TS in the hold

[foghorn]

Dear All,

Firstly, I hope you don't mind the intrusion of a wannabe into your ATC sanctum.

Last Friday 15/9 as pax in KL2235 inbound to EGLC, we were in the ALKIN hold for about 45 minutes as the field was closed due to thuderstorm activity. As I saw TUNEL come round for about the tenth time, a question occurred to me: what would happen if the TS's in question drifted through the ALKIN hold? Would the holding AC get flipped to another hold? If so, would it be SPEAR/SND?

Cheers!
Foggy
An interested wannabe.

[ATCO Two]

Hi foghorn,

As a Thames Controller I would expect you to be diverted to Spear or possibly Lydd to hold, although both are not ideal from the operational point of view. Thames procedures are actually under review at the moment (I am involved), and alternative holding facilities are being considered. Hope this is useful.

[foghorn]

Thanks for the answer ATCO 2,

I often talk to Thames in an AA5 from outside controlled airspace, and in my opinion there is not a more professional and consistently helpful LARS in the country.

Cheers!
foghorn

[ATCO Two]

Hi foghorn,

Huge misconception. Thames Radar is NOT, I repeat NOT a LARS unit (although everybody in the GA fraternity treats us as such). We are the approach radar unit for London City and Biggin Hill which are getting considerably busier by the day. There is simply not the capacity to provide a viable radar service to VFR traffic outside CAS, especially during peak times. Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings, well maybe.

[foghorn]

Point taken, my comments about professionalism still stand!

It is a real shame that there is not a LARS unit in the area, because, IMHO, there is a strong need for one in that congested airspace in the BPK-LAM-DET <2,500ft sector. Maybe it is time for a seperate City Director to free up space on Thames?

I do, however, understand the reason why it cannot be offered - having often struggled to get the 'Localiser Established' call in on the Biggin ILS. I guess this is why IFR traffic outside controlled airspace gets a 'Limited Radar Information Service'.

While we're on this subject, is calling for flight information when VFR also a problem (freuqency-clogging?). Would a listening watch be the best? I usually maintain a listening watch on Biggin App or Rochester Inf when south of the river VFR, but give you guys at Thames a call for flight information when north of the river (I often transit through the area and up through the Luton Zone).

Cheers,
foghorn

[ATCO Two]

Hi foghorn,

I tend to agree with you about a LARS Unit in the BPK - LAM -DET area. Providing the service would require extra staff and that costs money. It isn't going to get any better post privatisation for you GA guys either. Providing complimentary radar services is not cost effective - no profit for the shareholders! Never mind flight safety. Do you begin to see the reasons that so many aviation professionals are against the idea? There is a discrete City Radar position, most often used when EGLC on Easterlies. However he is NOT there to free up RTF time for Thames to provide service to VFR traffic. He is there to vector traffic to the ILS and provide a co-ordination facility. On Westerlies the second person again co-ordinates and acts as an extra pair of eyes for the Thames Controller. If you are VFR why do you need a radar information service anyway? OK, in marginal weather we are likely to more sympathetic, but then there are likely to be less light aircraft around anyway. You are lucky to get even a limited RIS; we are encouraging our Controllers to give a FIS only outside CAS. IFR traffic will be offered a RIS, limited by radar performance or workload, climbed into CAS for a Radar Control Service, or given RAS if inbound to one of the London Airports outside CAS. Listening out on the frequency is a sound idea. Keep well clear of the Biggin ILS and the City Zone especially at peak times. I'm fed up to the back teeth with VFR traffic asking to look at the Dome during the rush hours; they can hear we are busy, and yet they still ask!

[foghorn]

Interesting comment about the Dome - I've often overheard single-engine types asking for a Dome sightseeing trip and thought 'hmmm... what about the alight-clear rules'. Some pilots seem to think that it doesn't apply just because East London is class G/class D (when City is open), unlike West London class A.

I also strongly agree with your comments re RIS in VFR conditions, I only have only ever called for RIS when VFR once, during my PPL training for practice (and that was a quiet military LARS). I normally call Thames for FIS, it is up to the controller to upgrade if s/he wants (sometimes I have been asked if I want a radar service - I decline - just adds to my previous comments of the high levels of Thames professionalism IMHO).

In future I'll maintain a listening watch and keep my gob shut!

What would be best would be for a levy on AVGAS to pay for LARS. Better still, apportion some of the current sky-high duty to pay for a dedicated LARS in the GA choke-points. I'm sure we'd all be happier with the current situation of being fleeced by the government if we could see the safety benefits. But, of course, it will never happen.

Thanks for answering my questions, it's been interesting to hear opinions from the other side of the scope. I assume Thames is now based at West Drayton? I must book on a tour at some point!

[ATCO Two]

Thames Radar is at Heathrow Tower, long may it remain there!

[LowNSlow]

Foghorn, I followed you over from the Private Flying forum. Glad I did. I usually ask for RIS from London FIR. That gives me a situational (good for this time of night) awarness of what is likely to conflict. I did not know (or understand why) you could go and look at the Tone Dome. I think the bods lobbing into City and the ATC bods talking to them have enough to do without having to cope with sightseeres as well. On a contradictory note, New York controllers seem to cope OK with the Statue of Liberty lookers.......

[Shazbat]

Hi Low n slow

It's nice to see you GA pilots here http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/redface.gif)

Two things that might enlighten you a wee bit ~:

Firstly London FIR can't give you a RIS, or any other type of radar service, cuz they don't have radar - just a huge map with lots and lots of pins !

Secondly, the reason why the New Yorkers can easily cope with sightseers is that they allow VFR operation inside controlled airspace - just the thought of that makes me tremble ! Now you might think it's a good thing, but I'd draw attention to just one Stateside incident, where a VFR Cessna (I believe it was a Cessna) ploughed in to a 727 at San Diego (poor b*ggers........)

[ATCO Two]

Hi shazbat,

We allow VFR in CAS too you know! CIty Zone is Class D - as is Gatwick, Luton etc. Don't know where the statue of Liberty is in relation to the New York approach pattern, but the Dome is 1.75nm West of EGLC and literally metres South of the extended centreline.

[Warped Factor]

Shazbat,

"Secondly, the reason why the New Yorkers can easily cope with sightseers is that they allow VFR operation inside controlled airspace - just the thought of that makes me tremble !"

You know that the LCY Zone is Class D don't you, just like Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, East Mids, Brum etc?

That allows VFR ops inside the CAS.

I think the sightseeing flights in New York are actually operating in uncontrolled airspace below the terminal area and don't need to talk to ATC, they just self announce.

WF.

[tired]

W.F - yeah, I think you're right, the Statue is in the VFR corridor that runs up the Hudson River.

no problem using it, but if you stray outside of it you're VERY close to the JFK,EWR and LGA approaches!!!

[Shazbat]

SORRY ALL.....YES YOU'RE QUITE RIGHT......MY THOUGHTS WERE EXTENDING TO "OTHER PLACES" !!

[RATBOY]

I believe the accident Shazbat is referring to was an instructor and student in a C172 getting run over by a B-727 on an ILS to San Diego in the late 1970s. The C-172 crashed and burned, 727 needed paint touchup. Couldn't find the NTSB accident report but it was a big deal at the time in GA world.

[bookworm]

ATCO Two wrote: "If you are VFR why do you need a radar information service anyway?"

All of the reserach that I've seen on visual collision avoidance points to its poor effectiveness at anything more than glider or microlight speeds. Most collisions occur in very good VMC. Having a bearing and distance to any conflicting traffic *hugely* reduces the probability of collision. Ironically, I think traffic density plays a larger role than flight conditions, which means that, from a statistical standpoint, it's more important to get a radar service on a fine day than when in solid cloud.

(If see-and-avoid is so effective, why do we have class A airspace where we get separation even in the finest VMC?)

That doesn't, of course, mean that Thames Radar owes the pilot any favours for free, but please don't underestimate the value of a radar service if you have the opportunity to offer one.

On the subject of VFR transits of busy airspace, while the Hudson river is effectively an uncontrolled corridor, there are plenty of busy bits of controlled airspace in the US where VFR traffic seems to have better access than in the UK. I've flown VFR from the south overhead Washington National, then up the Mall to the Capitol which is all class B. There is little comparison between the traffic density at City (44K movements per year) and that at National (292K).

I do sometimes wonder if UK ATC overcontrols, at least in theory. If it's class D in the City zone, according to the book, IFR traffic is entitled to 'traffic infomation and avoidance advice on request'. That's a far cry from separation. Is this perhaps the influence of the dreaded 'snitch'?

Finally, RATBOY and Shazbat, the PSA 727 required rather more than a paintjob -- all 142 on board died. But the 727 did plough into the C172 from behind. The C172 was actually practising approaches and on a radar vector at the time.

[RATBOY]

Bookworm: Thanks for the correction--not so minor for the 142 on PSA.


It appears then that probability of near miss is proportional to density of traffic more than wx. Wonder whether airspace design gets into this and if safety is improved by having traffic moving in known directions. Something like uncontrolled airport, standard traffic patterns, etc. Speed/time to react is a factor, so maybe see and avoid is not really useful above 150 KTS or so.

Does the radar traffic advisory "Cherokee ABC traffic 12 o'clock speed and altitude unknown" scare you as much as it does me?

[ATCO Two]

Hi bookworm,

You make some interesting points. Class A airspace is established primarily to protect IFR traffic. Zone transits can be either IFR or Special VFR. Standard separation has to be provided between IFR/IFR, IFR/SVFR and SVFR/SVFR. Taking the London Control Zone as an example, there are many other forms of separation that can be applied, such as right side, geographical and deemed. The limited dimensions of the LCZ and the need to provide standard separation effectively restrict the amount of SVFR traffic that can be accepted, thus reducing any possible risk to IFR heavy metal. A working group that I am chairing actually proposed a reduction of the status of the LCZ to Class C - which does not exist at the moment in UK - (VFR traffic allowed in Class C). This suggestion was very unpopular amongst the Controllers. A compromise might be to re-designate some airspace over Central London as Class D.

Now Class D airspace. I know what it says in the book, but do you think it is fair for a London City departure (for example) shortly after takeoff, when the crew are flying a complicated SID and must avoid a level bust at all costs, to have to look out for VFR transit traffic? I don't. TCAS and Separation Monitoring Function are also issues here as you intimated, but an SMF encounter can be signed off as VFR/IFR visual separation. A recent development is the "duty of care" issue which SRG are pushing at the moment. I feel that I would be failing in my duty of care (and my primary task of controlling City and Biggin Hill IFR traffic) to potentially endanger an IFR aircraft with a VFR aircraft. Therefore I may "overcontrol" in your eyes, but I tend to use vertical or radar separation between IFR and VFR traffic, when appropriate. VFR pilots may be inexperienced and not do as expected. I want a fail safe situation, not a fail dangerous one, should my attention be needed in another area of the radar screen as is often the case.

The "duty of care" issue also arises when offering a RIS to VFR traffic. It is my contention that a radar service gives the pilot a false sense of security, and may even reduce his inclination to keep a good lookout. Again should I be "distracted" from my primary task and two aircraft under RIS collide, where do I stand legally? I have failed in my duty of care. This even applies to aircraft under a FIS. SRG would argue that even when not giving a radar service, if I am aware that two aircraft on the frequency are getting too close and I don't pass traffic information, then I am failing in my duty of care. A very grey area indeed. I suspect that more and more Controllers will give no service at all in the future for this very reason. Any comments?

[Tallbloke]

Shazbat,
I think you will find that it was the 727 which was flying VFR and the Cessna which was IFR. The captain of the 72 asked for a visual approach to save a few minutes on a lovely day. The crew, I believe a three man crew, then failed to positivly identify the traffic which was passed to them.

[dde0apb]

I'm interested by the idea of downrating parts of the LCZ from A to C. Seems eminently sensible to me, and maybe the same this could be applied to the Manchester Class A. I'm a PPL with IMC, and appreciate that the ethos in UK is to ensure commercial IFR separation from everything at all times. But to ban all of us non-IR people from large parts of airspace all the time (except SVFR) seems unnecesary in the context of what appears to work safely elsewhere in the world.

Downrating to Class C from A would still enable controllers to separate VFR from IFR positively, yet allow some us to use more airspace sensibly.

What then of the Gatwick / Stansted and Manchester zones? Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that these were class D. Indeed they are, but they might as well be A for the number of times you can get a crossing clearance!! If they were UPrated to C would this ease controllers concerns, and actually enable then to let transitting IFR or VFR aircraft through with greater confidence that they won't bu***r up someone's SID?


[This message has been edited by dde0apb (edited 28 September 2000).]

[Warped Factor]

ATCO Two,

I find myself in total agreement with your last paragraph.

Duty of care and MATS Pt 1 SI 4/00 have just made ATSOCAS somewhat more complicated.

Like you I fear the immediate reaction of many controllers will be to avoid offering services to traffic outside CAS where this is not their primary task.

dde0apb,

I can see the attraction to you of downgrading A to C. In the case of the limited dimensions of the London Zone though, it would be difficult for you to get a useable IFR clearance through the airspace, especially in a single. But then there would be the benefit of being able to go VFR as opposed to SVFR.

As for changing D to C, to be honest I don't think you'd see much difference as it is probably true to say that many controllers are virtually applying class C rules to class D airspace at the moment by "overcontrolling" in the manner, and for the reasons, suggested by ATCO Two.

WF.

[This message has been edited by Warped Factor (edited 28 September 2000).]

[bookworm]

A few points in response to ATCO Two.

The first has to be that I find this debate enormously valuable. It's helpful for a pilot to understand procedures and practices from the ATC point of view -- how much more so to understand the thought processes too. Thank you for sharing your views. While I'm not seeking to be confrontational, there are some issues here that go right to the heart of the ATC system in the UK.

ATCO Two writes "but do you think it is fair for a London City departure (for example) shortly after takeoff, when the crew are flying a complicated SID and must avoid a level bust at all costs, to have to look out for VFR transit traffic? I don't."

It seems difficult to argue against this at first sight, but I think there's an aspect or two that you don't consider. Every time a request for transit of controlled airspace is denied, it increases the workload of the transit traffic. What you're doing is increasing the workload of one pilot to reduce the workload of another. You're effectively changing the rules (in spirit if not in letter) off your own back, albeit with the best possible intentions. I know it seems an easy trade-off in the case of a pilot wanting to sightsee up the Thames, but there are plenty of cases where a failure to obtain a transit clearance is a great deal more troublesome than a two-man crew finding time to acquire traffic on a departure.

Because there are trade-offs between different airspace users, the place for policy to be set is at the regulatory level. If you think that IFR flights need to be separated from VFR in the London City CTR, then you think the airspace classification is wrong. It should be class C not D. So take it to NATMAC (maybe you sit on NATMAC for all I know?!) and ask for a change. I'll be by your side if you like. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and possibly some of the other majors may be at the level that separation, and therefore class C, is justified. But while it remains class D, it should be operated as class D, and the access to VFR traffic should be on that basis.

One of the best aspects of the airspace classification system introduced almost 10 years ago now is that wherever I go in the world, I know what the rules are for a particular piece of airspace, and moreover I know who has responsibility for what. Why play by different rules in the London City CTR than in, say Duesseldorf's CTR, Bordeaux CTR, Copenhagen CTR, Antwerp CTR...? There are plenty of other examples of class C and B CTRs too. But wherever I am, I know who has responsibility for what. Your two-man crew departing EGLC is going to get some nasty surprises if they expect separation at the other end of their flight in class D (or worse, in many places like France, Germany or the US, in the class E in which they will probably be operating).

Perhaps more importantly, the burden of 'duty of care' that you mention seems to be detracting from safety rather than add to it. If this concern is dissuading controllers from offering ATSORA then it must be revisited by those who set and regulate ATS (are you on frequency DAP? :)). As long as I *know* that there are limitations to a service, and there will always be limitations to any service provided in the open FIR, then I'd much rather have that service warts 'n all than no service at all.

ATCO Two also says "It is my contention that a radar service gives the pilot a false sense of security, and may even reduce his inclination to keep a good lookout." I really couldn't disagree more. All the research that I've seen persuades me that unassisted see-and-avoid is of minimal value. You seem to have the picture that the pilot is fervently scanning a 360 degree arc with perfect acquisition probability, and when told he has a RIS goes back to reading his book. :) It's really not like that. At the speeds at which we typically fly (say 150 KTAS), an aircraft converging head on will close from a mile away in 12 seconds. Have you looked for a light aircraft a mile away against a cluttered background head-on? But I don't just have to see it, without even suspecting that it's there rather than, say, 10 degrees of scan away; I have to avoid it too. The decision making process ("is he passing down the left, down the right, or is he going to hit me?") and the time it takes to react and manoeuvre can soak up all that time. *Your* call of 'Opposite direction traffic, 12 o'clock, 3 miles, same level', can make all the difference. Now I have some chance of narrowing my scan, changing level, manoevring to avoid.

We really need ATC's help in avoiding other aircraft in all airspace, even in good VMC. Any worries about 'duty of care' that makes ATC reluctant to offer that help need to be addressed as soon as possible.



[This message has been edited by bookworm (edited 28 September 2000).]

[Wedge]

Just to return to the 'night in question' referred to at the start of this thread.

As there were +TS around that evening I had a listen to Thames Radar frequency (at home). Aer Lingus aborted their third or fourth approach to LCY due to lightning directly over the runway, finally being diverted to STN. R/W was shortly afterwards closed due to flooding which was the cause of your delay foghorn.

I also heard an irate controller telling a helicopter in no uncertain terms not to go any further South as he was getting too close to the ILS - he had also requested a 'wander' up to the Dome. Wondering why he would be flying in such terrible weather my question was soon answered when I switched on the final episode of 'Big Brother'!