So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.
Come now DFC, the book is always open to interpretation. You believe it says something which others believe it doesn't. It would need someone from the CAA to make the ruling on whose semantics are correct. Do you see that ever happening ??
So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?
There are times when I wouldn't. ATC clearances can be relayed by another agency or obtained prior to departure. Executive control can be delegated by way of Letters of Agreement to another agency. And so on and so forth.
If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.
The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP.
ENR 1.1.2 Paragraph 1.4 covers it nicely.
Acceptance of a request for clearance does not imply that a clearance to enter Controlled Airspace has been given or will be granted.
PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.
The 30 minutes has a baseline which is calculated as the estimated time for a position report (as per your MATS Part 1 entry). A Flight Plan with elapsed times is
NOT a position report. The circumstances where you are required to make a position report are again contained in the UK AIP within ENR 1.1.3 Paragraph 1. In all the cases where a report is required, the pilot will be in communication with ATC. So we know for definite you are in the system, we know where you are (or were), and we have a relatively accurate ETA for the reporting point. And so we would take the appropriate Alerting Action if required.
A Flight Plan is of course only a statement of intent, and may not be adhered to, as we all know. In terms of transit ATSUs, I think the following AIP entry also lends support to the fact that there is no onus on them to take any action if an aircraft doesn't appear looking to transit their zone. In this specific case it is talking about diversions.
If a pilot lands at an aerodrome other than the destination specified in the flight plan, he must ensure that the ATSU at the original destination is informed within 30 minutes of his flight planned ETA, to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services.
Now if your interpretation is correct .... don't you think it would also place an onus on the pilot to make sure that each transit ATSU was also informed within 30 minutes of the expected transit time
to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services. ??????
