A little late in to this debate but will add my tuppence worth nevertheless.
First comment I would make is that some of the ATCO posters need to read the blurb which accompanies this Forum. It's supposed to be a place where pilots can ask questions without fear and get answers in a professional manner. As ATCOs we are only guests on a professional pilots website, the main thrust of the site is aimed at, and catering for, pilots. Least we can do then is act courteously and show a professional approach to helping increase the understanding about ATC issues amongst our airborne colleagues.
Whilst now apparently Canada's gain and our loss, I wonder if Lock and Load actually ever knew what the
S in NATS stood for ??
Telling customers (whether paying or not) to f**k off shows they really grasped that aspect of the job ... NOT !!
Starting from the top then, the first thing I'd want to know for clarification is when the request for continued flight in VFR took place. Was it a case of ATC asking as the aircraft approached the airspace boundary, or did Timothy make a positive clearance request at least 10 minutes flying time before the boundary ?? It would also be nice to know if Scottish were prenoted the aircraft from Newcastle or if it was just freecalled and then the CAS airspace issue having to be dealt with more or less straight away with no lead in time for any prior co-ordination to take place.
nats (the poster, not the organisation) offers the most likely scenario if everything was rushed and a bit last minute. Talla sector is one of the prime UK sectors where demand exceeds capacity, resulting in Regulation and holding on a consistent basis. There is a little spare capacity built in to the declared Target Sector Flow rate, but this is to allow for the controllers to handle emergency situations and the like. If the sector was operating to capacity when Timothy's flight took place, then any entry by a VFR aircraft which is over and above those which have 'slots' is likely to be declined, particularly if such traffic wishes to route through airspace where holding (and descents in the hold) are taking place. It is also likely that any adjacent sector which might try and co-ordinate such a flight will realise how busy it is and just keep the aircraft clear of the airspace, rather than being told (politely I am sure
) by the CAS sector to avoid their airspace.
The Scottish TMA is delegated to Edinburgh ATC in the airspace around TLA at and below 6000' (still belongs to Scottish as the controlling authority of course !!) and therefore the normal course of events would be for Tay sector (having ascertained entry above 6000' was not going to be forthcoming) to co-ordinate a clearance direct with Edinburgh for that airspace. Of course, the rub here is that if Talla sector is busy feeding traffic in to Edinburgh, then Edinburgh are also like to be busy and may take a little time to co-ordinate. The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area. Again, an important factor is the lead in time to the aircraft reaching the boundary. 10 minutes or more (as per the AIP) is going to give a much smoother process than if it is all co-ordinated with only a few minutes to run, the latter placing an increased workload on a ATCU already (potentially) working at capacity.
Now to some specifics:
Lock&Load
In general, VFR aircraft are not vectored or given a hard altitude assignment in the UK. That makes them an unknown quantity when mixing with IFR traffic. To have a sequence of inbound IFR traffic descending through a VFR at FL85 would be Hell on Earth when busy.
You are right in general, but there is actually nothing to stop ATC giving a hard altitude to a VFR aircraft since it must comply with ATC instructions to enter Class D. The pilot is the one who can then decide whether that clearance can be complied with or not. In which case the reply might be to remain clear
As you know, an alternative is to give a 'not above' clearance. Both would work in the circumstances mentioned (provided the capacity to take an 'extra' aircraft existed). If there were a lot fo aircraft descending to min stack level, then the VFR traffic could be cleared 'not above 6000', alternatively give it a clearance at FL80 and treat it as a 'pseudo' IFR aircraft. Plenty ways to skin the cat safely.
That you'd have to get a clearance from Scottish but be transitting an area where the arriving traffic is controlled by Edinburgh would really makes things messy.
No it wouldn't. Scottish would have to comply with the silent co-ordination (which includes transferring the traffic free of confliction) so they would either keep arrivals till they are out of the way, co-ordinate lower levels for one of the aircraft, or identify the VFR to Edinburgh and make arrivals subject to it.
So, keep it simple. If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.
Got to be the ATC Darwin Award winner this year. ATCOs have no influence on charging regimes, nor should they get involved in them. Did you tell military aircraft operating in your airspace to '***' off since they are not paying charges. And how about VIP flights and the like. No clearance for them since thay are not paying ... in fact, they can '***' off too. I suspect not. And how about VFR flights in to Edinburgh ?? Where does their navigation charge go then ??
DFC
That is where the UK system falls down - they have to cope with a European wide flow management system which excludes VFR flights because as everyone knows, VFR flights do not require ATC separation outside class C and thus have no need for ATC slots.
Slots are not connected with separation. They provide none. They are concerned with regulating the traffic within a sector or aerodrome to a level which has been deemed to be capable of being safely managed. Perhaps the answer is for airspace which operates at capacity and permits VFR flights to also require the filing of flight plans by such traffic (include it in the AIP). And then get Brussels to issue them slots too - or maybe PPR would be another way to 'regulate' the flow ? In either case, I suspect any degradation of capacity which impacts the commercial operators would result in lots of political fallout !!
What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR. (Note - one does not need an IR or IMC to be IFR in UK class G!!
Presumably your flight plan will detail you will change flight rules at the boundary ?? If not, then you need to file a plan anyway and will be given a slot if they are in force
