Gatwick transit below the TMA

[bookworm]

Popping out from the south side of the City zone at about Crystal Palace, I need to find my way to Shoreham. A crow would apparently fly directly over Gatwick, but I'll be driving a light twin, which I presume will be less welcome in the overhead.

Any tips for which routing to request and expect for a VFR or low-level IFR transit N to S? Does this snowball stand a better chance at the departures or arrivals end of hell? :)

[Jerricho]

Bookworm,

Can't hurt in giving them a try. Depending upon the time you're looking at, you might be pleasantly surprised.

[The Obvious Choice]

Bookworm,

Sorry, but no VFR fixed wing transits via the overhead of Gatwick. East or West of the EGKK ATZ, remaining outside controlled airspace.

If it sounds quiet, then there is no harm in calling up and seeing if a service is available. Don't hold out for much more than a FIS though.

Valid on Gatwick now Jerricho? When you off?

[Bright-Ling]

I am disgusted that you even got through the City zone!! :) Only joking......

......Like most zones it depends on who you speak to. There has been a lot of this subject in Private Flying with some of the LGW peeps giving some tips!!

(Expect West of London Bridge if in a twin in the LCY zone!!!!!)

B-L

[Timothy]

Sorry, but no VFR fixed wing transits via the overhead of Gatwick. East or West of the EGKK ATZ, remaining outside controlled airspace. I have heard this statement from DAP as well. The EGKK ATZ is 6nm dia and 2000'agl, like everyone else's, right?

So it is perfectly feasible, within the terms of LGW MATS 2 to transit within Class D controlled airspace, so long as you do not go within 3nm of the ARP.

I have asked DAP to investigate why MATS 2 makes the above stipulation, and I know that he is looking into it, though it has gone rather quiet!

Bookworm, I have found EGKK very helpful in providing transits. I would reckon on being let in at around Dorking VRP, GY DCT EGKA, but you might be lucky to get via GE, depending on runway, I suppose.

Like most Class D controllers, EGKK do their best to help.

W

Edited because I misread your destination as Goodwood first time

[The Obvious Choice]

Sorry, I did mean to write, 'east or west of the EGKK CTZ', remaining outside controlled airspace.

You are correct though, WC, the book does say east or west of the EGKK ATZ, which is a radius of 2.5 nm centred on the middle of the longest runway, 26L / 08R.

If its good and quiet the controller will do his best to get you the shortest routing. The more switched on you sound the better your chances.

[Timothy]

The more switched on you sound the better your chances. This is a concept that has been debated long and hard over the last few months, both here and on Private Flying.

I have written, and have had accepted for publication, an article which seeks to look at that very issue. Modesty forbids me to say that it makes interesting reading, but it may be worth a glance when it comes out (this month or next, I believe.)

...oh, and I am suitably embarassed and chastened that I forgot the exact dimensions of an ATZ:uhoh: It's been a loooooong time since I read those books:O

Anyway, Bookworm both is, and sounds, very competent.

W

[bookworm]

Bright-Ling jested:
I am disgusted that you even got through the City zone!!

Never yet had it refused, which says a great deal for the flexibility and helpfulness of the folks at Thames Radar.

Talking of which... WCollins suggested

Dorking VRP, GY DCT EGKA

which backtracks me into thinking about the bit before Dorking. I'll be coming from BPK, so BPK-Epsom (town) looks ideal. I have a recollection that a bit of the London CTR is delegated to Thames Radar. Is that routing feasible and if so who do i talk to? Does it matter if you're sitting next to each other anyway? :)

BTW I don't doubt for a moment that Gatwick will do the best they can for me -- it's just a question of knowing what to expect and asking for a route that makes sense.

[Timothy]

Bookworm

Forgive me for jumping in again, but, as you know, this is my "turf".

There isn't an ice-cube's chance in hell of BPK-EPM except in the middle of the night. I have in the past talked the LCY/LHR guys into letting me do Xtal Palace - EPM, but I would say that it is the exception rather than the rule.

If I were you, I would steer 210 out of Xtal Palace, remaining at the 1500' that they may well have given you, and call LGW asking for a routing remaining W of Redhill. They will soon let you know what is possible. If they are slack it might be via GY, if they are moderately busy, and in a helpful mood, it might be Dorking, but by then then you are South of Epsom.

If they can't fit you in, you can then either go all the way round, just SE of Guildford OR (because you took my advice to remain at 1500') slip underneath the Western stub, remaining East of Dunsfold ATZ (opinions vary as to whether Dunsfold is open and has an ATZ).

On the whole it is a bad idea to overfly Epsom town, because really, really important people live here and don't want to be bothered by aeroplane noise.

That's my 2p worth.

W

[Bright-Ling]

Who said I was jesting.....!

Seriously Bookworm, BPK185 radial should take you just west of London Bridge. If LCY is on runway 28 then there should be no delay.

If LCY on 10 then there may be a slight delay (unless you can take 1500' which would help you straight across).

With regards to Epsom town: Clipping the SW Corner of the LCTR is normally OK - but depends on what Helicopters/other traffic are in the way, as you would be SVFR as well and need standard seperation. Asking Thames on first contact will aid our (and yours) planning. It is probably the busiest area of the zone for Battersea as twin helis normally go due South from Battersea at 1500' or singles usually on H7 which goes Barnes-Banstead.

Thames does sit next to SVFR so easy to co-ordinate. If we have time we can pre-note LGW (and get an early "go/no go") - but often they are too busy to speak.

WC has posted lots of comments and tips regarding crossing CTR's in the UK - particularly SE England. Search under Private Flying. Indeed, WC was recently voted "Most likely pilot to get a zone crossing" at a restaurant in Epsom.............

Cheers

B-L

WC Beat me to it....

...and who might hose "Really, really Important People" be??!!?

:)

[vintage ATCO]

Indeed, WC was recently voted "Most likely pilot to get a zone crossing" at a restaurant in Epsom.............

I don't remember him paying? :confused:

:D:D


VA

[Timothy]

I don't remember him paying? ...and yet Luton remains the Zone most likely to allow a crossing....:p

W

[bookworm]

Much obliged folks.

[Warped Factor]

bookworm,

In your case it would always be worth adding that you're able to accept a clearance into Class A.

Gatwick owns a large chunk of the TMA at 3,000ft in its vicinity and depending on your requested routeing it might be easier to to take you through IFR at 3,000ft or maybe even a bit higher.

And no, you won't be charged :)

Otherwise, I'm sure most of us will do whatever we can subject the usual caveats that are normally trotted out at this point.

WF.

[Timothy]

Because I was embarassed not to know, I've just done a NOTAM search on the status of Dunsfold. 'EGTD' is simply rejected as an invalid code, and I have done a text search for 'Dunsfold' and got no result.

So I think that it is safe to assume that the ATZ is defunct, though there remain abiding rumours that it is being used fairly actively.

Do any of the EGKK or EGLF guys on the list know anything? Have they seen or heard anything on radar?

W

[Bright-Ling]

WC - Dunsfold has had a few visitors recently - not least the Navy Harrier that was there racing a Saab Coupe in November!!!!

Seriously though, stuff calls all the time passing "Dunsfold Disused" - and there is of course no ATZ any more. I believe there are other helicopters occasionally using the site to land on - and I heard that someone took a fixed wing in as well.

As the BBC use it now weekly for their Top Gear programme (as a test track) I would say it has limited use!

When the Harrier was doing its stuff their, they had at least 1 x Sea King supporting it.

http://www.dunsfoldpark.com/images/aerialviewsmall.jpg

From Dunsfold park website (www.dunsfoldpark.com)
Today the aerodrome is designated as a private unlicensed airfield where Prior Permission is Required ("PPR"). We are also in the process of reinstating the radio frequencies and these will be published in the future.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/offtopic1.gif

tee hee

B-L

[Arkadin]

Dunsfold are up and running as an unlicensed airfield but with restrictions on their movements. Their frequency is 119.10 Dunsfold Radio. Operations telephone 01483 200 900. That's to the best of my knowledge anyway, I wish them luck.

[bookworm]

In your case it would always be worth adding that you're able to accept a clearance into Class A.

WF

Unfortunately not, in this case. I'm in the odd position of having an IR restricted to singles only (I haven't yet found time to go and do the upgrade course), and operating the twin on the basis of an IMC rating. This entitles me to take the single into class A, fly approaches at Gatwick in the twin with one engine operating, but not to take the twin into class A with both engines operating. Like they say, go figure :)

Last time I did the trip was in the single. On the way down I routed further east than I would have in the twin, avoiding London. Gatwick let me across the eastern edge of the CTA anyway. On the return trip I was scooped up into the TMA at 3000 ft by a kindly Gatwick controller and was steered all the way to north of the Thames in class A.

[Bright-Ling]

As Kindly as LGW boys and girls are, are you sure it wasn't a Thames Controller scooping you up to 3000'!!!

Seriously, Thames Radar can give you up to 3000' if LCY and Biggin allows, but only if you can take a Class A IFR service (and have a serviceable Mode A & C of course!) - and only in the radar manouevring area East of BIG to DET and North towards LAM.

LGW Controllers are like Crawley Cabs - they never go "north of the River!"

B-L

[Timothy]

Bright-Ling

The same website also says "A number of the wartime buildings remain on the airfield - the three main production hangars, for example were built in the early 1950’s with the remainder following over a number of years."

Which leads me to be a little cynical about the quality of the rest of the information! :rolleyes:

W

[Jerricho]

The O.C,

You KK guys are so easy to get along with, there is no way I could see you turning a zone transit down. And me with a KK validation......tee hee........let's not get carried away now!

Last day is 28 Feb..........not quite counting days yet. You looking rid of me?

[bookworm]

As Kindly as LGW boys and girls are, are you sure it wasn't a Thames Controller scooping you up to 3000'!!!

Seriously, Thames Radar can give you up to 3000' if LCY and Biggin allows, but only if you can take a Class A IFR service (and have a serviceable Mode A & C of course!) - and only in the radar manouevring area East of BIG to DET and North towards LAM.

LGW did the scooping, Thames did the latter bit of the steering. Everyone left me with that warm, cosy feeling that I was being very well looked after. :)

[Warped Factor]

bookworm,

If flying the twin then and unable to go up into the TMA I'd suggest just requesting a straight VFR transit if wx and time of day permit.

IFR transits of the CTA/Z, below the base of the TMA, will be potentially much more disruptive to the traffic in and out of Gatwick than will a VFR one.

The reason being that there's no available level for crossing the ILS or the departure side that will provide the required standard separation from other traffic established on the ILS or in the process of departing.

A gap in the approach sequence or a temporary stop to departures would be required, which is something that would be frowned upon from a number of quarters I suspect.

The sooner you get the IR added to the multi rating, the better :p

WF.

[bookworm]

A gap in the approach sequence or a temporary stop to departures would be required, which is something that would be frowned upon from a number of quarters I suspect.

But it might chop a whole 40 seconds off my flight time... I dunno, these overprotective LATCC controllers eh? :)

Thanks for the advice WF. I'll let you know how I get on if the trip goes ahead.

Cheers

[Timothy]

But it might chop a whole 40 seconds off my flight timeI was thinking of the irony that you are willing to start and contribute to a long PPRuNe thread, which must have taken quite a few minutes of even your amazing brain for the sake of saving a couple of minutes of bypassing LGW CTR.

But then I decided not to mention it, as I am the worst person in the world to raise that can of worms!

W

[Gonzo]

Last day is 28 Feb..........not quite counting days yet. You looking rid of me?

Now what would give you that idea, Jer??????? :oh:

[Jerricho]

*Slaps Gonzo yet again*


http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/shot2.gif

[TC_LTN]

I have asked DAP to investigate why MATS 2 makes the above stipulation, and I know that he is looking into it, though it has gone rather quiet!


Does LTCC MATS Part 2 actually make the stipulation?

[John Wintergreen]

Current version stipulates fixed wing transits are to route east or west of the ATZ.

Does that help?

Big John.

[Timothy]

Current version stipulates fixed wing transits are to route east or west of the ATZ.A stipulation that I simply don't understand.

If LGW is busy, as it often is, the controller has every right to stop transitting traffic entering the ATZ, or the CTR if necessary.

If LGW is quiet, which happens from time to time, why should the controller be prevented from allowing a transit across the ATZ?

Incidentally, the wording of MATS 2 does make me wonder what would happen to an East/West transit, as it would only be allowed to transit East OR West of the ATZ, not both :O

Bookworm's route, which kicked this thread off, would ideally go straight through the LGW overhead. Why make him do a dogleg, if there is no traffic reason to do so?

Are there any other local bans from ATZs inside CTRs?

As I say, I wrote to DAP some months ago on this subject and, reasonably rapidly, got a reply from one of his staff which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between an ATZ and a CTR - rather worrying in DAP's office - and offering some rather bland advice as to how to improve my navigation skills - a little patronising under the circumstances. Unfortunately the original is gently rusting somewhere in the Tay Estuary, otherwise I would share it with you all.

When I responded, shall we say, politely but firmly I was told that the matter would be reviewed and I later heard on the grapevine who was making that review (I daresay a member of this Forum, I can't imagine that he isn't.)

That must be six months ago (I believe at the very Epsom dinner mentioned earlier) and it's all gone rather quiet.

Well, the DAP and his staff may as well know that I haven't forgotten and I am still sitting by my screen gently drumming my fingers awaiting their reply :rolleyes:

W

[Keef]

I believe the offence is called lèse-majesté - thou shalt not ask awkward questions of higher authority, nor challenge its decisions. "I didn't get here to be bothered by whippersnappers like you."

When I were a lad, I was more than once cleared (VFR) straight overhead EGKK on a route from EGMC to EGJJ. That was a *long* time ago.

I was told more recently that "transits of the ATZ are no longer permitted" but not why. If it's for traffic reasons, no problem - I always reckoned with the probability of being refused due traffic - but this seems to be arbitrary use of authority.

Time for a chaser, WC?

[aviate1138]

Some time ago I sat in Concorde
[company paying] at Washington and watched a Cessna 172 taxi by and take off; shortly after he lifted off he turned about 90º to starboard and we commenced our take off roll. Can't imagine that happening at LHR or GWK!

Aviate 1138

I still have a vision of the Cessna pilot anxiously glancing behind to make sure the pointy nose was not gaining on him!

[Timothy]

Time for a chaser, WC?D'you fancy scuba diving into the Silvery Tay, recovering the PC, having the disk recovered and then extracting the name and eMail address of the guy who I was corresponding with? If so, I would be delighted to follow up, otherwise....

Actually, one of the chaps or chapesses here will have details; I am fairly sure he was called Tim and that he was some kind of assistant to DAP...could someone PM contact details?

Otherwise I guess that I could contact our mutual friend who is said to be conducting the review, but I guess protocol forbids. Maybe he (he knows who he is) would like to contact me privately?

W

[PPRuNe Radar]

WCollins

Can't see anyone of that name at first glance but have a flick through this and you might find someone who jogs the memory.

DAP Directorate Guide (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP723.PDF)

[Timothy]

It was Nic Smith. I knew his first name was Tim :rolleyes: :}

Thank you

W