Stansted has got bigger ...

[Gertrude the Wombat]

... than when I once flew from Cambridge to overhead Epping Forest, many years ago. Then you had to be vaguely careful not to fly over the runway at Stansted at a few hundred feet, but that was about it. Seems more complicated now.

Thought I'd try going to Stapleford, to practice some more complicated airspace and navigation than I've been used to over the fens. Route looks like it could be to Puckeridge VRP not above 2500', then Ware VRP not above 1500', then Epping VRP not above 1500', and if I can't find Stapleford from there I'm not doing very well. I understand about the low level routes letting you off the congested area bits of rule 5. Then perhaps back via the Blackwater estuary and Colchester, 2000' all the way no trouble. (Yes I can dial in BPK and LAM as a sanity check but I'll be navigating visually.)

I've even spotted that Stapleford will be closed on Friday, but expect it will be open on Saturday morning again 'cos they'll finish the runway work as scheduled won't they. (Perhaps I'll give them a bell Friday afternoon.)

The question is (assuming none of the above is stupid, in which case please say so): who do I talk to? Is there a radar service it's usual to talk to on the low level route from Ware to Epping, or do I call Stapleford from Ware, or what?

Thanks!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Just talk to Stapleford from Ware, Essex radar won't be interested, Luton won't be alot of use (though they are good)

On the way back, chat to Southend up towards Colchester and then Wattisham back to Cambridge. This is assuming that Wattisham are active on a Saturday (not usually, but always wise to check if you are intending to cross the MATZ). Again Essex Radar won't want to talk to you. It may be a good idea to listen out on Earls Colne if you are going to be between Mersea Island and EGSR as it is their training area and they are pretty busy on a Saturday. If you are going to track along the A12 then definately keep a listen out. Especially just to the South of Colchester as that is where most people join and depart from.

[bookworm]

Why would you not want to talk to Essex Radar? I've always found them very helpful -- if they're busy you might only get a FIS, but if you're flying in such close proximity to their zone it makes sense to be in touch.

[Kirstey]

I think you'll find a lot of the helpful Luton Radar guys are validated on Essex Radar as well.. Maybe it's the Aircon that changes their personality.

Although I'm assuming Stansted App and Esx Radar are the same unit.

[Say again s l o w l y]

After 3 years of flying around this area everyday, the only time Essex radar have deemed to talk to me is when I've been in a heli or on an IFR plan. When VFR they don't even want to give you an info service.
Their unhelpfulness is well documented, but it is always worth giving them a try anyway, they can only ever say no!

[Kolibear]

When you get to Ware, give North Weald a call as you will be passing very close to them , then swiftly retune to Stapleford as they get very busy with circuit and overflying traffic.

Southend is the best frequency to monitor on your way north east . Follow the A12, its easier.

Essex Radar are always busy with helicopters in and around London.

[alphaalpha]

I think you're being a tad unfair, guys and gals, or maybe out of date.

As I understand it, there was a period when both Luton and Essex controllers were instructed not to provide service to traffic outside their CAS. Both before and after this time, their preparedness to offer service has been good.

I fly from Bourn just north of Luton and Stansted and my experience is:

I have never been refused radar serviced outside their controlled airspace when IMC.

In the last two years or so, I have never been refused FIS by either unit.

In the last two years or so at least two thirds of requests for zone transit have been approved.

Most of my requests for RIS have been successful, again in the last two years or so. Higher on weekdays.

Occasionally, I have chosen not to call for service when the controller workload has obviously been very high.

Only once in the last two years have I been told to stand-by and not called back until service was no longer useful.

I think the message is: listen out, understand what the controller's work is like and what his/her primary responsibility is, then ask for what you want in a suitable gap. Of course, if you prefer to fly without service, that's fine too.

On other threads, controllers have said that they really want to know about traffic close to their boundaries.

AA.

[Say again s l o w l y]

It does seem to depend on where you are for Essex to take an interest, to the east of Stansted they can be very unhelpful. I have been told on numerous occasions that they don't even want me maintaining a listening watch and as for getting a RIS, forget it! I don't bother even trying during the week now as there are plenty of military and other units to talk to, but at weekends it is a different matter.

It is good to listen to the controllers, but my question is, why are Gatwick helpful and Stansted not? Surely the traffic levels are similar?

[Kirstey]

Again Say Again Slowly. Most non EGLL controllers at LTCC have 2 validations from LGW,STAN or Luton, so these people who are friendly and one station are the same people who are unfriendly at another!

I know Essex Radar had to record every VFR service request and whether it was accepeted and if not why not!

I heard everyone was pretty reasonable these days. I have 100% record with Solent!

[Say again s l o w l y]

So myself, all the other instructors and members at the club are the only ones who get short shrift? On more occasions than I can mention I and others have been dumped by Essex to Southend or London info. That would be fine if those served the purpose that I required, but as Southend is Primary radar only and has a limited range it's not much good if I want a RAS, but this seems to be irrelevant.

If they have changed, then I haven't noticed it!

[vintage ATCO]

So myself, all the other instructors and members at the club are the only ones who get short shrift? On more occasions than I can mention I and others have been dumped by Essex to Southend or London info. That would be fine if those served the purpose that I required, but as Southend is Primary radar only and has a limited range it's not much good if I want a RAS, but this seems to be irrelevant.


Perhaps it's the way you ask. . . . . :p

On a small point of order, Southend ARE a LARS unit, Essex Radar (aka Stansted) ARE NOT. :rolleyes:

[Say again s l o w l y]

Can't be that, I'm very polite!! Your point about LARS is very valid.

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

GtW

The CAA OnTrack guide to the Luton Stansted low level route can be downloaded here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/299/DAP_ACD_StanLut.pdf)

I found it very useful for my first time flying the route last year.

wrt the radio, I listened in to Essex and then Luton (going north), but did not talk to either of them.

TG

[formationfoto]

Always found Essex helpful. Have flown into Audley End quite a bit (to visit an Essex based flying mag) and they do like to know the intentions of a light aircraft flying close to the corner of their airspace.

[WorkingHard]

Sorry people - have to agree with SAS. Essex are the very worst in the UK. I fly north/south a lot and I now just avoid them totally. Had occasion to report them for safety reasons also. I believe if the ATCOs listening are true to the forum they may well confirm that we have (had?) a problem with Essex. No other unit has ever been so castigated as Essex. it cannot all be fictional.

[dmjw01]

Are we all talking about the same Essex Radar?

Whenever I've followed the low-level route, I always ask them for a service and have never been refused - although I never expect too much from a busy controller at a "proper" airport. In fact, I feel safer flying above 1500 feet so I frequently ask them for a transit so I can stay a little bit higher. My transit requests are about 50% successful - I'd say that's not too bad.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Thanks folks, didn't realise this question would provoke so much discussion!

The CAA OnTrack guide to the Luton Stansted low level route can be downloaded here Thanks TGIA152, didn't know about those, that's excellent! (I was thinking of taking a 1:50 000 map with me for identification, clearly the aerial photos will be very helpful.)

But what does it mean on each page by "Note: Do not use for Navigation": what else would one use this document for??

[Evil J]

May I suugest a pprune visit to Terminal Control where Essex and Luton radar are based to see the problems from the other side??

[bar shaker]

EvilJ

That's an excellent idea and should benefit both sides.

Are you in a position to organise it?

[IO540]

Gertrude the Wombat

Why not get a GPS?

[MasterCaution]

GtW,

I've flown more or less exactly the same route that you describe from Cambridge to Stapleford (and quite likely in the same CAC plane you will use!). I nearly forgot to descend to 1400' before ducking under. Beware also the bit of 1500' CTA that bulges out slightly just south of Puckeridge. I'd be tempted to be below 1500' before Puckeridge.

I talked to Essex (FIS) from BKY until past the Stansted extended centreline then to Stapleford.

Watch out for the runway slope at Stapleford, especially if 04L is the active.

My route back was initially towards Braintree, planned to go under the north east CTA shelf but I managed to get a transit overhead Stansted (along the line from Chelsford to Stansted) then a right turn to Audley End and then Cambridge. (For info, it was a quietish time at Stansted and 05 was active.)

MC.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

PROB30 TEMPO 0914 2000 RADZ BKN003 Oh well, not today then. PROB30 nasty weather with no scope for running eastwards away from it and, depending on where it happens, maybe not enough room to dodge round showers.

[TC_LTN]

I will take up the challenge and organise you a visit to take a look at TC Luton & TC Stansted. Perhaps two seperate visits with a maximum of 8 people in each? This will mean that you will get the maximum benefit out of the trip and hopefully get 'plugged in' with either Luton or Stansted. Give me an idea if such a visit would be of interest, I will then set up some dates and PM those who put their hands up. In the unlikely event of over-subscription I would suggest PPL/SPLs get priority who haven't had the chance to visit LTCC before.

[EyesToTheSkies]

I've even spotted that Stapleford will be closed on Friday,

Can anyone tell me what work was done at Stapleford? I've checked the backdated NOTAMs, but they don't seem to work.

[TC_LTN]

Well at least I made the offer. But nobody wants to come! Bit of shame that those who complain are not interested in seeing our side of things.

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

TC_LTN
I'd like to come for a visit! Don't forget that PPRuNe is quiet over the weekend.

Just to be clear, does "TC Luton" refer to the tower itself, or some remote centre (Swanwick?) :confused:

Cheers,
TG.

[TC_LTN]

The radar functions for Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, London City and Biggin Hill are all performed from the London Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton (just north of Heathrow).

The offer is to take a look around the Ops Room at LTCC, in general, be 'talked' at by me about the specific Luton/Stansted scenarios raised in this thread, hopefully get 'plugged in' with either TC Luton or TC Stansted and possibly visit the Distress and Diversion Cell for those who are interested.

Hope that makes it clear:O

[Aim Far]

TC LTN - sorry, I'm a weekday poster only - pprune saves me from working!

I'd definitely like to come and see what you do.

[FlyingForFun]

Having had the opportunity to visit West Drayton a year ago, all I can say is that if anyone isn't sure whether to go or not - DO IT! Of all of the ATC visits I've done, it was probably the most enlightening - very worthwhile.

FFF
-------------

[bar shaker]

Count me in too, please.

[Penguina]

I would love to go to West Drayton, having been cruelly deprived of my visit last year by some freak circumstances.

:O

[FlyingForFun]

(* FFF wonders how much he could get away with bribing Penguina in order to not reveal the nature of the freak circumstances *)

[Penguina]

( * ... and Penguina wonders if it's time to reveal to the seasoned private aviators round here that FFF spent three weeks flying in a rather impressive airline style uniform with 2 gold bars on his shoulder * )

:E

[FlyingForFun]

Not through choice, though, I assure you. It was actually closer to 2 weeks than 3, because I managed to argue my way out of wearing their poncy shirts for the first week that I was there.

Unlike sleeping through your alarm clock, and thus missing our appointment at West Drayton, which you can't blame on anyone else :p

FFF
-------------

PS - They were silver, not gold!

[Penguina]

Not through choice, though, I assure you

That's not what you told that waitress who thought you were an AA captain, if I remember rightly...

And my alarm clock has white, not black hands, but that does not lessen the seriousness of its offence.

;)

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

Penguina's guilty secret was already revealed in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69064&highlight=drayton) but it sounds like an excuse to cover-up something far more interesting .... :E

[In Altissimus]

Being Stapleford-based, I'd definitely like to see things from the controllers' side. I still always try to tiptoe (txpndr ON of course) around the edges of both zones; it would be nice to have the confidence to ask for a sensible crossing like a grown-up pilot :rolleyes:

Not exactly sure what they did to R22/04 on Friday - looked as if it was fairly cosmetic stuff up at the top end of the tarmac though.

I would have got a closer look, but SR failed her power checks so I never got to the other end of the runway...

[Circuit Basher]

TGIA152 - re-reading the old thread, could the reason for Penguina's fatigue be anything to do with being de-briefed by BRL, or is that just nasty gossip??!! ;) :)

[Penguinetta]

Now, boys, before you get too carried away with your little conspiracy theories, perhaps you should wonder why you were the only ones sent to West Drayton that morning when the rest of us were otherwise engaged???

;)

[DuncanF]

TC_LTN please count me in.

And just to add my $0.02 ... did my first PAX trip after getting my license in November from Elstree, LAM, anti-clockwise around Stansted zone to Duxford. Called Essex radar after Stapleford and gave a standard tyro's rambling "who, what, where, when" and asked for RIS. Service provided all the way round to Clare - and this was a busy Saturday.

Maybe she just spotted a novice in need of assistance! Especially helpful as we were pinned at 1400 due to low cloudbase and not the best of vis.

Duncan

[TC_LTN]

I have managed to arrange a visit to the London Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton on Monday 9th February. The visit will include a short briefing about the function of the Centre in particular the operation of controlled airspace to the north of the London TMA. We will then split into two groups, and visit the Distress and Diversion Cell (121.5) and the Terminal Control Operations Room and with luck get you 'plugged in' with either TC Luton or TC Essex (Stansted).

If you expressed an interest earlier in the thread then I have PM'd you with further details. It may be possible to accommodate one or two others if anyone is interested.

I would still love to see some of the most vocal critics of Class D airspace in the LTMA join us but unfortunately they haven't put their heads above the parapet yet.

[Say again s l o w l y]

"head above parapet"
I would love to go, but unfortunately can't make it on the 9th.

I will put together a list of 'issues' from the instructors and other pilots and e-mail you with them. But the gist is that when you are traffic that may affect their operations, then Essex are quite happy to talk, but if you would like a service for your benefit then you are on your own. Whilst I accept that you are not a LARS, the occasional RIS or even FIS would be useful especially when the military services are closed.

Whilst I have no intention of sounding rude, I come from the "you're there because I'm here NOT I'm here because you're there" school when it comes to ATC. I have a great many friends in air traffic and think that on the whole you all perform a fantastic job, but occasionally a service from Essex would be very useful and these have never been given when asked for. I'm specifically talking about a RIS in the north of essex when the wx is bad. If this is asking too much, why can't we have a service like this? At weekends when Wattisham aren't active and you are too far from the primary only radar at Southend, what are you supposed to do about getting a RIS in what can be very busy airspace?

[TC_LTN]

Say again s l o w l y

Very simply, NATS are contracted (paid) to provide an Air Traffic Control Service within the Luton and Stansted Control Zones/Areas. This airspace is provided for the protection of fare-paying passengers on IFR flights (DAP's definition - not mine). Once a piece of Class D airspace is established for this purpose, DAP also make it very clear that other airspace users must be accommodated within this airspace if capacity allows. The manning of the appropriate radar positions is organised to fulfil both of these tasks. Staff ARE not provided to accommodate any form of service outside this controlled airspace. Having said all the above there are some tangible benefits to knowing what traffic is operating around the immediate peripheries of our airspace. If capacity allows i.e. according to how busy the controller is with his/her primary task, they MAY have capacity to accommodate a FIS/RIS or exceptionally a RAS outside their area of responsibility. In the case of Essex Radar this is becoming less and less likely as Stansted and Luton generate more and more commercial traffic. Luton Radar do tend to still have some quiet periods during which the controller may be able to accommodate an ATSOCA service but one of the things I hope to demonstrate during the visit to LTCC is just how fundamentally incompatible the provision of a RIS/RAS is with vectoring a sequence of inbounds which remains the primary task of the Directors at LTCC. In conclusion, whatever I feel personally about the pros and cons of a London TMA LARS service and the very relevant arguments that FlyOnTrack identified, NATS are NOT remunerated or funded to provide such a service and you should not regard it as failing on our part not to provide it and certainly not have an expectation of receiving it on a regular basis.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Thanks for that TC, It is exactly what I assumed to be the issue. I don't know of many controllers who refuse to give a service if asked unless they have little choice.

My frustration is not with the controllers personally, but with a system that doesn't allow people to provide you with a service when you really need it. There have been times when I've been totally in the s**t and a radar service would have been a great help, but there is none available, when I've asked I have had pretty short shrift. This is can be very aggravating. We did let On Track know, but nothing has been changed to my knowledge.

The fact that finances can be used as an excuse is to me very worrying, ATC should be provided for all who use the air, not just for the big boys. Is this what we should expect since privatisation? Just because we don't pay, doesn't mean we should accept a lower level of safety. How can NATS justify this? Surely ATC is for all people who fly?

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If capacity allows i.e. according to how busy the controller is with his/her primary task, they MAY have capacity to accommodate a FIS/RIS or exceptionally a RAS outside their area of responsibility. Question: A controller at Luton or Stansted or somewhere like that quite legitimately turns down a request for RIS, for the reasons you give, and some minutes later observes that the low hours PPL in question, to whom he is no longer talking, is drifting slowly but surely towards the edge of his controlled airspace. What does he do?

[vintage ATCO]

Say again Slowly

If you can suggest how such a service you desire can be funded, ideally by the people who want to use it, then I am sure that will go a long way to making it happen.


Getrude

As the controller would deal with any potenial controlled airspace infringment. Keep an eye on it, start vectoring traffic away from it if necessary, stop departures if you have to. Most of us would also do a blind transmission to see if the pilot is listening. Then comes the inevitable paperwork, maybe.


VA

[TC_LTN]

The fact that finances can be used as an excuse is to me very worrying, ATC should be provided for all who use the air, not just for the big boys. Is this what we should expect since privatisation? Just because we don't pay, doesn't mean we should accept a lower level of safety. How can NATS justify this? Surely ATC is for all people who fly?

No excuse at all. NATS are not contracted to provide the service you require in the airspace you describe. An ATC service is provided for all airspace user 'big boys' and everyone else within controlled airspace and as the nominated service provider, NATS is remunerated for that. NATS are not funded to provide the service you desire and so surely do not have to justify not providing it? NATS are a service provider not a regulator and perhaps your grievance is better directed at the CAA rather than NATS? I would draw a parallel in suggesting that your flying club, with one full time instructor, working to capacity, should be obligated to provide free check rides to all PPLs from another local airfield, on demand. While, undoubtedly this would enhance safety for those lucky individuals, it would simply detract from your club's ability to provide a proper level of service to its members and is also completely uneconomical. If, however, the regulator (CAA) insisted on the provision of free check rides by your club then the most likely outcome is a large increase in costs to your club members with the need to increase your instructional staff to maintain a level of service. Certainly, ATC is for all the people who fly (within the designated airspace;)) unless, as Vintage ATCO suggests, you can suggest how such a service could be funded, ideally by the people who want to use it.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Out of the NATS budget obviously. It can't be rocket science to provide such a service. Is NATS only interested in Airlines?
There seems to have been a reduction in service since many of LARS have been lost.

I'm sure this is an discussion that could rage for many years, but the simple fact is that there is a lack of service over many areas of the U.K.

How such a service should be funded is not my concern since NATS is now (partly) privately owned. If you want the responsibility of providing coverage, then why isn't it complete? If there is to be a reasonable charge, that could be acceptable, but it would raise quite a few problems, specifically people not using the service because of the charge despite being in trouble. How can you invoice for it? In the same way eurocontrol do it? I'm sure that there are many suggestions, but shouldn't NATS itself be trying to provide as much coverage as possible rather than leaving huge gaps across the country. The technology is there, but is there the will to use it?

National Air Traffic Service, what is the point of having such a title if it doesn't actually exist. Why isn't it contracted to provide services to the whole flying community, if NATS don't do it, then who else will? Would NATS allow another organisation access to the radar heads so they could run a country wide LARS? I doubt it somehow.

Again this is passing the buck, yes the CAA should have forced a decent service for all, but shouldn't the provider try and do it aswell, or is the fact that NATS is now a commercial business (albeit non-profit making) stop any of the desire to have a full service since I cannot imagine LARS to be financially beneficial, but I couldn't care two hoots about that, ATC is a service to help safe flight take place and this case there is obviously no desire to try and help that.

Ofetn I wouldn't bother to have a service OCA, but occasionally it would be very welcome and it would be a huge boon to flight safety for all to have a decent service available if required.

[TC_LTN]

Question: A controller at Luton or Stansted or somewhere like that quite legitimately turns down a request for RIS, for the reasons you give, and some minutes later observes that the low hours PPL in question, to whom he is no longer talking, is drifting slowly but surely towards the edge of his controlled airspace. What does he do?

If the pilot concerned doubts his or her ability to remain outside controlled for whatever reason then would ideally have stated this in the original call and would be provided with whatever help is necessary to re-establish exactly where they are and assistance to continue their flight to destination or a suitable alternate. Getting people to admit something is wrong before it is too late will be another main topic of what I intend to talk about during the LTCC visit and I can guarantee will be very high on D&D's agenda! If, however, you are suggesting that a pilot of any experience is unable to navigate around a piece of controlled airspace without some form of ATC assistance on a day-to-day basis, then I would suggest that he/she should not be allowed in the air by themselves, in the first place. One other point - You suggest that the ATCO might observe this mythical PPL drifting slowly towards the edge of controlled airspace. At any moment on a sunny Sunday afternoon I could be looking at perhaps 20 or 30 aircraft within a few miles of the edge of my controlled airspace and I am generally not interested or concerned about any of them whilst they remain outside. I am likely to have little idea which if any of those I have just declined an ATSOCA service because I am busy with my primary task. I am only interested/concerned once one of these contacts enters controlled airspace and I have to separate my traffic from it. If, by confessing early on the R/T to a navigational error or uncertainty, a pilot can gain the necessary assistance to prevent this infringement or assist me in quickly identifying someone already inside CAS, then my workload and that of the pilot should be lessoned considerably and will often avoid large amounts of paperwork which ATCOs (and pilot's) hate.

Say again s l o w l y

As you say the debate could (and has done) go on for years.

Yes, NATS do have the technology.

Yes, NATS could and already do supply the data to all kinds of other companies/service providers (at a commercial rate).

Yes, funding is your concern because you are going to have to pay for the service you demand.

Another analogy - Title 'National Air Traffic Services', ahmm - The London Gliding Club would welcome the entire population of London taking up gliding but wouldn't expect to have to provide the facility for nothing! Plenty of other 'providers' with different names in the London area who provide similar services AT A COST!

NATS are certainly not passing the buck and like any other commercial organisation would love to grow the business to provide a full and comprehensive, monopoly service across the whole of the UK and beyond PROVIDING it is commercially viable. As a responsible Air Traffic Service provider, NATS should and indeed is, actively engaged in identifying to the regulator areas where it feels the service should be enhanced but it, quiet rightly, remains the CAA's remit to dictate a minimum level of service to be provided in a given piece of the sky and to say how this service is to be funded.

[Circuit Basher]

SAS - I'm a PPL, not flying in the South East UK and not an ATCO (or involved with NATS) - you may thus feel that my three ha'porth is of no relevance and disregard at your pleasure!

I have been, however, a project manager for a large number of publicly funded projects, some of which are service contracts for Joe Public. I can thus without any difficulty understand where TC_LTN is coming from and recognise that he / she is a professional doing the job that he / she is is paid to do with an appropriate level of professionalism. His / her employers have been contracted to provide a service by UK PLC, which they do, very effectively for the most part. From my background of having to manage firm price contracts (which are often bid with very low margins, due to close competition), taking all the risk of cost overruns in unforeseen circumstances, I can see the problems that NATS faces. Having negotiated the firm price, the government customer then often takes 10-15% off the price offered and says that that is all they will pay with no reduction in the requirements of the contract. I very much doubt that NATS is making any significant profit out of the contract, having had to take on full responsibility under TUPE for the employment benefits and rights of time-served ATCOs and other staff. The media frequently portray commercial companies in such contracts as being profiteering mega corporations - in reality, the only way they make any money is by only providing the services they are paid to provide and paying their staff the minimum they can get away with.

I think TC_LTN has been at great pains to explain the situation that NATS is in and the fact that ATCOs working the screens will go above and beyond the call of duty (as usual) to provide safer skies. Continuing to harangue TC_LTN for the fact that NATS are not funded by DAP / CAA to provide the service you feel you should get is not going to change anything.

From the PPL front, I recognise that the service you are expecting is a useful contribution to flight safety and should be freely available in an ideal world - I believe that DAP / CAA should be pursued for this (possibly through the FlyOnTrack project). Obviously, if a specific event occurs that warrants it, then you should consider an MOR.

SAS - this isn't personal, it's just my 'arms length' interpretation of what TC_LTN has tried to explain to you. I recognise your frustration, but I wouldn't recommend biting the arm that is trying to feed you the food that it's been given!! :)

OK, sermon over - let's go think about flying!! :D

[bar shaker]

TC's example about the flying club is very valid and very well put. The days of the taxpayer funding anything seem to be long gone (although our taxes don't seem to be going down... strange that). Even country parks have been told to fund themselves, so why would ATC be provided free of charge to people who can afford to buzz around the sky in aeroplanes?

I am convinced that funding WILL become our concern.

Once Mode S is fully implemented, it will take the touch of a button to invoice us every month for our time in Class G, time in Class D, etc.

[Say again s l o w l y]

My beef is not with the controllers who on the whole do a fantastic job.

The words "commercially viable" bring a cold chill to my heart. There is very little in aviation that is "commercially viable". ATC is a service and whilst it should obviously be as efficient as possible, I find it worrying that finance could ever be used to justify a down grading in safety. Having just read the thread about Farnborough I see that NATS has become like any other commercial operation, worried about the bottom line, rather than the service it should provide and forget about the clients.

I think of NATS in the same way I think about the NHS as an essential service. Cost should not be an issue as long as it is reasonable and should come from the public purse. These moves to degrade services are simply financially motivated and that is not acceptable at all.

Again I don't blame the controllers, but am frustrated at a system that only seems interested in one section of a larger community. I suppose it could be called GA-ism. May be I'm a bit too old fashioned in my outlook(despite being in my 20's), but I cannot see how we as a community (pilots and controllers) can allow such a ridiculous system that discriminates against GA.

[IO540]

TC_LTN

If the pilot concerned doubts his or her ability to remain outside controlled for whatever reason then would ideally have stated this in the original call and would be provided with whatever help is necessary to re-establish exactly where they are and assistance to continue their flight to destination or a suitable alternate

I am pretty sure that of the people who get lost, most are not aware of it until they are in real trouble. This is because most nav errors are the result of flying off track and then either "correctly" (but in fact wrongly) identifying a ground feature, or not finding the feature you are looking for but carrying on (which is the advice normally given in such a case).

I don't think a pilot is going to tell you that he really thinks he can't navigate properly. Of those who really think that, most are smart enough to just pack up flying altogether. Do you know the % of PPLs who pack it in permanently before their first license renewal? It is well over 90% and lack of confidence is often given as a big reason. PPL training doesn't prepare you for getting about UK airspace with confidence.

As I am fond of saying, proper use of GPS would help enormously in this area.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Well, I'm still tying to do this trip ... cancelled many times due to weather over the last several months.

But, the weather could be plausble tomorrow, I've got a plane booked ... however on checking the NOTAMS I discover that this little North Weald place is having some sort of do which renders unusable the Ware <-> Epping VFR route.

So, do I:

(a) re-plan using the down and across VFR routes, via the M25 roundabout, which avoids the North Weald restricted area, or:

(b) cancel the trip, yet again, this time on the grounds that it would be bad airmanship to go anywhere near the place tomorrow?

(And if I do go, I guess North Weald ATC will be a bit busy, and not interested in talking to passing traffic.)

(This is an aircraft with no GPS, btw, which some were suggesting I'd find helpful. Couple of weeks ago I had an aircraft with GPS booked but no weather.)