Glasgow ATC to ban zone transits in July and August
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
Through the BMAA, Strathaven Airfield has now started what I hope will be a dialogue with Glasgow ATC to see how we can best mitigate any safety aspects of this.
I would ask three things - I can only ask, we are a small airfield in uncontrolled airspace not far outside Glasgow's zone:
The first is to remember that we are at 847ft amsl. Our circuit height is 1,000ft and so the downwind leg is at 1,847ft amsl. I know a typical Glasgow request has been, in the past, remain clear of controlled airspace and not above 2,000ft on the QNH.
THIS WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH OUR CIRCUIT!
The second is that we use Safety.com - 135.475 - as our frequency. It is for aircraft to aircraft use, so do not expect a reply from the ground. And we may have non-radio aircraft operating here. So no reply does not mean no traffic!
(as a suggestion, while the approved format is to start with the airfield name and then add message, we would suggest ending with the airfield name too - because people often don't hear the first word)
The third one is for those going through the corridor between Prestwick and Hunterston. Please keep a very very good lookout. This is obviously going to be a much busier piece of airspace than usual.
Hopefully we will all have a happy summer and Glasgow's six new recruits will settle in well.
Through the BMAA, Strathaven Airfield has now started what I hope will be a dialogue with Glasgow ATC to see how we can best mitigate any safety aspects of this.
I would ask three things - I can only ask, we are a small airfield in uncontrolled airspace not far outside Glasgow's zone:
The first is to remember that we are at 847ft amsl. Our circuit height is 1,000ft and so the downwind leg is at 1,847ft amsl. I know a typical Glasgow request has been, in the past, remain clear of controlled airspace and not above 2,000ft on the QNH.
THIS WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH OUR CIRCUIT!
The second is that we use Safety.com - 135.475 - as our frequency. It is for aircraft to aircraft use, so do not expect a reply from the ground. And we may have non-radio aircraft operating here. So no reply does not mean no traffic!
(as a suggestion, while the approved format is to start with the airfield name and then add message, we would suggest ending with the airfield name too - because people often don't hear the first word)
The third one is for those going through the corridor between Prestwick and Hunterston. Please keep a very very good lookout. This is obviously going to be a much busier piece of airspace than usual.
Hopefully we will all have a happy summer and Glasgow's six new recruits will settle in well.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear all,
Through the BMAA, Strathaven Airfield has now started what I hope will be a dialogue with Glasgow ATC to see how we can best mitigate any safety aspects of this.
I would ask three things - I can only ask, we are a small airfield in uncontrolled airspace not far outside Glasgow's zone:
The first is to remember that we are at 847ft amsl. Our circuit height is 1,000ft and so the downwind leg is at 1,847ft amsl. I know a typical Glasgow request has been, in the past, remain clear of controlled airspace and not above 2,000ft on the QNH.
THIS WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH OUR CIRCUIT!
The second is that we use Safety.com - 135.475 - as our frequency. It is for aircraft to aircraft use, so do not expect a reply from the ground. And we may have non-radio aircraft operating here. So no reply does not mean no traffic!
(as a suggestion, while the approved format is to start with the airfield name and then add message, we would suggest ending with the airfield name too - because people often don't hear the first word)
The third one is for those going through the corridor between Prestwick and Hunterston. Please keep a very very good lookout. This is obviously going to be a much busier piece of airspace than usual.
Hopefully we will all have a happy summer and Glasgow's six new recruits will settle in well.
Through the BMAA, Strathaven Airfield has now started what I hope will be a dialogue with Glasgow ATC to see how we can best mitigate any safety aspects of this.
I would ask three things - I can only ask, we are a small airfield in uncontrolled airspace not far outside Glasgow's zone:
The first is to remember that we are at 847ft amsl. Our circuit height is 1,000ft and so the downwind leg is at 1,847ft amsl. I know a typical Glasgow request has been, in the past, remain clear of controlled airspace and not above 2,000ft on the QNH.
THIS WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH OUR CIRCUIT!
The second is that we use Safety.com - 135.475 - as our frequency. It is for aircraft to aircraft use, so do not expect a reply from the ground. And we may have non-radio aircraft operating here. So no reply does not mean no traffic!
(as a suggestion, while the approved format is to start with the airfield name and then add message, we would suggest ending with the airfield name too - because people often don't hear the first word)
The third one is for those going through the corridor between Prestwick and Hunterston. Please keep a very very good lookout. This is obviously going to be a much busier piece of airspace than usual.
Hopefully we will all have a happy summer and Glasgow's six new recruits will settle in well.
Regarding the area around Hunterston, there is a real problem here if the couldbase does not allow you to fly over 2000ft. There is effectively no gap between the Hunterston restricted zone and the Glasgow zone to the NE so if no clearance is given by Glasgow, you will be forced to fly out to sea to the west- not an enviable place to be in a single engined aircraft.
Finally, I agree that the uncontrolled airspace between Prestwick and Glasgow will become busier in the absence of Glasgow clearances. So as well as keeping a good lookout could I ask all pilots to switch on any lights/strobes they have and transponders or other electronic conspicuity devices- more and more aircraft are beng fitted with FLARM, PilotAware etc.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: wishaw strathclyde
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the slow reply.I fail to see where I gave the " brilliant glasgow and Scottish controllers" a hard time.My post was directed at the atc management inadequancies and the resultant increased risk of collision due to a a higher volume of traffic being funelled into a very narrow corridor and in indeed our Strathaven circuit as already pointed out by X-ray alpha.I hold the controllers at Glasgow and Scottish in the highest regard and really feel for their increased workload and know they will still help us humble vfr pilots when we really need them.
Refusals of transit can (and I am beginning to think, should) be reported by pilots here:
https://apply.caa.co.uk/CAAPortal/se...?formCode=qau2
I am not some sort of militant right-to-roam pilot, indeed I have on more than one occasion cancelled a transit request after listening to how hard a controller is working, but I did make my first refusal report recently when a previously helpful controlling airport refused me (and to my mind considerably reduced the safety of my flight) when their frequency was not busy. I have had a lot more transits granted than refused (up the Solent is a favourite when I take friends down that way, thank you the ever helpful Southampton controllers for always saying yes) but it does feel that service levels are deteriorating. In this Glasgow case (where I recently had a very simple overhead transit at 5500 which made my flight quicker and safer) where they say "our airspace" rather than national airspace over which we have been granted the privilege of controlling for the safety of our customers but not their exclusive use.
Anyway, use the link, report your refusals.
It's all a great pity, I know that controllers are good people who will work hard to help us in a crisis but the national disease of trebles all round for the bosses and damn the rest of you makes me ever more reluctant to talk to ATC. On my most recent flight around north and east London, it sounded more like Farnborough Radar were acting as traffic police than as aids to safe and expeditious flight (I think that was the phrase when I did Air Law).
https://apply.caa.co.uk/CAAPortal/se...?formCode=qau2
I am not some sort of militant right-to-roam pilot, indeed I have on more than one occasion cancelled a transit request after listening to how hard a controller is working, but I did make my first refusal report recently when a previously helpful controlling airport refused me (and to my mind considerably reduced the safety of my flight) when their frequency was not busy. I have had a lot more transits granted than refused (up the Solent is a favourite when I take friends down that way, thank you the ever helpful Southampton controllers for always saying yes) but it does feel that service levels are deteriorating. In this Glasgow case (where I recently had a very simple overhead transit at 5500 which made my flight quicker and safer) where they say "our airspace" rather than national airspace over which we have been granted the privilege of controlling for the safety of our customers but not their exclusive use.
Anyway, use the link, report your refusals.
It's all a great pity, I know that controllers are good people who will work hard to help us in a crisis but the national disease of trebles all round for the bosses and damn the rest of you makes me ever more reluctant to talk to ATC. On my most recent flight around north and east London, it sounded more like Farnborough Radar were acting as traffic police than as aids to safe and expeditious flight (I think that was the phrase when I did Air Law).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To openly declare that we are second class citizens is frankly outrageous. We spend a fortune on kit so we can comply with rules in controlled airspace, we pay a fortune in VAT and fuel duty and we're entitled to airspace access if we want it. Raise a MOR if it's refused.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey, all getting a bit militant here...
By all means file whatever you want to file. I really do get your wish to access/transit controlled airspace safely. Realistically you know when the airspace is busy though and ought to expect a delay if you want a safe transit (or route around). Fast jets, even some of the faster turboprops versus relatively slow props/helis is not a great mix on conflicting tracks. It's about your safety too after all.
Yes ATC likes to "push tin", but they like doing it safely.
By all means file whatever you want to file. I really do get your wish to access/transit controlled airspace safely. Realistically you know when the airspace is busy though and ought to expect a delay if you want a safe transit (or route around). Fast jets, even some of the faster turboprops versus relatively slow props/helis is not a great mix on conflicting tracks. It's about your safety too after all.
Yes ATC likes to "push tin", but they like doing it safely.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey, all getting a bit militant here...
By all means file whatever you want to file. I really do get your wish to access/transit controlled airspace safely. Realistically you know when the airspace is busy though and ought to expect a delay if you want a safe transit (or route around). Fast jets, even some of the faster turboprops versus relatively slow props/helis is not a great mix on conflicting tracks. It's about your safety too after all.
Yes ATC likes to "push tin", but they like doing it safely.
By all means file whatever you want to file. I really do get your wish to access/transit controlled airspace safely. Realistically you know when the airspace is busy though and ought to expect a delay if you want a safe transit (or route around). Fast jets, even some of the faster turboprops versus relatively slow props/helis is not a great mix on conflicting tracks. It's about your safety too after all.
Yes ATC likes to "push tin", but they like doing it safely.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would I expect a delay? I'll accept a level and vectors and that should easily keep me out of the path of arriving and departing traffic. As it happens I can transit Glasgow area above their airspace flying IFR under Scottish service, always excellent, but that's not really the point.
Forgive me, I'm not familiar with the Glasgow CTR...what's the standard missed approach procedure there and what's the vertical limit of the CTR?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Scotland
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glasgow CTR is Surface to 6000ft and above that (to FL 195) is the Scottish TMA- also Class D. I do not think I have ever asked for or needed a clearance into the Scottish TMA but perhaps I should now give it a try! A bit excessive on the way from Strathaven to Bute but maybe worth a try to/from Oban or Glenforsa. Would need to climb to the south of Strathaven though to avoid the Glasgow CTA to the north (3500-6000ft).
I am not being entirely serious about this but, despite the fact that I have almost always found Glasgow controllers very helpful (and not asked for a clearance if they are clearly very busy), the management need to be reminded that the ATSU is there to provide a service to all pilots. And as was suggested by JOE-FBS, it is not their airspace but a public asset.
I am not being entirely serious about this but, despite the fact that I have almost always found Glasgow controllers very helpful (and not asked for a clearance if they are clearly very busy), the management need to be reminded that the ATSU is there to provide a service to all pilots. And as was suggested by JOE-FBS, it is not their airspace but a public asset.
Last edited by Forfoxake; 7th Jul 2017 at 23:41.
One of the big problems is that there is a lot of CAS around Glasgow/Edinburgh that is no longer used/ needed and should have been released to class "G" a long time ago. Since the removal of the cross runway the airspace associated with that has been wasted for years and caused controllers work load to increase by controlling something the really didn't need to.
Also, the rules of class "D" are quite clear IFR is separated from IFR and traffic information is given on VFR with heading to avid given on request, i suspect these rules are not being complied with.
Lets have a NOTAM temporarily and immediately releasing blocks of unused airspace to allow recreational fliers to go about their business in safety.
bb
Also, the rules of class "D" are quite clear IFR is separated from IFR and traffic information is given on VFR with heading to avid given on request, i suspect these rules are not being complied with.
Lets have a NOTAM temporarily and immediately releasing blocks of unused airspace to allow recreational fliers to go about their business in safety.
bb
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dundee
Age: 56
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glasgow ATC
I fly regularly (few times weekly) as a GA pilot from Glasgow, I’m aware of the current difficulties NATS Glasgow are experiencing. I’m happy to assist and work with them regarding their restrictions of flying times. It’s short term pain for long term gain. I believe the majority of GA aviation at EGPF have a fantastic working relationship with Glasgow ATC and continue to work with them during these difficulties, I’m convinced this will pay dividends long term. I personally think it’s wrong and childish to post private correspondence on forums such as this.
Very happy aviator from EGPF
Very happy aviator from EGPF
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall from the last extension of controlled airspace around the central zone that Glasgow had the largest and statistically emptiest Class D airspace in the UK. And yet they are not prepare to provide sufficient resources to staff it?
There really needs to be some level of sanction to ensure this wonderfully British incompetence is suitably punished.
There really needs to be some level of sanction to ensure this wonderfully British incompetence is suitably punished.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being one of the voices of "Scottish Information" 119.875 for the past 21 years I can highly recomend the friendly and efficient service that we can provide you with whilst flying around Glasgow's controlled airspace. Whilst talking to us and if transponder equiped you will be asked to squawk 7401. This will identify to both Glasgow and Edinburgh ATC that you are recieving a "Basic service" from Scottish info. We are here to help and hopefully smooth your flight. We work very closely with both Glasgow and Edinburgh ATC and often coordinate flights that we think may be an issue to them. The service is friendly and free so next time you are transiting the airspace try giving us a call.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dundee
Age: 56
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall from the last extension of controlled airspace around the central zone that Glasgow had the largest and statistically emptiest Class D airspace in the UK. And yet they are not prepare to provide sufficient resources to staff it?
There really needs to be some level of sanction to ensure this wonderfully British incompetence is suitably punished.
There really needs to be some level of sanction to ensure this wonderfully British incompetence is suitably punished.
With regards to ATC manpower to facilitate the “large” airspace, I think you’ll find the remit of NATS Glasgow is to facilitate traffic in and out of EGPF, any work for GA is a courtesy, let’s not jeopardise that kindness by slating them on public forums! Show a bit of common sense please!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBW,
Good point, well made!
119.875 and 7401 are the numbers.
Skydiver666,
The change from Class E to D was well-planned long before the airprox. The person in charge at Glasgow who was driving the change, moved jobs and airport and the change proposal lost a little momentum.
Unfortunately, it took an airprox to re-energise the change proposal, and that change was rushed and the opportunity to properly examine Glasgow's airspace needs was missed.
(The airprox was between a glider and the 757. Glider pilot was on Cumbernauld's frequency and had been on Glasgow's radar until shortly before the incident. As a Glasgow-based pilot flying two or three times a week from there, you will be aware that there are several places where the choice of frequency is not obvious, to say the least. The professionals on the airprox board reported that the glider pilot had right-of-way and that all parties had "fully discharged their responsibilities". So no "bogeys" or "poor airmanship". )
Board's report is here: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uplo...%202011085.pdf
Lots of things have changed since then: some further changes to Glasgow's airspace over Whitelee Windfarm, the introduction of listening squawks, the annotation "area of intense microlight activity" near Strathaven, etc.
But reading the report, it does mention that Glasgow ATC strongly suspected there was an aircraft in the area, had re-routed CAT and warned them to lookout. The key, to me, re-reading it after all these years and changes, is that Glasgow ATC also contacted Scottish FIR to check if they were in communication with the aircraft.
So hence my first point here: 119.875 and 7401 are now the key numbers when near Glasgow this summer.
I fully agree with you that the Glasgow controllers are top-notch professionals. We are lucky to have them. And no-one was luckier that day than the occupants of that 757 that such a capable controller was on duty that day to use their training, experience and instinct.
The problem we are now seeing at Glasgow is due to a whole range of factors outside the control of Glasgow ATC. Much of it, I suspect caused by "head office".
And if the root cause is with "head office", there is a risk that similar traffic restrictions may be on their way to other ATC ops nationwide. This goes completely against the perceived wisdom that an Air Navigation Service Provider has an obligation to make its services widely available, not - as you suggest - as a "courtesy".
Good point, well made!
119.875 and 7401 are the numbers.
Skydiver666,
The change from Class E to D was well-planned long before the airprox. The person in charge at Glasgow who was driving the change, moved jobs and airport and the change proposal lost a little momentum.
Unfortunately, it took an airprox to re-energise the change proposal, and that change was rushed and the opportunity to properly examine Glasgow's airspace needs was missed.
(The airprox was between a glider and the 757. Glider pilot was on Cumbernauld's frequency and had been on Glasgow's radar until shortly before the incident. As a Glasgow-based pilot flying two or three times a week from there, you will be aware that there are several places where the choice of frequency is not obvious, to say the least. The professionals on the airprox board reported that the glider pilot had right-of-way and that all parties had "fully discharged their responsibilities". So no "bogeys" or "poor airmanship". )
Board's report is here: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uplo...%202011085.pdf
Lots of things have changed since then: some further changes to Glasgow's airspace over Whitelee Windfarm, the introduction of listening squawks, the annotation "area of intense microlight activity" near Strathaven, etc.
But reading the report, it does mention that Glasgow ATC strongly suspected there was an aircraft in the area, had re-routed CAT and warned them to lookout. The key, to me, re-reading it after all these years and changes, is that Glasgow ATC also contacted Scottish FIR to check if they were in communication with the aircraft.
So hence my first point here: 119.875 and 7401 are now the key numbers when near Glasgow this summer.
I fully agree with you that the Glasgow controllers are top-notch professionals. We are lucky to have them. And no-one was luckier that day than the occupants of that 757 that such a capable controller was on duty that day to use their training, experience and instinct.
The problem we are now seeing at Glasgow is due to a whole range of factors outside the control of Glasgow ATC. Much of it, I suspect caused by "head office".
And if the root cause is with "head office", there is a risk that similar traffic restrictions may be on their way to other ATC ops nationwide. This goes completely against the perceived wisdom that an Air Navigation Service Provider has an obligation to make its services widely available, not - as you suggest - as a "courtesy".
But please remember 'Scottish Info' is done by FISOs most of the time so don't get annoyed if they can't provide a radar service if you request it.
