples of a single grass runway unsuitable for CAT but licensed and doing PPL training

Because, Mike, one would "never" get planning permission.

It is possible, with considerable expense, noise surveys and other expert evidence, to get full planning approval for a low use private strip, with people discreetly flying straight-in approaches and departures.

But the moment you propose to have training, with the heavy circuit banging which that involves, you can forget it.

OS and CA are very old established airfields.

It is a bit of a problem, because hard runway airfields do need training traffic to make money. The only exception would be one owned by a group of above average funded pilots.

[Fuji Abound]

This all seems a bit 'mountains and molehills' to me.
Manys a time I've lined up the commercial and said to the transit "319/737 shortly departing R/WXX route east/west of the XX threshold" or "pass behind the departing 319/737 R/WXX"
Ergo the commercial gets what they want and the transit has to turn a few degrees left or right but there is no major inconvenience to anyone.

I think you have missed the point.

I dont have a problem with air traffic organising the flow to facilitate anyone with a slot to keep - and they do it well.

What concerns me is when a commercial thinks he knows better and thinks he can bully air traffic into changing the flow that air traffic had already planned to suite him.

In my view that just ends up causing hassle for all concerned and may be potentially dangerous.

Was this an isolated case? I dont know but now I come to think about it only a few weeks earlier I had an occasion where it could have directly effected me.

I was just established on the localiser into Southampton.

I cant really recall the wording but a commercial made a real Ar&&e of himself by "complaining" that there was much slower traffic in front (I was going down the localiser at 130 knots into a stiff head wind). The controller was excellent and effectively told him to sod off so it really didnt trouble me.
In fact the "incident" ended up in an amusing way. There were some very heavy showers around and conditions were IMC down to 1,000 feet. The commercial driver asked for a turn away from the localiser for weather - which he got. Having avoided the weather he continued on a vector that would have taken him outside CAS - there followed a little exchange between the radar controller and the commercial driver questioning whether he really wanted to take his stead outside CAS - he reluctantly accepted he did not and was eventually turned back onto the localiser after I had landed.

I am sure I heard the controller having a little chuckle to himself :).

Personally, if it had been me, I would have turned him back into the shower and seen if he wanted a further delay whilst be turned away again. I'd been through the same shower and although I eventually asked for a turn for the sake of my passengers it really was not that bad even in my little twin. I am sure the G and Ts would have survived.

[S-Works]

I once had a Ryanair driver ask a French controller if he could be given priority on an approach in France. Shocking weather, drizzle, minima and gusty so I was rather pleased that I had managed to set up a stable approach. The controller told him to sling his hook and he complained that he was twice my speed and was going to arrive at the fix before I was down. The controller responded by vectoring him off so far into infinity there was space for another flight to land behind me.

My experience of controllers especially when flying IFR has been exceptional. My experience of CAT pilots often leaves a lot to be desired, I guess when they get into a Chav transporter some of them forget where they came from......

[RAC/OPS]

Do you send the aircraft to remote holding to wait for a new slot rather than let it depart 3 minutes late? Rules is rules, but that seems a little bit jobsworth.

I agree! Rules are so last year! I know it's 1000ft vertical I need, but 800 is OK. Likewise 3nm radar sep. Oh what the hell, I got 2.5, that looked alright to me. 12 minutes past the slot? Well it's some other poor bugger who has to short my sh1t out so what the hell!

[Sky Wave]

I know it's 1000ft vertical I need, but 800 is OK. Likewise 3nm radar sep. Oh what the hell, I got 2.5

Lol, I knew as I was typing that someone was going to come back at me with that.:mad: In fact I was expecting someone to hit me with approach minimums is 200ft, but surely 170ft is ok, which clearly my answer would be no, it's not.

Nuff said on the subject of sneaking off outside of your CTOT margin.

Has anyone got an answer to my earlier question? If the tower kindly get us a 5 minute slot extension as we are running late, and we push back in time to make our extended slot, yet it all turns pear shaped at the hold for reasons beyond our control do flow control/CFMU grant a further extension to the slot? In AMS today for example, we had a slot but for some reason they stopped all pushbacks for 5 to 10 minutes but they told us and others that the slot was ok because we’d called for pushback in time to make our slot.

Cheers for the info

SW

[Chilli Monster]

Again it's an absolute. We won't ask for an extension unless it looks like you will make it. "Turning pear shaped" at the hold shouldn't happen from an ATC point of view. (but that's what the 15 minute window is for). Taxy times for airports are published, you know how long it takes to push, you know how long it takes to taxy. Arrange to be off stand at the right time and the scenario doesn't happen.

Now - if you're running late then what you do on the phone to
Company Ops, and what they do with Flow is a different matter. Sometimes that's enough to get a new slot issued. If that is a case we get informed of the new slot, and that gives us the option to ask for an extension on top of that.

Extensions on extensions however - it isn't happening.

[Standard Noise]

Fuji - come to Brizzel, there aren't many of us who pander to the commercials whims once the sequence has been formed in our heads. I certainly don't change my mind, I just make it work. It's amazing what speed a Minibus can slow down to to accomodate our slower customers.
You want to see us vector an S61 with jets rapidly eating them up. I've seen them on the approach doing 48-50kt ground speed and had not a whimper from the Bus/73/75 behind.

Ain't any bullying of Air Traffic going on at Brizzel. Far too much work involved in changing things.

[Sky Wave]

Chilli

By "turning pear shaped" I meant an incident on the runway or perhaps stopping all take offs due to mayday traffic or maybe the aircraft at the front of the queue has tech probs and has held things up for 5 minutes (brakes stuck on?) etc. Does your answer still apply in those circumstances or would you make a quick phone call to flow control and hope that they'd then pull out all stops to make sure that the delayed aircraft could get away as soon as the runway was available?

Out of interest, where do you work?

Standard Noise.

It's funny you should say that. My first ever go around for real was on my qualifying solo cross control at Brizzel when a BA EMB45 was eating up the distance behind me. The controller said sorry, it's not going to work and sent me around from reasonably close in. To be fair to the controller, he'd asked me to keep the speed up but as a 30 odd hour student there was only so much that I was capable of safely doing. At least it gave me a nice view of the airfield as I did the early left turn over the top of the apron to go back down wind.

SW

[Bravo73]

Chilli

Out of interest, where do you work?


If you search through some of his past posts, it should be obvious. But I'll give you a clue - it's not quite in the South and it's not quite in the North... (And it's certainly not in the West!) ;)

[Sky Wave]

If you search through some of his past posts, it should be obvious.

Luckily his PM answered the question.:ok:

[Fuji Abound]

Filton has never been the same since .. .. .. :)

[Standard Noise]

a BA EMB45 was eating up the distance behind me

Yep, we've cured that problem.:}

[brisl]

SN - were you there the day a CAT pilot (might even have been EZY) announced on the cabin PA that they were ready early and were going to "bully" ATC into an early departure? Shame he had COM selected at the time:}