As the sponsor of this thread it was not about zone transits. I only introduced zone transits in relationship to the improvement in the service which has taken place since zone transit denials were reportable. My perception is the approval of zone transits has improved immeasurably, but I am not aware of any quantitative study (the sort of thing AOPA do in the States, but mores the pity not here). Frankly most of the time I couldn’t give a damn about zone transits from the view point of saving time - when it suites me I will ask for them but am equally happy to go round if needs me. As others have said it rarely adds significantly to the journey.
However, the safety aspect with which this thread started is a different issue.
The problem with controllers denying zone transits is that an increasing number route around the edge of the zone. Rightly or wrongly with GPS they are also inclined to route close to the zone boundary. If you have ever spent some time watching the radar display you will know what I mean. So in consequence you now end up with traffic being constrained in corridors around the zone and often into other corridors between the zone. Add to that the consequence of the London TMA in the south and you have relatively high speed traffic operating within a vertical ceiling of no more than 900 feet. (The London TMA is 2,500, no one wants to be exactly at 2,500 so the highest level is 2,400 and you hardly want to be running around at less than 1,500 en route if you can avoid it).
For that reason if I am not airways personally I will go for a zone transit every time, not to save time, but because it places me in a “protected environment”.
You can imagine that I am slightly p**£”! when the transit is refused, AND the controller refuses a RIS and I have no other available service and, as I now know, I might well have got an alternative service but for the fact that NATS price everyone else out of the market.
NEMA will continue its policy of providing a crossing service to aircraft requiring to transit Class D Airspace and an appropriate level of service to traffic flying in the vicinity of Class D Airspace.
This was what NEMA said when they requested and got an airspace increase. I hope they will not forget their policy and will not interpret the part emphasised (my emphasis) in another way. I wonder what other assurances were given with other changes in airspace policy in the South. When I get a moment I will have a look.
Roffa you seem to be very hung up on the personal criticism of controllers - I fully appreciate you are one, and want to protect your integrity. This is not my case. The purpose of the example of a mid air around Stanstead after the refusal of a controller to provide a RIS is not to discuss whether avoiding the loss of life of 200 passengers in some LoCo is more or less valuable than 8 passengers in a twin, but to raise the issue that NATS and the Government's policy has increased the risk of a mid air collision outside CAS in the south. NATS in particular are guilty of not providing data already within their remit and at marginal cost to other services providers who would be only to happy to try and redress that balance.
If you allow people to walk across a bridge that is ten feet wide with railings down each side you are entitled to be surprised when the fall off the edge, but if you allow people to walk across a bridge that is two feet wide with no railings dont be too surprised when they fall off. Tell the judge that you could have fitted a safety net to catch them at next to no cost, but thought you would add to your shareholders profits by not doing so, and you had better look out.