Controlled Airspace

[off watch]

In the Sottish Sunday Herald 11/6/00,in an article about Prestwick's attempt to regain controlled airspace, a CAA spokesman is quoted thus:
"Saying putting a controlled airspace in will stop unknown planes from flying into the zone is unrealistic - it's like saying all cars will adhere to a speed limit designed to prevent people speeding on the roads"

An interesting analogy - As the CAA are admitting there is a problem, I wonder what they would claim to be doing to solve it, apart from fines. How about penalty points on the licence & totting up towards a ban ?

Any thoughts people?


[This message has been edited by off watch (edited 12 June 2000).]

[This message has been edited by off watch (edited 12 June 2000).]

[ATCO Two]

Hi OW,

The CAA regularly prosecute for infringers of the London CTR and London City CTR. Fines are in the region of £1500+ plus costs, depending on the disruption caused, and the seriousness of the transgression.

[off watch]

ATCO Two
Thanks for the information. I've altered my original accordingly.

[Eric T Cartman]

The C.A.A. comment sounds like a PR reply for public consumption.
Everyone in ATC knows pilots frequently infringe CAS (see MOR digests for evidence) but a response like this makes it sound as though applying for CAS is almost a waste of time.

----------------------
respect my authoritiee !

[This message has been edited by Eric T Cartman (edited 14 June 2000).]

[Bagheera]

Stories like this dont help us......we are surrounded by clas E airspace...ie they can cross at 15 mile final 2-6000 feet without callling...Pain in the **** ..particularly when traffic is a tornado...However I have to say ..why not call...let us know where you are...we will give you a better service than the FIR and keep you safe....seems they are afraid to do so ,but please believe me its better that you do

[U R NumberOne]

Here's an idea - as it looks like Sumburgh will lose it's controlled airspace before too long, why not donate it to Prestwick - just like you would an internal organ! :)

And on the subject of press releases, in an inteview about our place, a NATS press officer stated we weren't short of controllers, and we are training to fill the gap. As one of my collegues said - if we aren't short of staff, what is the gap we are training new staff to fill? :rolleyes:

[2Donkeys]

Bagheera - It is nice to hear a response like that and a shame that the willingness of ATC to provide a service to aircraft outside controlled airspace is *very* patchy. I suspect that this contributes to some peoples' reluctance to call.

By way of example, Luton App is a model of helpfulness, both for transits as well as ATSOCA. By contrast, Essex Radar appear actively to discourage contact from anybody not inbound to EGSS. By reputation at least, the zone infringement stats are inversely proportional to the two units' willingess to talk.

2Donkeys

[Rd'H]

Sorry, 2Donkeys, but I cannot help thinking that whilst at STN and Essex we have approach frequencies used by professional pilots flying IFR and therefore exhibiting a high standard of R/T discipline with most transmissions being short and to the point, whereas I have at least once missed the turn onto the LLZ at LTN because 'Golf - Able - Whatnot VFR from Twitcher's Field blah blah blah' (ad nauseam) has taken the frequency over with his urgent request for Flight Informaion Service when the weather is CAVOK and he would be better served looking out of the window.

Sorry, but ATC at big airfields is there for the big aeroplanes, and the system runs better without mixing in the puddle-jumpers.

I can admit to being a puddle-jumper pilot myself, on days off, but I prefer to go around the outside and keep my eyes peeled!

[This message has been edited by Rd'H (edited 17 June 2000).]

[2Donkeys]

I can't disagree with anything you say Rd'H, having regularly been neglected whilst somebody reveals their inside leg measurement.

It doesn't take away that there are a very large number of infringements at Stansted, some of which would undoubtedly be avoided if Essex Radar actually spoke to the puddle-jumpers once in a while.

Compare and contrast with Gatwick, another NATS unit, but very different in approach.

2Donkeys

[Mmmmmm]

Interesting, since Gatwick APC and Essex radar are in the same room with the same management?

[2Donkeys]

I agree Mmmmmm. They have their backs to one another on opposite sides of the same room. But there is a distinct difference in approach (no pun intended) that any light aircraft pilot monitoring this thread would doubtless recognise.

2Donkeys

[Special VFR]

But wait until Luton APC is transfered to TC and then they'll be 'as good' as Stansted :) :) ;)

[2Donkeys]

Rumours are that Essex Radar and Luton Approach positions will become one and the same.

The countdown until the end of LARS on 129.55 is ticking I fear. Just as well the corridor between EGGW and EGSS is nice and wide below 2500. There'll be a lot of tin concentrated into it after the NATS takeover.

2Donkeys

[Flybywyre]

Mmmmmm & 2Donkeys

As you have both rightly pointed out Gatwick APC and Essex radar are in the same room under the same management, albeit with their backs to each other. However it all comes down to the personalities sitting in those positions.
As we all know, some controllers can be far more helpfull than others.

FBW

[Acker Demick]

The whole issue of LARS and the relationship between the ATC service and GA aircraft in the FIR needs sorting out. We "puddle jumpers" get official encouragement to make use of LARS via the CAA, GASIL etc., but in practice the level and "user friendliness" of service varies widely from unit to unit. EGGD is always very positive, others (we all know examples) are less so. Most PPLs do most flying at weekends, when the LARS service is patchy anyway due to the closure of many military units. So, what is the real story here? -- Do ATCOs want light GA in the open FIR to request Flight Info or not?

A related issue is the attitude of the local LARS units to the PFA rally. I have no involvement in organising this, so I don't know the inside story. AIC 18/2000, item 7.1.1 tells rally goers not to call Thames, Heathrow Radar, Luton or Stanstead -- so, on perhaps the busiest weekend for GA movements of the year, when a LARS service would be of greatest value, the GA community gets the cold shoulder. This suggests to me that the powers that be regard LARS as a token service -- if they thought it valuable, we would have been given extra coverage next weekend, not been told to keep quiet.

I appreciate that ATCOs are probably not making the policy decisions here, but your views would be interesting to get.

AD



------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money

[Wee Jock]

FBW, a considerable number of controllers are cross-trained and operate Gatwick AND Stansted.

[Eric T Cartman]

IMHO what ATC want depends on the airspace category they work in. At Liverpool in late 80's, pilots were told, by Notam, not to call for FIS unless planning to enter the Control Zone (cat.D). This was due to 1) NATS inability to man the FIS positions properly at LATCC & attempts to push the job onto individual airfields & 2) RAF Valley started to close at weekends leaving long distances between airfields in the NW. Liverpool did not want, for example, acft from Blackpool to Dublin calling with their life story out in the Irish Sea , while trying to put their own traffic on the ILS.

At Prestwick, with class G airspace, we would like everyone within 25 miles or so to call, so, 1)we don't have to take avoiding action on unknown traffic & 2)we can perhaps help avoid nasties by giving info on low flying military acft seen on radar.

[1261]

I can second this; with Class E on a 10-mile final at each end we'd rather be talking to you.....

[U R NumberOne]

I wouldn't get your hopes up about getting CAS around Prestwick in the near future, even though I understand the discussions have been taking place for quite a while, this things take ages. We asked for a VOR/DME approach as a back up to our ILS only runway when they removed the NDB on that end - that was about two years ago. The procedure was finally due to arrive in the Spring 2000 - well it was +19 here today so I reckon we're into the Summer now, and still no new approach!

[WeeWillyWinky]

R'dH

Your comments are a little like saying because some people drive like idiots lets make it safer by lowering all the speed limits. The problem is in the quality of the training. I used to instruct at LTN. The majority of controllers at LTN liked the mix of aircraft. Our radio courses were well taught (by a LTN ATCO amongst others) and our students were taught to be brief and disciplined on the radio. As a PPL I flew into AMS in a TB10. No problem because we did our homework and did as instructed. Unfortunately a very few controllers think it is a great job except for the aeroplanes. I also recall a (now closed) airfield in the south that had a small amount of biz traffic and a great deal of light aircraft traffic. The controllers hatred of light aircraft was very apparent by his surly and unhelpful attitude to students on the R/T even when the airfield was quiet, which was most of the time. I would emphasise that these controllers are a small minority in my experience (privately and now professionally) and I understand that when light aircraft were effectively prevented from operating at LTN some of the controllers there actively protested and were disappointed when it happened.

[This message has been edited by WeeWillyWinky (edited 21 June 2000).]

[Flybywyre]

Wee Jock

Yes I know that, I work with them.
What has that got to do with the point I was making?

FBW

[surface wind]

xxxxx approach, This is G-VVVV a complete asshole in a SFA (small fu**ing a/c) wishing to make you life as miserable as possible on this sunny day. I would like to transit your zone, get in the way of everything, miss important R/T calls and readback incorrect clearances, without paying a cent for the service, over.

I wonder why controllers are becoming more reluctant to offer a service outside CAS???

[2Donkeys]

Great response surface wind. So would you talk to the "SFAs" if they paid enroute charges like the rest of us, or is the cost thing just a smokescreen?

Perhaps you just don't like poor RT; not an affliction restricted to tyro puddle-jumpers.

2Donkeys

[Acker Demick]

Regarding us "SFA" drivers not paying a cent towards ATC costs -- I reckon I pay HMG about £10 per hour in duty and VAT on AVGAS -- that ought to pay for a teeny bit of attention from ATC once in a while. :)

AD

------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money

[This message has been edited by Acker Demick (edited 21 June 2000).]

[ojt...aye]

just for the benefit of ACKER DEMIC ...has he ever been to an approach room and seen the mayhem that can be caused by an sfa giving his total life experience to a guy whilst he desperatly wants to turn ....climb ....or descend another customer .At this unit we encourage all our locally based operators to come and see what we are up to ...it takes a short while for them to realise that certain things elicit a better response ......half decent r/t practice for a start ...and an awareness that whilst it is vital that you tell me you are xyz at 1234...there are priorities and sometimes you are not quite the most pressing .Having said all that I believe that I do offer a good service to guys outide controlled airspace but when it comes to it I will ALWAYS pay most attention to the guys inside controlled airspace ....in an emergency tho' you have my undivided and total attention .......

[PPRuNe Radar]

Acker,

Whilst in a fair world the Government would ring fence taxes to pay for services in the area where they are raised, this ain't the case.

Indeed the Government pays NOTHING to the ATC service in the UK. What it gives are loans on which a minimum rate of return plus the original sum have to be repaid. This is repaid by the user charges.

Now as most GA don't pay anything to NATS currently, the guys actually providing your "free" service are the airlines. Do you reckon they will want to let that continue when freed from the current Government arrangments ?? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

[surface wind]

I provide an ATC service at a regional airport. Who pays my wages??? It's the Airport Authority. They pay NATS a considerable sum of money so that THEIR aircraft are given the best service possible. That means IFR arrivals departures and other VFR aircraft in and out of the zone. I'm well aware that PPL's pay a lot (compared to USA) for the privilige of flying an aircraft, but when was the last time that any Fuel tax was payed to the CAA. I think you will find that the CAA recovers en-route costs from the airlines and charges airports for the services they provide there.

This begs the question- who should pay for a FIS?? Is it en-route or the airports. Most airports (because of contracts) are staffed to the minimum to reduce costs. Should en-route charges be increased to pay for a FIS for -VVVV. I think most airlines would be up in arms.

When privitisation happens, do you think our new owners will want to staff FIS positions with no revenue coming in. I don't think so.

Time to get off my soap box and look at some goldfish in a bowl!!!!

[2Donkeys]

...or how about removing the current 2 tonne limit for IFR enroute charges and investing the revenue in providing a decent radar service outside controlled airspace. There are certainly enough spare goldfish bowls at LATCC if only the funding existed.

The UK is, after all, the most expensive enroute airspace in Europe, by a big margin.



------------------
2Donkeys

[Acker Demick]

OK guys, I know you don't really get my fuel duty -- in a fairer world some of it would go to help pay for ATC. To return to my earlier point, we SFA types get conflicting messages about FIS, as can be seen by re-reading this thread. Is asking for an FIS either:
(a) doing the responsible thing, letting local ATC units know where I am and what my plans are, or
(b) cluttering the airwaves with unecessary low-priority chit-chat ?
Is the FIS primarily intended for my benefit or to improve situation awareness for ATC? If the latter, a charge seems unreasonable anyway. I personally would be happy to keep a silent listening watch on the local ATC frequency while pottering in class E, and just squawk 7000 mode charlie instead of asking for FIS. The "basic" FIS often consists only of providing the regional QNH, which is of little use anyway, and could be put on VOLMET. Some units give more when work permits, with useful info on conlicting traffic etc.., but we are then in a gray area between FIS and RIS -- sometimes helpful but no substitute for see & be seen.

Incidentally, those who complain about SFAs requesting FIS should note that the CAA GA Safety sense leaflet on ATC outside CAS tells us we should regard an FIS as the MINIMUM service we should plan to use -- this is what instructors typically teach PPLs.

AD

------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money

[PPRuNe Radar]

2Donkeys

We have spare consoles at Area Control in LATCC ?? I don't think so, hence one of the reasons for giving other sectors away to the boys next door in Terminal Control and up the road at Manchester and Scotland. This then allows us to resectorise the existing airspace to provide much needed capacity increases.

Another part of the jigsaw is that there are still staff shortfalls, not a unique problem to NATS, but a global one. Even if the money was there, there still wouldn't be the extra staff to provide a service outside CAS to the GA fraternity. The priority will remain solving the capacity issues for the major customers, the airline operators. And this is without considering the staffing up for major training commitments for things like the Swanwick Centre. He who pays the piper the most, calls the tune.

Acker

I think it depends who you are asking for FIS from and where. If it's the FIS frequencies provided from the Area Control Centres and you're outside CAS then there should be no question of FIS being provided. That's a mandatory service provision under ICAO.

If it's from an airfield, then they really only have a commitment to provide you with an FIS (and of course any other services) within airspace for which they have responsibility, usually their zone. Outside that area, the service provision may assist them in their task, i.e they know who the 7000 squawk is passing through the centreline at 15 miles, but of course this is subject to them completing their prime tasks and if they choose not to provide a service then they are entirely within their rights. As mentioned, that prime task will usually be to provide a service to aircraft which the Airport Authority will be billing. Certain units are of course the exception to this, that is those that provide LARS.

I suspect the GASIL is referring to the service from the FIS Area units and LARS units, it should not be filling pilots with false hopes that they may get a service from other airfield units outside airspace over which they have responsibility for.

It remains to be seen how this might all change after PPP of NATS.

------------------
PPRuNe Radar
ATC Forum Moderator
[email protected]

[identnospeed]

Under PPP the provision of services which generate little revenue is not going to improve. NATS finite resources are going to be put to their most effective use by trying to maximise revenue per ATCO.

As 70% of its costs relate to labour, NATS is not going to assign controllers to minor or negligible income streams. The imposition of the 'RPI-x%' route-charge structure over the next 5 years will only reduce NATS motivation to provide services for the non-fee generating aircraft.

INS



[This message has been edited by identnospeed (edited 22 June 2000).]