PPR and MATS Part 1

[IO540]

I read somewhere that MATS Part 1 states that the only reason for refusal of an ATC clearance is due to conflicting traffic.

How is this reconciled with ATC enforcing a PPR requirement?

Obviously the airport owner (if it is not a public airport) can run whatever rules he likes but how does ATC operate it?

I have noticed that at say Bournemouth, ATC asks for the PPR number but if you haven't got one they still let you land (well they did with me, but I always grovelled in that case). OTOH at plenty of foreign airports one does definitely get refused a landing clearance purely because one did not get PPR (Kerkira LGKR for example).

I was going to tack this onto the end of the long "PPR" thread but I think the new subject may bring in a wider range of input.

[BackPacker]

Just guessing here about how this may legally work:

As you said, the operator decides who may land or not. But it's also the operator who makes the runway available to ATC, when that runway is available.

So in case of, for instance, snow, it's the operator who at some point takes away the runway from ATC, clears it, and then hands it back to ATC once it's cleared. (May take a few days at some airports but I think that's the principle.)

The operator can hand the runway to ATC under whatever conditions the operator wants. I would imagine there's a standing letter of understanding between those two. And if that LOU specifies that ATC has to check for PPR numbers and refuse a landing if that's not provided, then that's what they'll do. Emergencies excepted of course.

And if it's not too busy they might actually phone up the operator and ask them what they need to do with you. The operator can then decide on the spot to let you in or not.

ATC doesn't stand alone as the almighty tower-gods at a controlled airport. A large commercial controlled airport is an ecosystem with a lot of companies working together. And sometimes the rules and regulations of one company have consequences for, or are implemented by another company.

I've got a book here at home describing this situation at Schiphol Airport. They identified something like 53 different types of organizations. Where sometimes different companies compete with each other within a specific type, so the total number of companies involved may well exceed a hundred.

[24Carrot]

I recently did an exam on this, for what that's worth. These are the boxes I was taught to cross.

ATC objectives (as per ICAO Annex 11) definitely include avoidance of collisions between aircraft, and between aircraft and obstacles, but also the orderly flow of air traffic.

It ATC become aware of excessive traffic, they should notify other units and the PIC's affected of "excessive delay".

I guess non-PPR traffic could be advised of delays exceeding their fuel reserves, or more simply told they will not get a clearance.

Perhaps one of your ATC friends will pop up shortly with the official version.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I saw several such "conflicts" at Heathrow. Eg:

1. A biz jet taxiied out and BAA rang to say his airfield slot was xxxx (about half an hour ahead). It's departure would not have delayed anyone but they were adamant that it could not go. We relayed this to the pilot who's response was that we wanted to go. BAA asked us to relay to the pilot that if he went he would not be allowed into Heathrow again. He went...

2. Another biz jet on final approach about 8 miles out. BAA said it couldn't land because it was too early for it's airfield slot. We passed this to the pilot, who broke off the approach and diverted to Farnborough. As it was established in the landing stream, no other traffic would have been affected by it landing.

Airfield "slots" issued by the airfield authority are nothing to do with ATC, which knows anything about them until bloody-mindedness (see above) comes into the equation.

At smaller places, ATC may well be the agency for PPR matters but if the pilot decides to come anyway, ATC should not refuse landing clearance. (Unless, of course, rules have recently changed which I may not know about).