Who was right?

[S-Works]

I had an interesting experiance today flying down to Denham. routing southbound took me and a 2nd aircraft in formation overhead DTY and then out bound from DTY one the 155 radial to Chalfont St Giles which is the Denham 06 VRP. Altitude on 1019 was 2900ft.

Called Luton for a FIS who were far t"o busy" on a quiet frequency to respond for several minutes. We continued onwards clear of controlled airspace until several minutes later given a FIS and told to remain clear. Overhead Chivory we were told by Luton that we had infringed their airpspace laterally and were given a transponder code. I asked them to clarfiy the infringement and was told that we had entered the 2500-3500ft zone and to call them on the ground.

On landing I viewed the trails from the GPS carried in the 2 aircraft and both sets of GPS show us overhead Chivory which we visually confirmed then overhead Gore then overhead Chalfont St Giles. We were VFR nav with flight planned on the map using the DTY VOR and 2 sets of GPS as backup one of once was an IFR fit GNS 430 and the other a 296 (both aircraft have an identical fit). All 4 sources of navigation agreed.

I spoke to the controller who wanted me to back down and apologise and basically tried to black mail me by saying that the only way to prove who was right was by requesting the radar trace and the only way he could do that was by filing a complaint. I spoke to his supervisor in the end who said that perhaps we should agree to disagree and leave it at that. After telling me that as a pilot I should have left several miles of space between us and controlled airspace and that the frequently vector jets to the edge of the control.

So I have a couple of qustions:

Is controlled airspace now in fact several miles bigger than that shown on our maps?

If I should have given several miles clearance then should they be vectoring jets to the limit if the same airspace?

Are we not all equal users of airspace and supposed to have equal access?

Why would the controller be so adamant that we had bust his zone when according to the route planned and flown and proven on the GPS we were clear of controlled airspace.

It is liitle wonder there is so much animosity between pilots and controllers and the need for seminars such as the upcoming event at Teeside.

This has left me with a very bitter taste and has destroyed the goodwill I have always felt towards Luton controllers.

Comments please!

[dublinpilot]

That sounds like a very weird encounter. I can certainly see why it would leave a bitter taste.

Two thoughts come to mind.

1. I'm not familiar with the airspace there. Is it possible it has been recently changed, since the last map revision, and since your last gps update?

2. What were you squwaking? was it 7000? Is so, it's possible the controller mistook another aircraft for you.

That's about all that I can think of!

dp

[S-Works]

7000 on the transponder with mode C, there was in fact 2 other aircraft that crossed our nose right to left and I did ask the controller on the phone if he had seen them and the response was silence.

no changes to airpspace or maps and my GPS and the CAA map agree with each other.

on the phone the controller said he was busy with a runway change. High workload I can sympathise with but to accuse us of something we clearly did not do is inexcusable.

I am the first to stick my hand up when I do do wrong and about 800hrs or so ago I did impinge birminghams airpspace by 100ft on a night flight. I called and apologised and made sure I never repeated the mistake.

[BEagle]

Do not accept the ATC allegation. Slippage of his picture was entirely possible and in any case he was probably using secondary or processed-primary returns. He should aim to keep all the a/c under his control well inside his airspace (I think it's 3 miles?) - and you have every right to fly up to 1 molecule from his precious CTA....

He should withdraw his libellous statements.

ATCO, TWATCO! Idiots like him do not help Flight Safety in any way whatsoever.

[cblinton@blueyonder.]

I hate confrontations, however I think you should take this further.

I had a similar encounter with East Mids several years ago and was told to phone them when I had landed, turned out I got an apology but at least my mind was at rest and the problem solved.

You need to sort it out for your own sake and others ! it made me feel a right *** at the time :confused:

Best of luck with it BX

[Flap40]

A couple of points. Firstly I can't find "Chivory" or "Gore" although I have found a hamlet called Chivery SW of Luton near Wendover which lies on a direct track from DTY to the Chalfont St Giles VRP.

Below is an excerpt from the OS 1:50000 in the area of the SW corner of the relevant bit of airspace.
The blue line is the direct track from DTY to the VRP, both of which were plotted using the co-ordinates from the AIP.
The red line marked the boundary of the airspace, again plotted using the figures from the AIP.

Assuming you flew the direct track with absolute accuracy then you would appear to have been just inside the airspace. However, the airspace immediately to the SE of this box is LTMA from 2500+ so assuming you went under this (you did didn't you! :)) you would already been below the disputed airspace for the second or two that you within its lateral limits.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jodel/photos/LTN.JPG

[AlanM]

Beagle me old mucker

Hardly a nice reasoned response mate.

A luton controller (not the one involved) has responded to bose-x in the Flyer forum offering all the help he can.

As for keeping inside CAS by three miles then I am sorry but that is not always possible. Take the London City zone as an example.

[S-Works]

Images shown below are screen shots from the GPS which records track. FLap 40 your plotting is pretty accurate and would agree with the GPS trace other than the fact that we were the west side of your blue line and yes at that point we were already at 1500ft ready to go into the Denham ATZ.

If we had gone steaming through the Luton Zone it would be understandable but the trace shows we were clear, the VOR tradck took us clear and looking out the windows and identifying the town below us took is clear.

Also as pointed out there has been a positive response from Luton on the flyer forum and I am happy to discuss this to educate all.

http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton2.bmp

http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton.bmp



http://http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton2.bmp

http://http://www.tdisdi.net/aviation/luton.bmp

[Genghis the Engineer]

Clearly lessons for everybody here - why not file a CHIRP report?

G

[PPRuNe Radar]

Beagle me old mucker Hardly a nice reasoned response mate.

Do a search ... the phrase TWATCO appears regularly when BEagle is discussing ATC. Maybe one of us stole his girlfriend or something in years past ;)

Slippage of his picture was entirely possible and in any case he was probably using secondary or processed-primary returns.

Slippage ? Now how does that happen ? It's not like we use a Flight Management System to determine radar head position and so could suffer map slip, nor do ATC units move around (ships and rigs excepted ... and maybe Amsterdam Tower in high winds by a few feet !!).

Processed returns might cause a slight difference in indicated radar postion by up to 0.1NM, especially with track smoothing in operation, but if you were flying in a straight line this effect is unlikely.


I think the path offered on the Flyer Forum is the best course of action in your case. If it had been a 'bang to rights' infringement then I suspect Luton would have filed a CA939 (Breach of Legislation). The fact they have not done so means there is probably not proof beyond reasonable doubt that any alleged infringer was actually you.

[S-Works]

Which is kind of my point! As you can see from the screen shot we were clear which should grant "reasonable doubt".

So I am asking myself why I have a plaster covering my new Arse%le ripped by a Luton control?????

We did not go sailing through the zone on a self destruct mission we followed a carefully planned flight and have taken a beating for it.

If I had a doubt in my mind then I would have kept my gob shut and bit the bullet.

[PPRuNe Radar]

As a piece of advice, it is always best to ask to talk with the Supervisor in the first instance. The controller involved will not have an unbiased opinion and, depending on what they percieved to have happened, might be a bit prickly since not all ATCOs have attended diplomacy school yet ;)

The supervisor should already have heard the ATCOs side of the story, he will know the various rules and procedures which are pertinent, and he can then listen to your side of the story and hopefully come to a balanced judgement. He will also be aware of the various follow up actions which can be taken depending upon how he feels the 'incident' needs to be closed.

And in spite of what the ATCO told you, tapes can be pulled for a 'look see' without any reporting action ever being taken. The only constraint will be that some units don't have the ability to instantly replay them in cases like this and will have to wait till the data tape is changed on the recorder, which could be up to 24 hours away. Some bigger units have instant digital data replay available (OK, by instant I mean once the engineers have set it up .. so probably 30 mins in reality for a non urgent replay). It's always worth asking them to have a look in cases such as yours, particularly if you have been 'reamed' by ATC about it.

Hopefully TC-LTN can find out exactly what the radar picture showed, and if there is big discrepency between your reported track and that shown on the radar, then I am sure the radar mapping and track correlation can be checked for accuracy and a definitive answer on the 'infringement' given.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Looking at the scale on the GPS screen and the track projected it seems that you have a lot of confidence in GARMIN's ability to plot CAS accurately in the UK.

[WorkingHard]

If, I repeat IF, the controller is proved to be absolutely out of order, would some of you ATC guys tell us what may happen to him? In every walk of life there are problem types but they need to be weeded out or educated in better ways. Would that happen in ATC?

[S-Works]

That what I love about you frank always ready to see me in the wrong. As I stated right at the start the GPS was a backup up to conventional navigation which was a radial from the DTY VOR and good old looking out the window with a map on my lap. Thye airspace in the GPS is matched to that on the map correctly.

We were not using GPS to skirt around the edge of CAS and for reference the point where I track came closest to the Luton space is where Luton joinst the LTMA and we were already at 1500 by tha point. Our allegded infringement was supposed to have been further up the zone.

[Fuji Abound]

I was very impressed with Luton's proposals to investigate this further in another place. This is exactly the co-operation that should exist between pilot's and controllers - well done!

Reading the reports in GASIL it seems to me formal reports only tend to be made when the infringement is blatant?

Notwithstanding the comment by the ATCO that aircraft are vectored to the limit of controlled airspace I find it very difficult to justify how or why the ATCO should apparently have taken such an aggresive line. It seems to me it should have been quite clear to him that the pilot knew exactly what he was doing. I am sure if I "had my eye" on an aircraft that was clearly flying very close to the edge of controlled airspace on a roughly parallel course I would be pretty confident that the pilot was navigating very accurately. (I accept there is always the possibility the pilot might make a completley unexpected turn into controlled airspace.)

Whislt I appreciate controllers do not always have time I have been very impressed at how often I have heard something along the lines "if you continue on your current course (at cuurent height) you will infringe controlled airspace at". That avoids on the whole the problem ever occuring in the first place.

I totally agree with the posting of this thread and I think we will all find the outcome informative.

[Bright-Ling]

Reading the reports in GASIL it seems to me formal reports only tend to be made when the infringement is blatant?

Not always true old chap. I have been involved in CAA legal action even though the pilot was unaware he was over BUR heading South East at 2400 - thinking he was in the CPT area aiming for Fairoaks.

Not exactly blatant but costly all the same. (about £2000 in this case)

It doesn't help when LHR are breaking stuff off their approach, aircraft hold for 20 mins etc.

[slim_slag]

I bet a pilot with a Garmin can delineate the edge of that airspace more accurately than the controller with his radar screen.

[Bright-Ling]

I bet the CAA use the radar recordings for prosecution!!

[Skycop]

Occasionally there are going to be differences of opinion like this but some controllers are just too ready to give out a tongue lashing on the radio. It is a flight safety issue - a pilot will be distracted for some time afterwards and if nothing else, his lookout is likely to suffer.

I suggest this is investigated properly, I would certainly request it if I felt I was being wrongly accused of an airspace infringement.

[Bright-Ling]

So would I Skycop..... :)

[Fuji Abound]

"Not always true old chap. I have been involved in CAA legal action even though the pilot was unaware he was over BUR heading South East at 2400 - thinking he was in the CPT area aiming for Fairoaks.

Not exactly blatant but costly all the same."


I suppose it is all relative but being over Burham headin SE would seem pretty blatant to me never mind being at 2,400. If not I am not sure what would constitute blatant old boy.

Not exactly what I had in mind.

[S-Works]

I know it is the other site, but as I have been exonerated I thought I would post the outcome.

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=155569#155569

[phnuff]

I think this thread, while in some ways interesting, is in danger of turning into a case of how deeply can one dig ones heals in. As I understand it, the controller hasn't filed for infringement which means that he is either a nice bloke or not sure of his facts, and the pilot having received a bollocking is looking for support from other pilots. At the end of the day, unless action is taken by one of the sides, it is probably best to let it go and assume that one of the sides had a bad day. We all have them after all . . . . .

Edited by phnuff

Well, my post seems to have somehow crossed with the resolution post. I am glad it ended well, and EGGW, despite the odd bad day seem to remain a very friendly place for general aviation

[Aussie Andy]

Glad to see you've been exonerated (read the tail-end of the thread in "another place")... but this reminds me of something that was discussed recently regarding the eastern edge of the London City zone: much of the airspace we are talking about was designed before chaps like us had accurate GPS aboard our aircraft, and so people tended to give a wider berth to the various CTR/CTAs.

Now that we have GPS, we can technically fly within 100 yards of the edge of zone in theory! The view the controller has via his radar may - for reasons mentioned above - not be as accurate. There are some standard approaches and departures (at LCY and elsewhere) that take the IFR traffic temporarily slightly outside of CAS, so this can be more of an issue than in the past...

Also, a busy / stressed controller might be alerted by a seemingly close target, look away to other traffic, then look back just after one of us has just skirted around the edge of some bit of his zone, and conclude wrongly that you have flown the straight line between where he last saw you and where you are now, clipping his zone. I am guessing that the guy had had a previous VFR flight infringe his zone and cause him a problem, but not on his frequency at the time (that's why us local pilots avoid calling Luton :rolleyes: - only joking...) and so he might have decided to take it out on the next bloke who came close and whom he had radio contact with! Just a guess...

Anyway, my point is that it wouldn't hurt us to routinely leave a wide berth of say min 3~5NM when skirting someone's zone... it's not really that inconvenient in terms of time or money, and it means that a small error on my part or on the part of the controller is not going to cause a lot of bother and hot air. The alternative might be a decision to slightly enlarge the CAS.. which would be a great shame..!

Just my two-cents worth...!

Andy :ok:

[S-Works]

Andy, Agreed. But for the record I was not skirting the zone I had no choice but to approach it as my destination was inside the LTMA and along side Luton. My path was always intended to keep me clear of CAS.

[Aussie Andy]

Understood: and was not really intending to comment on your case, just wanted to make the general point FWIW!

Andy :O

[BEagle]

.....but some controllers are just too ready to give out a tongue lashing on the radio

It's those who are my despised 'Tw@cos' - NOT all ATCOs, PPRuNe Radar! Just as I view some "Err, Golf, err, Alfa, sir, err, this, err is a Sunny Sunday err, Cheorkee, over" pilots as utter numpties!

There is an interesting brief doing the rounds from the Defence Air Safety Centre (IFS in pre-Purple days) which reminds both pilots AND military ATCOs of their responibilities and authority over flights - makes good reading!

Mind you I was brought up in my Hunter days with the edict "Don't talk to ATC unless you have to - they'll just cost you fuel!". Perhaps somewhat inappropriate in this day and age!

[slim_slag]

They seem to use the Class D's I fly out of as practical testing grounds for controllers when they have come out of ATC school. I have to say the vast majority are probably better trained and more professional than 99% of civilian pilots, and to be quite honest they do a much harder job than us too.

Some of them obviously aren't up to it and have to be reassigned to a post where they give out the weather and the biggest order they can give to pilots is 'VFR flight not recommended'. Ripping somebody a new a-hole would be a significant step in that direction, imho.

Bring on Mode S!

(that last bit was being sarcastic)

[Timothy]

All this soul-searching about one ATCO making one non-life-threatening error of judgement on one occasion!

It doesn't mean that the whole system is rotten, nor that ATCOs are rotten, nor that Luton ATC is rotten, nor indeed that this particular guy is rotten.

He made one bad call. It has been resolved. It got bose's back up, as it would mine, but now some learning is going to take place.

95% of ATCOs are great 99% of the time. Aren't we lucky?!?

[Aussie Andy]

Here-here! And a special word of thanks to the nice folks at Cranfield who do a great job of one-armed-paper-hanging running both TWR and procedural APP services on the weekends..!

Andy

[david viewing]

I would venture to suggest that there is another more fundamental issue at play, which has not really come out despite all the discussion here and elsewhere. That is the alleged failure of ATC to reply to initial calls or perhaps on other occasions the curt 'remain clear' or 'standby' that many of us are familiar with.

I think most private pilots must understand that controllers on a 'quiet' frequency might be busy elsewhere, especially with the military who have UHF frequencies as well. But do controllers fully appreciate the converse, the tension escalating in the cockpit as some boundary approaches? In some cases the pilot will have doubts that his call has been heard, that he has the right frequency (the rate of change of frequencies is considerable) or that his radio is functioning. All the time the boundary is approaching and options are reducing.

Because there is a definite habit (In my opinion) of putting private pilots on 'hold', some pilots might have a tendency to conclude that the controller is playing 'chicken' and continue inbound where otherwise, they might take a different route.

In my experience, a polite reminder often produces an instant clearance, leaving one to wonder why the clearance or at least a 'continue inbound' had not been forthcoming immediately.

Would it be possible for someone in ATC to look in to this issue of what I might call 'delayed response'? If the controllers are really too busy to respond immediately, are there safety issues with the workload and the traffic that they are handling? And if not, is it possible that there is in some cases a culture of 'private pilots can wait' that could be improved by a little education?


I would like to add that I am not any way 'knocking' UK ATC who in my experience provide an excellent and friendly service and doubtless have their own completely justified opinions regarding 'amateur' pilots. It's worth adding that similar situations arise in the USA and that Class 'B' controllers in my experience occasionally play a very similar tactic regarding 'cleared to enter class B' right up to the point where one would have to make a 180.

[S-Works]

Heard a similar exchange yesterday going through Waddington zone on my way to Sturgate. Pilot called up and was told to standby several minutes later no response so the pilot called again and was given a curt response that he was told to standby.

There does need to be better communication and a faster return to pilots on standby.

I go through East Midlands on almost a daily basis and it is rare for me to wait more than a minute after a "standby I will call you back". It is also very rare for me to be refused a transit, they will usually tell me to continue on track while they work me through.

Perhaps a bit of commanality could help?

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

David, you make some interesting observations. I think most of us would agree that controllers will only put an aircraft on a "standby" if they are busy. Prioritising your aircraft is something that is necessary - eg. I would offer that it is more important to assure a closing angle for an ILS than enter a discussion about providing someone a RIS/FIS. There are obviously occasions where this is not the case but a controller is forced to make a quick decision as to where his priorty should lie.

If an aircraft is on standby for a number of minutes, it is for one of two reasons: either the controller is really busy or, unusually, he has forgotton the initial call. The bottom line is that many ATC units no longer have the resources necessary to provide services to much more than their planned traffic (arrivals/departures). Consequently, it really is something of a lottery for people who wish to avail themselves of either a CTR transit or ATSOCAS. A sorry state of affairs but the harsh reality.

[WorkingHard]

Whipping Boy's SATCO - Forgive me if I have misunderstood but you seem to be suggesting that if a CONTROLLER (my emphasis) is too busy then a transit through CAS may be denied. Surely the basic premise is that ALL a/c have a right to enter provided the airspace can accomodate them safely and no conflicts will result (i.e. equal access). The fact that a CONTROLLER is too busy does seem to be an invalid reason. Please be assured this is no way "getting at" controllers for whom I have the utmost respect, more a comment on the system. CAS is NOT there for the exclusive use of CAT and lack of controllers must be addressed. Am I right please?

[david viewing]

Whipping Boy - would it help if pilots used a specific initial call similar to 'G-abcd request Matz pentration?' ie 'request zone penetration in x mins' or something? (I mean on first contact).

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

WH, I would not disagree. However, the reality is that if a controller is working to his/her capacity, then the only way they can manage their workload is to limit/restrict access to the CAS that they are responsible for managing; this is irrespective of 'right of transit'. This takes me back to my point that units must ensure they are properly resourced to meet the task.

David, an interesting proposition - I will put this one in the melting pot.

[Timothy]

Please let us not equate those operating outside CAS with "Private Pilots".

Many indeed are, but many are doing one kind of aerial work or public transport or another, and are therefore professional pilots.

Not that it should matter to those giving services, but a mindset that dismisses all aircraft outside controlled airspace as recreational bimblers leaves aside ambulances, pipe and wire inspections, air charter, at some times of year mail and so on.

Which, of course, raises the thorny issues of registration vs flight number and whether it makes a difference.

[Chilli Monster]

David Viewing
But do controllers fully appreciate the converse, the tension escalating in the cockpit as some boundary approaches?
Why is there tension? Why haven't you got plan 'B' (going around it or holding outside if inbound) ready and available to use. If you're feeling tension in that scenario then what are you gong to be like dealing with a real problem. Sorry, but that's a 'non comment'.
would it help if pilots used a specific initial call similar to 'G-abcd request Matz pentration?' ie 'request zone penetration in x mins' or something? (I mean on first contact).
Yes - and why don't you?

"xyz Approach, G-ABCD request zone transit" would be perfectly acceptable and even desirable

Working Hard
Surely the basic premise is that ALL a/c have a right to enter provided the airspace can accomodate them safely and no conflicts will result (i.e. equal access). The fact that a CONTROLLER is too busy does seem to be an invalid reason.
Fact of life - if you're working at full capacity you prioritise the workload (as WBS points out). You as a transit I'm afraid is a lower priority than the people you are vectoring for the approach or are departing. Nothing against you as a transit - that's just life. They have to be sequenced on the ILS, or have to be given a service on departure to get them to their cruising level. You on the other hand don't have to transit the zone.

You may have the right, but if the Controller's too busy with his primary task and so is unable to give the clearance then you're not going to get it.

As for the system being poorly resourced - the bad news is there aren't enough qualified controllers to go round, whether the unit wants to be fully manned for the task or not.

[bar shaker]

"XYZ Approach, G-ABCD request transit/MATZ penetration" is the correct CAP413 phraseology for a first call (when requiring such a clearance) and works every time for me.

[dublinpilot]

Chilli,

I think you might be being a little hard on David. I can certainly see why there would be mounting tention in a cockpit. If you are in unfamiliar terrain, and navigating using those methods taught at the PPL, you are unlikely be able to tell "exactly" where you are, just approximatly. As you approach the controlled airspace, you have to start thinking about when you need to start orbiting. Also you need to start getting your headings and timeing for your diversion around controlled airspace. All the while wondering if the controller has actually forgotten about you. Maybe tention was the wrong word, but workload has certainly increased.

I think David was also suggesting 'request zone penetration in x mins' instead of 'G-abcd request Matz pentration?'. I think you might have mistook him here.

I imagine that often when a controller tell you to standby, (s)he already knows if he can let you through or not, and just needs a minute to deal with another issue, or perhaps to figure out which way to send you. If am I am correct in this assumption, then a "G-xx remain clear of controlled airspace, and I'll be back to you in a minute with instructions for your transist" or "G-xx continue on heading, and I'll be back to you in a minute with further instructions" would be very helpful. At least you'd know your transit request is going to be approved.

Just a thought.

dp

[Chilli Monster]

dublinpilot

No - no misunderstanding with the phraseology - see barshaker's post above.

I imagine that often when a controller tell you to standby, (s)he already knows if he can let you through or not,

Standby tends to come in answer to the initial call - therefore how do you know you can approve a zone transit if you don't know that's what they want? In addition traffic levels around some of the busier, Class 'D' regionals around the UK, which aren't constant, often mean you don't know whether the transit will be approved until you've fully assessed the information (distance, speed, expected traffic etc etc etc).

"G-xx remain clear of controlled airspace, and I'll be back to you in a minute with instructions for your transist" or "G-xx continue on heading, and I'll be back to you in a minute with further instructions"

Example 1 displays an assumption the aircraft wants a zone transit before they've asked for it - ATC is a game where assumption doesn't play a part.

Example 2 could never be used because if they were close to the zone boundary, and you told them to continue on their heading and got tied up with other things you leave another uncertainty factor in the cockpit "Do I continue on the heading and cross, or do I stay outside?". Also you don't give specific headings to VFR traffic unless you ask them first in case they enter IMC. inadvertantly.

As for the diversion scenario - there's nothing difficult about turning 90 degrees (if that's what's needed, it may not be that much) and then doing a quick map read v ground reference re-route to pick up your track on the other side. You don't need timings, you don't need to re-calculate, just basic map reading skills (which the PPL does learn during his course - or at least I did when I did mine, and have used when flying in unfamiliar countries, never mind areas of my own country).

[dublinpilot]

Chilli,

I think you will find that David understands what the correct phraseology is. He was simply trying to suggest a new one which if accepted and approved, may prove to be more helpful. That is what I think you missed from his post.

Yes, I do accept that standby often comes from an initial call. However I had had a number of calls that went along the lines of :

"ZZZ Control EI-xxx "
"xx go ahead"
"ZZZ Control xx [speil]"
"XX can you confirm.......(possibly that I am currently sqwaking 7000, or some other info)"
"afirm xx"
"Ok xx, standby"

These are where I would see it being more helpful to indicate to a pilot that a transit would be forthcoming, but that the controller needs a little more time.

And yes, I accept that the controller can't tell someone to keep on their heading/track/route without giving a clearance to enter their airspace. However I think a form of wording can be found to indicate that a transit will be granted shortly.

Yes, I sure we can all manage to read a map, and make a diversion, but it's one extra task, that may be completely unnecessary if you knew that your transit was about to be granted.

Surely you can see the point I'm trying to get at? Or is there a reason you wouldn't want to let the pilot know that they'd have their transit clearance shortly?

Of course in this, I am assuming that it's relatively common that controller know they will be able to oblige with a transit, but have a more urgent task to deal with. I could be wrong with that.

dp

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

One system I have seen that tends to help is the establishment of a number of "corridors". For example, it is usually a safe bet that one can transit the Brize CTR through the overhead (well 1nm East or West) at 2000ft QFE or 8nm East or West not above 1500ft. Maybe this type of system could be explored to reduce R/T? I reiterate that stating time before crossing on initial contact may have some merits. At least this may assist the controller in assessing his priorities.

Nevertheless, we have to remember that for a controller to identify an aircraft (almost a necessity to guarantee a CTR transit nowadays), apply a service, allocate a route, issue a clearance and get an accurate readback all takes time, something that is often lacking.

Finally, I am not sure about the efficacy of giving an ac an indication of the possibility of transit on initial contact. With some of us, that may well lead to more infringements as we would blindly head off towards the boundary only to confirm the status of the (non) clearance on crossing the line.

[WorkingHard]

Whipping Boy's SATCO said:

"This takes me back to my point that units must ensure they are properly resourced to meet the task."

It is what I thought may be the case so should we not be getting our respective organisations (AOPA etc. and of course the CAA) to put pressure on NATS?? to properly resource the ATC so that the terms of the CAS can be adhered to. Failure to apply ought to lead to sanctions in just the same way that unauthorised entry into CAS may lead to sanctions. Will it ever happen? Will ATC be properly resourced? Will profit be put before other considerations?

[Chilli Monster]

should we not be getting our respective organisations (AOPA etc. and of course the CAA) to put pressure on NATS?? to properly resource the ATC so that the terms of the CAS can be adhered to.

1) ATCO's don't grow on trees - there is a 20% shortfall of qualified radar controllers throughout Europe. If you can get the people to do the job you still can't train them up overnight

2) Not all CTR's are the responsibility of NATS (a common misconception)

Sumburgh
Prestwick
Newcastle
Tees-side
Ronaldsway
Liverpool
Leeds/Bradford
East Midlands
Bristol
Bournemouth

Are all non-NATS units

Lyneham
Brize Norton

Are, of course, Military.

[Final 3 Greens]

ATCO's don't grow on trees Didn't the US ATCOs say that to Ronald Reagan? ;)

[Penguina]

ATCO's don't grow on trees - there is a 20% shortfall of qualified radar controllers throughout Europe. If you can get the people to do the job you still can't train them up overnight

Given this, I find it odd that NATS have this under 30 rule for applicants. 30 is very young to exclude people; pilots have a chance of making it after this age. Reason for saying this is I know someone, 35, who became interested in becoming an ATCO (and, to me, it seemed he would be well-suited to the job) and was disappointed when he looked into the options for people that don't take the NATS or military route.

[WorkingHard]

Chilli Monster - I was obviously a little hasty in just quoting NATS. yes of course ther are other authorities. My questions till hold good and so why do not the CAA for example get involved to enforce the terms of the "licence" as they would against any miscreant who was a pilot and broke the rules. Surely the "Controlling Authority" is breaking the rules by not having adequate staff to ensure equal access to the designated airspace they wish to control. Can any one give us a definitive answer please? I should stress that apart from one particular piece of CAS (which I simply avoid be it VFR or IFR) the UK has the best ATCOs anywhere in the world and they do a very good job so please dont let this degenerate into having a go at ATCOs.

[PPRuNe Radar]

It's those who are my despised 'Tw@cos' - NOT all ATCOs, PPRuNe Radar! Just as I view some "Err, Golf, err, Alfa, sir, err, this, err is a Sunny Sunday err, Cheorkee, over" pilots as utter numpties!

Thanks for the clarification BEagle .. we are on the same hymn sheet after all. My apologies :ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

"Given this, I find it odd that NATS have this under 30 rule for applicants"

Is that for qualified applicants or their training scheme? I'm sure that wouldn't apply to, say, an RAF ATCO leaving the service.

G

[Penguina]

Hi Genghis,

Is that for qualified applicants or their training scheme? I'm sure that wouldn't apply to, say, an RAF ATCO leaving the service.

OK, it's been a year since I went through this so I'm a bit hazy but from what I remember, yes, I think 30 is only the max for the training scheme, but unless you've come from the military (which presumably there's a cut off age for too) it's very tough to become a self-made ATCO and it's difficult to find work.

Just seems to eliminate a whole group of people who reach their mid-thirties, find they are a very different person from the one they were at 18 who set them on the path to their current career and are highly motivated to learn the trade.

If we're capable of working until 70, surely we're still capable of learning a demanding discipline at 31? Not that I know the slightest thing about this - I am mainly just a bit indignant on my friend's behalf. :(

[rotorcraig]

The standard phraseology for initial calls CHANGED with the last ammendment to CAP413.

It is now simply "[UNIT] this is [STATION]".Dusty_B, which version of CAP413 are you quoting as "the last ammendment"?

I've just downloaded the PDF version of CAP413 Edition 15 (Amendment 1 - 17 December 2004).

And in Chapter 6 on Page 24 it gives the example first call "Westbury Apporach G-ABCD request MATZ penetration", similarly on Page 25 "Westbury Approach G-ABCD request Radar Information Service".

RC

[Dusty_B]

Rotorcraig:

OK. I remember haveing a huge debate about this just before Christmas, but all evidence seams to have been deleted from the known universe!! :uhoh:

I am not going mad. I am not going mad. I am not going mad.

Wibble?

[18greens]

This may explain an odd radio call I had from Luton. Routing CFD to BIG we asked for zone transit through Luton but were refused. I routed east making sure we were east of Stevenage and the 350 or 360 radial (I can't remember without looking at a map) to BKP to ensure we were clear.

The controller came onto us 3 times to request we stay clear of controlled airspace. I was sure we were clear but he did not seem to think so.

[S-Works]

18 greens, it does happen...... :p

[Timothy]

BKPA clue to the problem? :}

[18greens]

Don't you hate Picky Pedants.