Zone Infringements

[LowNSlow]

I overheard an interesting conversation on the airwaves a few days ago.

Chappie in a helicopter asks for a direct routing from point A to point B when asked for point of origin and destination. ATCO notes his message and he trundles on his way. A few minutes later the ATCO calls him up and informs him that he has clipped the edge of the Zone. He apologises profusely and the ATCO basically says no problem we were watching you on radar and there was no conflict. Great methinks, error pointed out in friendly manner, apologies made, lesson learned, happy ending to story.

Wrong. Two or three minutes later, extremely agitated Senior ATCO gets on radio and proceeds to tear into the helo pilot and spends a good three or four minutes berating him while a succession of 737's and 757's are waiting to get a word in edgewise on a busy frequency. Why did he bother? I've heard that this is not the first time that this has happened. Not a problem for me but I'm sure it is a concern for the people flying for a living who have to fanny around while this chap vents his spleen.

Any comments peeps?

[2Donkeys]

You might be better off asking this in the ATC forum.... if you dare :D

2D

[IO540]

Does the granting of a request to route from A to B at level C amount to a transit of controlled airspace on that route?

(without asking for a CAS transit explicitly)

I hope so... It's a really stupid question but I DO wonder whether the ATCO is really going to hold a ruler against the chart to see what the pilot is talking about.

[2Donkeys]

Does the granting of a request to route from A to B at level C amount to a transit of controlled airspace on that route?

For obvious reasons, that is not a question that can be answered without knowing the precise phraseology used on both sides of the conversation.

Generally speaking though, a pilot is required to know and understand whether or not he can legally execute an instruction or clearance. That is not the ATCO's responsibility. If in doubt, ask.

2D

[englishal]

Hmm, sounds like a Jobsworth to me ;)

On the subject of Zone infringements, I flew to L2K a while back from EGHH which took me out to the south then along the coast Another aircraft also went a few minutes behine us. We both had RIS from Solent as the weather was not too good, we stayed at 1900 ' to stay below the Solent Class D north of the Isle Of Wight, yet we heard the other aircraft ask for RIS at 2100'. When we got to L2K we asked the other pilot what altitude they were at and they confirmed 2100', and when we mentioned that that had put them into Solent Class D they went white as a sheet.....

Solent didn't say anything, it was almost as if a clearance had been implied and they obviously didn't care. It would almost be better if when receiving a service from a zone controlling unit, you are either expressly told to "remain clear of controlled airspace" if thats what they want to avoid any ambiguity. I suspect that the chap you heard had assumed he had been cleared to cut the corner of the zone.If they are watching on radar and if it looks like you will be busting CAS without permission, wouldn't it be better if they called up / gave vectors rather than wait to an imfringement and they issue a bollocking?

Another slightly abiguous one happened a few weeks ago. Coming back to Bournemouth with a FIS from Solent, and was told to contact Bournemouth, who gave us weather and which runway to expect, and told us to contact the tower who told us to "report final". No "clearance" into their zone was given, though it was implied and interpreted as so. Is two way Comms now enough to be cleared into Class D airspace?

[Genghis the Engineer]

There's two ways this can happen, I'd venture.

If you ask for a routing, that takes you through airspace, and the routing is granted, I'd take that as permission.

If, on the other hand, you simply inform an air-trafficker of your route, and have only asked for a service (RIS/FIR/RAS), then no permission has been granted, and therefore I'd venture that you need crossing clearance separately.

I can recall an occasion when I fell foul of this, I was working service A, with a RIS, who had my height and routing. They eventually handed me over to service B, whose first call after identifying me was to inform me that I was already 10 miles or 1000ft (depending upon how you look at it) inside their class D airspace without permission. I apologised, and they clearly had better things to do than worry about it - but I was almost certainly at fault since no specific clearance had been requested or given.

In an ideal world, ATC will identify that you will need a clearance, and sort it out before you need to ask for it. But, they are busy folks, and you can't assume that'll happen.

G

[Warped Factor]

In the UK two way comms is not sufficient to enter or transit Class D, a specific clearance is required.

Technically unless the atco specifically clears you through, if you've said you're going A to B which would take you through the Class D the atco is working in, then you should not assume you've been cleared and remain outside.

It's very sloppy controlling if the controller thinks they have cleared you through just by acknowledging your route, and if I was the pilot I'd be getting back on the r/t and clearing up the ambiguity by asking something along the lines of "confirm I am cleared to transit the Class D". Hopefully a proper clearance would then be forthcoming.

As for issuing a bollocking on the r/t, whether deserved or not that sort of thing gets me very wound up as it is totally indefensible. The last thing a possibly new or low hours pilot needs, for the controller won't know the experience level of the person he's having a go at, is for his confidence to be shot to h*ll while he's in the air. If something needs to be said, give a phone number to call after landing, that's all that is needed. If I knew who the "senior atco" was at the start of the thread I'd quite happily go and give him a serious bollocking.

[Charlie Zulu]

I will hold my hand up and will admit that I've made a control zone airspace bust.

Was departing out of Bembridge enroute to Cardiff via the coastline along Bournemouth.

Climbed up to 3000' and when I called Solent they were waiting for me to call... I was 1000' into their zone but there was no problem and I was cleared through the zone at that altitude anyway, beats asking for it.

They didn't report me, or even ask me to call them on the telephone as when they told me I was in their airspace and I was cleared through I did sound rather suprised (which in fact I was!), looked at my chart and explained what I thought happened - only took twenty seconds or so and the frequency was quiet.

So I am very thankful to the controller who was on duty on Solent Radar that day a few years ago. Never done the same thing again.

On the subject of Solent they have always cleared me into their airspace at various levels, both before and after the incident, usually via SAM without any delay whatsoever. I have nothing but good praise for them... never had to duck under their airspace but have had a plan of action ready anyway. Staying above 3000' does help though, it seems.

[Genghis the Engineer]

On a purely private note, and particularly in case there are any Solent controllers reading this - I've never yet found Solent less than 150% helpful with zone crossings (planned or inadvertent). A few other LARS providers in the south of England could do worse than emulate them, they do a good job - and it's certainly not because they have nothing else to do, the frequency is often very busy.

G

[squibbler]

You must obtain a crossing / joining clearance to cross / join controlled airspace - PERIOD!!

Advising a controller of your intended route thru controlled airspace and assuming an acknowledgement is a clearance just isn't good enough I'm afraid.

This sort of thing happens a lot:

XXX this is G-XXXX, PA28 routing EGXX to EGXX VFR looking to cross your zone routing XXX DCT XXX at 2000'.

G-XX XXX Radar, roger FIS QNH xxxx squawk xxxx.

ATCO then turns his attention to something else and when complete notices G-XXXX trundling thru the zone minus a clearance.

G-xx XXX Radar, you have entered controlled airspace without a clearance.

XXX Radar G-XX, sorry I thought you'd cleared us in.

Negative G-XX an acknowledgement of a request to transit controlled airspace does not constitute a clearance.

G-XX roger XXX, sorry about that.

Okay G-XX continue VFR through the zone not above 2000' (in a voice which suggests the pilot had better learn from this because next time......:ouch: !)

Bit of a generalisation but it does happen.

Without the words "Cleared to enter" or "Cleared to transit / cross" you can't come in! Any ATCO who just says "approved" or "roger" and lets you through is just plain sloppy and/or crap in my book.

ATCOs can do their bit too, such as "Expect to transit as requested but ROCAS for the moment, I will call you back" etc

The key here is if in doubt, ASK!!

As for the highly excitable SATCO jumping on the frequency, if the SATCO here tried that with me in the chair he would be politely told to f:mad:k off :E

[homeguard]

Two words that are a real problem.

Some years ago following a serious accident the use of the word "take-off" was restricted to a specific occasion and in its application.

It is time for the two very similar; "cleared" and "clearance", but very different words to be revised.

Perhaps the phrase; "expect your routing to be" and "you are cleared to" would be less ambiguous. It would also then become; "after departure your routing will be" followed by; "you are cleared to take-off".

I agree with the many comments that ATC do not always bother to issue a formal clearance once the routing is agreed. In fact i have on occasion experienced a degree of irritation from ATC when i have insisted that a formal "cleared to..." is given.

[ThePirateKing]

IMHO, the whole thing is indeed very sloppy.

Route clearances are supposed to be issued with the complete callsign. (CAP413, ss 1.13 refers). Any time a controller uses your complete callsign you are supposed to use it also, so the complete callsign should be used for readback too.

TPK:ok:

[LowNSlow]

englishal
I suspect that the chap you heard had assumed he had been cleared to cut the corner of the zone.

The chap in the helo actually did say that and the response wasn't very friendly! 2Donkeys, squibbler and Warped Factor are completely correct in what they are saying as was the Senior ATCO afterwards, it was a) the fact he decided to comment after the previous ATCO had cleared up the matter and b) the ferocity of his attitude that made me take notice of the exchange.

IO540 I assume that they do tend to watch that corner of the Zone as there are two strips, three airfields and an airport within 30 miles of it

[Rod1]

As Homeguard says, I have experienced considerable irritation from ATC when I have asked for formal conformation on clearance. It is a problem, which has got a lot more common in the last few years.

Rod1

[squibbler]

Homeguard, I'm not entirely sure of your point. Isn't this thread about Zone infringements? You seem to be referring to take off clearances :confused:

How can "G-xx cleared for take off wind 240/12?" be ambiguous?

Perhaps the phrase; "expect your routing to be" and "you are cleared to" would be less ambiguous. It would also then become; "after departure your routing will be" followed by; "you are cleared to take-off".

Are you referring to clearances on the ground or in the air?? Or both......can you be a little less ambiguous ;) ??

Rod - I have experienced considerable irritation from Pilots when I try to get a formal readback!! Clearances are supposed to be read back in full (including the full callsign as ThePirateKing correctly points out). The most common omissions are usually the level restriction (VFR) and the QNH. If I don't get a decent readback I threaten to cancel their clearance - it usually has the desired effect :}

[DubTrub]

It should be remembered that all ATCOs are professionals, and conduct their roles every day. Not all pilots are professionals, and not all fly every day.

Although I expect amateur pilots to do the best they can, and indeed expect them to avoid controlled airspace unless in receipt of the appropriate clearance, I do not always assume that they can exhibit the same levels of experience as an ATCO in terms of using the correct phraseology. The omission of a QNH or VFR term should not deserve a threatened refusal of a clearance.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.

Also, any kind of "b0ll0cking" over the airwaves is not conducive to good relations between pilots and ATCOs.

[squibbler]

The omission of a QNH or VFR term should not deserve a threatened refusal of a clearance.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.

I never said I threatened to refuse a clearance due to a pilot omitting the QNH or VFR term. I quoted those as common ommissions from a readback. If you re-read my post again I was referring to pilots becoming irritated because I insist on a full readback. If such a basic function of airmanship causes them irritation to the point where I am unable to obtain a correct readback they can contemplate things whilst they route around the zone. Of course they may have omitted the QNH or whatever in the readback in error and naturally I would prompt them for it (hey but thanks for the advice :rolleyes: ).

I am not referring to Pilots with poor R/T who struggle to readback clearances (although they can be a pain in their own right.....but that's for another thread). I am referring to experienced and in some cases professional GA pilots who can't manage a correct readback on occassion and by their very tone of voice consider it extremely demeaning to be told by ATC to "readback the full clearance".

You can call me pedantic if you like but I have a licence to maintain so I go by the book and the book says this:

4.6 Acknowledgement of Messages
Pilots are expected to acknowledge all messages. In some cases the sole use of the aircraft’s callsign is sufficient. However, an acknowledgement only is not acceptable when a complete or abbreviated read back is required.

4.7 Pilot Read Back of RTF Messages
4.7.1 Pilots are required to read back in full messages containing any of the following items:
• Taxi instructions
• Level instructions
• Heading instructions
• Speed instructions
• Airways or route clearances
• Approach clearances
• Runway-in-use
• Clearance to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack, cross or hold short of any active runway
• SSR operating instructions
• Altimeter settings
• VDF information
• Frequency changes
• Type of radar service
• Transition levels

4.7.2 Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read back is not immediately forthcoming.

4.7.3 Errors in a read back must be corrected by the controller until the pilot gives an accurate read back.

4.7.4 Items which do not appear in the list above may be acknowledged with an abbreviated read back..........

:ok:

[ThePirateKing]

DubTrub,

Anybody not reading back the QNH should be immediately grounded! :ooh:

Somebody with a single digit error in their QNH setting (say, 1003 instead of 1013) is 300ft adrift of where they think they are. Not good when most VFR pilots seem to fly around at either 2000, 2300 or 2500 feet...

TPK:ok:

[homeguard]

squibbler

I'm talking about all clearances but also give an example of how i think the other clearances such as departure clearances also regularly cause problems, which are fixable.

As for controllers picking up on improper or incomplete readbacks, i'm all for it. I'm always grateful when a controller does so it relieves me from nagging the student over yet another point - and its also how they learn.

[Fuji Abound]

I recall reading somewhere or being told to look upon a clearance as a contract. There are two parties to a contract and each has to EXPLICITLY acknowledged their acceptance of the contract.

In other words G- is Cleared to enter controlled airspace etc, and the acceptance of the contract, G- is cleared to etc.

Nothing else will do, because this avoids any doubt about whether a specific contract has been agreed to enter controlled airspace.

I have tried "G- wishes to route X to X, request zone transit through controlled airspace" and the reply "G- is cleared to route towards X, not above 1,500 feet". There is clearly doubt whether a clearance has been given, whatever might be intended. Why not ensure the position is clear - "Is G- cleared to enter controlled airspace .. .. .."

It seems to me simple, be clear whatever words you use, that a contract been EXPLICITLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY reached between the two parties for you to enter controlled airspace.

[DFC]

When a request for a clearance is made (10 minutes+ before the airspace boundary and more if a flight plan is not filed), ATC either issue the clearance or tell the pilot to "remain outside controlled airapace" and pass an expect onward clearance time. That was the system the last time I checked.

In many places outside the UK if you request a routing from a to b to c where b is within controlled airspace, you will either get a clearance or be clearly told to remain outside. a simple roger is not enough.

I find it very common especially round Odiham that when a MATZ transit is requested the atco merely acknowledges the call and must be pressed in order to get the words "MATZ transit approved" - of course when VFR we are usually going throgh anyway but it did make me laugh when 10 minutes after requesting a MATZ transit VFR we told ATC that we had the traffic on final approach 12 O'clock .5nm in sight............lots of eh em eh eh roger!!!

Even better is the MATZ transit approved remain outside the ATZ...........followed by GXXXX confirm remaining outside the ATZ.............followed by GXXXX you were told to remain outside the ATZ you are directly over XYZ airfield.......to which the reply is "GXXXX is 2500ft above XYZ airfield we are overhead and outside the ATZ.

Face it......the system isn't perfect on both the ATC side and the Pilot side.......I wait the time when a pilot chews out an ATCO for something as keeps their licence!

:D :D :D

Regards,

DFC

[squibbler]

.......I wait the time when a pilot chews out an ATCO for something as keeps their licence!

You mean "I look forward to the time....etc" don't you DFC :E

[englishal]

MATZs are slightly odd concepts. You're daft if you enter one without "permission" but as they're class G.......;)

A typical zone D airport joining goes like this in my experience:

"XYZ radar, GABCD 5 east of <VRP> 2000 landing with Xray"
"GABCD QNH 1020 expect runway AB report field in sight"
"1020 wilco GABCD"
"field in sight ABCD"
"ABCD contact XYZ tower now on 123.45"
"tower on 123.45 GABCD"
"XYZ tower, GABCD inbound"
"GABCD XYZ tower, roger, join left base for AB, wind 270 at 10"
" left base for AB GABCD"
"GABCD cleared to land, where will you be parking"
"cleared to land parking at handling ABCD"
"GABCD take the next left, taxy to handling via bravo"
"left and via bravo to handling, ABCD"

I stress this is typical, only occasionally have I been asked to "remain outside CAS", and virtually never have I been given an EXPRESS CLEARANCE to enter CAS. I have queried this in the past "XYZ radar confirm GABCD is cleared into ABCD delta" but as I always have been, I've stopped now.....?

[jezbowman]

At East Mids the clearance is rarely (if ever) confusing. Particularly with regards to entering the zone - if they can't offer you a clearance straight away they usually tell you that you're not yet cleared. It typically goes like this:

"G-ABCD is at Markfield, request re-join"
"G-CD route towards the southern zone boundary, runway 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, you're not yet cleared to enter the zone"
"G-CD wilco, 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, not yet cleared into the zone."

"G-CD is cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above 2000ft VFR, report the southern zone boundary"
"G-CD cleared Sierra Echo not above 2000ft, wilco."

"G-CD zone in Shepshed" <Shepshed is the town on the zone boundary>
"G-CD roger, contact tower 124.0"
"Tower 124.0, G-CD"

"East Mids Tower, G-ABCD zone in Shepshed"
"G-CD report left base for 27, number one"

englishal

What you descibe above is more like what happens (to me anyway!) when I've been into places like Coventry and Cambridge - not class D. However, it was also quite similar to the crossing clearance I got from Luton once. I.e. they did not use the words 'cleared to enter', nor did I. All quite informal and I didn't see that as a problem. But I guess the words "you are cleared" were never spoken - therefore was I really 'cleared'?

[IO540]

When a request for a clearance is made (10 minutes+ before the airspace boundary

In any half decent SEP, you might have problems contacting the ATCU from 10 minutes out :O

Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP.

[bookworm]

You must obtain a crossing / joining clearance to cross / join controlled airspace - PERIOD!!

I think ATCOs could be slightly more explicit in an effort to assist the eductaion of pilots to this end.

The issue is most pronounced on joining the airways system from outside controlled airspace, where routings are issued with a clearance implied. For example, on coming down from Carlisle:

"G-ABCD route MCT, HON for Cambridge"

was what I got from Manch by way of clearance. Similar often happens outbound from Cambridge to the south, with no explicit clearance given, but instructions that clearly require me to enter controlled airspace.

I don't think it's a big deal, but if ATCOs got into to the same trouble every time that they failed to issue an explicit clearance for an aircraft they expected to enter controlled airspace as pilots do if they enter without a clearance, the world would be a different place.

[DFC]

IO540,

In any half decent SEP, you might have problems contacting the ATCU from 10 minutes out

If you had a half decent radio you would have a range of over 30nm at 1000ft. Takes 10 minutes at 180Kt GS. Good speed for an SEP.

Of course the 10 minutes counts back from the time at which you want the clearance. You can still keep your dodgy radio and be willing to hold outside for up to 10 minutes (if they will give a clearance with such a radio - the receiver site could be the best part of 20nm from you when at the zone boundary in some cases!)

Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP

Check out the AIP for the times when a flight plan is required.

You can either plan ahead and ensure that the unit gets a copy of a filed flight plan if you made one (include their address in the required place) or pass the details (file a plan) by R/T.

Basically the system says that if your plan to transit controlled airspace you should file a flight plan prior to the flight. If you file in the air (pass the details to the ATC unit) you could be further delayed while the plan is processed.

Regards,

DFC

[vintage ATCO]

DFC

You seem to have some odd ideas about UK ATC.

It is pointless sending a copy of a FPL to an en-route aerodrome whose Class D CAS you wish to cross. The vast majority wouldn't do anything with the information as you are never sure if the acft would call you or route elsewhere; there is little advantage in having a strip prepared. This certainly was the case at Luton when we had the APP function there. Indeed, once we had automatic data processing we would not have even known such a FPL had been sent as the system only dealt with FPLs where we were the destination or point of departure.

An acft calls for transit (thereby passing an 'abbreviated FPL'), you write it on a strip and you deal with it. Simply. You seem to imply there is a delay whilst the details are entered into a 'system'. There isn't. No is no 'system' into which transit acft details are entered.

Earlier you said if CAS transit was refused an onward clearance time would be issued. If you mean a simply Class D transit then I have never known such a time to be given where I have operated. I might have said 'remain outside controlled airsapce, I'll get back to you in a few minutes' but not issue a specific time. This implies, in the event of radio failure, the acft could then transit the Class D. Wouldn't want that.

[LowNSlow]

jezbowman in every dealing I've had with Luton Approach they have been very specific with the "remain outside controlled airspace" and "G-ABCD is cleared to enter / leave the zone" statements. I have always found Luton App to be considerate and helpful personally. Shame they are actually located in West Drayton rather than Luton itself.

[DFC]

Vintage ATCO,

If I addressed a copy of my flight plan to any ATC unit and subsequently found that they had ignored both the flight plan and the departure time I would considder that an MOR could be appropriate.

The UK has no differences filed to ICAO ALerting Service requirements when ATC units are concerned. (The only difference applies when the destination has no ATS).

You are required to initiate the "uncertainty" phase when no communication has been receved from an aircraft within a period of 30 minutes after the time a communication should have been received.

The MATS Part 1 does quite correctly point out that strict compliance with a flight plan can not be expected of non-radio aircraft.

However aircraft with radio who make in-flight changes to flight plans are required to notify those changes to the appropriate agency. Since you will rarely issue a clearance for a non-radio aircraft to transit Class D zones these days I think we can assume that transit aircraft are going to be radio equipped.

For aircraft who sufer radio failure in flight - the procedures are well documented.

Thus we have the situation where you recive a flight plan and a departure message but ignore them and will be unable to determine that an aircraft is in need of alerting service.

If your argument for ignoring my flight plan messages are that radio equipped VFR flights bimble all over the place and often don't bother to call or go elsewhere.........are you in a position to provide figures for the number of flight plans addressed to you who have a departure time and who subsequently do not turn up without telling you first?........doubt it since you discard them.

Perhaps the answer is not to arbitarily reduce the alerting service you are required to provide but to ensure that pilots who file a flight plan comply with the requirements to stick to that plan as much as possible unless they pass changes.

I can understand why units in Class G such as London info do not refer to any flight plans..........there is no requirement to call them. However if my route is clearly through the controlled airspace overhead your airport then the only option I have following my filed route is to call you and the least you could do after I have warned you in advance of my impending request is to be ready when I call on time and on route.

If on the other hand you see a 7600 passing round the zone at about the time I told you I would be there then you might like to pass on the posibility that I have had a radio failure!

Throw the flight plans in the bin and some day the question will be.........You got the flight plan but ignored it and after a surviveable accident, the pilot died of Hypothermia in a field 20nm from you but you never did what you are requirted to do..........provide an alerting service when the radio equipped flight failed to show up...........Can you honestly say that in that case you met your responsibilities?

Regards,

DFC

[Evil J]

And to add my 2 penneth as our procedures are being scrutinized!!

jezbowman:- refers to the phrase "...not yet cleared to enter" which i personally do not use as it would only take a slight break up in the transmision or interference for that to be heard as "....cleared to enter"

in the situation that jezbowman refers my reaction would be "continue towards the zone boundary, standby for zone entry" thereby avoiding the words "cleared" and "to enter" without actually using them in the act of clearing someone in. I don't think my phrase is perfect but its the best i've been able to come up with over the years!!

and FYI jezbowman:- as a matter of interest unless you are using the lanes Special VFR it is not actually in our rules that VFR must be specified in the clearance so "cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above altitude two thousand feet" is all that is required...not sure if that is an ommision in our Manual of air traffic services or not but thats what the book says so thats what i use!! (if you were special VFR then it would obviously be "sierra echo not above altitude 2000 feer special vfr")

And for all those wondering, a "sierra echo" (etc) is a local procedure only used by the based schools so if you are visiting don't expect to be expected to be familiar with it!!

[jezbowman]

And to add my 2 penneth as our procedures are being scrutinized!!

I was actually trying to praise EMA appr but then people don't seem to be able to spot praise on these forums. Really, regardless of what phrase is used, my point was that aircraft requesting to enter the zone for whatever reason are usually made quite clear that they should "await zone clearance" or are "not yet cleared to enter". I've not hear this elsewhere and in the context of the original thread topic it's a feather in the cap for East Mids.

You are of course correct with regards the VFR term - I've not flown during the day yet this year so all I've had recently have been Special VFR.

I have always found Luton App to be considerate and helpful personally.

So have I. And did I say they weren't?

[2Donkeys]

DFC

Your expectations of ATC when conducting a VFR (or IFR for that matter) flight outside the airways system are dramatically out of line with the actual situation.

Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?

2D

[almost professional]

Jez- he needs all the praise he can get!
agree with EvilJ about possiblity of clipping leading to problems with certain phrases(but then I did help train him) and he is right technically about dropping the VFR but you will find that some of the older ones still insist on clarifying the flight rules on issuing an entry clearance(old habits die hard!)

[vintage ATCO]

DFC, you must file a lot of MORs.

Your perception of off-route ATC in the UK is devoid of reality. Just what is your ATC experience?

[CaptainFillosan]

DFC, I agree with Vintage ATCO.

And with an attitude like yours you need to take lessons on what is reality in the real world.

You certainly won't get anywhere looking at all the laws and expecting everything to be exactly as it is written. It ain't, it never has been and it never will be.

But.............you might care to learn this little lesson. ATC is your mate, your friend in the sky. You don't have another - who knows as much who sees as much and gives as much. Never take them for granted and always let them help you. Remember, they help EVERYONE along the way - it seems you need some help anyway.

[tmmorris]

In my experience the poorest response to requests for clearance tends to come from military class D (two near me!); several times with one of them I've had to say 'Confirm G-ABCD cleared to transit zone' and they've sounded rather narked, as if that was obvious, yet they'd never used the word 'cleared'. Yet at the mil airfield I now fly from they routinely issue 'departure clearances' to depart their (class G) MATZ. I think there is still plenty of confusion in the military ATCO mind about airspace classes and air traffic services...

Tim

[DFC]

Vintage ATCO,

If I am required by the AIP to file a flight plan proir to requesting a clearance to enter controlled airspace and I choose to do so by filing a full flight plan prior to flight (ensuring that all appropriate ATC units get a copy as per ICAO and UK AIP procedures), is it not wrong for such an ATC unit to discard that flight plan and later require me to re-file that plan over the R/T despte no changes?

Does this not unnecessarily increase R/T loading, cockpit workload and ATCO workload?

As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.

Remember that I am talking about ATC within controlled airspace which is where the flight will be during a zone transit. I am not talking about flights that choose to file a flight plan that will remain in class G for the whole flight.

As for MORs - feel free to MOR me if I file a flight plan and transmut a departure message but fail to turn up at your zone on time without good reason.

---

2 Donkeys,

Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?

Absolutely not.

ATC units can quite rightly refuse a transit request because of traffic or other reasons. No problem there.

However, the flight plan required to be passed to such a unit can be passed either;

1. Abrieviated flight plan in flight direct to that unit on R/T.
2. Full airbourne flight plan filed with say London Info and with the ATC unit concerned in the list of addressees.
3. Full flight plan filed before departure.

Either of those are valid messages conveying essential information regarding the flight.

What an ATC unit is required to do is initiate overdue action when no communication has been received within 30 minutes from the time that it was expected. That is a UK and ICAO standard. Thus if you have told ATC that you will be at their zone boundary at say 1000 and have not shown up by 1030, they are required to initiate overdue action unless they know that you are safe. That is one of the most basic concepts of the alerting service.

Where I would have a problem is if ATC discarded a flight plan and were thus unable to provide the required alerting service.

As for IFR - when flying IFR and expecting to transit controlled airspace, we are required to file a flight plan in advance becauseof flow control measures which can affect airfield units as well as enroute units. We address the plan to all appropriate units and the CAA are clear as to what the extra addresses are when IFR off airways or for mixed VFR and IFR flights.

Would you not find something wrong with writing a letter to your bank manager only to be told that as a matter of policy they bin all customer letters and require them to repeat the full info verbally when the arrive at the bank.....same thing but not as serious!

---

We are legally required to file an MOR for any situation covered by the MOR system. Failure of the flight planning system would I believe be a reportable occurance.

Unless someone reports these "traditions" we don't know if they can be or need to be changed because no data exists. That is what MORs are for isn't it?

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.

S3 C1 suggests that an Approach Control Unit provides ATS (including an Alerting Service) outside controlled airspace when:

overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.

and within controlled airspace when:

overflying aircraft are within the relevant controlled airspace.

What leads you to believe that an Approach Control Unit owes you an Alerting Service merely because you send them a FPL?

[lobby]

DFC, Vintage ATCO is correct. 99% of airfields will either not receive or take any action for an en-route flight plan. So many pilots change there routing, i.e route around CAS without talking to the ATSU most airfields would have to have someone on the phone all the time taking overdue action.

However, you destination should alway action your FPL. When you depart they should receive a departure message from your origin if your flight is outside CAS. Your ETA is then calculated from this and overdue action is taken from this time.

[IO540]

At least we now know for sure that DFC doesn't work for the CAA :O

[Evil J]

jezbowman:- last time i checked the word "srcutinized" didn't mean criticised, mearly that the procedures were being examined...i certainly didn't take your comments as criticism sorry if it appeared that way.

There is much not done right at EMA in my opinion but also quite alot that is, and i think the way the VFR tarffic is handled in/out down the lanes is very tidy and seems to work very well.


almost profesional... is it true your colleagues put a local standby on when you work in tower??:ok:

And having just re-read that post I must apologise for the awful typo\'s!!!!

[almost professional]

be nice to work the tower now and again-perhaps the young ones will let me in this PM!

[jezbowman]

Evil J - no worries, I was in a tetchy mood yesterday! :p

Yes, I'd agree the lanes do work rather well. The only fault that strikes me is when you're on 27, the LW departure or LE arrival puts you on the wrong side of the M1 which, as a line feature, should be kept to the left if following it. I appreciate there's not much you can do about this in terms of physical geographical layout. But has anyone ever considered using another form of seperation in that 'danger zone' between Trowell and the boundary (also Markfield and Shepshed for 09 days) like using different height clearences, eg inbound not above 1500ft, outbound not above 2000ft. Do you think that'd make the zone entry / exit any safer? Just curious.... :ok:

[Evil J]

Jez: there is no separation requirement, you are VFR, and once clear of the zone at long eaton or shepshed u are in an unknown traffic environment, we may well tell u about known traffic if we have time, but don't bank on it!! Personally I think 1500 feet around MArkfield would be VERY iffy coz of the high ground up to 1100ft, not only that but clear of the zone we do not have the authority to restrict your level up to 2500 underneath the CTA so it could only ever be local agreement between the clubs

On 27 u would get a LW departure, and on 09 a LE departure, the reverse inbound-so not sure i get what u mean? Do u mean the wrong side with regard to the right hand side rule??

Either way it is, as i said above ,only a guide line feature for vfr traffic-if u want to leave/ join on another route, alternate lvel u only have to ask and we will if we can.

[jezbowman]

Oh, I'm aware there's no seperation requirement or that any can be enforced. I'm just thinking of general trends.

Do u mean the wrong side with regard to the right hand side rule??

Yep.

I guess what I'm getting at is that most SEP aircraft want to be as high as possible at any given point so an aircraft outbound will be overhead Long Eaton at 2000ft, and an inbound one may just have dropped down to 2000ft to get in for his clearance. In that little bit of airspace just north of Long Eaton (and just south of Shepshed) there is opposite direction traffic at the same level (2000ft). Granted one is on the other side of the M1 to the other, but at what point a pilot following the M1 makes his decision to swap to the correct side of the motoway (right hand side rule) is an unknown.

Good point about the 1500ft over Markfield - even at 2000ft it feels like you could nearly reach out and touch those transmission towers. And I got my LW and LE's mixed up in the previous post - will go and correct that.

But then as you say this is VFR and seperation is the responsibility of the eyes in the aircraft!

[Evil J]

Agreed, and our MATS Pt2 does mention that those departures don't follow the right hand rule...can't really see a way around it though...??

FYI if you wanna come in higher its rarely a problem especially from the south, from the north can be more tricky(on 27) as we drop the inbounds to 3 thousand as they are going north abeam.

Agreed about the Markfield masts too, that is why when I depart southbound, cloud base permitting, I ask for not about 3 thousand, also gives CAS protection for longer!!!

[DFC]

Lobby,

Here are the appropriate parts of the AIP and the Manual of ATC............both CAA documents which detail what pilots and ATC must do.

AIP ENR 1.10

1.2.2 Flight plans fall into three categories:
(a) Full flight plans: the information filed on Form CA48/RAF 2919;
(b) Repetitive Flight Plans (see paragraph 5);
(c) Abbreviated Flight Plans: the limited information required to obtain a clearance for a portion of flight (eg: flying in a Control
Zone, crossing an Airway) filed either by telephone prior to take-off or by RTF when airborne. The destination aerodrome
will be advised of the flight only if the flight plan information covers the whole route of the flight.

---

1.4.2 A flight plan must be filed for the following:
(a) for all flights within Class A Airspace;
(b) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in IMC or at night, except for those operating under SVFR;
(c) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in VMC if the flight is to be conducted in accordance with IFR;
(d) for all flights within Class B - D Controlled Airspace irrespective of weather conditions;

---

1.6 Submission Time Parameters
1.6.1 Normally, flight plans should be filed on the ground at least 60 minutes before clearance to start up or taxi is requested;.....................Exceptionally, in cases where it is impossible to meet this requirement, operators should give as much notice as
possible and never less than thirty minutes. Otherwise, if this is not possible, a flight plan can be filed when airborne with any ATSU,
but normally with the FIR Controller responsible for the area in which the aircraft is flying. If the airborne flight plan contains an intention
to enter Controlled Airspace or certain Control Zones/Control Areas, at least 10 minutes prior warning of entry must be given.

---

ICAO Annex 2 describes when a pilot must tell ATS of changes to a flight plan.

------------

MATS 1

Section 5, Chapter 1;

3 Recognising an Emergency Situation
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............

---

Section 5, Chapter 3;

Overdue Aircraft;

[I]1 Introduction
.............
Type of Aircraft
Strict adherence to the flight plan cannot always be
expected of a non-radio light aircraft.......

---

2 Aerodrome Procedure

2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.

---

The above clearly show what the requirements are in black and white.

I particuluarly like the one about flight plans being filed 1 hour prior to flight or exceptionally 30 minutes before or if that is not possible (how often would that be in the UK would that be in today's mobile phone world?) filed in the air! :)

While Vintage ATCO may describe the traditional method used by some units, it is not in compliance with ICAO or UK CAA procedures and requirements.

What seems to have happened is that ATS units have stopped fulfilling the alerting requirements because they fel that they can't trust pilots to keep to the filed flight plan or change the plan as required..........would it not be better to properly educate the pilots of their errors and retain the integrity of the system for those operators who comply with the requirements?

Would it not be better for an App unit to have some advance warning of how many VFR flights are going to call in the next hour for transit.........bit of planning perhaps so that a second position can be opened where necessary and available etc........providing the service to the customer?

Finally if one reads the AIP one will see that flights to/from Fairoaks and Blackbushe are required to address te plan to Farnborough........good idea because the first unit we will call will be Farnborough and often we will have a squalk from them prior to departure..........using Vintage ATCOs rules, farnborough should bin the plan and we should pass full details on departure!

Regards,

DFC

[2Donkeys]

Well, it was a long post DFC, but I don't think that it proved your point. Enroute ATC units are under no obligation to do anything with flightplans they might receive (however filed) from aircraft that will primarily be operating outside controlled airspace and may simply call on the offchance for a transit.

Finally if one reads the AIP one will see that flights to/from Fairoaks and Blackbushe are required to address te plan to Farnborough........good idea because the first unit we will call will be Farnborough and often we will have a squalk from them prior to departure..........using Vintage ATCOs rules, farnborough should bin the plan and we should pass full details on departure!

It would be a mistake to confuse the general situation with a local arrangement between certain airfields in close proximity with one another.

2D

[Chilli Monster]

Would it not be better for an App unit to have some advance warning of how many VFR flights are going to call in the next hour for transit.........bit of planning perhaps so that a second position can be opened where necessary and available etc........providing the service to the customer?


And which Flight Plans would these be? The ones not filed by 90% of GA flights?

And what customer would that be? The one that doesn't pay for the service provided?

And which Controller would you use? The one that's on a legally required break - thereby breaking the law?

As 2D's says - long post, proves nothing. All the above are probably catered for in the real world, just not in such laid down ICAO perfect ways that you seem to think everywhere should be working to. ( I really would love to work in this ideal world that you inhabit - please tell me which nirvana to move to to achieve it ;))

When you hold an ATC licence then feel feel to comment on the system and how we should be doing the job - until that happens F:mad:k O:mad:f

[Final 3 Greens]

When you hold an ATC licence then feel feel to comment on the system and how we should be doing the job - until that happens Fk Of Now there's a good example of how to talk to those pesky users, or should I say, customers, since they pay their taxes (e.g. on AVGAS) to the government that franchises the system.

[Chilli Monster]

Now there's a good example of how to talk to those pesky users, or should I say, customers, since they pay their taxes (e.g. on AVGAS) to the government that franchises the system.

Actually - they don't! The ATC system in this country is not funded one jot by any hypothecation of Avgas duty. It is funded by en-rte IFR charges (part of which pays for LARS) and partially by the direct fees you wil pay to an airport operator in terms of landing and parking fees which go into his budget.

An old chestnut often stated - incorrectly as you can see.

[DFC]

Chilli,

Typical.

You can't counter the requirements that I have clearly copied from the AIP and MATS 1.

This obvously only applies to controllers who work within controlled airspace because You would be quite correct to say that those ATC units with no controlled airspace can not rely on flights bothering to call them.

If anyone thinks that the procedure in the AIP is unworkable or impracticable then rather than simply ignoring the standard would it not be correct to report the situation and try have the CAA change the AIP to reflect actual practice.

And which Flight Plans would these be? The ones not filed by 90% of GA flights?

In the UK, 75% of that 90% would not even know how to file a flight plan!. However you seem to justify total ignoring of Alerting requirements and the old "duty of care" to the 10% that actually read the AIP and do what it says.

As for being a customer............we are required to file a flight plan for anything more than a short flight as per the AIP........we don't pay tax on fuel.......but we pay dearly to land at your airport (not very often) even though we have to fly in Class G airspace and have no protection!

Never assume cause as the old saying goes it makes an ass of.........well you know the rest! :)

Were ATC licences issued by the Board of Trade or whever the name of the week was back then? :)

----
2 Donkeys,

I never mentioned "Enroute ATC".

I intentionally confined my quotes from the ATC manual to Aerodrome Units and Radio Equipped Aircraft.

The AIP clearly says that for a planned zone transit - the options are;

1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.

It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.

As I said....if the AIP procedure is unworkable the answer is to change the procedure. Not to ignore it!

This debate has ensured on thing - if expecting a zone transit from a UK ATC unit, I will;

a) file a full flight plan because that is our standard procedure and complies with the AIP; and (thanks to chilli)
b) ring the ATC unit concerned and either confirm that they have received and will retain my flight plan or if it is already in the bin - pass/fax the details again.

That seems to be the only way that we can get the alerting service that we are entitled to.

Does your unit have lots of ATSAs Chilli? ;)

Talk ta ya,

Regards,

DFC

[Chilli Monster]

The AIP clearly says that for a planned zone transit - the options are;

1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.

It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.


1. Logistically impossible to deal with. Now, if we had a completely integrated ATC system like the U.S it would be a different matter - but we haven't. Moving into the 21st century would achieve this - but it isn't happening just yet. If it's any consolation the plans don't just end up in the bin - they are kept available, just no strip is produced. Effectively therefore you are getting what you want in the ATC unit fulfilling their responsibilities.

2. Feel free - though I suspect if you're going to do this and you get through to some people you're more likely to be told "Yes - thank you very much" without anything being done about it. You'll have achieved less than option 1 in that case.

3. Yes - you are forced down that avenue. Sorry, it's a fact of life and until we get the same processing and integration as airways flights for flights which transit outside CAS with the occasional zone transit then that's the way it's going to be. It might dent your thoughts on what the relevant ATC units should be doing. However, it's the only sensible way of approaching the problem within the current system.

Yes, the system is at fault. Yes, it does need changing. Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application. People on both sides of the fence may not like it, often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill!

[What a Greaser!]

If the ATCO uses the word "Cleared" then you are cleared and all you have to do is read back the clearance (CAP 413).

Not difficult, I think.

[Final 3 Greens]

Chilli

I didn't say that the tax from AVGAS paid directly for the system, maybe you didn't read my post propoerly before replying ;)

You need to think outside the scope, sorry I mean the box, for a minute.

It is the tax on AVGAS that helps the government to balance the books and leave AVTUR tax free, that helps the airlines pay the nav charges that pay for the system that the government franchises.

If airliners with big round pistons and turbines competed for business, a clever lawyer would challenge this status quo under the EU legislation that makes discriminatory state aid unlawful, but obviously that is not the case.

So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.

Geddit now?

[Flyin'Dutch']

DFC,

I see in your signature that you live in Euroland. Is that the same resort where my kiddies' esteemed friend M. Mouse lives.

Get real mate.

Your ability to cut and past from the AIP and MATS is second to none.

Your grasp of reality of ATC procedures in the UK is clearly non existent.

Do yourself and us a favour; get your Thomas the Tank Engine set out and go play with that.

It is clear from your postings that you have zilch experience of operating in this part of the real world. To argue with professionals who work in this environment and those of us who fly in it regularly by doing some cut and pasting is pathetic.

Take it you're now going to 'Miss' complaining that we don't take you serious. Or is it going to be an MOR?

Oh dear guys, brace yourself for a telling off.

:} :}

[Chilli Monster]

F3G
It is the tax on AVGAS that helps the government to balance the books and leave AVTUR tax free, that helps the airlines pay the nav charges that pay for the system that the government franchises.

So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.

Sorry, but seeing as the CAA, NATS and all other sides of the aviation industry are self funded (no government assistance / subsidies) and haven't been since NATS was sold off your logic is flawed to put it mildly. My comprehension of your post was, therefore, correct.

If they have no input into government coffers then, by definition, they have no impact on balancing the books (AVTUR tax free is just that, it's not a subsidy, therefore it just means the government is looking elsewhere for financial input).

I'm not Gordon Brown, and I'm no economist. However, common sense dictates you can't include something you don't have in an equation. (Or maybe I'm getting it wrong and you can, hence the prevalence of the debt embracing society ;))

[WorkingHard]

CM - the funds paid to some units for the provision of LARS (H/side I think is one such), where does that come from? General taxation, I believe, and as tax and duty from GA in all its forms be it Avgas or anything else goes into general taxation, then GA is paying quite a lot for the "service" it receives. Is this not so?

[Chilli Monster]

Working Hard

Again - another misapprehension.

LARS funding comes directly from IFR en-rte charges, NOT general taxation. So, it's being paid for by everyone who flies IFR and weighs more than 2000kg MTOW, whether they use the service or not.

And the amount of money units get for LARS doesn't even cover the cost of 1 ATCO (I know - I've just seen the letter from DAP that tells us how much we'll be getting!).

[ShyTorque]

DFC,

I don't really see the point you are trying to make. but if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do. It's simple enough.

If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio. :p

[CaptainFillosan]

DFC

You really do have to get a grip on yourself.

Your conception of the real world of aviation is far removed from mine, and I have been in it for many many years.

You are giving the impression of someone who likes to think that since you have the book of words you must be right. You are not and I am not going to justify that. Others have already done very well in telling you how it is.

If you just like to talk to ATC you are wasting their time. I know Vintage ATCO and to tell him that he not complying with ANYTHING connnected with his job is downright stupid. But then maybe you think that VFR, IFR this and that ATC is there just for your convenience. As I said before, it ain't, it never was and it never will be.

Now, maybe Flyin' Dutch has it right. You live in the M.Mouse world. Tellya what, don't ever go to him for a medical, when he tells you to cough you could be in big trouble.

Now give it a rest. Your pedantic views are out of place in the real world of ATC. They are brilliant at the job they do. Are you a brilliant pilot? I doubt it.

[High Wing Drifter]

And the amount of money units get for LARS doesn't even cover the cost of 1 ATCO (I know - I've just seen the letter from DAP that tells us how much we'll be getting!).
On the last proon Farnborough LARS visit (Cheers BRL) we were given a figure of £35k/annum. So yes, not even one controller is paid for inspite of it being one of the busiest stations.

[Final 3 Greens]

Chilli

I'm not trying to start an argument, but your position is quite wrong on state aid, so I'll post a reply that you may find helpful in understanding the position. Note that I am not a lawyer, but I do work as a consultant pan Europe and believe that I have a reasonable grasp of the law.

This info is purely about tax incentives aka state aid, not about the rights and wrongs of who pays for the system or GA users being badly done to ;) Also, you may feel that the laws are more often observed in the breach!

Sorry, but seeing as the CAA, NATS and all other sides of the aviation industry are self funded (no government assistance / subsidies) and haven't been since NATS was sold off your logic is flawed to put it mildly. My comprehension of your post was, therefore, correct.

Let's have another go. CAA, NATS et al exist because the UK government lets them act as franchises and like most franchises, they pay their own way.

However, the UK government chooses to collect no duty or tax on AVTUR and this provides an incentive to the airlines who pay the nav charges that pay for the services provided.

Other forms of transport, e.g. road hauliers, do pay tax and/or duty, so there is asymmetric treatment in place.

(AVTUR tax free is just that, it's not a subsidy, therefore it just means the government is looking elsewhere for financial input).

Taxing one group of people and not another is considered to be potentially providing unlawful state aid under EU rules, because an incentive is being offered.

I know from reading your posts on many threads that you understand the ATC rules and regs very well, but you don't know very much about the Free and Fair trade laws in the EU by the content of your replies, which I guess is understandable given your job.

Here's an extract from an official Maltese publication that states things simply, I have capitalised the key words.

"State Aid
State aid is financial support that is granted by governments to certain companies. We usually speak of “subsidies” which are direct grants. But there are other forms of state aid, such as TAX INCENTIVES, subsidised interest rates on loans or loan guarantees. EU law prohibits state aid because it gives an unfair competitive advantage to assisted companies over companies that are not assisted. However, not all types of state aid are prohibited. State aid is allowed if it is granted for justifiable reasons such as, to help small businesses, for restructuring, training, job creation or to help regional development. State aid which is limited in amount is also exempted from EU rules. "

[Chilli Monster]

F3G

I see your point - now. That's the danger with specialised knowledge. Often it's not readily apparent that 95% of the population won't have it and therefore won't think the same way.

Just think how simple it would have been to have pointed out such things beforehand ;)

[DFC]

Chilli,

Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application..............often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill

No Sj1t. :)

---

Shy Thorque,

You have missed my points.

if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do

That is what we do when we can. However, have you ever had any problem getting through to London info on a sunny summer Sunday Morning when the South of the UK leaves for France. Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination.

However, if we will transit a zone enroute then provided we don't change our flight plan, we will have to call that zone and as the top reason for suspecting an emergency is failure to call when expected, any ATC unit meeting CAA requirements will be in a position to make that alert if we don't call with 30 minutes of the expected time.

If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio

It isn't "my" system. It is the UK CAA system.
I never said that written flight plans should be required for anything more than they are required already.
Keep the freedoms.......show me where they are written down :D

Look at it like this;

1. If I am going to stick to my route and transit a zone then as per the AIP, it makes sense to file in advance.

2. If on the otherhand, I intend to simply have a bimble and perchance call for a zone transit then it would be better to simply file an abreviated plan in flight ( again as per the AIP).

In 1 above, I am already known to the ATC system and the ATC unit concerned is responsible for initiating overdue action if I fail to turn up (They have no get out clause because it is in the AIP and MATS 1). I in turn am required to notify any changes to my flight plan to avoid unnecessary overdue action.

In 2, I can't really predict exactly what I am going to do so it would be too cumbersome to file a written plan (although I could but it isn't worth while addressing various zones that may or may not be transited) and because of the random nature of my flight it would be unreasonable to expect ATC to provide any form of alerting other than when I am in contact with that unit.

Thus I hope you can see that I am not trying to change any requirement for flight plans, I am merely trying to make the point that since pilots are legally required to comply with the AIP then ATC should coinsidder themselves under the same legal requirement...........not to mention duty of care.

You still have the opotion to simply call on the radio.

---

CaptainFillosan,

If you could counter the argument then perhaps you would have. In the absence of any counter argument you resort to the personal attack. Feel free to say that what the AIP says is wrong.

At least Chilli had the balls to say that!

ATC is there just for your convenience

Close - see the objectives of ATC............all of which are about providing services to flights.

There are only two services provided to every flight regardless of what ATS unit they talk to..........Flight Information and Alerting.

There is only one service provided by ATS units to flights in which they have no contact - Alerting Service.

Are you a brilliant pilot?

I doubt it to.............but I have survived thus far.

As I said previously - 75% of UK pilots can not file a written flight plan without help. A similar percentage of active pilots when asked admitt to not haing read the AIP in the last year................does that not tell the CAA something about the standard of the UK GA pilot?

Let's all take your line.

The AIP and the ANO are far too pedantic.........forget licences and medicals and calling ATC......simply fly for the hell of it.........and see how we get on.

I await the moaning about European regulations when the one sky enforces filed plans for everything above 3000ft!

regards,

DFC

[ShyTorque]

DFC,

"Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination."

Are you saying that you would rather file a paper flight plan before you go and rely solely on that, rather than make en route radio calls? I must have missed your point again because I can't believe anyone would. Far better to be in real time r/t contact with a ground unit if you have an emergency, rather than rely on a filed piece of paper when you aren't. It doesn't have to be London, just the nearest airfield.

Or are you just angry because in practice ATC doesn't work like you think it ought to? :confused:

[Spitoon]

DFC, your persistent view - despite being repeatedly told otherwise by those who intimately aware of the practical application of the rules that you quote - appears, on the face of it, to be a matter of differing interpretations of the rules. In reality, filed flight plans are normally addressed by ATS/AIS staff and not by pilots. Things are changing because pilots, for a variety of reasons, can now have access to the ATN messaging systems. ATS /AIS staff address FPL messages according to well defined rules and pilots should do the same. These rules DO NOT include addressing FPLs to units that you may just happen to be passing by.

In years gone by these rules were included in CAP493 MATS Part 1 but for some reason they were removed a long time ago. I guess if they were still there you'd be able to read them and quote them in forums like Pprune. As it is, I dont think they're published in any UK document and the only place you'll find them is in an ICAO doc - the reference for which escapes me at this time on a Sunday morning. But I'm sure you'll be able to find it!

If, after you've read it, you still think you're right, please tell us all why.

If you're right and I'm wrong, I apologise. If I'm right and you're wrong, don't worry about apologising, just learn that despite what you think, if everyone else who know what they're talking about is telling you you're wrong - then you probably are!

[Flyin'Dutch']

Folks,

Last time I was in Disneyland I did not see any pedantic Rhinos.

I will have a closer look next time.

:}

[PPRuNe Radar]

I am afraid that as with any 'rule', there is never black and white, even if asserted as so by DFC.

3 Recognising an Emergency Situation
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............

In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established (which negates point [a] above). The interpretation of many ATC units (and mine) is that radio contact would only be expected if the pilot had made an initial call and a follow up call had not been made when expected (asked to report passing a position, for example), or if the aircraft had been subject to a co-ordination message from another ATSU and then did not call on the frequency at the expected time. If it was otherwise, then the chasing around of people who didn't turn up (and were not obliged to in any case) would keep the Rescue Co-ordination Centres very busy indeed. Mmmm, now there's a thought. Bring that in and charge them all for wasted time. We could probably fund the whole ATC system .. and the NHS :)

If we do follow DFCs interpretation however, then there is also an onus placed on the pilot to contact each and every ATC unit on their Flight Plan every time their estimate changes by -/+ 3 minutes. These are the tolerances. Is that really what pilots (not to mention ATC) want ??

2 Aerodrome Procedure

2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.

Again, this down to interpretation. When do ATC expect a pilot to make a position report ?

Well, one scenario is 'when requested'. But you'd need to be in contact already for that, or asked to do so by another ATC unit. So in that case we already know you are in the system and have a firm idea of what you are actually doing.

Another is if it is a mandatory reporting point. But then you'd be on a published ATS route .. and have a clearance, and be in contact, etc, etc.

Bottom line is that for aircraft outside CAS, position reports are only expected by ATC in a limited set of circumstances. Hence our wide held interpretation that a pilot who simply files a flight plan for a transit and then is not subject to any communication with ATC (either directly or through another ATSU) is not expected to make a position report and thus cannot be overdue in making said report. That's why we as a system take no action on flight planned aircraft which don't turn up for a transit.

The entire responsibility in this case lies with the arrival airfield or the 'responsible person'.

[DFC]

Thanks for all that Guys.

So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.

Furthermore to Quote PPrune Radar;

In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established

So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?

If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.

Have you cake and eat it!

Regards,

DFC

PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.

Spitoon - Random address book (can remember the CAP) and AIP....only limit is on the likes of BAWYWY company addresses.

Shy Torque,

Yes you got it all wrong again!

Dutch,

Sorry did you make an input? - No?

[PPRuNe Radar]

So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.

Come now DFC, the book is always open to interpretation. You believe it says something which others believe it doesn't. It would need someone from the CAA to make the ruling on whose semantics are correct. Do you see that ever happening ?? ;)

So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?

There are times when I wouldn't. ATC clearances can be relayed by another agency or obtained prior to departure. Executive control can be delegated by way of Letters of Agreement to another agency. And so on and so forth.

If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.

The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP. :ok: ENR 1.1.2 Paragraph 1.4 covers it nicely.

Acceptance of a request for clearance does not imply that a clearance to enter Controlled Airspace has been given or will be granted.

PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.

The 30 minutes has a baseline which is calculated as the estimated time for a position report (as per your MATS Part 1 entry). A Flight Plan with elapsed times is NOT a position report. The circumstances where you are required to make a position report are again contained in the UK AIP within ENR 1.1.3 Paragraph 1. In all the cases where a report is required, the pilot will be in communication with ATC. So we know for definite you are in the system, we know where you are (or were), and we have a relatively accurate ETA for the reporting point. And so we would take the appropriate Alerting Action if required.

A Flight Plan is of course only a statement of intent, and may not be adhered to, as we all know. In terms of transit ATSUs, I think the following AIP entry also lends support to the fact that there is no onus on them to take any action if an aircraft doesn't appear looking to transit their zone. In this specific case it is talking about diversions.

If a pilot lands at an aerodrome other than the destination specified in the flight plan, he must ensure that the ATSU at the original destination is informed within 30 minutes of his flight planned ETA, to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services.

Now if your interpretation is correct .... don't you think it would also place an onus on the pilot to make sure that each transit ATSU was also informed within 30 minutes of the expected transit time to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services. ?????? :}

[Flyin'Dutch']

Dutch, Sorry did you make an input?

Maybe time for a bit of selfreflection on your part.

Or are you stuck on broadcasting only?

[DFC]

PPRuNe Radar,

The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP

That is exactly my point.........when is it OK for ATC to ignore the AIP and not for the pilot to do the same?

You are quite correct, radio equipped aircraft are required to inform ATS of changes to a flight plan to avoid unnecessary alerting action. That is why radio equipped aircraft are treated differently to non-radio in the MATS 1.

Put yourself in somewhere like Alaska with the UK AIP and ATS system. Would you treat flight plans in the same way?........ignoring flights wo depart but don't turn up?

Regards,

DFC

[Chilli Monster]

DFC

Put yourself in somewhere like Alaska with the UK AIP and ATS system.

No sh1t sherlock! We're not in Alaska, we're in the UK. The procedures work in the UK, they wouldn't in Alaska.

I believe that's why they're published as NATIONAL procedures ;)

Much as you love hammering on about the 'interpreted' fallacies of the UK may I suggest a look across the water at a certain gallic country twice as large. Much of what you say over there would be greeted by the delightful phrase "fous le camp" ;)

Arrange these two words in a well known saying - "life" and "get".

[ShyTorque]

DFC,

UK AIP in Alaska? WTHAYOA? :rolleyes:

Now I understand your problem. Seen it before in the military when everyone on parade was out of step except one bloke.... ;)

P.S. Suggest you contact the CAA immediately.

[Bright-Ling]

Wow.

This is what PPRUNE is all about - A topic called Zone Infringements with someone who lives in dream world bitching on about overdue action, FPL's and All things Alaskan!

Way to go DFC. I am with ShyTorque and others here. Come and live in the real world.

(P.S. It also says in the Highway Code that the motorway speed limit is 70mph, that people must always indicate at roundabouts and people shouldn't drive in the bus lane.

How do you survive day to day life when you have your head stuck up your ar$e>?)

[englishal]

In the ideal world, we'd have US style VFR flight following in the UK, then we wouldn't need to worry about busting airspace ;)

[2Donkeys]

Too right Englishal. Pilots navigating for themselves would be too horrible to imagine :D

Perhaps Pprune should be rebranded as thed Twilight Zone.... and here is your host..... DFC :D

[ShyTorque]

Slagging episodes over matters like this are just counter productive.

DFC, seriously, I think you do have a point BUT the written word obviously leaves some ambiguity in your mind. If the CAA were unhappy with it, they have had many years to do something about it and they haven't. I don't think you will ever change it and there is no reason to do so because the system works! Your best option is to just accept the way it is.

[Spitoon]

DFC, in my last post on this thread I suggested tht you look out the ICAO reference for ATS message addressing. In response you mentioned the Random FPL address book - which IIRC gives collective addresses for non-standard airways routes - and the AIP.

As you clearly can't be bothered to refer to the definitive document, I'll do it for you.

ICAO Doc 4444 PANS-ATM
11.4.2.2.2.2 A filed flight plan message shall be originated and addressed as follows by the air traffic services unit serving the departure aerodrome or, when applicable, by the air traffic services unit receiving a flight plan from an aircraft in flight:
a) an FPL message shall be sent to the ACC or flight information centre serving the control area or FIR within which the departure aerodrome is situated;
b) unless basic flight plan data are already available as a result of arrangements made for repetitive flight plans, an FPL message shall be sent to all centres in charge of each FIR or upper FIR along the route which are unable to process current data. In addition, an FPL message shall be sent to the aerodrome control tower at the destination aerodrome. If so required, an FPL message shall also be sent to flow management centres responsible for ATS units along the route;
c) when a potential reclearance in flight (RIF) request is indicated in the flight plan, the FPL message shall be sent to the additional centres concerned and to the aerodrome control tower of the revised destination aerodrome;
d) where it has been agreed to use CPL messages but where information is required for early planning of traffic flow, an FPL message shall be transmitted to the ACCs concerned;
e) for a flight along routes where flight information service and alerting service only are provided, an FPL message shall be addressed to the centre in charge of each FIR or upper FIR along the route and to the aerodrome control tower at the destination aerodrome.

It seems to me that the flights that you are talking about fall into category e).

I don't imagine that you will change your opinion simply because I have pointed out the definitive rules for FPL message addressing. Nonetheless, the theoretical answer has now been provided and you have a multitiude of people who know how the system works in practice telling you that you are wrong. The simple fact is that, in normal operations, the only unit that is obliged to take overdue action if you don't turn up at the appointed time is the destination aerodrome.

I suggest you learn to live with reality and try to understand why you re wrong (and to help you along, try to understand the difference between a filed FPL and the basic information needed by an ATS unit to process your transit through their area of responsibility). And before you get on your high horse again, yes, once you have established communications with a unit, you will get flight informtion and alerting services - but if it's not your destination aerodrome, you get the services because you're talking to them, not because you may just happen to have addressed a flight plan to them.

[DFC]

The general sentiment quoted by Chilli etc;

No sh1t sherlock! We're not in Alaska, we're in the UK. The procedures work in the UK

Anyone who thinks that parts of Wales, large parts of Scotland and the Lake District are more surviveable than Alaska when one is forced to spend hours trapped in a downed aircraft during the winter months needs to have a rethink.

A number of aircraft have disappeared in the Highlands.....some have been found.............in the following spring thaw............................would it not be a shame if a flight from Inverness to say Blackpool via GOW did not receive an alerting service from Glasgow when they failed to turn up at the zone boundary as expected?

Spitoon,

e) does not really apply because the flight will be subject to an ATC clearance for that part of the flight within controlled airspace......hence ATC service.

------

Shame people resort to childish rants when they have not got the ability to debate an issue........roll on mode S and mandatory flight plans.......then perhaps those that shout loudest can be quiet while they learn how to file a flight plan! :D

The CAA have no data on which to require an AIP change.....yet!

:E

Regards,

DFC

[Spitoon]

DFC, I was going to retire gracefully from this debate but ...

If e) doesn't apply to the flights you are talking about, which paragraph does?

As I mentioned before, you have to understand the distinction between a filed FPL and the limited info needed by an ATC unit to give clearance (or not) through a particular piece of airspace that is along your route. It is sometimes difficult to map ICAO regs to a national system but I'm afraid that on this occasion it doesn't fit what you think should happen.

The present ICAO rules do not specify that a FPL should be sent to aerodromes along the the route FOR ANY FLIGHT. You may not like the rules, they may be outdated, they may not fit many of the types of operation that take place today, but that's what they are and the UK doesn't differ to my knowledge. So accept it.

By all means try and change the rules through the appropriate channels but don't try and tell the rest of the world - and some of the people who have taken the trouble to answer you are very experienced in the way that ATC works - that they are wrong simply because you think the rules are wrong.

Now I'm bored with this and I will retire gracefully.

[ShyTorque]

Me too, before I wake up to find I'm losing the will to live.....

DFC, Have you been introduced to Walter Kennedy, on the Chinook thread? I have a feeling you and he might get on like a house on fire..... ;)

[PPRuNe Radar]

Anyone who thinks that parts of Wales, large parts of Scotland and the Lake District are more surviveable than Alaska when one is forced to spend hours trapped in a downed aircraft during the winter months needs to have a rethink. A number of aircraft have disappeared in the Highlands.....some have been found.............in the following spring thaw............................would it not be a shame if a flight from Inverness to say Blackpool via GOW did not receive an alerting service from Glasgow when they failed to turn up at the zone boundary as expected?

And except for one case I can think of, all these missing aircraft have been raised as missing when they became overdue at the DESTINATION airfield.

The case I am thinking of was the one that brought about the establishment of the 'responsible person' as I recall, after the aircraft crashed on Jura and lay there for a few days before it was noticed it had not returned home.

Every reference in the AIP to the responsibility for taking overdue action refers to it being the responsibility of either the destination airfield, or the parent ATSU if there is no ATC unit available there (having been notified by a responsible person of course). Absolutely no inference that it applies to en route ATC agencies in reference to solely the flight plan.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Having spent 20 minutes of my life reading the latter part of this thread, I find that I am asking myself "Why did I bother?" :ugh:

[DFC]

Spitoon,

As I mentioned before, you have to understand the distinction between a filed FPL and the limited info needed by an ATC unit to give clearance (or not) through a particular piece of airspace that is along your route

I am well aware of the difference.

Let me say again. It is not mandatory to file a flight plan prior to departure on a national VFR flight in class G which will transit a zone. One can choose to make a radio enroute call and file an abreviated plan. Sometimes that is actually better than pre-filing - flexibility of route.

The whole point I have been making is that a pilot requesting a clearance to cross a zone must pass flight plan details to the appropriate ATS unit.
Using the FPL message addressed to that unit is internationally and within the UK AIP accepted as having communicated the required details to that unit.

An alternative is to pass the details by telephone in advance.

How can anyone deny knowledge of a flight after receiving a flight safety message?

--------

PPRuNe Radar,

You confuse me;

The case I am thinking of was the one that brought about the establishment of the 'responsible person' as I recall, after the aircraft crashed on Jura and lay there for a few days before it was noticed it had not returned home

The responsible person was brought in to remove the requirement to close a flight plan with ATS on or just before arrival at an airfield with no ATS.

If there was no flight plan then there would be no requirement for a responsible person even today.

If there was a flight plan and this was prior to the "responsible person" then ATS were seriously at fault for missing the fact that a flight had not arrived.

The consensus seems to be that many UK ATC units simply can't be bothered with flight safety mesages and UK pilots have no problem with that.

How many countries have ATC who are proud to announce that they ignore Flight Safety Messages?

Regards,

DFC

[PPRuNe Radar]

If there was a flight plan and this was prior to the "responsible person" then ATS were seriously at fault for missing the fact that a flight had not arrived.

I don't think there is ATS at Colonsay (or whichever unmanned island strip he was en route to). That's kind of the point. No one to close the plan with .. but also no one to take action on non arrival either. The pilot was not in contact with any ATC unit at the time of the crash.

The consensus seems to be that many UK ATC units simply can't be bothered with flight safety mesages and UK pilots have no problem with that.

How many countries have ATC who are proud to announce that they ignore Flight Safety Messages?

I really suggest you have a read of this GA Safety Leaflet. It tells it the way it is (for VFR flights). Namely that if you file a flight plan then your arrival airfield and alternates will get it (no mention of a requirement for transit airfields to have it too, let alone do anything with them). It also explains in detail who is responsible for Alerting action and how this works depending on whether your departure and arrival airfields have ATS or not. As it's written by the CAA I expect they know the way the UK system works. And one which everyone (except a solitary individual) seems to accept and live with.

Paragraphs 3,4,5 & 7 are the relevant ones (it even mentions mountainous terrain flights .. where once again, surprise, surprise, the Alerting action is placed on your arrival airfield or a parent ATSU (having been told about your non arrival by a responsible person).

The CAA also put their contact details on this leaflet. So if you can't accept the way they think it works (which has been iterated here by many other people), then get in touch and put them right as well :8

In the meantime ... units in the UK will deal with 'transit' Flight Plans as they always have. ;)

CAA GA Safety Sense Leaflet 20A VFR Flight PLans (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_SSL20.PDF)

[squibbler]

Jeeeesus is this thread still going ?? :zzz:

DFC if you want to complain about (perceived) vagueries of the UK AIP start your own thread or write to the CAA.

The original query by the threadstarter was answered long ago (by around page 2).

Stop hijacking threads to continue your usual sniping at the UK ATC system.

Here's something to think about:

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men
Douglas Bader

[vintage ATCO]

Stop hijacking threads to continue your usual sniping at the UK ATC system.

He snipes at the UK ATC System as I sense he is a frustrated ATCO. Isn't that right, Da, er, DFC? ;)

[Flyin'Dutch']

DFC, I note from your profile that your position is P1 but maybe you can enlighten us a bit further on your experience and what you do.

The impression that your postings evoke is that you are very good at quoting chapter and verse but have no experience in operating in the UK.

Why are you so convinced that everything and everyone is wrong with the current UK system.

Or is it just a case of sour grapes as alluded to?

[DFC]

PPRuNe Radar,

Bit of history,

Prior to the "responsible person" situation, if a flight was flying to an aerodrome with no ATS then that pilot had to "close their flight plan". They did that by making an R/T call to the FIS/adjacent ATSU prior to landing or by telephone after landing. If they did not "close the plan", alerting action was initiated..........basically the current system in the rest of Europe.

Is it not true to say that provided pilots do what it says in the AIP then they can not be at fault?

If as one is lead to believe, so few pilots file full flight plans in the UK and how few of those address them to extra enroute ATC units.........then ATC can not claim that they are overloaded with paper flight plans for transit flights.

Anyway, we have discussed this at the company almost as long as here. We are obvously worried about being overdue but ATC not taking alerting action due to ignoring a flight plan. The suggested solution is;

Flight from Welshpool to Exeter via BRI - File Welshpool to Bristol (Alternate Exeter) on contacting Bristol ATC announce diversion to Exeter. In that case should we fail to turn up at the Bristol zone Bristol will start alerting action and later if we fail to turn up at Exeter, Exeter will start alerting action.........thus we have the required alerting action normally expected.

It's no problem for us......would it make any more work for ATC than simply not ignoring transit flight plans?

---

Squibbler,

I was sure that this was about zone transits.......and one needs a flight plan for zone transits...still talking about zone transits.

Thankyou for the quotation, I will considder myself a wise man. :)

-----

Vintage ATCO,

That old chestnut gets trotted out by UK ATCOs everytime someone fails to say how wonderfull UK ATC is.

I can count on one hand the number of ATCOs I know (I am not one) and only 2 are from the UK........all except 1 are retired........so I doubt if I know you but please email me if you do!

Judging from the various forums we must have a lot of disgruntled Pilots, ATCOs, Engineers, Spotters and Pimply bums with noting to add to the debate! :D ..................

Flyin'Dutch,

Hier is het bericht in onze taal. U hebt geen bijdrage tot het debat geleverd. U weet wat niet wij spreken over zodat maakt u eenvoudig kinderachtige persoonlijke aanvallen.

There is a lot right with the UK system. This is probably one of the few places where the AIP says one thing but it seems practice is something different.

You still can't help having a look tho!

Regards,

DFC

[Final 3 Greens]

Gelieve te kunnen wij de Engelse taal voor kinderaanvallen gebruiken, is het veel plezieriger.

[englishal]

Nu nu, dacht ik de taal van Luchtvaart het Engels was:}

[squibbler]

Squibbler,

I was sure that this was about zone transits.......and one needs a flight plan for zone transits...still talking about zone transits.


NO! It was about zone infringements, it's entitled zone infringements. The first mention of flight plans on this thread was by..........well YOU actually way back on page 2 by which time the threadstarter's question / query had been more than adequately answered. You started your whinge when someone had the temerity to question the need to bring flight plans into it

Like I said, you've hijacked the thread.

You're incorrigible.............

Wise man my :mad:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Flyin'Dutch,
Hier is het bericht in onze taal. U hebt geen bijdrage tot het debat geleverd. U weet wat niet wij spreken over zodat maakt u eenvoudig kinderachtige persoonlijke aanvallen.


Thank you for that DFC.

Your attempt at being derisory is noted, but you still fail to make it clear where you fit into the bigger picture.

So come on and lift a tip of the veil which one fits you:

Pilots, ATCOs, Engineers, Spotters and Pimply bums

Your clues thus far:

Anyway, we have discussed this at the company almost as long as here

and

Flight from Welshpool to Exeter

Are not enough for us to decide whether we need to take you serious or you are just a broken record that we should ignore.

;)

[lobby]

DFC has gone VERY quiet since he/she was asked what he/she does regarding aviation. Makes me think it's just a sad person with to much time, the internet and a pile of books, maybe even someone who couldn't hack it in the aviation industry.

[LowNSlow]

Looks like DFC didn't stand for Distinguished Flying Cross then.....

[rustle]

...It would be shortsighted to disallow others to hold views different from our own, and to suggest that they are therefore too far up their own [asses] is both rude and not helpful in having a discussion as is the notion that a different view needs to lead to an argument.

If the view of only some people is allowed to be 'the right one' it may well feel cosy for a bit but ultimately will get a bit nepotistic and lonely.

Although this is ultimately not our trainset, I think that since it is a public forum others should be allowed dignity when airing their views.

Almost prophetic, I wish I could remember where I read that... :rolleyes: :)

[DFC]

DFC was quiet because like most other people, one has to work from time to time. However, there has been no postings relevant to the debate so why should there be a response.

With an aircraft down off the West of Scotland, perhaps alerting action will be reviewed as part of the investigation although it appears from news reports that in this case the flight was departing the zone.

I must however point out an error regarding the point previously where I said;

Flight from Welshpool to Exeter via BRI - File Welshpool to Bristol (Alternate Exeter) on contacting Bristol ATC announce diversion to Exeter. In that case should we fail to turn up at the Bristol zone Bristol will start alerting action and later if we fail to turn up at Exeter, Exeter will start alerting action.........thus we have the required alerting action normally expected

It has been pointed out to us that there is no requirement to go to such drastic measures and that such measures are not appropriate if one knows in advance that a diversion "may be a posibility for operational reasons" i.e. not weather etc.

The way to correctly do the above is to file a flight plan with a RIF in item 18.
This I am told will acheive the exact same result i.e. Bristol will be required to keep and act on the flight plan until such time as they are told that the destination is changed to Exeter and then Exeter will have and act on the revised flight plan. The diference being that Exeter will not be required to inform the arrival of a diversion as per the diversion procedures.

Seems that there may be times in the UK when we have a flight plan with several RIFs when hoping from zone to zone looking for transits!

-------

squibbler,

A zone infringement is a zone transit without the required ATC clearance is it not? :)

To avoid infringements, always get an ATC clearance before entering and to get an ATC cleaarance, file a flight plan or abreviated plan as per the AIP!

Regards,

DFC

Flyin\'Dutch,

Being P1 of a Maule or a B757 makes little difference to the argument that international alerting standards need to be followed for the safety of us all.

Same as a surgeon and a GP debating the requirements to wash one\'s hands to avoid passing on MRSA.............would you like the Surgeon discounting your argument simply cause you are a mere GP?

No. So I won\'t either if you ever put one forward. :D

Regards,

DFC

[squibbler]

squibbler,

A zone infringement is a zone transit without the required ATC clearance is it not?

To avoid infringements, always get an ATC clearance before entering and to get an ATC cleaarance, file a flight plan or abreviated plan as per the AIP!

Regards,

DFC


:yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Err yes I know that thankyou (being an ATCO).....what do you do again.......?

Missed the point again.......:rolleyes:

I expect you'll be posting again (you can't seem to let things drop) but I won't be.......you're a hopeless cause. Like to see you argue your case in a room full of ATCO's but I get the feeling you'd prefer the safety of your study/bedroom behind your keyboard :E:p

[lobby]

The way to correctly do the above is to file a flight plan with a RIF in item 18

Excuse my ignorance but what is a RIF ?

[Flyin'Dutch']

would you like the Surgeon discounting your argument simply cause you are a mere GP?

No, and neither would they do that.

However I would fully understand that they would tire soon if I kept banging on over an issue on which they had far more experience than I had, and which in their experience had not caused a problem, other than that 'The Book' stated something different from what worked in 'Real Life'

True professionals never deride other people's views but are very good at listening to other people's views and assimilating those of proven value.

Anyway can we take it then that you fly 75s out of Welshpool?

Rustle,

Nice to see you around and honoured to be quoted by you, although not sure what contribution it makes here being a bit out of context.

Missed you at the AIS meeting in January.

[DFC]

lobby,

Since you are an air traffic person, I'll explain the flight plan;

There are a number of times when RIF is used. Basically the aircraft gets airbourne for one destination but knows in advance that for some reason the flight may proceed to another aerodrome.

The one I have come across before is on long range flights - one files to a destination that is conservative with regard to fuel and ensures reserves then if one has sufucuent fuel at the decision point, one can opt for the revised destination included in the RIF.

Example - old Atlantic flights eastbound when fuel was tight could file say Shannon as destination with Cork as alternate and then in item 18 specify;

RIF/54N15W Nxx STU G1 EGLL

This means that if there is sufficient fuel available at the oceanic boundary, the flight could (subject to ATC clearance in this case) be extended to Heathrow. If not then the flight refuels in Shannon.

Up until the RIF is acted upon, the flight is planned to Shannon and Shannon expect the flight. After the RIF is used, Heathrow becomes the destination and that is basically that.

These days the fuel available trans atlantic isn't a problem except for light aircraft ferry flights where the RIF can be used to overcome the legal reserve requirements i.e. flights on the atlantic must have large reserves.....thus one files as far as Shannon or Prestwick and then once across the atlantic, the reserves are not so critical (one needs 45 min as opposed to hours) and one can use the spare fuel to reach Paris or the UK or as far as one wants to try and push it with little sleep!

There is also the old fogbound airfield (below minima) - one files to a nearby airfield and RIF to the fogbound one if the weather clears.

It's all about passing on the intentions prior to flight thus keeping everyone in the picture.

Seems that it is also a neat way of ensuring that UK ATC can't simply bin a flight plan that one has addressed to them ;)

Regards,

DFC

[CaptainFillosan]

By golly this gets more and more boring!

DFC

When are you going to give up? You have already reached the point of no return. Your arrogance is breathtaking and your downright nerve in trying to tell some good and great controllers how to do their jobs is..................well, it makes you look stupid.

Your arguments and your so-called debate is just pontificating rubbish. Ok, so you like ATC matters - so what! The problem is that you don't truly understand what goes on in the air - in the real world of day to day ATC. You completely ignore those who do. That is NOT a debate.

[lobby]

Funnily enough DFC I DO know what a FPL is and have filed probably more than most in my 15 years in ATC. I have yet to see RIF in item 18. You have still not told me what it stands for. I cannot find any reference to RIF anywhere. My other half who used to work as a International Flight Planner has also never heard of this.

As far as I am aware you are not allowed to get airbourne with the intention of going anywhere other than your filed destination. If then you find you have incorrectly calculated your fuel you divert.

I stand corrected, I have found a reference to RIF. Still never seen it or find anyone that has on a flight plan.

RIF/ changes of routing to the changed destination aerodrome and/or changed destination aerodrome

http://www.ivao.org/training/tutorials/flightplans/flightplans.htm

[Warped Factor]

The link above where you found RIF is one of these simulated internet ATC places, maybe that says something :)

Now, where's a sharp knife, I'm off to cut my wrists...

;)

WF.

[2Donkeys]

RIF/ is nothing more or less than a field in which you may elect to enter the routing that you wish to use to get to a designated alternate.

I have no idea why DFC is quoting it in this context.

Perhaps he seriously thinks that the way to get service is to nominate a large number of alternates and to bounce between them on a RIF/ routing.

2D

[Flyin'Dutch']

I wonder why DFC is so coy to come out of the closet and share with us what he is doing and where he fits into the aviation spectrum as given by him:

Pilots, ATCOs, Engineers, Spotters and Pimply bums

[lobby]

an ATC wannabe I think !

[flower]

Well if I was flying Welshpool Exeter I doubt I would take the route via the BRI either , but then I am a mere ATCO, and of course I ignore flight plans :p

[DFC]

Lobby,

I am reading the instructions for completing the ICAO flight plan form or CA48 or 2919 depending on where you are.

Take a look in DOC4444, Aerad, Jeppesen or even the RAF Flight Information Handbook whichever you have to hand.

"RIF/ The route details to the revised destination aerodrome, followed by the ICAO four-letter location indicator of the aerodrome. Example: RIF/DTA HEC KLAX"

-----

Flower,

It is an example!
I have never knew that Seaton had an airport yet the R/T manual constantly refers to it and some ATC people have spent a long time learning it's runway and taxiway layout. :)

---------

2Donkeys,

I seems that in the UK that such drastic measures are required for the time being! :(

------------

One must wonder what happens to transit flights that say fly Bournemouth to BRI and back to Bournemouth......do Bristol get a copy of the flight plan?

If what is said here, they do not and if they did they would bin it...............how then do they seem to know the details when Examxx calls up for some holds at the BRI and an ILS before return to BIA...............could it be that either a flight plan has been filed or a telephone call received and details recorded?

Regards,

DFC

[LowNSlow]

DFC, strangely enough I didn't start this thread for you to have a terminally boring diatribe on the merits and minutae of filing flight plans. Please start a flight plan thread if you feel so strongly about it.

My original intention was to get the opinions of ACTCOs and pilots on the reaction of the second ATCO. I thought the first ATCO handled the situation admirably; the infrigement (minor and no risk) was noted, apologies were made and that was it. The second ATCO made no contribution to flight safety, ATCO / pilot relations, or ATCO / ATCO relations in the way that he dealt with the already solved problem. Ah well, maybe he's just the kind of chap who needs extra vineger for the chips he obviously has on both shoulders.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Is this still going on?

Give me strength............ :ugh: :ugh:

[flower]

Perhaps the mods would like to split this discussion up to zone infringer's and flight planning ?

Regarding the comment about Bournemouth to BRI trainers, i am not sure why on earth you think DFC that we bin every flight plan.
Training aircraft generally want a period of time in Class A airspace as part of their flight. The most common route if training at Bristol is to route Bournemouth to EXMOR to gain an airways joining clearance then either a period of time within N864 before turning to the BRI for beacon training or turn at EXMOR for the BRI.
Flight plans are not discarded in anyway and both Cardiff ( who give the initial airways joining clearance ) and Bristol will have the information supplied to them as the Flight Plan will include the various reporting points, it is an IFR flight plan and all the appropriate people will have the information they require.

I really cannot figure the point you are trying to make BTW DFC. Flight plans with the correct addresses and reporting points end up at the correct units, we do not bin them.

[DFC]

Perhaps the mods would like to split this discussion up to zone infringer's and flight planning ?

Great idea....and another one for people who only deal in personal abuse! :)

You said;

Regarding the comment about Bournemouth to BRI trainers, i am not sure why on earth you think DFC that we bin every flight plan.

and

Flight plans with the correct addresses and reporting points end up at the correct units, we do not bin them.

So you are saying that for a training flight routing say EGHH dct BRI dct CDF dct BRI EGHH......with Bristol included as an addressee would result in Bristol retaining the flight plan and expecting the flight at some stage unless the flight plan is cancelled or changed. Bristol would never bin or ignore such a flight plan?.

If that is so then it is at odds with what Chilli etc have said.........I believe he used the term "logistically impossible" and said that with automatic procesing of FPL messages only inbounds and outbounds are presented.

Could it be that some units act on the flight plans which are correctly addressed to them and some do not?

Question for enroute people - if I file a plan prior to departure for the sole purpose of completing an airway crossing enroute. Is the flight plan put in the computer so that when I call up the FIR frequency, they can pull out the details or do I have to repeat the flight plan to the FIR controller?........Is this not a similar situation to the zone transit as I may choose to underfly the airway and not call for crossing clearance?

Regards,

DFC

[flower]

DFC I suspect you are misunderstanding previous posts on this topic.

Any unit to which a flightplan is relevant will be notified in the form of a Flight progress Strip.

The important word here now is relevant.

I think , and i don't like making personal comments , that you choose to misunderstand the responses here as you have decided that ATC are not interested in you.
A correctly filed flight plan ( note the correctly), will have the appropriate addresses on it and those addressees will be informed . There is nothing complex about it, there is no collusion with units dumping flight plans and everyone who should be informed according to the flight plan will be informed.
We may receive FPS on aircraft which have no relevance to us and at that point we will Bin the FPS however the flight plan still remains in the system and should it become necessary a FPS can be obtained within moments.

Now I suggest DFC you accept what all the ATC professionals are saying to you and that all Correctly filed Flight Plans will reach the appropriate destination.

[squibbler]

flower, you're wasting your time.....he's been told already - can't get his head round it - hence 8 pages of drivel :zzz: - don't let him make it 9; please!! :{

[BRL]

No page nine I am afraid. This is worse than the magic roundabout.............