I/V A/D

[Timothy]

I was confused yesterday by an exchange that maybe someone can help me avoid next time. You might need a Southern Scotland chart in front of you.

I was VFR F085 over the middle of Spadeadam, tracking towards TLA inbound to Cumbernauld. I was handed over to Scottish (124.5, I think) by Newcastle.

Scottish asked if I wished to proceed VFR or IFR and I nominated to continue V.

They then told me to report descending to avoid controlled airspace. I requested entry into the class D airspace VFR, which seemed to surprise the controller and put him out a bit. As I approached the edge of the 85+ bit of Class A I reported descending to F084 to remain outside.

Eventually I was handed over to another frequency, but still not given a clearance and, with about three miles to run, asked for a clearance to enter controlled airspace. I was cleared to enter in the descent to 6000' and to call Edinburgh Approach.

Can anyone explain what was happening at the ATC end? Why is there an assumption that if I fly VFR I have to fly below Class D airspace? Why as I was under RIS and rapidly approaching the zone boundary was not a clearance offered? Why, having been handed over to an Area sector for zone entry was I handed to Edinburgh as I entered CA? Why did this scenario (which I would have thought would be a regular event for VFR arrivals at Cumbernauld and both big airports) seem to surprise and discombobulate the 124.5 controller?

As ever, I want to understand, I am not criticising.

[10 DME ARC]

I would have said (I may be wrong) but area controllers are not so up to speed with VFR and Class D airspace, operating mostly outside CAS or in Class A? Most UK class D belongs to airfields.

[alphaalpha]

I haven't got the chart to hand, but hasn't Edinburgh just acquired some new Class D airspace instead of its old Class E.

Perhaps this change caused some confusion, previously VFR did not require a clearance to enter the E.

However, I didn't think the new class D was as high at F085.

AA.

[Timothy]

The area immediately around Edinburgh is Class E, but the TMA above and around that is D, then there is A above and around that.

It's all a bit confusing and I can imagine if the ATCOs spend 99% of their time vectoring transport aircraft in controlled airspace they don't have to worry too much about the nature of the space.

But I still would have thought that they would be dealing with enough VFR traffic for this issue to come up.

Today I was vectored by Scottish through some Class A VFR. Of course that was fine, and Class A airspace is made of the same gasses as any other, the controller knew where I was and was, I imagine, creating IFR separation anyway, but it did again give the impression that airspace class is not at the forefront of their minds.

I am just seeking to understand. Prune Radar, this is your area; no comment?

[Lock n' Load]

I may be a bit out of date here given that I stopped working at Edinburgh over a year ago and I'm not privy to airspace changes since then, but the issues are there...

All controlled airspace in the Scottish TMA above 6,000 ft belongs to Scottish Control, but in practice arriving IFR aircraft and IFR overflights which may conflict with them are transferred to Edinburgh or Glasgow Radar as appropriate when within 40 miles of PH/PF. For a start, the approach radar units can apply 3 mile lateral separation instead of 5 miles, and it's the approach radar units who have to sequence the arrivals onto final approach.
In general, VFR aircraft are not vectored or given a hard altitude assignment in the UK. That makes them an unknown quantity when mixing with IFR traffic. To have a sequence of inbound IFR traffic descending through a VFR at FL85 would be Hell on Earth when busy. That you'd have to get a clearance from Scottish but be transitting an area where the arriving traffic is controlled by Edinburgh would really makes things messy.
So, keep it simple. If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.

[DFC]

If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.

1. Most small aircraft (probably not in this case though!:) would not have to pay Nav charges anyway.

2. If the principle was as you describe (decided by DAP, not local ATS) - then the airspace would be Class A

3. Only the pilot can decide when and where the flight rules change. Having decided to change from IFR to VFR, ATC can not refuse this change. In Class D, there are no airspace reasons for not being VFR. Thus ATC having your attitude will only result in pilots joining IFR and then changing to VFR as soon as they cross the boundary.

4. The CAA would say that since Cumbernauld has no instrument approach published then being VFR from some distance out (MSA+) would be a sound operational procedure.

5. The minimum Safe Altitude enroute South of Edinburgh is about 5000ft allowing for terrain and windspeed. Thus with the airspace bases, the flight will have to either - enter at some stage or reduce the safety margins- Safety first at NATS? - stay the **** out of the way Answers that loud and clear.

Rant over!

On the original point, it must be remembered that under RIS/RAS/FIS in class G it remains the pilot's responsibility not to infringe regulated airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[Lock n' Load]

DFC. The following are not in the same order as your charges.

1. I don't work for NATS.

2. You can fly at the base of controlled airspace VFR without a clearance, thus 5,500ft. until you reach Class E airspace (or at least it was Class E around Cumbernauld below 6,000 ft when I was there - not sure of airspace changes since). You don't need a clearence to enter Class E if VFR.

3. Minimum safe enroute altitudes are for aircraft flying on instruments. You wouldn't be flying VFR in IMC now, would you? The minimum VFR altitude is 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure because if flying VFR in the UK, you should be able to see any terrain in the way.

4. Of course you should go VFR into Cumbernauld. Easy-peasy to go through Class E at 2,000 ft without bothering anyone and by all means call EGPH App for a Flight Information Service so they can identify you. If you can't get into Caumbernauld VFR, then go IFR and get an approach to cloud break from Edinburgh.

5. My point was that at FL85 you're probably navigating on instruments and that such an altitude is about as inconvenient as can be for Scottish Control and Edinburgh Radar.

Counter-rant over.

[Timothy]

hmmmm....

Wasn't expecting such a forceful rant, but then I have been away from PPRuNe for a while, I forgot what it was like.

If we have to turn the temperature up in the debate (and I wish we could have just stuck to information passing) the whole point about Class D airspace is that VFR is permitted and that controllers have a duty, yes a duty, to provide access to it to all classes of airspace users if traffic permits.

DAP has determined that the Scottish TMA is largely Class D. This is the same DAP who has determined that the London TMA should be Class A. Presumably DAP has a way of calculating this and has concluded that the Scottish TMA can support VFR operations. And I must say that the colleagues that you have left behind you are always very helpful in providing that access, so I guess and hope that your view is a minority one.

Furthermore, you like to quote legal definitions and talk about the 500' rule, but may I draw your attention to the fact that nowhere does VFR require sight of the surface. It is perfectly legal to fly VFR provided that you are separated vertically or laterally from cloud. Navigation may be on instruments or may be by dead reckoning, but it is my responsibility, not yours, unless you put me on a heading.

Finally, your point about paying route charges. I don't want to open old wounds but let me remind you that Eurocontrol, on behalf of NATS, charges me for operating on routes where no service is offered (at night outside controlled airspace.) If there was a fair system of charges being raised for services provided, then I would be perfectly happy to pay for services when I required them, but so long as I am charged in the absence of a service I feel quite comfortable in accepting a service in the absence of a charge.

I do hope that now someone will answer my original query in a helpful and informative way...or are those days past in this forum?

[Lock n' Load]

The urge to say "language, Timothy" is strong....
Rather than telling us what our duty is, how about you read what I actually said about the logistics of giving you a service? I was just as helpful as everyone else in the Scottish TMA when I worked there, but as you say yourself, Class D is open to VFRs WHEN TRAFFIC PERMITS. I, along with everyone else in PH and PF, bent over backwards to give a clearance to everyone who asked for one and it was only when requested by the tower controller (or having seen that he/she had too much traffic) that I occasionally held VFRs at the control zone boundary.
If you happen to be VFR at FL85, busy IFR traffic simply will not permit your presence. As I said, and you ignored, you need a clearance from Scottish even though the traffic in your way is under Edinburgh's control.
If you want a good service without overloading controllers and causing multiple phonecalls which distract from control duties, do what the majority do. Fly at or below the base of the TMA where the base is 5,500 ft then request a service from Edinburgh through the Class E.
You asked for an explanation and I gave you one.

[Timothy]

pay the damn route charges stay the **** out of the way The urge to say "language, Timothy" is strong....
:rolleyes:
OK matey, you stay in Canada and I'll stay out of this forum and we'll both be happy.

How sad that this forum has descended to this in the last year or so.

[DFC]

Minimum safe enroute altitudes are for aircraft flying on instruments. You wouldn't be flying VFR in IMC now, would you? The minimum VFR altitude is 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure because if flying VFR in the UK, you should be able to see any terrain in the way

No. The minimum legal distance from persons vessels vehicles or structures is 500ft. The lowest safe level to fly at is decided by the pilot in accordance with certain rules and guidance.

The legal minimum vertical separation from the mountains of Nepal on an IFR flight is 1000ft. (1000 above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is what the ANO says). But you will not get any operators that call that a safe level - try +2000ft and more again to allow for the wind.

Airspace is established for all airspace users - not just the select few you think should be there. If FL85 is a problem then why? - It is a valid VFR cruising level in the semi-circular system used in controlled airspace.

Ever wonder why VFR flights are cruising at FL+500 in controlled airspace and Class D does not require separation from IFR flights. Could it be to make VFR integration easier?

What airspace clas are you operating in Canada. Told any VFR guys to "stay the **** out of the way ". No. Bet you will never again either unless you retrun to the UK.

Look round you at US / Canada. See a slightly different attitude to aircraft operating VFR or GA IFR flights?

As I said earlier. Based on your expression, my action on being in the same situation would be to file IFR until inside the TMA and then change to VFR at top of descent into Cumbernauld.

Regards,

DFC

[Lock n' Load]

Timothy and DFC, you both miss the point entirely. You wanted to know why Scottish took ages giving a clearance, and as I've explained twice now, it's because the emb*ggerence factor is appalling in that particular bit of airspace. The use of 500 ft altitudes is useless as a separation tool against IFR arrivals to Edinburgh and Glasgow because they are descending. Besides, do you really want to be 500 ft beneath a 757? The vortex wake could ruin your day.
In Canada, I work in Class C airspace. We assign hard altitudes and vector VFR traffic. Here as in the UK, I give the best service I can to all airspace users but that doesn't mean I have to like doing so if someone is exercising his "rights" without any consideration of the effect he's causing.
I already told you how to get the best service out of Edinburgh. Rather than banging on about your rights you might be better served trying a flight at the base level of the TMA, where said base level is 5,500 ft, with flight information from Scottish Information until 40 miles from EGPH at which point the latter will be happy to give you a RIS or a FIS. They will be happiest if you descend to 3,000 ft or below by 15 miles south of Edinburgh. If the active at EGPH is 06, 2,000 ft would be better still. If 24 is the active, 3,000 ft should be fine.
Now, if all you wanted was to make a dig at Scottish and/or Edinburgh for taking a while to get you a clearance, go right ahead. If you actually want to get a better service in the future and help ATC to help you, accept the above advice.
As an aside, no, we don't have to provide separation between IFR and VFR traffic in Class D, but we do generally strive to achieve more than the mere passing of traffic information. We have a moral obligation to prevent collisions as well as a legal one, and airline jockeys keep a keen eye on the TCAS display. If all they get is traffic information, they won't necessarily feel comfortable. Far better to provide a mile or two, or a thousand feet, for the sake of all involved.

[Timothy]

You know what, if you had said something along the lines of:

I can explain why there was a hold up, it's because it's actually very hard to accommodate VFR traffic in the TMA. We always do our very best but it requires a lot of co-ordination. While we can accommodate you, it is a lot easier for us if you go beneath and, if there is no pressing reason to remain high, such as icing, turbulence, mountain wave or fuel shortage, I would suggest that it is easier for all of us if you could descend.

My response would be "fair enough, I will descend below the TMA in future unless circumstances dictate that it is more prudent to ask for a clearance."

But can you not see that by saying "pay the damn route charges" and "stay the **** out of the way" you are bound to get me saying "Hey! I have a right to be there without paying charges?

[Lock n' Load]

Gee, if you're so damn sensitive that you can't take advice which is designed to help you, what'll you be like if you get an avoiding action turn from a grumpy controller?

ATCO with grumpy voice - "Avoiding action, turn right immediately heading 360."

Timothy - "Not until you say please."

[DFC]

Lock n' Load,

Rather than banging on about your rights you might be better served trying a flight at the base level of the TMA, where said base level is 5,500 ft, with flight information from Scottish Information until 40 miles from EGPH

If that suggestion was Made to every other operator in the TMA their response will be the same as mine - :mad:

Although I know one operator who would say something along the lines of - "Yea that is a great idea as long as we don't get any more STMA flow restrictions. :)

That is where the UK system falls down - they have to cope with a European wide flow management system which excludes VFR flights because as everyone knows, VFR flights do not require ATC separation outside class C and thus have no need for ATC slots. If the TMA allows random VFR flights (Class D and no established VFR routes) then the ATS unit can expect VFR flights to call for random routings. The reason why they call up for clearances on routes at 90 degrees to the Busy IFR streams is the big chunk of Class A to the south blocking arrivals from that direction.

What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR. (Note - one does not need an IR or IMC to be IFR in UK class G!! :ok: :O

Regards,

DFC

[Timothy]

What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR.Outside controlled airspace there is no real need to declare if you are I or V. Most people fly quadrantals VFR anyway. Quite often you can be flying at the upper non-pressurised levels (85-100) changing between IMC and VMC on a regular basis. You could, if you wish, tell yourself that you are I or V but it makes no odds, unless you ask for RAS.

[nats]

Timothy,
Here is a possible but plausible explanation from a Scottish viewpoint.
TAY sector (124.5) would have had to coordinate your flight with the TLA sector( the adjacent TMA sector) because you were at FL85. For traffic reasons or route (your intended track passes close to the TWEED hold - and blocks 2 levels) it was not offered by TAY or declined by TLA. By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights and flights planned for the sector, particularly during peak demand. If you pitch up at a busy time, you can be just unlucky and not slotted into the teens of EGPH arrivals in some hours. The controllers involved unfortunately can't always explain their actions so I hope this may help your understanding of how it 'may ' have panned out on your recent flight.

[10W]

A little late in to this debate but will add my tuppence worth nevertheless.

First comment I would make is that some of the ATCO posters need to read the blurb which accompanies this Forum. It's supposed to be a place where pilots can ask questions without fear and get answers in a professional manner. As ATCOs we are only guests on a professional pilots website, the main thrust of the site is aimed at, and catering for, pilots. Least we can do then is act courteously and show a professional approach to helping increase the understanding about ATC issues amongst our airborne colleagues.

Whilst now apparently Canada's gain and our loss, I wonder if Lock and Load actually ever knew what the S in NATS stood for ?? :confused: Telling customers (whether paying or not) to f**k off shows they really grasped that aspect of the job ... NOT !!

Starting from the top then, the first thing I'd want to know for clarification is when the request for continued flight in VFR took place. Was it a case of ATC asking as the aircraft approached the airspace boundary, or did Timothy make a positive clearance request at least 10 minutes flying time before the boundary ?? It would also be nice to know if Scottish were prenoted the aircraft from Newcastle or if it was just freecalled and then the CAS airspace issue having to be dealt with more or less straight away with no lead in time for any prior co-ordination to take place.

nats (the poster, not the organisation) offers the most likely scenario if everything was rushed and a bit last minute. Talla sector is one of the prime UK sectors where demand exceeds capacity, resulting in Regulation and holding on a consistent basis. There is a little spare capacity built in to the declared Target Sector Flow rate, but this is to allow for the controllers to handle emergency situations and the like. If the sector was operating to capacity when Timothy's flight took place, then any entry by a VFR aircraft which is over and above those which have 'slots' is likely to be declined, particularly if such traffic wishes to route through airspace where holding (and descents in the hold) are taking place. It is also likely that any adjacent sector which might try and co-ordinate such a flight will realise how busy it is and just keep the aircraft clear of the airspace, rather than being told (politely I am sure ;) ) by the CAS sector to avoid their airspace.

The Scottish TMA is delegated to Edinburgh ATC in the airspace around TLA at and below 6000' (still belongs to Scottish as the controlling authority of course !!) and therefore the normal course of events would be for Tay sector (having ascertained entry above 6000' was not going to be forthcoming) to co-ordinate a clearance direct with Edinburgh for that airspace. Of course, the rub here is that if Talla sector is busy feeding traffic in to Edinburgh, then Edinburgh are also like to be busy and may take a little time to co-ordinate. The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area. Again, an important factor is the lead in time to the aircraft reaching the boundary. 10 minutes or more (as per the AIP) is going to give a much smoother process than if it is all co-ordinated with only a few minutes to run, the latter placing an increased workload on a ATCU already (potentially) working at capacity.

Now to some specifics:

Lock&Load

In general, VFR aircraft are not vectored or given a hard altitude assignment in the UK. That makes them an unknown quantity when mixing with IFR traffic. To have a sequence of inbound IFR traffic descending through a VFR at FL85 would be Hell on Earth when busy.

You are right in general, but there is actually nothing to stop ATC giving a hard altitude to a VFR aircraft since it must comply with ATC instructions to enter Class D. The pilot is the one who can then decide whether that clearance can be complied with or not. In which case the reply might be to remain clear :p As you know, an alternative is to give a 'not above' clearance. Both would work in the circumstances mentioned (provided the capacity to take an 'extra' aircraft existed). If there were a lot fo aircraft descending to min stack level, then the VFR traffic could be cleared 'not above 6000', alternatively give it a clearance at FL80 and treat it as a 'pseudo' IFR aircraft. Plenty ways to skin the cat safely.

That you'd have to get a clearance from Scottish but be transitting an area where the arriving traffic is controlled by Edinburgh would really makes things messy.

No it wouldn't. Scottish would have to comply with the silent co-ordination (which includes transferring the traffic free of confliction) so they would either keep arrivals till they are out of the way, co-ordinate lower levels for one of the aircraft, or identify the VFR to Edinburgh and make arrivals subject to it.

So, keep it simple. If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.

Got to be the ATC Darwin Award winner this year. ATCOs have no influence on charging regimes, nor should they get involved in them. Did you tell military aircraft operating in your airspace to '***' off since they are not paying charges. And how about VIP flights and the like. No clearance for them since thay are not paying ... in fact, they can '***' off too. I suspect not. And how about VFR flights in to Edinburgh ?? Where does their navigation charge go then ??

DFC

That is where the UK system falls down - they have to cope with a European wide flow management system which excludes VFR flights because as everyone knows, VFR flights do not require ATC separation outside class C and thus have no need for ATC slots.

Slots are not connected with separation. They provide none. They are concerned with regulating the traffic within a sector or aerodrome to a level which has been deemed to be capable of being safely managed. Perhaps the answer is for airspace which operates at capacity and permits VFR flights to also require the filing of flight plans by such traffic (include it in the AIP). And then get Brussels to issue them slots too - or maybe PPR would be another way to 'regulate' the flow ? In either case, I suspect any degradation of capacity which impacts the commercial operators would result in lots of political fallout !!

What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR. (Note - one does not need an IR or IMC to be IFR in UK class G!!

Presumably your flight plan will detail you will change flight rules at the boundary ?? If not, then you need to file a plan anyway and will be given a slot if they are in force :ok:

[Spitoon]

I speak as a controller who has worked Class D for a good number of years. I have rarely had any problems arranging for a VFR to miss an IFR - not separated, just miss - and to avoid AIRPROXs by telling pilots about each other. Yes sometimes it's busy and it can be hard work but if the airspace can accommodate it I can fit in a few VFR flights.

The secret is not to consider FL85 to block two IFR levels but to apply the rules. Separate IFR flights and pass traffic on VFRs alongside clearances that put a bit of space between a VFR and IFR aircraft.

The problems usually arise when a pilot doesn't understand what airspace he's in or what service he gets there - not something that Timothy can be accused of! And, of course, with controllers who don't want to work with the rules.

My rant over - just to point out that not all controllers make life hard work!

[Timothy]

nats, 10W and Spitoon, thank you for restoring my confidence a bit.

For the record it was a handover from Newcastle, approximately in the middle of (but above :p) the Spadeadam range. I don't have the charts in front of me, but I was doing about 160kts and it was a goodly number of minutes before encountering CA, probably at least 10.

What prompted me to raise this was not so much the delay in granting a clearance, it was an apparent lack of awareness (as it turns out in both directions) of the controllers of the airspace they were operating.

I re-emphasise that I am not criticising, just musing.

But on the Northbound trip it seemed that the controller was, well, unaware that a VFR flight could enter the airspace and on the Southbound I was vectored/cleared through Class A VFR.

On the other hand, I am well aware that controllers are normally validated on relatively small bits of sky, so it would be arrogant of me to assume that they don't know everything that there is to know about that area.

Which is what confused me.

One final bit of emphasis. The controllers were as helpful as they could possibly be, as indeed always are the FISOs and the Edinburgh Zone guys, so I am absolutely not complaining.

[DFC]

10W,

Good points. I was aware that slots don't provide separation but my most recent involvement in an ATC's loss of separation was on an overloaded sector so there is a link between flow management and the ability of ATC to provide the services they they are required to provide in various airspaces.

I had of course assumed that the pilot had filed a flight plan before departure because otherwise, I would agree that it is unfair for a pilot on a pre-planned route (whatever flight rules) to file 10 minutes before the boundary when us long tube fliers have to file 4+ hours in advance to gain a delayed entry to the same airspace. But that is something that needs looking at by the CAA or at European level and not by the individual ATCO. If the rules need changing then that is where the efforts need to be placed.

You said: The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area and nats said By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights

Asuming the flight had filed a VFR flight plan before departure i.e. was operating normally in accordance with a filed flight plan........where does it say that IFR flights have priority in class D TMAs?

No one wants to get in anyone's way. But not operating on the long established (and sill used by the CFMU) rule of first come first served is operating outwith the rules I believe.

Of course the VFR flight (with a flight plan) could choose to hold awaiting safe clearance. How long would you hold the VFR flight for before you end up with the VFR flight stating PAN, divert me, I am low on fuel?

Don't forget that there is no requirement for a VFR flight to carry diversion fuel - simply destination fuel plus final reserve. It would be a good idea to carry a bit extra to allow for delay in gaining access to the TMA (20 minutes?) but that is it really. One good reason for filing VFR and compying with the more onerous weather requirements is the fact that the fuel load can be reduced!

Don't forget the TMA is established for traffic into and out of the TMA airfields and by NATs' own definition, Cumbernauld is a STMA airfield.

-------

Can'tremember who made the comment about wake turb but it is a wasted comment when one could fly at or just below the base of CAS and be only 500ft below a B747 that you are not aware of. What is the difference then flying at FL85 and passing below a B747 at FL90 which you have traffic info on?.....Atleast if you expect it, you can avoid it!

Spitoon,

You have put the point that I have been trying to make perfectly. I hope you are paid as much as an Area ATCO because you are providing a service!! :ok:

Regards,

DFC

[nats]

Timothy/ DFC, check your PM's

[Timothy]

DFC,

You raise an interesting point about notice.

Of course, 99% of the Class D that affects the average VFR pilot is zones, not TMA, and the norm there is to ask for crossing clearance at short notice. Actually, most zone controllers (I am talking mainly London TC here, so the Thames, Luton, Essex, Gatwick crowd) do not really seem to want to hear from you as much as 10 minutes before, they seem to mostly take a tactical decision as you get close in.

But the Scottish TMA is a different matter, being under Area Control (I think). I wonder if the suggestion is that if I want entry to the TMA I should file VFR, rather than just arriving on hand over?

My suspicion is that a VFR FPL that mentioned going via TLA to Cumbernauld would be ignored by ScATCC, because the level would be VFR and the assumption would be as that made by the 124.5 controller at the head of this thread that the flight would be beneath controlled airspace.

I guess that the FPL could specify F085, but that subverts the whole point about VFR which is that you cannot be sure, several hours before, what levels are going to be available VFR.

So 10W and nats type guys...would a VFR FPL make any difference?

[alphaalpha]

Timothy:

My understanding is that ScATCC would never see your VFR flightplan as only the departure and destination fields receive VFR plans (plus the FIRs for cross-border flights -- but I don't think London to Scottish counts for this purpose).

AA.

[DFC]

nats,

I never check my PMs (don't even know how to!). If you have something to say that will add to the debate or be of use to pilots in the future then post it here. If not then surely it would be a waste of time looking at said PM would it not? :)

Timothy,

If you file a VFR plan you can specify a level i.e. placing VFR in the level field is not mandatory. However, I believe that what alphaalpha says is correct - the VFR fligh plans are ignored at the ACC - even if they plan via that ACCs CAS.

There in lies the reason why even if every VFR flight planning to fly within the STMA files a full flight plan 4+ hours in advance (as the IFR ones do), the ACC will not be aware of or make any allowance for the VFR flights that will no doubt cause a loading on the sectors.

Overall, the system at National level does not suit the pilot and also does not suit ATC. Makes one wonder why since both parts of the system find the situation less than ideal nothing is done.

The AOPA/GSACO/CHIRP fill in a form if denied class D access acheived nothing mainly because even when denied access full stop, few pilots ever put pen to paper.

Spoke to someone today that told me the reason why ATC (at an ACC) will try to separate VFR flights from IFR flights eg in the STMA and suchlike places is that the separation is monitored by a computer that does not make any allowance for VFR/IFR. Thus if ATC place you 2nm to one side of another flight at the same level, the system reports a loss of separation even if the two are VFR. This means an investigation even if it is a short one. So ATCOs do not want the situation. Perhaps ATCOs can confirm this separation monitor?

Regards,

DFC

[Talla Radar]

Some clarifications:

1. Under a RIS the pilot is wholly responsible for requesting a controlled airspace joining clearance. (This applies equally to IFR and VFR traffic).

2. All STMA controllers are aware that traffic can enter the TMA VFR - indeed it is a popular oral board question! However, it is an uncommon occurence, something that the more recently valid controllers might not have experienced for real.

3. Although VFR traffic cannot be refused a joining clearance per se, it can be instructed to remain clear of controlled airspace until a convenient time.

4. The southern boundary of Edinburgh's local area (the bit of the TMA delegated to them by Scottish) is about 10nm north of TLA, so traffic joining via TLA in the STMA therefore requires a clearance from Talla Sector.

5. Scottish does not receive VFR flight plans.

6. I can't speak for this specific occurence, but Scottish will always provide the best service possible, dependent on workload, and that certainly includes VFR joiners inbound to Cumbernauld.

There seem to be a lot of NATS bashers out there, but the truth is that 99% of our controllers are committed to provide the best service possible to all our customers, whether VFR, IFR, commercial or GA. It is pressure of work and the over-riding priority to manage traffic safely at all times that will determine how accomodating we can be.

[Joe'le'Toff]

6. I can't speak for this specific occurence, but Scottish will always provide the best service possible, dependent on workload, and that certainly includes VFR joiners inbound to Cumbernauld.

Damn Right. I could not agree more.

There seem to be a lot of NATS bashers out there, but the truth is that 99% of our controllers are committed to provide the best service possible to all our customers, whether VFR, IFR, commercial or GA

Double Damn Right, and provide the best service you most certainly do.

Beers are on me for all ScATCC.

[PH-UKU]

Several things to bear in mind. (I might even have been on sector and worked you) (What time was it?)

1 - Tay Sector would want to know if you were IFR/VFR as it may determine whether you would need handing to Edinburgh for a radar letdown or routing via VRPs. As said earlier, Tay would generally try and keep you beneath the Talla sector (ie 6000 or below) as the fast stuff is descending on top of you to MinStack level (usually FL70 or FL80) - this keeps you separated vertically, avoids overloading Talla, and in which case you could then be handed direct to Edinburgh.

2- While it may appear to be a 'handover' from Newcastle, it might well have been with very short notice to Tay. Was it a Scottish 'local' 3626/3627 squawk or an airways squawk?

3-Tay can be incredibly busy over a diverse area, with most concentration around P600 into Aberdeen, the NEW VOR roundabout (crossing airways into/out of Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester/Scandinavia), avoiding of and passing info on the numerous fast jets whizzing around attacking Eastern Airways Jetstreams east of Leuchars - after all that ... it is fair to say that VFR traffic outside CAS and particularly at lower levels is the lowest priority.

4-Controlled Airspace base levels (and boundaries) have been changed (by office types who don't have to remember it all) so many times in recent years, and indeed on many of our maps there are different levels for different times of the day, that it can be tricky to remember all the bases/fillets without having to double check on the meticulously accurate sector maps. :hmm:

5-Numerous Danger Areas in the area with variable times and levels would probably be checked on our notoriously easy to use Danger Area pages :hmm:

6-So perhaps any 'hesitation' on the part of the controller might be because they were checking Danger Area activity (to make sure you ain't going into an active area), checking that you are not going into Class A airspace, co-ordinating with the TMA controllers/ then Edinburgh Radar/ and perhaps the FIR controller, and agreeing a course of action ... and then of course separating the other 8 aircraft on frequency ... ? ;)

7-Cumbernauld inbounds are not that frequent. I see perhaps one a month.

8-lack of issuing clearance? Yup, technically you need one for entering the 2 Class D TMA fillets, so controller was possibly just busy and an oversight, as 95% of our traffic doesn't need a joining clearance - but you are quite right to query that.

Hope that answers your Qs ? Anyway, next time fly over to PIK and come and have a look round ...

:)

[Timothy]

Thanks guys for all that useful information, all of which is read and understood.

The only outstanding question from me is to ask whether Talla Radar's point about NATS bashers was directed at me? I am absolutely not a NATS basher and am a great fan of both Scottish and London, having experienced truly crap ATC elsewhere in the world I am fully aware how good ours is.

Admittedly Lock'n'load got under my skin by telling me to f**k off to someone else's airspace, but equally I am aware that he is no longer a NATS employee...maybe the culture didn't suit him ;)

But if you are going to describe any honest question about a lack of understanding of procedures as "NATS bashing" then isn't the purpose of this forum rather diminished?

Let me ask my questions in the way that they occur to me, rather than finding some form of word-mincing that will be even more misunderstood.

Sorry PH-UKU (no relation to Lock'n'load?), I missed your question. I arrived EGPG at 11.00 on 1 Nov, so I guess first I spoke to ScATCC at about 10.40. I departed PG for Biggin at about 13.00 on 3/11 spoke first to Edinburgh, so I guess first spoke to you at about 13.10.

[Talla Radar]

No Timothy, my comment about "NATS bashers" was generic and certainly not aimed at any of your comments. PPRuNE is a great way to find out whats really going on out there (well, some of the time!), long may it continue.

[10W]

DFC

I was aware that slots don't provide separation but my most recent involvement in an ATC's loss of separation was on an overloaded sector so there is a link between flow management and the ability of ATC to provide the services they they are required to provide in various airspaces.

There is a link but slots are wide (15 minutes) and there might be a wide variance on actual times to get to the sector from those planned due to high winds or reroutes so it's not a guarantee that a sector won't be overloaded. It's not impoossible to have all your hours worth of traffic in the first half of the hour bunched together. Overload is also something which is not necessarily linked to a numerical value. A controller might be overloaded when working at less than 50% capacity if a whole bunch of things go wrong. At the end of the day there is a definition of overload which controllers can use to assess whether they think they were overloaded or not. The flow figures, slot busting, etc will be used as supporting evidence in any incident investigation but might not necessarily have been the prime cause.

You said: The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area and nats said By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights

Asuming the flight had filed a VFR flight plan before departure i.e. was operating normally in accordance with a filed flight plan........where does it say that IFR flights have priority in class D TMAs?

No one wants to get in anyone's way. But not operating on the long established (and sill used by the CFMU) rule of first come first served is operating outwith the rules I believe.


The IFR traffic is already in CAS, is already working the sector controller who will have to give the ATC clearance to the VFR joiner, and is already forming part of the ATCOs existing capacity. Ergo, they are first come first served and take priority ;)

Of course the VFR flight (with a flight plan) could choose to hold awaiting safe clearance. How long would you hold the VFR flight for before you end up with the VFR flight stating PAN, divert me, I am low on fuel?

If it's the peak time of the day, then it could be a couple of hours ... if it's just a holding peak being dealt with then maybe 30 minutes or so. Much easier for the VFR pilot to use airmanship in that case, descend to remain clear of the Class D and enter the Class E where no clearance or communication is required :ok:

Don't forget that there is no requirement for a VFR flight to carry diversion fuel - simply destination fuel plus final reserve. It would be a good idea to carry a bit extra to allow for delay in gaining access to the TMA (20 minutes?) but that is it really.

If the pilot has an emergency due to low fuel then all he has to do is shout and the waves will part. The CAA can deal with any fuel planning issues after the event over a cosy chat with the pilot.

One good reason for filing VFR and compying with the more onerous weather requirements is the fact that the fuel load can be reduced!

As entry to CAS is never guaranteed without a delay, then that's a calculated judgement on the part of the pilot. Mostly it will work out well but if it doesn't then they should already have briefed themselves on what Plan B is.

Don't forget the TMA is established for traffic into and out of the TMA airfields and by NATs' own definition, Cumbernauld is a STMA airfield.

At the moment Class E caters well for the VFR traffic inbound to TMA airfields (or overflying) which doesn't want any delay. When it changes to Class D on November 24th (?) then entry for VFR traffic at levels below 6000' should still be achievable for the vast majority of the time, or the new raised bases can be used to fly under CAS VFR with no need for a clearance or communication. Entry above 6000' will still be possible as well, it's just a case of avoiding the peak periods when the airspace is saturated. In the case of airspace around TLA the rough peaks are 0700-0930 local and 1600-1900 local. Of course, bad weather, European and other UK slots, etc, can cause knock on delays to airline rotations and move these peaks around or extend them. But as a rough guide I'd try and avoid these times if you want the best chance of a clearance.

Spoke to someone today that told me the reason why ATC (at an ACC) will try to separate VFR flights from IFR flights eg in the STMA and suchlike places is that the separation is monitored by a computer that does not make any allowance for VFR/IFR. Thus if ATC place you 2nm to one side of another flight at the same level, the system reports a loss of separation even if the two are VFR. This means an investigation even if it is a short one. So ATCOs do not want the situation. Perhaps ATCOs can confirm this separation monitor?

There is a Separation Monitoring Function (SMF) in use at NATS units, however there is capacity for completing the short reporting form to signify that the encounter involved VFR traffic and is thus a non event. The investigation involves the Supervisor viewing the encounter on a replay and asking the ATCO involved for their justification. Takes a couple of minutes at most (unless it's an actual event of course !!). I don't think the 'snitch' would prevent anyone from getting traffic closer than IFR separation just because they run the risk of a tap on the shoulder. As long as any required separation is provided there's no need to fear SMF. And for VFRs the required separation is usually at the pilots discretion ;)

[DFC]

Thanks for the replies.

The CAA can deal with any fuel planning issues after the event over a cosy chat with the pilot.

The CAA will check that the pilot loaded the legal minimum including suitable contingency (5% or similar). On the basis that no delay means a 20 minute hold, it could be reasonable for the CAA to expect a VFR joiner to have 20 minutes holding fuel however that would be a discussion point because the airspace is class D and no information is published in the AIP or NOTAM to suggest excessive delays to VFR flights are to be expected and ATC is not required to provide anything other than Traffic Information, FIS and Alerting to a VFR in that airspace.

Thus fuel for departure to destination plus contingency plus final reserve plus 20 minutes would more than satisfy the CAA on a VFR flight into Cumbernauld via the TMA. If it looks like the flight will land with less than the final reserve, a PAN is declared, that is why it is the "final" reserve.

Look at France - in general, their airspace from FL115 to FL195 is Class D (except bits of Paris TMA). It was possible some time ago to file VFR and obtain a clearance VFR at FL155. However for a while now, the airspace and controler loading has made it hard to accomodate much in the way of VFR flights at those levels. Do they leave it to the ATCO to decide if a VFR will get a clearance?

No! They publish a NOTAM warning all VFR flights that due to traffic density, VFR flights will not generally be accepted above FL115. Simple, easy, keeps everyone in the picture and they don't end up with flight plans for VFR flights at those levels.

However, being class D, one can ask enroute for a better level and one may even get it but one can not plan on it.

How about a NOTAM including the information you provided i.e. no VFRs during the peaks are 0700-0930 local and 1600-1900 local.

Then pilots can plan a suitable fuel load and choose IFR (get a slot) if their business requires an arrival within those time frames.

We know everyone works hard but why advertisse a service you can't or won't provide?

As for the often stated - Fly below the airspace. It is up to the pilot to decide the minimum height at which the aircraft is safe. The pilot will take into account terrain, obstacles (sometimes), wind and legal requirements. If a pilot decides that the minimum safe level for their flight is 6000ft then ATC can not require the flight to descend below that level unless the pilot is happy.

If there is Class A with a base of 5500 on that portion of the route then the pilot at the planning stage of a VFR flight will decide not to fly on safety grounds. However, if there is Class B,C,D airspace and nothing notified regarding not being allowed to fly in that airspace then the pilot can quite rightly expect a clearance through that airspace.

Regards,

DFC

[WorkingHard]

If i may pick up on an earlier point. What may seem like "NATS bashing" is just that and not ATCO bashing. There is a perception that you folks are kept very short on resource to do the job as you would like it to be done. Please don't think that you are not valued by those drivers that have a go at NATS. It is NATS they are criticising.
BTW threads like this one gives a great insight to drivers that just go from A to B all the time.

[mr.chaps]

My God! I don't know how you poor souls cope up there in the frozen North. What with all that traffic and zillions of puddle jumpers to deal with as well.

If you want a nice restful break, come down to the sunny South and put your feet up!!!!!!:ok: