wwelvaert
First of all, a big 'well done!' for having opted for the straight-in on RWY21 with a light tailwind instead of circling (at night?) with a 600ft cloudbase. There is some gently rising ground to the southwest, as I remember.
Second of all, I can understand why you were disappointed by the service you received that night.
I agree with 733 driver.
As a 'born and bred' UK pilot/instructor/examiner I used to think that the UK way of doing things was not only the best way, but the only way!
Then I started flying on worldwide routes and my eyes were opened. I am now still of the opinion that the UK controllers are, for the most part, equal to or better than any others. BUT, as already mentioned, it's the UK system that is hopelessly complicated and user-unfriendly.
It seems that the procedures are designed to serve the interests of the local ATC and not the intended user - the PILOT. I could probably list several examples but as I'm about to fall into bed, I'll start with one of my favourites:
1. Transition Altitude. Why does it have to differ from airport to airport? Why is it 3000ft outside CAS (unless you're beneath the LTMA of course when it's 6000ft!)
A few years ago, departing southbound from Oxford in a jet, the Trans Alt was 3000ft and the initial clearance was to join CAS north of Compton at FL50. Called London, only to be told to maintain 5000ft! Compton is just on the edge of the LTMA, so the London controller assumed a Trans Alt of 6000ft. (I understand the Trans Alt at EGTK is now 6000ft, so this particular hole in the cheese has been plugged.) After a rapid re-setting of the altimeters we adjusted by a few hundred feet and all was well, but what on earth did this achieve?
Any pilot who has flown a high-performance aircraft will tell you the dangers of a low Trans Alt. The CAA keep bleating on about level busts, yet blithely ignore the procedures such as BHX SIDs that invite just such a bust (Trans Alt 4000ft and initial SID stop-height of FL60). Try flying that at 3000fpm with a QNH of 983mb. Yes, that's mb, not hPa as adopted by everyone else outside N. America!
Here's another:
2. 'Turn onto 240 degrees, when established on the 27L localiser descend with the glidepath'. Why not 'cleared for the approach' as in every other country? Do pilots need reminding not to descend on the glidepath before being established on the localiser?
This terminology is, of course, an improvement over the old one: 'Flight 123, turn onto 240 degrees and establish on the localiser, 27L.'
'Flt 123, localiser established, 27L.'
'Roger Flt 123, descend with the glidepath'.
Ah yes, but what about that helicopter flying down the Thames? He may be in our way, so we can't be cleared for the approach just yet! In 39 years of flying, I can not recall ever NOT being cleared to descend on the glidepath. Where is the justification for these arcane procedures? Is our accident/incident record so much better in the UK than elsewhere?
The US system isn't perfect by any means, but I like the way that busy parts of the flight are generally kept simple for the pilot:
SID? Fly runway heading to 5000ft and expect vectors to filed fix.
G/A? Fly runway heading to 3000ft and expect vectors.
Keeps the workload where it belongs; on the ground!
In an ideal world, the US controllers would be trained in the UK and the UK controllers would all spend at least a year at ORD. And the UK airspace system and procedures would be designed with the pilots' needs uppermost.
Rant over; off to bed! (Standing by for some 'incoming' from Kerling-Approsh KG and HEATROW DIRECTOR!)