Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
As a controller from another FIR (only classes A, C and G in mine), it looks very much like a staffing issue.
Also, it seems when I corrected a few typos in my post, it was moved. Apologies
Also, it seems when I corrected a few typos in my post, it was moved. Apologies
I'd agree UDT.
Timothy, when you're running with staffing limitations (several illnesses in the unit for instance) it's typical that you reduce services that will have the least impact. That may include not permitting certain activities to help manage workload, particularly when they're workload intensive and aren't routine. It minimises the disruption to the overall service and helps keep things safe.
Timothy, when you're running with staffing limitations (several illnesses in the unit for instance) it's typical that you reduce services that will have the least impact. That may include not permitting certain activities to help manage workload, particularly when they're workload intensive and aren't routine. It minimises the disruption to the overall service and helps keep things safe.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. I am sorry to be boringly repetitive but that is my point.
We are told, on the one hand, that if staffing becomes in any way an issue, the first thing to go is VFR access.
But, on the other, we have been promised that it's ok for Farnborough to plug the OCK gap, but we don't have to worry because VFR access, both transit and for other purposes, is guaranteed.
There is also a rumour of long term staff reductions at Solent which, by the same reckoning, will compromise access.
So, yes, I behaved badly on that Sunday, when this issue bit me, and I have apologised wholeheartedly, but I won't let a barrage of finger wagging about that distract me from the main issue of access rights to Class D airspace.
There seems to be a division between those who say "it's our/my airspace, we/I will decide" and those who say "it is airspace which you are licensed to operate under certain terms and conditions for the benefit of all parties."
We are told, on the one hand, that if staffing becomes in any way an issue, the first thing to go is VFR access.
But, on the other, we have been promised that it's ok for Farnborough to plug the OCK gap, but we don't have to worry because VFR access, both transit and for other purposes, is guaranteed.
There is also a rumour of long term staff reductions at Solent which, by the same reckoning, will compromise access.
So, yes, I behaved badly on that Sunday, when this issue bit me, and I have apologised wholeheartedly, but I won't let a barrage of finger wagging about that distract me from the main issue of access rights to Class D airspace.
There seems to be a division between those who say "it's our/my airspace, we/I will decide" and those who say "it is airspace which you are licensed to operate under certain terms and conditions for the benefit of all parties."
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I think you are being rather naive expecting one controller to only be dedicated to a relatively small bit of airspace. You have to remember that it is also the function of Thames Radar to control the aircraft inbound and outbound from both Biggin Hill and Southend.
Controller workload seems to be a more common problem, not just in the south.
I have twice recently been told to "stand by" and remain outside Class D for protracted periods. In one case the delay was made worse by the controller allowing other similar VFR traffic, which called up after us and was further away, into the airspace well ahead of us. Having held for ten minutes plus, we assumed ATC had forgotten us and we called again, only to receive a terse reply and told to stand by again.
In cases like Farnborough, we arrive at the situation where GA pilots have Class D airspace control forced on them, sometimes to benefit a small number of users. Then when situations like this occur, pilots are told they should be grateful for the service they have been getting in the past because they aren't paying for it. It's not surprising that folk object to the airspace grab in the first place, especially where it would create one or more potentially dangerous choke points to traffic obliged to to fly around the airspace.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: southampton
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Thames Perspective
An interesting read of a topic. I have wondered for a fewmonths now when the GA community would start kicking up a fuss about this.
The closure of SVFR has always been a pain in the rear whenit comes to Thames. As seen recently we have "thin" staff due to variousreasons and its commonly hated when you arrive at work and see the levels oftraffic expected and the lack of staff to cope with it. At the end of the daythe companys line is commercial IFR come 1st so when the traffic ramps up andyou need more sectors open on the Thames side unfortunately you know you areabout to see someone rushing down to immediately close SVFR. Its commonlyagreed that this is just a pain for all. Thames is basically forced to take-oversome of the responsibilities of SVFR such as priority helicopter and stillmonitoring for infringements. However we are also aware that this means some ridiculousrestrictions have to be put in place, like having to route round to the southto get into Battersea (not too useful when you have just departed Ellstree!)but are hands are tied, we are already annoyed that this seems to be the manningsget out of jail free card at the expense of GA and our personal workload. Yetwe are the ones getting an earful of questions as to why they have been told toremain outside, as after all we have the airspace now right? so where satthere having just been basically thrown an entire sector with the company linebeing it shouldnt be a problem you just say remain outside to everyone and tofreecall Farnborough! Or if they are inbound to land in the zone then they willget indefinitely delayed and get to them when you can. So then when someonecalls up to cut the city zone with next to nothing in the way we are leftlooking like the bad guys for saying no. If it was up to me SVFR closureprocedure wouldnt exist. So now the inevitable questions seem to have startedto be asked by the GA community maybe this will change.
Just for a little perspective, and I invite any pilot tocontact NATS about a visit to Swanwick, a request for a helicopter to transitvia City airport overhead on easterlies can take up to 3 different phone callsbefore a clearance is even given. City Radar, City Tower and Bellmarsh Prison sothey dont go to panic mode because a A109 was 5 miles away! (it happens) notto mention the attempt to balance giving enough terrain clearance yet ensuringyou dont give someone on a 5 mile final a TCAS RA (apparently the dont likethat).
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's something else for you guys to chew over....
VFR transit granted access to CTA/CTR...given a clearance limit remaining clear of the active to await onward clearance.Busy with plenty of IFR inbounds.Approx 1.5 nm from threshold..."I'm crossing the active in 2 minutes" !!
Me..."no you're not,make an immediate left hand orbit"...followed by "report visual with landing B737 3nm to the (cardinal point) of you"
Traffic commences a RIGHT hand orbit stopping half way and heading directly at the inbound...further strongly emphasised directions from me followed by instructions to fly a certain direction...this to get this clown out of the zone and out of my hair...again incorrectly followed until further remedial action taken.
Qu. Why...(and this is the 2nd such occurrence within a couple of months) should I now risk my licence,because have no doubt,if this had gone seriously wrong that is a very legitimate concern...Why should I continue (as I have done for a fairly lengthy career) to allow VFR access if one side cannot follow very straightforward instructions and honour the mutual contract?
I realise this is a different scenario from the one originally posted but I would welcome some rational responses.
VFR transit granted access to CTA/CTR...given a clearance limit remaining clear of the active to await onward clearance.Busy with plenty of IFR inbounds.Approx 1.5 nm from threshold..."I'm crossing the active in 2 minutes" !!
Me..."no you're not,make an immediate left hand orbit"...followed by "report visual with landing B737 3nm to the (cardinal point) of you"
Traffic commences a RIGHT hand orbit stopping half way and heading directly at the inbound...further strongly emphasised directions from me followed by instructions to fly a certain direction...this to get this clown out of the zone and out of my hair...again incorrectly followed until further remedial action taken.
Qu. Why...(and this is the 2nd such occurrence within a couple of months) should I now risk my licence,because have no doubt,if this had gone seriously wrong that is a very legitimate concern...Why should I continue (as I have done for a fairly lengthy career) to allow VFR access if one side cannot follow very straightforward instructions and honour the mutual contract?
I realise this is a different scenario from the one originally posted but I would welcome some rational responses.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gapster,
Just to be clear, if an IFR aircraft were to make an error, would you be questioning whether to offer a service to IFR traffic in the future?
Just to be clear, if an IFR aircraft were to make an error, would you be questioning whether to offer a service to IFR traffic in the future?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Qu. Why...(and this is the 2nd such occurrence within a couple of months) should I now risk my licence,because have no doubt,if this had gone seriously wrong that is a very legitimate concern...Why should I continue (as I have done for a fairly lengthy career) to allow VFR access if one side cannot follow very straightforward instructions and honour the mutual contract?
I realise this is a different scenario from the one originally posted but I would welcome some rational responses.
I realise this is a different scenario from the one originally posted but I would welcome some rational responses.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z Class D
Timothy....no,but the errors made by IFR traffic,in my experience at least,do not have the (immediate) potential for real grief.Also I'm not sure that the described scenario counts as an error, at least initially,as a readback of the clearance limit had been received therefore (arguably) there was no error but rather a disregarding of what had been agreed?
Timothy....no,but the errors made by IFR traffic,in my experience at least,do not have the (immediate) potential for real grief.Also I'm not sure that the described scenario counts as an error, at least initially,as a readback of the clearance limit had been received therefore (arguably) there was no error but rather a disregarding of what had been agreed?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case its a clear breach of the ANO as such there is no mutual contract. Just a failure to comply with ATC instructions in controlled airspace.
Fill out the forms and let CAA enforcement deal with it.
Fill out the forms and let CAA enforcement deal with it.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and,yes thank you,I'm aware of the obvious answer but the question still stands.This is not about tar and feathers...what about self protection for an honest ATCO doing his best in his eyes for all the aircraft requesting a service.I reasonably expect a level of airmanship and cooperation in return.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the only answer you can have.
You can't refuse access to class D because you say you can't trust VFR traffic.
There is no way VFR traffic will be more trust worthy unless there are a few public cases go through so that level of traffic get there **** together.
And letting a danger to air safety go and do there stuff in someone else airspace/ cause mayhem in class G doesn't solve the problem.
You can't refuse access to class D because you say you can't trust VFR traffic.
There is no way VFR traffic will be more trust worthy unless there are a few public cases go through so that level of traffic get there **** together.
And letting a danger to air safety go and do there stuff in someone else airspace/ cause mayhem in class G doesn't solve the problem.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and actually yes I can.I just don't have to be dim enough to say that's why.Not the way I've ever done the job and probably not the way I will do it in the future but given what occurred I wouldn't blame a colleague for opting to protect him/herself.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GAPSTER
I just don't have to be dim enough to say that's why.
We have had MATS Part 1 quoted to say that we cannot argue with a controller who doesn't offer a clearance. Fair enough, we must trust them to make the best decisions.
But now we are told by a current and active Class D controller that controllers may not be honest about why they are refusing clearance. The implication being that they can and will wield their power to grant and deny arbitrarily, according to their own prejudices about VFR traffic.
That undermines the whole premise of Class D.
All the more reason why a proper enquiry should be made into how policy is set and how it is enacted.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is a class D zone for? In my opinion it is there to protect IFR passenger carrying traffic landing at international airports. It also allows access to VFR, aircraft with the controllers authority.
One of the the above is a commercial entity, with schedule
Es to meet and large costs to pay, landing at an airport which also has time demands on its runway. The other is someone flying for p,ensure on a sightseeing trip.
Given this, which one will the controller give priority to? Remembeint that this controller also works for a commercial company dependent on the airlines for its income.
Is it time to start charging for VFR crossings??? It's a commercial world after all.
One of the the above is a commercial entity, with schedule
Es to meet and large costs to pay, landing at an airport which also has time demands on its runway. The other is someone flying for p,ensure on a sightseeing trip.
Given this, which one will the controller give priority to? Remembeint that this controller also works for a commercial company dependent on the airlines for its income.
Is it time to start charging for VFR crossings??? It's a commercial world after all.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is a class D zone for? In my opinion it is there to protect IFR passenger carrying traffic landing at international airports. It also allows access to VFR, aircraft with the controllers authority.
Have you read this thread?
It is about City Zone when City Airport is closed. So you might better ask the question what is a Class D zone for under those circumstances?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: EGXX
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking Nimmers post a little bit further - class D is to protect IFR traffic arriving at / departing from an airport but permits VFR access when cleared by the controlling authority (i.e. the bloke (or lady) at the other end of the headset).
Putting Gapsters sentiment in a slightly more constructive way, IFR jockeys have to jump through an awful lot of hoops before they can sit there and push buttons. They are professional people, trained to an international standard, constantly being checked, monitored, reported on etc.
I'd not discount the amount of training and checks Mr Smith in is PA28, indeed the CAA make it hard enough I think. However I've been on the receiving end of multiple life stories over the RT filled with irrelevant information, and blocked frequencies, and incorrect routings, which builds up a doubt in my mind - does this person really know what they are doing - after all not everyone with a licence to drive on the road can handle a car like Stirling Moss.
I've never refused VFR access to class D based on "this guy sounds a bit dim so I'm going to tell him to remain outside and pick up my Daily Mail again" but I have experienced some - how should I say? - unusual airmanship (similar to Gapsters story) one of which resulted in reporting action, so Timothy please understand that us controllers aren't out to screw over the GA by keeping them out of "our" airspace, but we may be hesitant on occasion based on what comes across on the RT.
Putting Gapsters sentiment in a slightly more constructive way, IFR jockeys have to jump through an awful lot of hoops before they can sit there and push buttons. They are professional people, trained to an international standard, constantly being checked, monitored, reported on etc.
I'd not discount the amount of training and checks Mr Smith in is PA28, indeed the CAA make it hard enough I think. However I've been on the receiving end of multiple life stories over the RT filled with irrelevant information, and blocked frequencies, and incorrect routings, which builds up a doubt in my mind - does this person really know what they are doing - after all not everyone with a licence to drive on the road can handle a car like Stirling Moss.
I've never refused VFR access to class D based on "this guy sounds a bit dim so I'm going to tell him to remain outside and pick up my Daily Mail again" but I have experienced some - how should I say? - unusual airmanship (similar to Gapsters story) one of which resulted in reporting action, so Timothy please understand that us controllers aren't out to screw over the GA by keeping them out of "our" airspace, but we may be hesitant on occasion based on what comes across on the RT.