Olympics - Atlas Control

[Timothy]

The CAA hosted a workshop a couple of days ago at the Belgrano to discuss the Olympics restrictions and how they will be managed.

I will put out the slides of the presentations and charts through PPL/IR and AOPA website when I get them (they said by this weekend) but in the meantime I'd like to thank the CAA. NATS and the RAF for the massive effort they are putting on to mitigate impact on GA.

There will be impact, of course, just like there will be on all aspects of our lives during next Summer, but I really don't see what more the three organisations could be doing.

Our biggest concern, that Atlas Control will not be able to cope, appears to have been dealt with. There will be 48 controllers in four watches, meaning 12 ATCOs at any one time, each able to manage 10 aircraft, so 120 aircraft in the air at any one time; the controllers will be RAF LARS/ATSOCAS ATCOs, drafted in from the North and West (so as not to take anyone from the SE, where they will still be needed.) They will be thoroughly trained in our funny SEern ways, our waypoints, geography and topography. Aircraft in trouble will be transferred to D & D.

The controllers will be backed up by a team of experienced assistants, who will deal with FPLs and permissions. Permissions will be texted as well as sent back via the AFTN route they arrived from. If a short delay would allow you to make a flight which would otherwise be denied, then you will be allocated a later EOBT and clearance, which you will be assumed to accept.

The CAA are doing a mass of modelling on choke points and were also asking for our help on that. They will be asking other nearby agencies to assist where appropriate.

The big message is that the system will work if people are co-operative and helpful. That is the carrot. There was an implied stick if people mess the system around by putting in FPLs that they don't intend to fly.

There will be massive publicity. Our job is to help get that information to people who are not normally plugged into the information network, the biggest worries being grass strip flyers, foreign PPLs and foreign bizjet pilots.

I posted the above on Flyer and PPL/IR and a couple of people raised very specific issues. CAA/NATS have been very quick to answer them.

I think many on here would be surprised how much effort is being put into supporting GA for that month.

[thing]

Doesn't effect me but good to know that the southern mob are being looked after, well done all concerned.

[A and C]

I trust they will send the bill to Seb Coe.

[Timothy]

I think that very little of the £9.7Bn will be ending up in the pockets of UK recreational aviation.

But I hope that this thread doesn't descend into another "who wants the Olympics?" rant.

The fact is that they are happening and the good news is that CAA/NATS/RAF are really busting a gut to keep the impact low.

[mikehallam]

Sounds from the above rose tinted views as if the 'powers that be' neglected to mention the plight of all non txpdr a/c, now consigned to be trapped at their hangarage/strips inside the massive Olympics outer ring no-fly zone for one whole Summer month.

i.e. Most LAA permit a/c, BMAA flex & fixed wing microlights.

Our polite & measured proposals to them of how to provide straight out & in routes have failed to produce answers. Moreover the Olympics web advice pages unfairly indicate they won't approve/disapprove pending applications for exit/entry lanes from strips near the edge of the zone until after an appeal deadline.

Makes sense to all apparently, except the above host country aviators who appear to be relegated to less than second-class citizens !

mike hallam.

[Timothy]

That is quite true. You are permitted to formate on a squawking aircraft, and there is no published limit to the size of the formation.

The other possibility is to relocate for a month; several airfields just outside the RA are making very reasonable offers.

But I share your frustration. We did try but the whole thing is predicated on a "known traffic environment", and the Spooks would have nothing of it.

CAA/NATS cannot be blamed for this one.

[BEagle]

If you look on Welcome to AOPA UK (http://www.aopa.co.uk/) and open the Olympic Airspace Briefing Presentation tab, it will lead you to the PowerPoint presentation http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/media/3903/20111020_ga_presentation_-_instructor_package_-_final.ppt .

This was given at the AOPA Bonus Day at Duxford and is very clear indeed.

[ShyTorque]

You are permitted to formate on a squawking aircraft, and there is no published limit to the size of the formation.

A possible loophole in security?

[Lurcherman]

First day a shambles?!
Couldn't find flight plans, aircraft told to orbit as if we have nothing better to do!
It took them 20 mins not to find my flight plan despite having acceptance no.
Expecting me to waste my time and money just hanging around? Where the controllers RAF? No local knowledge?
Need to improve.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Couldn't find flight plans, aircraft told to orbit as if we have nothing better to do!
It took them 20 mins not to find my flight plan despite having acceptance no.
Expecting me to waste my time and money just hanging around? Where the controllers RAF? No local knowledge?
Need to improve.

Did you really think it was all going to work seamlessly as if nothing has changed????

[cessnapete]

Filed two plans with Skydemon over two hours ago, 10min flt from Berks strip to White Whaltam direct,simple,to refuel and return.
No reply yet , can they be that busy on a Sunday with iffy wx??

[chevvron]

It's taking them up to 5 hours to send the approval, don't ask me why 'cos I don't know; maybe the guy who does it doesn't work sundays.

[NazgulAir]

You are permitted to formate on a squawking aircraft, and there is no published limit to the size of the formation.
Impromptu formations without a thorough briefing beforehand and a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of all participating pilots are not legal.
You can't just formate on someone and ask if you can tag along! Even on the ground, if someone asked me before takeoff to lead them through the zone, I wouldnt't do it if I wasn't sure of their skills and trustworthiness.

[cessnapete]

Eventually received an Ack for two flights today 4 hours after filing, just enough time to get to strip. Once airborne all worked ok, although the initial contact frequency controllers swamped at times with 5 or so a/c standing by.
Flexibility was aso being shown. An LX reg a/c just airborne VFR in the Denham circuit, called up 132.8 as 'Farnborough LARS' and asked for his IFR clearance to Glasgow. In spite of having no R112 code, was cleared to his initial IFR fix and passed to Airways, rather than told to return to Denham.

[lenswings]

Tried to file a flight plan thro Skydemon and was informed that I was not verified to file flight plans despite registering and given login codes etc several weeks ago. Also told my map was out of date. Apparently ran out Saturday. Nobody in work so this weekend a total failure. Hope it improves.

[jxc]

the formation can't be more than 1nm apart

[DaveW]

lenswings, somebody on the Flyer forum (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=77992) has had what appears to be a similar issue to yours. Tim Dawson of SkyDemon rapidly posted a response, which worked.

It sounds like your browser has cached an out-of-date version of the SkyDemon Light software, probably dating back to the last test day. Try navigating away from the SkyDemon Light website, then using your browser's tool to delete all its temporary cached web files. Then when you go back to SDL it should download the latest version of the software, and that will itself download the latest chart when it starts.

[Unblonde]

I had the same, only for me, when I hit the Submit flightplan button, it just didn't do anything, so I thought it had gone.

Clearing the cache then trying again, led to a Submitting to Server box, followed by a confirmation email and .... 30 minutes later.... an approval :)

Alex

[Deeply Concerned]

I submitted a flightplan at 0200z for a 1300z departure by skydemon for which I quickly received a acknowledgement. By submitting at this unusual time I hoped I might catch them when they weren't too busy! By 1200z I'd heard nothing from Atlas so I phoned, managed to get through easily only to be told a text message had been sent sometime previously. No text has been received so far and its almost now STD. Anyone else had this experience? People on phone at Atlas most helpful and gave me my number.

[peterh337]

Text messages frequently don't come through, or get delayed.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Text messages frequently don't come through, or get delayed.
It's not a guaranteed service. When the sender's phone reports "message sent OK" all this means is that the message has got as far as the first SMSC which is promising to have a go at delivering. Some time, one day, if it gets round to it. It's no guarantee at all that it's going to reach the recipient.

There is no later feedback as to whether the delivery attempt succeeds or fails, so the sender has no way of knowing that it failed so maybe they should send it again.

There are other interesting features of the SMS protocol, most of which aren't implemented by either the phones or the networks. Just as an example, does your phone allow you to specify the expiry time on SMSs you send? If not, does it make up and send an expiry time of its own, and what is that I wonder? If a message is still in the network when its expiry time arrives it's just deleted.

[NigelOnDraft]

The primary acknowledgement is via the route the Flight Plan went in e.g. AFPEx, or presumably for you SkyDemon? Not sure how SD does it, but in AFPEx there is a 'FRE' message sent to your terminal / address.

NoD

[BackPacker]

If you login to the SkyDemon website (customer center or something like that), there's an area where you can manage your FPLs. I would assume that any message from Atlas would be accessible through there.

[Ellemeet]

It is a huge mess. Spend 6 hours trying to get flightplans accepted ... via Skydemon, EuroFPL and the Dutch CAA.

Got rejections on EHRD being an unknown airfield (Rotterdam:ugh:)

Ultimately had 2 flightplans in the system, had them checked oke by the supervisor. Ended up getting an approval nr for 1 plan verbally from the supervisor and a cancellation via SMS from the second plan.

Arrived at Clacton. Held for what seemed 10 minutes before I could state my message. Then had to wait another long time because they could not find my flightplan and then even later flat out refused entry because my code was incorrect.....

A huge mess!!

I ended up in where I was helped extremely well by the local club and by Irv Lee who is an instructor there. When I left I simply filed a zulu plan out of popham joining at CPT and then flew straight over R112 no sweat what so ever.


Thanks Irv and Popham

[homonculus]

I think I heard you when airborne. If you had been a low hours pilot, which you obviously were not, it could easily have turned out differently. In 20 years of flying I can't think of another instance where a ksystem has created such risk

After 18 hours of trying to get an approval and being told they were too busy, I got verbal approval. However I had to ask if I was cleared into the zone FOUR times before I got a straight answer. The quality of the controllers was abysmal

Another flight was held for 35 minutes with an approval and on time because they were too busy

Unless atlas get themselves sorted they will be literally causing more harm than they think they might prevent

[airpolice]

NazgulAir wrote: Impromptu formations without a thorough briefing beforehand and a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of all participating pilots are not legal.

Naz, do you have a legal basis for that statement?

[Tay Cough]

ANO Rule 8. Avoiding Aerial Collisions.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), aircraft shall not fly in formation unless the commanders of the aircraft have agreed to do so.

No-one with half a brain will do it without proper training and proper briefing, although the only legal requirement is for all commanders to agree.

Here somewhere.... (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf) :ok:




Edit: Besides, I'd hardly refer to 1nm separation as "formation". More like "in the vicinity".

[DC10RealMan]

I glad that I fly "Op North" where we don't have this nonsense.

[BillieBob]

Impromptu formations without a thorough briefing beforehand and a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of all participating pilots are not legal.Naz, do you have a legal basis for that statement?....the only legal requirement is for all commanders to agree.So the real answer to the question is, errr, No. The fact is that, in the UK at least, 'impromptu formations without a thorough briefing beforehand and a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities of all participating pilots' are legal, unless and until the resulting mid-air justifies a charge of reckless endangerment.

[airpolice]

Rules of the air, Rule 8, my bold.

When I read the post by Nazgulair I thought I had missed something. My understanding is that it would be legal for me to hear someone on freq in my vicinity, call up and agree to do some formation flying and we just get on with it. Foolish perhaps, unless both pilots are trained in formation work and wx is conducive to stable flight, but legal just the same.

Whether two guys from the same club decide to fly a pair of C152s as a two ship, when discussing it over a coffee or two strangers "meet" on safetycom, as long as they agree before joining up then it is legal.

So, I wonder if such "shepherding" through "non Atlas zones" might be acceptable.


Avoiding aerial collisions

8.—(1) Notwithstanding that a flight is being made with air traffic control clearance it shall remain the duty of the commander of an aircraft to take all possible measures to ensure that his aircraft does not collide with any other aircraft.


(2) An aircraft shall not be flown in such proximity to other aircraft as to create a danger of collision.


(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), aircraft shall not fly in formation unless the commanders of the aircraft have agreed to do so.


(4) An aircraft which is obliged by this Section to give way to another aircraft shall avoid passing over or under the other aircraft, or crossing ahead of it, unless passing well clear of it.


(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (7), an aircraft which has the right-of-way under this rule shall maintain its course and speed.


(6) For the purposes of this rule a glider and a flying machine which is towing it shall be considered to be a single aircraft under the command of the commander of the flying machine.


(7) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (5) shall not apply to an aircraft flying under and in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate.



The Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/734/schedule/1/made)