refusing access to class D airspace?!?

[Save my bacon]

Having just read the latest GATCO magazine (yes I really did read it), I have to comment on the article about clearance to enter controlled airspace.

Apparently the General Avaiation Safety Council and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association feel that a properly announced R/T request for crossing clearance should not be refused on such grounds as "unit working to capacity".

What is pertinent is not how 'properly announced' the R/T is, but the workload of the controller.

Surely if a unit/ATCO is working to capacity then this is perfectly acceptable grounds to refuse entry into their airspace or to offer a service beyond their means. I have spent a long time working very busy class D airspace, and I can assure pilots that we do not refuse crossing clearances. radar services etc... on the grounds that we can't be bothered. Many of my colleagues fly themselves and go out of their way to assist GA traffic. If we refuse clearance then we are genuinely too busy to cope with it and/or feel it is not safe at that time.

The article also states that checking up on class D units is not an initiative to 'pillory' controllers but it damn well feels like it. Whether we like it or not, things have changed and become busier and we are unable to accommodate everything we once could. If we are in danger of becoming overloaded and feel that we are unable to take on another joiner/crosser at that present time then pilots must understand that in the interests of safety.

I feel it would be foolish to offer a service to a pilot and then find myself unable to provide it. There is a often a lot of coordination required to get someone across CAS which is time consuming, and our priority does remain IFR passenger carrying aircraft.

Whinge over.

[PPRuNe Radar]

If a unit is already working to capacity, then further IFR aircraft would be refused a slot or placed in to a holding pattern and, ergo, a clearance to enter is being 'refused' temporarily.

VFR traffic should be no different in this respect.

I guess the slippery slope is that Class D airfield units might have to start declaring their capacities and regulating to the capacity number. The En Route sectors whose airspace is Class D already do so through the CFMU.

This may lead to VFR traffic having to get PPR from the operator to find out if the capacity is predicted to exist for their flight, or having to get Flight Plans in to the CFMU system so that they can be included in any airspace counts.

But if it's what AOPA, etc, want, then they will have to put up with the system beaurocracies that the rest of the aviation world operating in busy airspace already have to.

[bookworm]

and our priority does remain IFR passenger carrying aircraft

Why?

[AlanM]

Why?

could it be because ATC at a unit is largely funded by the IFR passenger carrying aircraft?

simple economics dear boy!!

now, if you want to contribute for receiving a service please send all cheques to me!

;)

[gasax]

But what service?

As far as I can recall it is just a 'known traffic environment'. VFR traffic is still responsbile for its own separation and the only 'service' would be if or when your IFR and VFR traffic could conflict - which is a pretty small area of most Class D space.


The French (and many others) deal with this by allowing VFR traffic to freely transit their CAS, often with published routings which are in many cases very close to or even across major airports.

That does not happen in the UK and is perhaps the crux of the issue. Most ATC units seem to want to give a full traffic service - when frankly most of the time it is not needed. But the emphasis is still there.

Stand back and wait for fireworks???

[AlanM]

Fireworks indeed.....or just a bait!

The service is me talking to you and listening to life stories stepping on my Cat A or IFR traffic.

The service is me giving traffic info to you and the IFR arrival or outbound (who may ask for avoiding action)

The service is you having to hold - me co-ordinate with the tower - tower to work you across the field and me getting you back.

The service is me and my colleagues often busting a gut to get you across our zones so that you may see the sights or save 5 minutes flying time.

I agree that at some zones "cleared lanes" are a good idea but not in every case. I am guessing here but they probably don't have such small zones as we do in the SE of the UK.

Oh - and for what it's worth I don't know anyone who won't give a transit if the traffic conditions dictate it is possible.

We are not here to delay anyone - but PPL's flying VFR often forget that they are at the bottom of the food chain. (Apart from gliders of course!!!! :))

Rant over - your turn.................

[bookworm]

could it be because ATC at a unit is largely funded by the IFR passenger carrying aircraft?

simple economics dear boy!!


So let me get this straight... The CAA delegates management of a particular piece of the UK's airspace to a particular ATS provider for the ATS provider to commerically exploit the airspace and maximise its revenues? Is that right?

If that's the case, why doesn't the ATS provider simply have a policy of refusing access to its demise to those who don't pay, just like you might see 'Private property -- No trespassing' signs around a commercial property?

[flower]

I agree with you AlanM,

what is often unseen by Pilots is the amount of coordination required for what would appear a simple zone transit, we do our very best to accomodate you , we are not in the business of delaying you or rerouting you for our pleasure.

Yesterday Iwould have appeared very much like a Swan , graceful on top but paddling like no ones business underneath just to keep going.

[AlanM]

The CAA delegates management of a particular piece of the UK's airspace to a particular ATS provider for the ATS provider to commerically exploit the airspace and maximise its revenues?

IN a nutshell... YES!

As the airspace was "given" as you say to a unit for the purpose of getting PUBLIC TRANSPORT FLIGHTS safely into the airways system, yes, it is they who have priority!!!

I won't bother quoting my MATS pt 2 but at the front it details priority of flights. Yes - you guessed it - VFR transits isn't at the top!!

If you feel you don't access to any Class D and THAT IS UNFAIR you should take it the units management and/or DAP.

For what it's worth the SRG man who sat in with me mentioned not giving too many zone transits when you are busy wth other things. Other things being a multitude of stuff.......but not VFR FIS'ers!

It is far easier to work a constant stream of IFR ins and outs than a few IFR's and a load of zone transits I can assure you.

Sorry - that's just the way it is.

[flower]

Bookworm

Flight priorities are dictated to us ,the MATS part 1 tells us how we deal with different categories of flight.

Normally requests for clearances shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received and issued in accordance to the traffic situation
When two or more flights of different categories request clearance the flight with the highest priority shall be dealt with first.

IFR scheduled flights which have filed a flight plan have a higher category of flight than VFR aircraft.

[Bright-Ling]

Are you seriously saying that we should delay passenger flights just so that you can transit the zone?

Mmmmm - delay a few hundred pax just so you can route in a direct line? Am I to give an inbound extra track miles to facilitate yr desire to enter CAS on a jolly? I am sure the airlines will be greatful for burning £100's if not £1000's of more fuel to keep you happy.

We do what we can fella, but as said you just have to accept it and dry your eyes!:suspect:

get with the :mad: plot

and yes - I do fly

[gasax]

I think we are beginning to see why there is a problem!

ATC who 'own' the airspace and must regulate everything that happens within it. (Yes I know about the rules, my point is about the mindset). Zones which are considered 'small' (well they have to be otherwise in the SE there would just be one!).

And yet I can meander down the Manchester low level corridor with none of that happening. And that works (granted it would help if it were a bit wider and higher! and most of that class D is very empty).

Corridors work because they do not require you to do all the things you call 'service' and because of which you refuse entry into CAS.

As far as VFR traffic is concerned CAS should be patterned much more like a MATZ than the present vast expanses, through which virtually none of your IFR traffic actually flies. (I'm thinking here about less than 3000').

I'm not trying to pick a fight or goad anyone, but the whole concept that public access to huge chunks of airspace is governed by whether the people accessing that space pay for a 'service' is one which is by international laws illegal. There is a right of free navigation. Now if the 'service provider' puts restrictions on the access and the people who work for them keep on using the 'safety' argument do not be surprised when there is some pushback.

In the SE and other places transiting CAS is difficult. Controller workload is certainly a big issue and one which is usually sighted, but there seem to be no initatives to adapt procedures and arrangements, it's just the 'we're big, you're small' argument. If VFR traffic start logging Class D transit refusals then the size of the issue can be seen. Could the answer be as simple as having a single VFR frequency and controller at peak periods?

[bookworm]

Are you seriously saying that we should delay passenger flights just so that you can transit the zone?

I'm not saying anything, I'm just trying to understand the mindset of ATC by asking questions. So I'll keep the devil icon for now... :)

I won't bother quoting my MATS pt 2 but at the front it details priority of flights.

I can't find any reference to priorities for normal flights in MATS Pt 1 (mentioned by flower). I don't have a Pt 2 to hand (or to mouse), but I'm quite happy to believe that the details are there. You could help me by quoting chapter and verse please, if it's the LATCC Pt 2 you're refering to.

If you feel you don't access to any Class D and THAT IS UNFAIR you should take it the units management and/or DAP.

I've made my own views on the practical side of access to Class D clear in a number of threads (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=874596), and if my experience is typical then I think ATC has little to fear from GASCo's survey.

What is important to me is the basis for the prioritisation that is applied as it goes to the heart of the regulator-provider relationship that has been in place since the NATS privatisation, as well as the mandates of ATS providers elsewhere.

[flower]

The priorities of flight are a direct quote from MATS part 1, word for word.

VFR flights come beneath Normal flights thus a lower priority.

Comments about not using all the airspace available seem a little strange, Quite frankly in my limited piece of CAS I use every bit of CAS available at various times throughout my duties.

Again I do not limit zone transits and anyone who has flown whilst I have been on radar can confirm that , I may ask for an alterration of track or level and have a few times asked for orbits, but it is a very long time since i have refused zone transit and then I believe it was because I had an emergency situation at the time.

To those who feel we deliberatley limit GA and VFR traffic for commercial reasons I say visit those units on a busy day and view what actually goes on in the Ops room.
As ATCOs we do not think in a commercial mindset we think in a safety mindset.

Safety comes First at all times

[SimJock]

Does that mean that a VFR flight that has filed a VFR flight plan through class D has more chance of getting a class D clearance than a flight which has not filed a plan ?

Just curious.. never been refused yet..

[AlanM]

Does that mean that a VFR flight that has filed a VFR flight plan through class D has more chance of getting a class D clearance than a flight which has not filed a plan ?

It matters not..!

All VFR flights get through the zone (LCY/LHR for me) on an opportunity basis and subject traffic/workload. Simple as that.

Bookie..!:ok:

The MATS pt 1 talks about the priorities of flights and that they should in no way hinder IFR flights. Too busy to give a page ref but it is there!

In my MATS Pt 2, there is a list of priorities. Starting with IFR AIRWAYS inbound, then outbound, the IFR's IN from the FIR and then OUT to the FIR. I won't bore you with the full list but it goes in that manner. Then - at the bottom - are VFR flights.

Could the answer be as simple as having a single VFR frequency and controller at peak periods?

We haven't even got enough staff to man all the positions ona daily basis at my unit. The SVFR position was unavailable due to staff shortage every day of last week at LHR. Who is going to pay for these staff?

Please don't say the airlines........!:sad:

[Warped Factor]

As I read the Pt 1 (1.4.5.9) it offers IFR traffic no particular priority over VFR, it's training flights (and that could be IFR or VFR) that are right at the bottom of the pile. Both IFR and VFR are covered in the "normal flight" category.

What you will find in most of our Pt 2's though is a caveat that VFR traffic is not to hinder IFR. For example the TC Pt 2 for EGKK says....

"IFR/SVFR/VFR zone transit flights, non-standard flights and special flights are not to be permitted to affect the normal Gatwick operation unless they have been formally afforded a flight priority of Cat E or higher".

And that is the get out clause for all those that say they can't or won't approve transit flights or any other services requested for any reason, whether justified or not in some cases.

WF.

[flower]

Normal Flights :

(1) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.

(2) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit (RTF callsign EXAM)


Category Z which falls below normal flights :

Non Standard and other Flights.

[pilotwolf]

None of the above changes the fact that other countries with equally busy or busier zones manage to accomodate VFR traffic without too much trouble or denials.... why is it so difficult in the UK?

:rolleyes: :E

[Final 3 Greens]

Pilotwolf

Why is it that we don't accept the logic of the Euro?

Why is it that we implement every EU directive to the the letter or beyond, when others don't?

Why is it that the LA basin (over 40 very active airfields and airports in a space smaller the size of Essex) can offer class C (RIS) to VFR flights and acknowledgement of the tail number on first contact is a clearance to enter?

It's because we are a special case :p

I don't blame the individual controllers, they work in the system, but there's something wrong out there,

Especially when the government send me (a EGSS resident) a booklet saying that there is loads of airspace capacity across the LTMA to support 3 new runways.

[flower]

I may be wrong here but I believe the reason that the CAA are trying to find out whether or not aircraft are being refused Zone transits of Class D airspace is not about a Witch hunt but about establishing if the airspace categories are correct at a number of units.

Certainly we are all aware how much traffic levels have risen within the last 10 years and perhaps it is time that Class C airspace is introduced at certain Airfields. This of course will still mean zone transits are available by VFR aircraft but they will be under control with standard seperation against other traffic.

I'm not to sure how the GA community would react to this.

I personally like the flexibility of Class D airspace but work at a unit which is properly served by it unlike a whole host of airfields whose traffic levels have risen greatly.

I am also sure that units would like enough CAS around them to offer low level corridors to VFR transiting aircraft but we are squeezed into the minimum amount of CAS they can get away with giving us to protect our approaches and climb outs.

[Warped Factor]

Normal Flights :

(1) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.

(2) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit (RTF callsign EXAM)

So number (1) must cover an abbreviated flight plan being filed by VFR traffic on the r/t. That's a normal procedure is it not?

WF.

[JustaFew]

Having read Mr. Skinner's piece in GATCO about access to transit class D airspace, I am stunned at his arrogance.He believes that by simply announcing certain details correctly ATC should allow immediate and unimpeded transit thru' said airspace!!!

DO WOT!!!?

Try that at some airfields, Mr. Skinner, and those of you sitting on the right-hand side will see a B737 approaching you at 150kts, passing through the airplane, and departing through the left-hand window.

Safety means GAPS between airplanes, Mr.S, ALL 'planes.Wether you pay a navigation charge or not.

[Final 3 Greens]

Just a Few

I have not read Mr Skinner's article, but what you describe was achieved perfectly safely with the VFR corridor through LAX class B (A to us) airspace, which is the busiest airspace that I have ever flown in.

Your attitude, sadly, suggests a mind focused on how things cannot be achieved, rather than how they can.

We all know that UK airspace is a challenge, but posting comments like your previous unfortunately sounds arrogant, even if it was proviked by a piece that you thought was arrogant.

[strafer]

There seem to be a few controllers on this thread stuck in a civil service type mentality.
If a shop has too many customers, you employ more staff, not shut it at its busiest periods. You should remember that we are ALL your customers (and paying the govt tons of money through fuel duty for starters) and your job is to assist us, not moan because we're there.
If you are understaffed, what are you doing personally about it? Just waiting for an accident to happen so that you can say I told you so?

(All hard-working, non-moaning, helpfull and friendly controllers (which I accept is the majority) excused from this rant).

[Final 3 Greens]

I have just reviewed my copy of GASCO (not GATCO) and read Mr Skinners article.

Another poster said previously

He believes that by simply announcing certain details correctly ATC should allow immediate and unimpeded transit thru' said airspace!!!

Mr Skinner said "One the one hand, General Aviation pilots cannot expect to always have unfettered access to Class D airspace having given short notice by radio call of a requirement for tranist and in circumstances where it becomes apparent that adequate pre-flight preparation may not have been carried out. On the other hand a response from the air traffic to a properly announced request for transit by a pilot should not be refused on such grounds as "Unit working to capacity"."

I thought that it was reasonable to post this quote to allow readers to make up their own mind.

[BEXIL160]

My 2ps worth.... as a Controller and a Pilot.

Nobody so far has mentioned the phrase Duty of Care. Now, this may not mean anything to most GA pilots but is very much on the mind of ATCOs that ply their trade in class D (and E to G) airspace in the UK.

So what's is all about? Lets assume in an ideal world that GA is granted largely unfettered access to a Class D CTR, with appropriate traffic info and routings exactly as they want.

All well and good for a large number of well briefed, planned and executed VFR flights. Unfortunately some VFR flights are not so well thought out, or flown.

One day one of the "not so good" VFR flights enters class D, and gets it all horribly wrong and ends up very close to an Airliner with 130 souls on board. Avoiding each other is a joint responsibility, but at say 160kts and focused on the ILS the poor old B737 crew don't stand much chance of avoiding the non SSR equipped CUB wandering through the final approach track...... But hey, it's class D and it doesn't matter right? See and avoid, yeah? err No.

So, who's in the dock afterwards? You might well say that "Well, the ATCOs in the clear, he gave traffic info". Except that a barrister will not see it that way, nor will the relatives, nor will the public. They WILL see "130 people endangered for the sake of a joy ride" type headlines. And they may be right.

You see, ATCOs have a "Duty of Care" to all their charges, be they IFR or VFR, wherever they are. It may just be SAFER for the VFR flight to avoid class D airspace, due to the type of traffic in the CTR. The ATCO might just be doing you a favour.

It's already been stated that most Class D CTRs in the Uk are quite small. In my own (flying) experience routing around them doesn't add much time to my route, and the navigational challenge isn't beyond most PPLs, even me.

Oh, just one more thing. Fuel duty. As far as I'm aware NONE of the tax on AVGAS goes to the ATC providers at various class D airspaces in the UK, and the MoD picks up the tab for LARS. You get a VFR transit for FREE. ATC services are paid for by arrivals, be they IFR or VFR.

In the USA the FAA funds ATC (via the government). Airspace there is seen as a National Asset, available to all and funded accordingly (nowithstanding the latest FAA budget deficit). This isn't the case in the UK.

Well that's my 2ps worth. Feel free to disagree, argue the toss, whatever.... life's too short etc etc

Rgds BEX

[Eggs Petition]

I am shocked by some of what I have read here.

Trying to keep my temper. Here r some thoughts.

Pilots, please try to understand most ATCOs do their utmost to assist u.

We are employed by companies (be they airport authorities or NATS) who are subject to the same laws of commerce as any other business. Staff and facilities must be paid for. Simple economics would dictate priorities, let alone safety but let me come back to that. Understand that 50-80% of the normal daily workload for an average regional airport approach ATC unit could eaily be made up of traffic that produces no revenue for the said airport. Hmmm. Overall I could say that GA doesn't get such a bad deal after all?

Airspace. Every unit I have worked at has not had enough airspace in my view. That includes class A and D, both in the UK and abroad. From a GA viewpoint u may think that the airspace is pretty empty but from an ATCO standpoint I can assure u it is not.
It is excrutiatingly difficult to try to change airspace boundaries and I would offer my humble opinion that SAFETY is not given the weighting that it deserves. Small CTRs and CTAs increase ATCO workload, decreasing efficiency. How efficiently I am able to work has a direct impact on the services I am able to provide. There are some pilots in the GA (and Military!) community who appeal against CAS expansion who may like to consider that their interests may be better served by adopting a different view.

And the UK is not the only place with problems. Let's not adopt too much of a "grass is greener" mentality.

Access. As a keen outdoors person I have some sympathy with the GA community on this issue. Be it freedom to roam on moorland or in the sky it is the same concept of access. Safety is my paramount concern, though, as an ATCO. Please try to understand that see and be seen rules which may work very well between a couple of Cessnas are rather redundant when it comes to airliners travelling between 230-180knots (approx initial and intermediate approach speeds. Pax pay money for their seat on an aeroplane. They deserve certain levels of safety and protection. Your right to play is, rightly, of lesser importance.

As ATCOs we r increasingly thinking with a "at the subsequent court of enquiry..." mentality. Please understand that we do not wish to be doing so. It is a distraction that we must increasingly face, though. A military ATCO recently went through a court martial process lasting some considerable time that involved charges relating to the provision of a RIS. The ATCO involved in the mid air collision on the German-Swiss border is, I understand, still on manslaughter charges from both Swiss and German authorities. There have been court decisions recently in Holland that give grave cause for concern. Personal versus corporate responsibility is an issue for us. Should we make or be viewed to make a mistake, (be they of our own fault or due to human factors, technical failures, lack of infrastructure... the list is endless) it has very serious repercussions. My livelyhood, conscience and freedom are ultimately at risk every time that I am at work. I don't wish to sound melodramatic, only trying to make a point.

ATCOs are professionals. We take a pride in our work. That means trying to provide the best service that we can to everyone that we can all of the time.

If it feels to any of the GA community that ATC aren't being helpful, remember that we can feel that the reverse is true. We could all do ourselves a favour by tyring to understand the fuller picture.

At the end of the day my frustration is with those in the GA (and Military!) world who seem to have a lot of opinion but little true appreciation of modern commercial civil aviation.

[Final 3 Greens]

BEXIL

non SSR equipped

I would regard this as being a responsible and highly reasonable judgement for instructing an aircraft to remain outside controlled airspace. I wouldn't even waste your time asking if my transponder was u/s.

Is there any ATCO out there who accepts Class D traffic without a verified squawk?

You get a VFR transit for FREE

I don't see it that way. The arrivals pay for the system as it suits their businessness. Providing VFR transist is compensation to those of us who are affected by the system. I would say it's a fair trade off and personally I try to avoid class D as part of that deal, using it rarely and appreciating the benefits it gives all involved.

Eggs Petition

Understand that 50-80% of the normal daily workload for an average regional airport approach ATC unit could eaily be made up of traffic that produces no revenue for the said airport

Thats the price you pay for owning the franchise. Commercial thinking often involves taking the bigger picture and GA/Mil are stakeholders in your business activities.

Please try to understand that see and be seen rules which may work very well between a couple of Cessnas are rather redundant when it comes to airliners travelling between 230-180knots

I really hope that you will consider this very rash statement and re word it.

Firstly, I do not understand the comparison between aircraft under IFR and VFR. Fast jet traffic often does operate under VFR and light aircraft often operate under IFR - the physics of the aircraft are no different, its the management of the different rules that is the issue.

See and be seen is the final safety protection in ANY type of flying and to dismiss it as being 'rather redundant' in airliners is extremely worrying, since it questions exactly what understanding you have of airmanship.

There have been many incidents over the past years where crashes have been avoided by airline pilots seeing and avoiding.

If you had said 'more challenging when flying an instrument approach' if I would have agreed with you, but' rather redundant' is way off mark.



Your right to play is, rightly, of lesser importance.

Really.

[BEXIL160]

Final....

You might well regard being non SSR equipped grounds for a refusal to enter Class D. Many of those who have raised this issue (access to Class D) are of a very different opinion.

The Reason I said non SSR equipped was to make the point that TCAS does not "see" non equipped a/c, making the task of the hypothetical B737 crew MUCH more difficult.

BUT.... just supposing the CUB has a transponder with mode C, it wanders into path of the B737 and a TCAS RA is triggered. A go- around is flown, safely, but at some expense to the PAYING Airline. This type of event could well occur regularly if unfettered access to given to all VFR flights.... end result? Demands from the PAYING airlines to turn the CTR into class A with virtually NO ACCESS to GA.

I repeat. CTRs ain't big. ATC will grant access when it is safe to do so and having taken into account all airspace users needs. Please note : It may not be safe to grant you access and the safer option FOR YOU may well be to spend perhaps 5 minutes more routing around the CTR. Or is a 5 minute saving worth the risk? Not in my, or any ATCOs, book

Rgds BEX

[Eggs Petition]

Final 3 Greens... how many moons are circulating your planet?
Where is it in the universe? Have u ever been to Earth?

Now, I am being childish, I know, but really: what do u expect when u seem to imply that light aircraft operating in a final approach area is simply "more challenging" for all concerned?!!!

As a passenger on a train would u be happy with children playing on the track ahead?

My points were an attempt to promote understanding. ATC objectives, roles, responsibilities etc can be difficult to convey it seems.


:mad:

PS And yes I do try to accommodate non SSR a/c as much as any other. Any request for CAS transit should be accommodated subject workload, which is subject to traffic levels and complexity, equipment and airspace limitations. Any deviation of track or refusal is for good cause. This is not a game we r playing.

[Final 3 Greens]

Bex

The Reason I said non SSR equipped was to make the point that TCAS does not "see" non equipped a/c, making the task of the hypothetical B737 crew MUCH more difficult.

I'm well aware of this and also the possibility for spurious TA/RA - for this reason I am always very careful to go to standby on the ground at airports and also to use the transponder appropriately at other times.

If you can fit non transponder traffic in your airspace safely that's fine (I'll bow to your knowledge/judgement), but whilst monitoring Essex (formerly Stansted), they regularly decline non transponder a/c and I can't argue with their logic (once telephoned them , asked politely why and had a full and reasonable explanation from an ATCo pleased that a GA pilot had called in.)

Your point[QUOTE]

Please note : It may not be safe to grant you access and the safer option FOR YOU may well be to spend perhaps 5 minutes more routing around the CTR. Or is a 5 minute saving worth the risk?

[QUOTE]My point in earlier mail[QUOTE]

personally I try to avoid class D as part of that deal, using it rarely and appreciating the benefits it gives all involved



Eggs

[QUOTE]Now, I am being childish, I know, but really: what do u expect when u seem to imply that light aircraft operating in a final approach area is simply "more challenging" for all concerned?!!!

Err - well that's not what I said actually, but now you say it, it is done safely in many areas, but LAX was the best example I experienced.

And you still haven't grasped my airmanship point, so I'll assume that you are a terranian, to quote a suitable memory from my childhood as you seem still to be in yours ;)

[BEXIL160]

Perhaps a more useful question to be posed would be:

How many GA VFR pilots really are seriously disadvantaged by not being able to transit class D whenenver they wish ?

As I have said, and so far many pilots seem to agree, including Final etc, routing around Class D is not a major issue as they are quite small pieces of airspace in avation terms.

Is there REALLY an issue here? Are the MAJORITY of pilots upset? Or is it the minority with a chip on their shoulder about ATC making a big noise?

I wonder...... ;)

Rgds BEX

[Eggs Petition]

Final, let's not start to cast aspersions about airmanship...

As u said SEE+BE SEEN is the FINAL safety protection. There are one or two other measures that should, in CAS, be reasonably taken beforehand!

Regardless of flight rules the physics of a/c ARE very different indeed. A large jet will be travelling faster and be less manoeuverable than the usual GA type a/c. Obvious?!?:rolleyes:

A large pax carrying jet should not in my humble opinion have to worry about the continual possibilty of having to take avoiding action. The self loading freight may not be too happy about playing russian roulette any more than the professional driver!:eek:

What may seem like a large chunk of CAS to u in a Cherokee, appears far too small to accommodate modern (faster, larger) aircraft and traffic levels from my earthbound view in front of a Radar display.:hmm:

[ferris]

Am I correct in gleaning from this thread that VFR aircraft require 'clearance' to operate in your class D? If so, aren't you in fact operating the airspace as another class? Why not reclassify it as such?

[Eggs Petition]

Ferris:

Class D airspace:

Flight Rules: IFR + VFR

A/C Requirements: ATC clearance before entry. Comply with ATC instructions.

Were u thinking of Class E in which VFR flights do not require clearance?

There is no class E in UK airspace, or at least none that I know of. We could be viewed to have a slightly different mindset here in the UK in that we think in terms of "contolled" and "uncontrolled" airspace. Class E is not "controlled" from our perspective in that it is not a "controlled" environment, VFR being able to fly through at will. Here, outside of our airways,TMAs, CTAs and CTRs we generally have class G up to FL245.

Hope the sun is shining out there for u. The wx here has a different mindset too!;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Eggs

Firstly, I do not understand the comparison between aircraft under IFR and VFR. Fast jet traffic often does operate under VFR and light aircraft often operate under IFR - the physics of the aircraft are no different, its the management of the different rules that is the issue.

i.e. the physics of the aircraft type do not change depending on the flight rules - obviously the physics of different aircraft are different.

A large pax carrying jet should not in my humble opinion have to worry about the continual possibilty of having to take avoiding action

Now I begin to wonder which planet you come from, since this possibility is all around us, e.g.

- airliners operating under RAS in open FIR between CAS
- 'turbulence commanded' level changes
- gliders crossing airways out of radar or radio contact
- TCAS incidents
- hot air balloons not painting and popping up in CAS
- human errors (e.g. private flights infringing without clearance, level busts)

etc etc etc

I would hope that the crew of any airliner carrying me were VERY alert to the continual possibility of taking avoiding action, even though it rarely happens.

See and avoid may be the last protection in the sequence, but to dismiss it as 'largely redundant' as you did is a very dangerous mindset to get into.

As an example, there are two engines or more on airliners and they are very reliable, so why bother learning the skills to deal with a shutdown, when the statistics prove that it is largely redundant?

Some issues are absolute, not relative and the skill of maintaing a good look out falls into the former category - it is far from being redundant.

A large jet will be travelling faster and be less manoeuverable than the usual GA type a/c. Obvious?!?

Maybe, maybe not. What is the roll rate of a Fokker 100 compared with a 172 or PA28 .... ask a F100 driver - I was amazed at the answer. Also a jet has much higher vertical manoeuverability.

NB: a PA28RT or PA32RT will be cruising around the approach speed of many airliners. I have cruised versions both types at around 140kias.

So whilst I understand the thrust of your point and agree that we should not throw airliners all over the sky and scare the pax, you are over simplifying.

[Eggs Petition]

Oh dear Finals.

My point was not that the pilots of scheduled/charter airlines (most of whom I think u will find ARE flying IFR:confused: ) should not look out of the window, rather that it should not be the prime method of ensuring that there are no lumps of metal in front/below/above of them. Not a wholly unreasonable view?

RAS to IFR is a minefield of liability to ATCOs and ATS providers. CAS D (or A)is there for a reason. We wish to provide a safe operating environment. If that means, unfortunately, a GA a/c can't have exactly what he/she wants: so be it. It is in the interests of safety.

We do try our best.

[NudgingSteel]

A couple of corrections to the above posts:

Eggs....Class E airspace indeed exists n the UK, mainly in the big chunk of Scottish TMA around Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. (Belfast also have some).If you read the latest book of Airprox investigations, you'll see one involving a 737 and a microlight in Class E. See and be seen indeed, although this isn't always appreciated by IFR crews travelling at 250kt.

And to the PPLs who feel VRF and IFR could be integrated even closer: I am aware of several Airprox reports filed by IFR crews who felt that VFR traffic had got far too close, when in fact the VFR was visual and safely avoiding - either due to TCAS or crew interpretation, "safe separation" depends on which plane you're sitting in....

[Final 3 Greens]

Nugding Steel

I agree with your point and GA pilots need to understand how it looks from the other side.

One of the reasons I stay away from 'big iron' comes from the experience of a radio conversation between me, Socal approach and a United 727 over LA... (something like this, can't remember the exact words, it's a few years ago)

Socal "United XXX you have Arrow traffic opposite direction, 4 miles out of 2700' for 4000'."

United XXX "United looking"

Socal "Arrow XXX you have a 727 opposite direction 4 miles, out of 9000' descending for 6000'"

F3G "Arrow XXX looking"

F3G "Arrow XX visual"

United XXX (sounding slightly concerned) "United still looking"

Socal "United XXX, traffic now at 2 miles"

Socal "Arrow XXX traffic now 2 miles"

United XXX (now sounding worried) "United not visual, still looking"

F3G "Arrow XXX visual"

United XXX (now sounding very worried "United still not in visual contact"

F3G "727 traffic now passing well overhead"

United XXX "Thank the lordy for that, guess you guys can see a 727 against the sky better than we can see a Cherokee down below"

"safe separation" depends on which plane you're sitting in Felt okay for me, doubt it felt great for the United crew.

However, the old system of the VFR corridor over LAX always seemed to work really well, since traffic types were not mixed and everyone knew where they stood.

[FlyingForFun]

Hope you don't mind me popping in here with a quick observation. Seems to be there's a bit of a chicken and egg situation going on. Let me explain:

At the moment, controllers are saying it's sometimes not safe to allow light aircraft through their Class D because the CTRs and CTAs are so small. Private pilots are against the expansion of controlled airspace because they view it (rightly or wrongly) as "off limits" in many cases.

Now, if we could make this controlled airspace bigger, would that make it easier to route us little guys through it? Would we then remove the "off limits" stigma which private pilots attach to controlled airspace? Only problem is that while that stigma is there, private pilots will opose any expansion of controlled airspace, therefore the stigma will remain in place.

Does that make sense?

FFF
----------

[Final 3 Greens]

Bex

How many GA VFR pilots really are seriously disadvantaged by not being able to transit class D whenenver they wish ?

Good question and hopefully the GASCO research will quantify this.

Whether some people are whingers or genuine victims should then become more transparent, as presently it is more a matter of opinion

:}

FFF

Now, if we could make this controlled airspace bigger, would that make it easier to route us little guys through it? Would we then remove the "off limits" stigma which private pilots attach to controlled airspace? Only problem is that while that stigma is there, private pilots will opose any expansion of controlled airspace, therefore the stigma will remain in place.

FFF - good summary. Sadly, there is also the perception in the GA community that when CAS is created, it is likely to be 'off limits' as you put it, due to the ATSUs being 'up to capacity' etc and frankly, having a mindset that puts GA as a very low priority - for example, see comments from Eggs Pectation which do not exactly reassure.

However, if CAS was expanded with workable VFR corridors, then that's a different matter and maybe this is an option to accomodate all.

[bookworm]

Am I correct in gleaning from this thread that VFR aircraft require 'clearance' to operate in your class D? If so, aren't you in fact operating the airspace as another class? Why not reclassify it as such?

ferris

The ICAO definition of class D requires a clearance for VFR aircraft. The US (and perhaps other places that you're used to) has a filed difference, requiring only two-way radio communication with the ground facility, not an explicit clearance.

There is certainly an argument that the ICAO definition of class D was intended to produce a complete known traffic environment rather than a completely controlled environment (which is what class B is for).

As others may have commented, states other than the UK, for example the US, seem to operate class D quite happily on the basis of visual separation between VFR and IFR. The US also has different separation standards (http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp7/atc0709.html#7-9-4) for IFR and VFR within class B, hence in practice US class B operations and UK class D operations are not very different.

Finally, it's worth noting that a large number of UK airports currently surrounded by class D would qualify for class B under US criteria. Provided the separation standards were modified to the US versions, conversion to class B would not require a substantial difference in behaviour, as flower suggests may be an appropriate outcome from the GASCo survey.

[Timothy]

May a contented pilot slip in a word?

I fly my Aztec the length and breadth of the country, quite often, and I always plan a straight line and ask for crossings.

I am very rarely refused.

I guess in order of frequency I ask for crossings of:
London City (nearly all the time)
Solent (a lot)
Leeds (a lot)
E Midlands (quite a bit)
Teesside (often)
Luton (now and again)
Birmingham (fairly regularly)
Newcastle (from time to time)
LHR (used to a lot, now not so often)
Stansted (once in a while)

...and I reckon that I have been refused, what, twice or three times in the last couple of years. Thames (who almost always say 'yes') sometimes just have to say 'no', and Luton has said 'no' once. Apart from that my experience is wholly positive.

The only zone I really don't like is Manch. They do seem to say 'no' on principal.

For some reason I never ask Gatwick, I always fly round. I might try it next time.

So the message from me is 'problem, what problem?'

One other thing, that may or may not be relevant, is that I am an ATPL using PPL privileges, so I've got 'the voice' and am fairlly crisp on R/T. I don't know if that's relevant or not.

W

...just to add to my previous...

Edinburgh are very odd about their Class E. I have flown in there VFR, being in radio contact with Edinburgh Approach (or radar, I forget) and been given instructions to follow certain routes.

My response has been to follow the instructions as if they were requests and then to say 'Please confirm that this is Class E airspace and you have me on your strip as VFR?' which has been greeted very frostily :}

[Eggs Petition]

FFF:
Yes, I think that at some ATCUs the ATCO workload could be eased by a moderate increase in airspace. This I believe could release capacity to cope with freecalls, airspace transits etc. Albeit clumsily, that is a point that I was trying to make.

As I and other ATCOs have said, we try to be helpful and accommodate all requests for service but whether Final 3 Greens likes it or not our first priority is to IFR a/c, in respect of their separation and sequencing. That is a clear legal obligation and we and our employers have a duty of care and are responsible should an error be made. The easier it is for us to work these a/c, the more spare capacity we have for other things.

I think it is a shame that some GA pilots view CAS as off limits or with trepidation, suspicion, concern etc. I would support and encourage all measures to change this.

WCollins may have a point with Voice, R/T. If we are busy then a crisp confidently delivered request may be easier to deal with than one that is more hesitant and unsure sounding. However I say again, we do try to help everyone.

Bear in mind what u hear on the R/T is only part of the picture. U r not hearing the telephone/intercom coordination and requests that the ATCO is dealing with. Likewise u do not know what equipment limitations he/she is struggling with. If an ATCO sounds curt then it could just be that they are working hard or dealing with a problem. They don’t mean to be rude and probably would like to be more helpful.

Final 3 Greens, I think it unfortunate that u seem to think that we ATCOs have a mindset that is against G/A. That is not the case. Please try to see a situation from the other side of a radar screen as well as from another cockpit.

:ok:

[BEXIL160]

Final.....

How many GA VFR pilots really are seriously disadvantaged by not being able to transit class D whenenver they wish ?

Unfortunately I fear the GASCO research may be flawed. It seems to actually ask the question "Who's UNHAPPY here?", rather than "WHO is Content with the way things stand?" (Like WCollins).

It is a truism that those that complain the most are often a minority. Those that are content rarely make their views known (ask any mid term government).

Rgds BEX

[PPRuNe Radar]

Eggs Petition

Do u spk 2 pilots n txt spk as wll ?? :rolleyes: :p

[Final 3 Greens]

Bex

I see where you are coming from. Let's hope that you are wrong and the outcome is helpful. As others have said, there may be some different ways of handling airspace that would be good for all of us. I would be comfortable operating under US 'class B', also class C for that matter, since I have knocked up a number of hours there and find it works very well. Whether we could support 'flight following', a major safety plus IMHO, is another matter.

Eggs

Final 3 Greens, I think it unfortunate that u seem to think that we ATCOs have a mindset that is against G/A. That is not the case. Please try to see a situation from the other side of a radar screen as well as from another cockpit.

I was feeding back the anecdotal view that many in GA take. Like WCollins, I am satifisfied with the service too, but for different reasons.

I often 'check in' with Essex for a FIS, mainly so they know my intentions, especially when I'm operating under their airspace around North Weald - its a win win and they are always very helpful.

Also, as you can see in the dialogue with Bex, I do respect the views of ATCOs and do appreciate the other side of the radar screen to some degree, although not so well as the inside of a SEP.

Maybe you ought to read the following extracts from your posts on this thread and reflect on the tone your are sending. I believe your other statements that you try to be helpful to GA, but there's also a bit of a mixed message in there too ;)

"At the end of the day my frustration is with those in the GA (and Military!) world who seem to have a lot of opinion but little true appreciation of modern commercial civil aviation."

"Pax pay money for their seat on an aeroplane. They deserve certain levels of safety and protection. Your right to play is, rightly, of lesser importance."

"And the UK is not the only place with problems. Let's not adopt too much of a "grass is greener" mentality."

"whether Final 3 Greens likes it or not our first priority is to IFR a/c"

"If that means, unfortunately, a GA a/c can't have exactly what he/she wants: so be it. It is in the interests of safety."

[DC10RealMan]

An interesting point by Bexil140 and the "Duty of Care" with which we were all trained and are throughly familiar. At a recent meeting with "The Management" at Swanwick about lack of staff and overloads on the FIR where a FIS is provided The assembled FIR staff, when this subject was brought up were told that ATC staff do not have a "duty of care" by a very senior member of the management staff at Swanwick. I am not convinced that would stand up in court as a defence!.

[ModernDinosaur]

A couple of points from a relatively new PPL operating out of Redhill just on the northern edge of Gatwick's zone. The perceived wisdom at Redhill is that you don't ask Gatwick if you want to fly south (e.g. to Shoreham) but you fly via Guildford. I've never actually worked out the track distance, but my guess is that Redhill-Guildford-Midhurst-Shoreham is about twice as long as Redhill-Shoreham direct - and that's a big cost difference to a PPL!!! I have heard a few instructors recently saying that they have tried asking Gatwick for zone transits and have usually been accommodated - I will try it myself next time I'm heading for Shoreham and report back.

My second observation comes from a recent flying holiday in the US. The "base airfield" I chose was 7nm south of San Francisco international, and two of the standard departures from the airfield routed underneath the final approach for SFO with a ceiling of 1500', and I frequently heard zone transit requests being granted through the SFO class-bravo airspace, typically "remaining west of route 101, not above 1500 feet" or similar.

My most memorable detail from that trip, however, was the real benefit of a service the US ATC are able to offer called "flight following" which is roughly akin to the UK's RIS. On one flight I heard a comercial "United XYZ" flight being advised of a Cessna ahead, then heard the controller call me with "Cessna 12345 your traffic is a Boeing 737, descending through your altitude, passing half a mile to your right." They had me on TCAS, I had them visually, and a 737 half a mile away nearly two miles up in the sky is a VERY impressive sight.

I can't say for certain, but it seemed to me that Norcal had enough controllers to be able to offer every GA pilot the flight following service, and the radar coverage was excellent - travelling along several 2+ hour sectors I never heard "you are approaching the edge of my radar cover, squawk VFR, freecall enroute", something I hear frequently when flying in the south east of the UK. Yes, I did get passed from one controller to another, but save for one occasion when I goofed it, this was almost a non-event. My guess is that this is a necessary side-effect of the US making almost all of their airspace Class-E (I think!!!) except around airports where Class-D is normal (even for a lot of "little" airfields), Class-C common and Class-B for the "biggies". Yet through all of these, the GA pilot in a clapped out C172 is welcome to fly.

I know the US and the UK fund ATC differently, but to the GA pilot the difference is VERY noticeable, and having the security blanket of 'RIS' available everywhere to everyone who wants it certainly makes the airspace seem a lot more safe. My impression is that it makes pilots more likely to talk to the controllers, and that in turn makes the sky safer - instead of unknown blips dodging around the edge of controlled airspace at unverified heights (if they've even turned SSR on) and talking to no-one, suddenly you have identified, height-verified blips who you can talk directly to and issue instructions to if the situation goes suddenly pear-shaped. Surely that's safer for all, IFR, VFR, passenger carrying, training and "playing"?

I'll post how my trial with Gatwick Class-D goes next time I need to give it a go.

Cheers,

MD.

[ATCbabe]

Edinburgh are very odd about their Class E.

Can assure you that Edi works its class E airspace by the book. Dont know why you were asked to fly a route, all I can say is that certainly is not the norm and I have never seen it done.

The only thing we do sometimes is ask VFRs if they are happy to fly below a certain altitude, usually below 2000'. This is generally around the 10 mile final points of our approaches, so that we can desend IFR traffic down to 3000' above.

However as it is class E they can refuse, but most of the time they will help us out and obligue.

As for transits through class D, usually I will always try and accomodate but on the rare occasion I have refused it is because, in my humble opinion, I have been to busy to deal with it or some other situation, such as an emergency, has been happening at the time. As already said just coz the frequency is quiet doesn't mean the controller is sitting back drinking coffee!!

[Scott Voigt]

MD;

I won't say that our staffing is any better than in the UK or most of Europe, in fact in many of our facilities the staffing is getting quite thin. I think that the mind set of most US controllers is just a bit different than that of most European controllers when it comes to GA. Not a good or bad thing, just different, as is our view and approach to how we do our airspace and restrictions to flight.

Sometimes to our chagrin, we probably take on a bit more than we should, just due to our way of doing business. We don't have the limits that you hear of in many European circles. We do have recomended numbers that a certain sector should work, but they are always guidelines and are never hard numbers. ATC is a bit too difficult to give them hard numbers. There are sectors where you can find your self working a LOT of departures and a couple of overflights mixed in and it is not straining you too bad. But then another day, you only have 2/3's of the departures but the rest are overflights or military with a lot of strange requests and just puts you straight down the pooper... <shrug> Our job is like that every day over here. Ya just never know what you are going to end up with <G>. There are times where I do have to just say no to additional work load items like flight following (RIS) to additional aircraft. The good news though is that in about 15 to 20 minutes, I generally have things sorted out enough that I can get back to the other aircraft. If the other aircraft was a C172, you can bet that he/she is still out there. <G>

Take care

Scott

PS. Glad that you enjoyed your flight here... The Bay Area was always one of my favorite places to fly...

[ratsarrse]

Pax pay money for their seat on an aeroplane

Yes, but private pilots probably pay a whole lot more for *their* seat on an aeroplane! Sorry, couldn't resist that.

[Final 3 Greens]

Ratsarse

I had let this point go, but now you mention it.......

As a frequent business traveller earning lots of euros for UK PLC, why should other people be allowed to travel on leisure, blocking airports, over loading infrastructure etc., when all they are doing is having some 'fun', which is getting in the way of my serious business?

Perhaps we should appoint 'fun' controllers to stop it all getting out of hand ;)

[Save my bacon]

Well glad I started that!!

It's actually been a very interesting debate which has encompassed various other issues and obviously riled more people than just me.

I can only come back to my original point which isn't really concerned with the economic issues, just safety safety safety.

As Just a Few mentioned, the issue isn't how 'properly' the r/t is delivered. I feel the issue is whether the controller has capacity to safely offer the required service.

Maybe we do need a big shake up of perceptions in the UK or to be introduced to different classes of airspace - but how likely is that to happen in the immediate future?

I will continue to try and accommodate requests from G/A pilots to the best of my ability. I do feel a 'duty of care' to a/c outside CAS, and even when they only want a FIS (or that's all I can offer) I will upgrade the service to point out conflicts that I feel could become dangerous.

There will still be times, however, where I feel (over)loaded to a point where I cannot possibly accommodate a transit/service and at this point it will be refused. This may be a staffing issue or a lack of extra frequencies issue, but either way I won't let myself 'go under'. This is my 'duty of care' to all other aircraft I am speaking to at that time.

And finally as a matter of interest - as a G/A pilot, if you request a transit through the final approach at a time when we are 'packing' inbounds, would you rather be given a clearance to enter the zone, and end up orbiting for maybe 10 mins until there's a gap, or would you rather be instructed to route around?

[strafer]

You're right SMB, this has been a top thread.

I feel that I understand an ATCOs 'mindset' a little better now. Hopefully, some of them understand GA pilots' concerns a little better too.

[NudgingSteel]

I can't speak for the controller(s) concerned in W Collins' post, but there's a slightly odd scenario at GLA / EDI due to the Class E airspace. For example, when a VFR leaves EDI's zone to the east and gets into the Class E TMA, they can perfectly legitimately climb to just under 6000' without permission from anybody (or even transit through this airspace without being in R/T contact with anyone, with no transponder etc). At the same time, ATC are decending IFR traffic for rwy 24 to -ultimately - 2300' through this bit of sky. Nothing ATC can do to stop it, either. Traffic information is passed but there's no requirement for avoiding action, even if it's a head-on, same level situation. Other folk have mentioned the 'duty of care' requirement which is why VFR transit traffic is sometimes asked if they can accept "not above 2000' for the next 5 miles" or something similar, to avoid lengthy traffic information or big track deviations for the IFRs.

Essentially it seems that commercial pilots have come to expect that if they conduct the whole flight in controlled airspace, they will be separated at all times from other traffic - any more commercial crews care to comment on this thread?

[Timothy]

ATCBabe

All I can say is that it has happened a couple of times that I have been routing up once to Dundee, the other Inverness, passing to the East of your Class D, in your Class E, but reasonably close to the boundary between the two (say two miles).

I can't remember the exact form of words, but along the lines of "G-xxxx, turn right 020, we have an inbound positioning for the ILS; can you descend to 2000' maintaining VMC?"

"G-xxxx radar heading 020, leaving 2,500 feet for 2,000, VMC VFR. Please confirm that I am in Class E airspace and you have me down as VFR."

"G-xxxx, affirm, you are in Class E airspace."

Both times a female ATCO (but clearly not you ;) )

I am not really complaining...just commenting that there seems to be a disparity between the airspace needs of EDI and its provision.

W

[Charlie32]

Firstly may I say what an interesting thread this is.

I would like to contribute a few observations.

I agree that in general the service from ATCOs in UK is very good for GA pilots. Most of the time I have received excellent service from them.

With regard to comments about the crispnes of R/T, of course the paradox is that it is probably the less confident less experienced pilot who is more in need of assistance ( and from a safety point of view more likely to get lost and infringe your CAS). When I was even less experieneced than I now am, the thought of having to work out an impromtu navigation diversion (becasuse you don't know when a clearnace will or not be given) was considerably more taxing than it is now, so perhaps ATCOs should try and accomodate the hesitant GA pilot more than the confident. (Even though this may tax his/her patience!)

With regard to SFO my only experienence was similar to other posts. I was simply asked to do an orbit while they inspected the gear of a heavy which had declared emergency, and then cleared to transit the overhead en-route to the bay, with thanks from the controller for co-operating with them!!

With regard to more CAS, I like most GA pilots have a concern that like the motorways, the more you build, the more traffic you attract.

With regard to the priority of commercial traffic over GA "pleasure rides", well this is really a quality of life issue. Is my chosen recreation any less deserving than that of the the package holidaymaker using a no frills airline packing them in on as short a turn around as possible? I think this is a mute point, but in a free democracy, where the freedoms of most minority groups are held sacrisanct, lets hope that we never get to the point where certain recreational activities are prohibited in favour of others. Otherwise those who live under the flight path of LHR might one day succeed in stopping those commercial joy riders!!

[1261]

I've always been a bit fuzzy on one issue which has arisen in this discussion; why do we always assume that IFR traffic has priority over VFR traffic? You can argue that the airport operator expects such from his [commercial] ATC provider, but leaving that and other practical considerations to one side, where does it actually say that IFR traffic has priority?

The MATS Part 1 defines (Section 1, Chapter 4, Page 6) "Flight Priorities". It states that "Normal Flights" are:

"Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and are conforming with normal routing procedures."

It also mentions exam flights, but let's ignore that now.

For VFR traffic transiting class D airspace in the UK, the normal method of filing a flight plan (UK AIP ENR 1-10) is to pass over the r/t "the limited information required to obtain a clearance for a portion of flight (e.g. flying in a control zone...)". So, for VFR traffic to be operating in class D airspace, it must by definition have filed a flight plan. Assuming that such traffic then goes on to conform with "normal routing procedures", I can see no reason why he should be afforded any less priority than his IFR colleagues.

As I said above, I'm not saying that for practical purposes on any given day, VFR traffic won't end up some way down the priority list - just that I can't find any legislation which states that it should be so.

Now comes the part where someone more experienced than myself says "didn't you read the other side"....!

[Warped Factor]

1261,

If you look back to an earlier post of mine in this thread you'll see that, taking Gatwick as an example, there's an entry in the MATS Pt 2 that effectively puts VFR at a lower priority.

I assume that whoever had that entry put in had the appropriate authority to do so.

WF.

[1261]

I'm pretty sure that there's no such entry in ours (it mentions SVFR, however) but then I can't check at home because we no longer get a copy of the MATS 2!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Save My Bacon

To quote Churchil "More jaw jaw, less war war."

I've learned a lot from Eggs and Bex's postings (and others too) and I agree with you that this has been a good thread. :O

[Timothy]

Let's not assume that a VFR flight does not have an FPL filed.

I file every flight, in order to ensure that spurious route charges are not raised.

The fact that almost no-one is aware of the plans (only the departure and arrival towers) is not relevant, mine is an example of "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and are conforming with normal routing procedures."

Not really making any point, just commenting.

W

[JustaFew]

Final 3 Greens


My response is based on the inference of what Mr Skinner wrote.
That by simply announcing the correct details, transit a/c
would be allowed thru'.I maintain my response, as it is based on current experience of Class D airspace with an NDB on a 4 mile final, that NDB also being a common waypoint for a/c wishing to transit the CTR VFR north to south or vice versa.A/c flying E-W
on final approach crossing a transit route, hope you see the picture.It doesn't mean that transit a/c are always told NO, as WCollins experience of Manch CTR suggests; simply that, on occasion, if the flight paths look likely to conflict, VFR transit a/c will be informed in advance and advised of a possible re-route.
Duty of care is also an ATCOs responsibility. I haven't yet met an ATCO who would allow this possible confliction to become an actual collision just to allow a VFR flight through. My attitude is if it will work safely, do it. If a confliction, or worse, looks likely, then re-route the VFR transit.

Extra staff would help but even they could not change the potential conflict that exists. An answer would be for VFR transit a/c to use the Manch low level corridor, and at times to avoid a conflict this has been done.

Manch say NO (allegedly), Liverpool say good possibility!!!


Hope this clarifies my response.

[Final 3 Greens]

Just a Few

I see your point in your particular case.

Just out of interest, what airspace is above you? If you have instrument traffic passing over the NDB at circa 1400' (assuming a 3 degree glide) who 'owns' 2400 up? (and can't aircraft be routed there, or is it TMA?)

As I said in an earlier post I don't blame controllers for the way the system works, but experience of the US does show that creative thinking can be applied safely to the benefit of all.

The LAX VFR corridor worked very well, with traffic routing well above the airport approach and departure area.... and the LA basin is pretty busy, rather more so than the average class D airfield in the UK. (It did require pilots to observe the rules and transgressions resulted in firm action.)

Although this may sound astonishing to you, I did get an invite en route from a controller to visit VFR in an Arrow "I might have to hold you for 20-30 minutes to fit you into the sequence because your airspeed is a bit slow, but you are very welcome" Then again, 4 parallel runways do give you lots of options if your mind is focused on making something happen. I confess to bottling the opportunity!

But then again, AOPA (US) are very large and strong pressure group with a determination to represent their members in a way that is most un-British (no slight to AOPA UK intended here, its a much smaller organization in a different environment.)

[GroundBound]

Some weeks ago I became embroiled in a thread on Class D airspace penetration on this forum, and the comments on this thread seem to contain much the same sentiments. I abandoned the discussion (being considered a "purist" by some) and on the recommendation that I was losing the battle and to "give it up".

It was my conclusion, though, that there is a problem with class D, in that the separation rules are well defined, but the "powers-that-be" in the ATC world have placed requirements on controllers which make it impossible for them to implement Class D, as it should be (see below). Indeed, for many of the contributors to that thread, and this one, the point is made that in some places they consider there is too much traffic to permit safe VFR operations in Class D. In practice, it seems that in those places ATC operate the airspace like Class C for safety reasons (duty of care etc.), rather than class D.

I have no problem with this from a safety point of view. If the traffic density warrants class C, then make it so! That will not prevent GA access, but it will at least make the airspace class match the actual ATC implementation, and it may well make it safer for all.

What seems to be wrong is the myth spread about how much Class D airspace exists in the UK in order to give good access to GA, when in practice it appears to be slightly less than expected. My point is, If its operated like class C for safety reasons, call it class C, not D. If it is safe to operate as class D, then call it class D and operate it like class D. Also, it should be ABSOLUTELY clear that in class D a controller cannot be held responsible for lack of separation of VFR flights when it is specifically NOT his function.

I reproduce some of the comments from the other thread in support of the case.

Extracts from ATC manuals and documents
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.

3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.

Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a risk of collision exists.


Controller comments
There are occasions when VFR transits are possible but sometimes you need to 'control' them by specifying a route or altitude but this is not to provide separation but to build in some traffic avoidance. This is one of the requirements for IFR traffic inside Class D airspace.

I think my colleagues and I have got the point across to you that we operate Class D in a way we think discharges our Duty of Care and sustains our licence and pension.

I know in an ideal world you are right, but this is the real world. And before you ask, someone somewhere has decided we do not have Class C airspace in the UK. So we don't.

[Timothy]

I come back to asking "is there really a problem?"

My experience of asking for Class D penetration is really quite large, and I am a happy bunny ('cept Manch) so what is there to fear from GAAC doing their survey and finding out that this is all a storm in a teacup?

W

[Final 3 Greens]

WC

I suspect that you are partly a happy bun because you have ATPL level skills and confidence that help you get clearances.

It will be interesting to see what the GAAC survey shows and I wonder if we maybe have a training issue with some PPLs who are turned away because the controller is busy and reacts (understandably) instinctively to avoid having his/her workload increased by the perception that 'this one may be difficult to work.'

Despite the impression that I may have given, I have seldom been declined a class D transit, although I don't request them anything like as often as you, since my flying allows me easily to circumvent in most cases.... but I wonder if this has anything to do with my training, where I learned at a busy ATC airport and became organised in my thinking and quick and accurate on the com box.

[ModernDinosaur]

As promised, a quick report on my experience with Gatwick and a zone transit. I was flying from Goodwood to Redhill witha planned route via Guildford when I thought I'd give it a try. My first call was to Gatwick Director as I passed 1000' on climbout from Goodwood requesting a direct routing to Redhill. At the time Gatwick appeared relatively quiet (mid afternoon on a Friday) and were using runway 26.

The controller was very helpful and patient with my adequate-but-not-quite-perfect R/T (I forgot the aircraft type!), giving me a squawk (FIS only though) and radar vectors to clear the climbout track from Gatwick. Once north of the centreline, I was given own navigation through the zone to Redhill. I estimate the transit saved me five minutes compared to my planned route via Guildford, which is the equivalent of about ten quid on the aircraft I was flying.

All in all an excellent service. Thank you, if you happen to be reading this.

MD.

(edited to correct typo)

[Timothy]

ModernDinosaur

Thank you for that report, next time I am doing Biggin - Shoreham, Goodwood or Bembridge I'll give it a whirl, thanks to your encouragement :ok:

W

[Timothy]

Well....

I decided to put it to the test today...my track to LFBV was BIG DCT SFD at about 0800Z and back again at about 1600Z and on both occasions LGW gave me a direct transit on track at not above 2000' VFR.

What more could I ask for?!

Keep it up, guys :)

W

[Andrew Sinclair]

I have had a similar experience recently from Redhill to Shoreham in a C172. The frequency appeared quiet and so we asked and were given a Radar Control Service through the zone and once clear to the South resume own navigation.

This was one of the few (i.e 2!)occasions I have done this through Gatwick, it appeared a little easier than own navigation insofaras I just did what I was told turn left heading xyz, turn right heading abc etc. I kept a close eye to nail the altitude and heading and remained aware of my position so I could pick up the nav when released.

[MasterCaution]

Just to add another positive experience....

Before Sunday I had never flown in controlled airspace (only asked once before but too much IFR traffic about), on Sunday I flew through the Luton CTR twice, once over the field. Thank you Luton Approach!

MC.

[Topofthestack]

final3greens.

what you describe was achieved perfectly safely with the VFR corridor through LAX class B (A to us) airspace, which is the busiest airspace that I have ever flown in.

You may have felt safe and comfortable in your little plane overflying LAX but probably had no idea of the extra workload or possible disaster sequence you could have set in train.

Scott Voigt can probably help me out here, but when I visited LAX TRACON a few years all the controllers there hated that VFR corridor over the top of LAX. Everytime there was a VFR transit they had to amend the go-around procedure to stop below the transit and if there was a departure, it also had to be stopped below. If I remember rightly, a departure I watched got stopped at around 2000ft after take-off. Not much problem for a heavily ladend B747 on a hot day, but you try stopping off a B737/ Airbus at a low altitude! Any stop-off below the SID level is a disaster waiting to happen, it makes increased worload for everyone: someone, someday, is bound to forget the altitude restriction, and for what, just to let someone save a few miles and show off to their mates!

I recall an AEROMEXICO inbound to the LAX region colliding with a VFR transit who was not where they should have been. In the UK, let's keep things as they are please!!

[Cosmic Wind]

In my experience the principle reason for the apparent lack of clearances through class D is the low standard of RT shown by a large proportion of GA pilots.

You only have to listen to the lack of understanding of the LARS service to reason with a controller in letting someone of questionable ability to transit in the vicinity of commercial traffic. It's simply a matter of being willing to jepordise the safely of the principle task of vectoring IFR flights.

I do not believe that the UK has a problem with controllers withholding clearances. It does with regard to the standard of flying and RT of a great many light aircraft pilots.

[Timothy]

Cosmic

Your point has been discussed at length here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97722&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

The consensus seems to be that most people think that R/T standards do make a difference, a few insist that it matters not a jot.

W

[bookworm]

I recall an AEROMEXICO inbound to the LAX region colliding with a VFR transit who was not where they should have been. In the UK, let's keep things as they are please!!


Not really a VFR transit. The Cherokee in question apparently penetrated the LA CTA inadvertently. It wasn't using, or trying to use, a corridor.

[Bright-Ling]

WCollins....

Never mind good RT skills - I've heard that bribery in the form of fine Italian pasta works wonders!!

;)

[blondie118]

THIRTY FEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

[foghorn]

So if I got a slab of Stella delivered to LTCC with my aircraft's call-sign on the gift label, would in guarantee me City, Luton and Stansted CTR crossing every time? ;) :}

[Topofthestack]

Try it, let us taste the product and then we'll see. By the way, there are about 200 controllers at LTCC so it'll have to be quite a few slabs;)

[Bright-Ling]

foghorn - of course it would.

Just address it to Thames Radar...........

[Jerricho]

With some of the Beer Monkeys here.............better make that truck-load of Stella!

[Northern Highflyer]

Wouldn't it help to say you are a ppruner ? :E

Many times on a trip I have been tempted to ask the ATCO if they are a member and what their handle is...:p

[Spiney Norman]

No Way! Our bosses would love to know who we are...Ooooh I can feel Menwith Hill tuning in as I type! Got to go!!

[MasterCaution]

Many times on a trip I have been tempted to ask the ATCO if they are a member and what their handle is...

A few months ago I did hear another pilot on frequency ask the FISO (an ATCO on his day off) if he was "the guy on PPRuNe" or similar, the handle was mentioned in the subsequent exchange. Not too hard to guess though as it was Old Warden and there had been a PPRuNe thread regard procedures for event shortly before.

MC.

[ModernDinosaur]

MC said
A few months ago I did hear another pilot on frequency ask the FISO (an ATCO on his day off) if he was "the guy on PPRuNe" or similar, the handle was mentioned in the subsequent exchange.
I trust the exchange was as per CAP413...!
MD

[Keef]

A fascinating thread! I've been following for a long time.

I'm essentially with WCollins. I get virtually all the transits I ask for, sometimes with a slight delay or a rerouting, but usually "as requested".

Often, I've been even more chuffed when the helpful ATC folks have arranged a handover to the next unit along my path - without me asking (or sometimes, even knowing they could do that).

Years ago, I was refused a transit by Essex Radar, and growled (elsewhere) about it. Several ATC folks replied, and suggested I should visit and watch what they do.

Having seen LTCC, Luton, and Swanwick, I have a better understanding of what goes on, and that helps a lot. (Thanks to Warped Factor and Aceatco for that education. Much appreciated.)

I'd suggest that all pilots should visit their local ATC and one of the big centres - it really does help.

I don't argue with the ATC folks about airspace classification - that's down to someone else, and yes I do have some beefs about that! My top bugbear is the Class A down almost to sea level from Southampton to the Channel Islands, which forces me to route across a large chunk of France - under threat from the French military if I get it wrong. I really don't see the justification for that, especially not as Class A.

[AlanM]

Having seen LTCC, Luton, and Swanwick

You mean you have never visited Thames/SVFR? You know we are here for you and WCollins should you want to see what we do!!

(and explain some things to you)

[Timothy]

Alan

As you know, I have visited Thames/SVFR and found it fascinating. I just don't know how you guys keep so many balls in the air. The day I was there was the most recent "hurricane" and it was fascinating being in the tower watching your colleagues...er..."discussing" whether to change to 23 (a major financial and safety decision) and seeing aircraft fleeing westerly runways for South Westerly ones (Thames were pleading with Biggin to stay open to take some overflow that Stansted was finding difficult to manage.)

On the more general point, I flew today from Biggin, entered LHR at Fairoaks, routed Ascot to WOD, then through the Lyneham Zone to land at Filton, then straight through Brum, through EMA, then LBA and Teesside to land at NWC, and exactly the same route back ('cept I didn't bother 119.9 on the way back), which I make 1 Class A and 10 Class D zones* in one day and I was never asked to deviate from my route, change my level or change flight rules once. The closest I got was EMA saying "maintain your present heading" then 5 minutes later "resume own navigation" (the beam bar hadn't moved anyway.)

I say again and again...there is no problem.

W

*12 if you count arrivals and departures.

[AlanM]

WC

I know you have old boy.......but you are always welcome - especially as we are with the big boys now at West Drayton!

People probably complain as they don't know what we can offer. For example....

1. Nice Try to the light aircraft (G registered) who asked to go from Booker to BIG direct!! (said "I didn't think you would let me but thought I should try"!!!!)

2. Good effort for the French Heli pilot who was surprised he couldn't route Denham direct to DET!

So when refused they end up in the group who never get access to CAS.

Seriously - apart from the point about professional/confident sounding RT - I am sure you asked for REALISTIC routings each time. No wonder you got what you wanted!!

It's all about education me thinks!!

See ya old boy...

[SimJock]

Yes WC, a very convincing demonstration of what can be done, believe him everyone else it can be done. I shall be testing this new found knowledge on Gatwick next time I'm airborne , last time I tried with them they didn't even reply to me after several calls, so maybe this time will be different.

Gotta go.. to my elocution lesson :-)

[Warped Factor]

SimJock,

Yes WC, a very convincing demonstration of what can be done, believe him everyone else it can be done. I shall be testing this new found knowledge on Gatwick next time I'm airborne , last time I tried with them they didn't even reply to me after several calls, so maybe this time will be different.

As an 'umble occasional Gatwick approach controller we don't train folk to ignore r/t calls.

If they didn't reply the chances are they did not hear you or you were trying on the wrong frequency ;)

Always feel free to request transit, but please just a little forethought in what you ask for.

WF.

[SimJock]

WF
"If they didn't reply the chances are they did not hear you or you were trying on the wrong frequency "

Ahhhh yes ! that'll be it then, bit naughty of that other LGW traffic to be on the wrong frequency too though ;)

Then again maybe I was 'out of radio range' at MAY ;)

Perhaps I was just unlucky.. I'm sure you're all a great bunch of guys and girls at LGW and I look forward to receiving my next clearance from you all real soon :D :ok:

[Warped Factor]

SJ,

Then again maybe I was 'out of radio range' at MAY

Stranger things have happened, especially with our equipment :)

I'll keep an eye out for you next time I'm down that end of the ops room :p

WF.

[Tony Bowers]

Warped Factor

Dont' worry too much, Sim Jock was actually jockeying an Airbus Sim on the ground near MAY at the time...not surprising you didn't pick him up on the wireless :}

Tony

[Warped Factor]

TB,

Ahhh, that explains a lot.

Tell him to try shouting louder next time :D

WF.

[mark147]

On the more general point, I flew today from Biggin, entered LHR at Fairoaks, routed Ascot to WOD, then through the Lyneham Zone to land at Filton, then straight through Brum, through EMA, then LBA and Teesside to land at NWC, and exactly the same route back ('cept I didn't bother 119.9 on the way back), which I make 1 Class A and 10 Class D zones* in one day and I was never asked to deviate from my route, change my level or change flight rules once. The closest I got was EMA saying "maintain your present heading" then 5 minutes later "resume own navigation" (the beam bar hadn't moved anyway.)

How about you write an article for one of the GA magazines telling everyone how it's done?

Those who don't have the benefit of reading pprune would surely appreciate some of the "hints and tips" about what routes are likely to work and which are not. I've learnt quite a lot from threads such as this but I'm sure there's lots more to it.

One thing I'd like to know is how you cope with a situation where you need to talk to many different people in quick succession. e.g. you said you transitted London via Fairoaks. How do you manage to talk to two people at once...?

Mark

[Timothy]

Watch this space :}

W

[Timothy]

Well, in August I said Watch this spaceand I meant it.

If you read my article in the February edition of Flyer magazine (should be hitting the newsagents about now and be delivered to subcribers over the next few days) you will see that I have not only written a bit about penetrating Zones (mostly Class D) but also did a little experiment to test some of the theories put forward here.

Let me know what you think,

Will

[AlanM]

WC

Looking forward to the article........ and the ltter's the following month!

We need to meet up for THAT curry revisited "near my location.....OVER!"

:)

(God I love Merlothttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/love2.gif)