How to get more controled airspace

[A and C]

Last week when flying into a regonal airport in very good VMC I was vectored all over the place to avoid a light aircraft , this added about 4 min to the flight. Now that might not seem very much to most of you but the cost to my bosses of an extra 4 min of flying in a 78,000Kg jet won't be lost.

The guy was perfectly within his rights to be flying in the class G airspace without talking to anyone but as he had a transponder with 7000/C showing he would I think have a VHF com and a quick word with the ATC unit could has avoided a lot of extra flying for me and the Easyjet A319 that was following without undue disruption of his flight.

No doubt if the press got hold of this the headlines would read "Holiday jet diverted in near miss terror" and the bean counters would be pushing for yet more controlled airspace and using safety as there excuse to save a bit more money. As it happend at no time did the safety of any aircraft become an issue in this case. But if these inccidents continue the pressure for more airspace to be taken from GA pilots will gain credibility and class G airspace will be lost.

Please remember that places like Coventry, Bristol And Doncaster are no longer sleepy hollow but have a lot of low cost traffic so please talk to the ATC units and help to keep YOUR airspace class G.

[robin]

But as we all know, he might actually be on the frequency of another service just not on that of the airport in question.

I know the airlines like to think they have priority, but I have been kept orbiting in the hold for 45 minutes at a well-known regional airport with fuel getting lower and lower while charter and low-cost flights diverted from other airfields barge in. Each one added to the delay to my landing because of wake turbulence and led in the end to some declaring fuel emergencies and others going somewhere else

In my view the way that the low-cost airlines behave once they start accessing regional airfields is a scandal - they bring little investment into an area but need their every whim catered to.

Look what happened when Newquay tried to get a tiny bit more from Ryanair to help in funding the airport for when the military leave. Ryanair walked away as they felt a £5 levy would trash their profits

[BEagle]

Sorry - but what makes you think that a little commercial benefit justifies an increase in CAS? Nasty little loco charters have chosen second rate airports to fly from purely to cut costs in order to offer yet cheaper flights to alcohol-fuelled oblivion for the pierced, tattoo'd, shell-suited dregs of society. That is no justification for demanding increases in CAS - these 'airlines' (I use the term loosely) chose these cheaper aerodromes in the full knowledge that the airspace between the ATZ and the airways was only Class G...

Currently, ThomsonFly are pushing for an airspace-grab at Coventry. There is no intrinsic need for this - it would merely benefit their shareholders. They should thus accept that there are only 2 options for them:

1. Accept the status quo and the associated cost.
2. Sod off somewhere else where there is the category of airspace they think they need.

There is absolutely no justification for any increase in CAS in the UK - there's plenty as it is. Tough doo-doo if it means that costs of flights to Argos, Asbestos, Domestos and the like will cost €10 more - I have absolutely no sympathy.

[WorkingHard]

A&C - Im sure the replies you may get on this forum are NOT personal but are a response to the way GA is treated by CAT. You only need to look at the thread on 121.5 to see why you may get castigated. I cant say I disagree with your perceived need for ATC contact but please do not expect CAT to have priority always. As Beagle said if it means a few Euros more on a ticket price then so be it. For many of us who pay huge amounts in tax and duty on AVGAS and the like and fund our flying out of TAXED income, the saving of a few tax and duty free litres of avtur for you is very low on our list of priorities.

[FlyingForFun]

Last week when flying into a regonal airport in very good VMC I was vectored all over the place to avoid a light aircraft Out of interest, are you guys not able, or not allowed, to downgrade to a Flight Information Service, and just look out the window to avoid traffic like the rest of us?

I appreciate that the speeds and momentums involved are far higher.... but there are plenty of microlights, gliders and so on which do not show up on a radar display at all, so the requirement to look out the window and avoid visually still exists even when receiving a RAS in VMC. Therefore, surely there's an argument that if your momentum is such that you are not able to safely see and avoid visually, then you ought to slow down, regardless of what type of ATC service you are receiving?

So downgrading to FIS would save you the unnecessary vectors and keep your bosses happy, save us little guys from receiving illegal "instructions" from ATC to keep out of your way, make it less likely for light aircraft to avoid talking to ATC because of these illegal "instructions", and all, arguably, with no reduction in safety!

FFF
-----------------

[Fuji Abound]

When I get held waiting for a transit the cost for me is significant.

When I have to route around CAS it is even more significant.

Freedom of the sky is worth protecting.

I am afraid you will not find much support here even if some of us fly commercially as well. :)

[niknak]

Thankfully Beagle's arrogance and capacity for puerile dogmatic replies of no substance are not the views of the majority of GA pilots.

As an Atco, (or Twatco as Beagle has referred to our profession in the past), all we want is pilots to call and let us know where they are and where they are going and the vast majority do.

We are in the same position as the airport described by A&C and frequently have to vector Instrument traffic away from aircraft transiting but not squawking or talking to us, everyone gets a taste of it, from Cessnas training to Boeings and Airbuses earning revenue to keep commercial aviatitors in jobs and airports busy.

Today aircraft to be delayed was an ambulance flight with a critically ill child on board which had to be repositioned back onto the approach because some clot decided to fly through the final approach at 1500ft, at 6nm, sqawking but couldn't be bothered to call us. It took approximately 20 extra track miles and a five minute delay to the ambulance flight.

Its not simply a case of CAT being afforded priority when it comes down to landings and departures sequences, but common sense and safety.
Although I sympathise enormously with the cost of GA etc, the price of fuel is a problem GA have failed to do anything about for many years and is of little relavance in this scenario.

One final point, CAS isn't the Berlin Wall, the vast majority of airports with it (outside the London area) will afford transit through it usually because in their interests to know where you are and what you're doing.

[QDMQDMQDM]

So the guy was squawking 7000C, so what's the problem? The controller knew where he was, which direction he was going and his height.

[niknak]

Althought squawking 7000, he wasn't identified, and we didn't know his intentions because he wasn't talking to anyone, and was in direct conflict with traffic under a Radar Advisory Service.

That was the problem.

[Fuji Abound]

I think there may be some confusion on this thread.

I dont think there is any excuse for poor airmanship.

OK you can legally be below the localiser in open FIR without communicatiing with the CAS controller but we would all accept this is poor airmanship. From my point of view I should have made this clear. Equally I trust everyone is happy you be there as long as you are communicating. After all it costs nothing.

I suspect there is also an element of education. New pilots may well not appreciate the problems this can cause in bound traffic.

I apologise if I gave an alternative impression. I assume on reflection this was the scenario A and C had in mind.

[BEagle]

So, niknak, advise your aircraft under RAS (was it in VMC although operating under IFR?) that standard separation cannot be maintained due to unknown VFR traffic and ask whether the aircraft commander will accept a RIS - or even a FIS.

Testing weather today where you practise your art, was it?

Insult me as much as you like - freedom of airspace against unreasonable overcontrol is worth fighting for.

[flower]

Many airlines do not allow their aircraft to accept anything less than a RAS outside CAS, there are also insurance implications.

[BEagle]

If you can't accept anything other than a RAS outside CAS, then don't use airports in Class G airspace. And, more particularly, don't expect changes in airspace to suit your commercial aspirations.

[Fuji Abound]

Beagle I agree with much of what you say but why do you object (if you do) with the pilot at least communicating with the CAS controller. After all as I commented earlier that costs nothing. If the controller wants him to change his track he can of course politely refuse.

[QDMQDMQDM]

Today aircraft to be delayed was an ambulance flight with a critically ill child on board which had to be repositioned back onto the approach because some clot decided to fly through the final approach at 1500ft, at 6nm, sqawking but couldn't be bothered to call us. It took approximately 20 extra track miles and a five minute delay to the ambulance flight

Today, the whole country had 50 mile VMC. Are you telling us that an ambulance flight (Helo? Kingair? Islander? Light twinjet?) could not go to an FIS, with you giving them information about the conflicting traffic, which, let us remember, was squawking 7000 Mode Charlie so you knew where it was, which way it was going and how high it was?

QDM

[Say again s l o w l y]

7000 and mode C don't really mean a huge amount as the alt given is unverified, so treated as potentially suspect.

It can be very aggravating when you are held up by a light a/c, but a small delay isn't anything to worry about really. 4 mins of fuel in something like a 319 in descent at idle is not insignificant, but neither is it going to bankrupt a company.

Personally, I've been more annoyed by people giving their life histories over the R/T when we're just screaming through the localiser, or getting a bit hot and and high waiting for clearance to descend.

Should there be more CAS? I don't think so. Aviation in this country is overly geared towards the airlines and I think that whilst due to professional courtesy, they will get priority, they actually have no greater rights than any other type of aeroplane.
How many a/c are on the British register? What % are public transport and what % are light a/c? I think it's around 10% and 90% from an article I read. So the vast majority are being discriminated against for the financial benefit of the few.

Niknak, in all fairness I imagine the pilot who delayed the ambulance flight would be mortified if they realised what had happened and whilst airmanship dictates that he should have called. How many times has a similar flight been "dumped".

The actions of many controllers at "regional" field's, does sometimes leave a lot to be desired. I for one am tired of being told to "maintain a good lookout" when there are more than 2 /c within 50 miles of my present position. I don't need to be told what to do if all I'm doing is alerting them to my intentions whilst OCA.
Couple this to the fact that as soon as the freq. get's busy with more than a couple of commercial inbounds, giving a FIS seems to be a hindrance and we are immediately dumped to information instead of radar. I have no problem with this and actually prefer it due to the lesser amount of radio traffic, but it does mean that next time I'm less likely to use the radar facility as I assume they don't actually want to talk to me...... (I know full well the reality of this, but I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.)

I used to be based in Coventry and so often had to run the gauntlet of mixing it with training flights. If it was a nice day and we were wide awake (a rare occurance!) then we would often downgrade to a FIS and just fly back visually, both to try and ease the controllers workload and to just enjoy the flight more ourselves. We used to have far more problems with the proximity to BHX and their commercial traffic than with light aircraft. In fact I can't ever remember having any issues with GA traffic at all. (Apart from an airprox with a glider inside the LTMA, but that's a different story!)

There are a few controllers who seem to want the whole of UK airspace to be controlled and all of us to be on pre-approved flight plans, but hopefully this will never occur. At the end of the day all controllers are there to assist every pilot who needs their help to complete a safe flight. It shouldn't matter if they are a PPL on a bimble, or a 747 with 3 engines out. Whilst airmanship dictates that you should think about other people, sometimes it is nice just to turn the radio down or off and just cruise with the sound of the engine and the wind in the wires, that's the beauty of flying and it isn't illegal quite yet.......

NN, out of interest, if the a/c concerned had been a microlight, with no transponder and limited radio facilities, would you have even noticed them? Would the delay have occured?

[flower]

Company SOPs may not allow that to happen and why should a pilot carrying a critically ill child have to worry about a FIS when they requested a RIS or RAS.

[eharding]

Today, the whole country had 50 mile VMC. Are you telling us that an ambulance flight (Helo? Kingair? Islander? Light twinjet?) could not go to an FIS, with you giving them information about the conflicting traffic, which, let us remember, was squawking 7000 Mode Charlie so you knew where it was, which way it was going and how high it was?
QDM

Maybe they should have blue flashing lights - then those of us who look out of the window can tell what they are........

[QDMQDMQDM]

Company SOPs may not allow that to happen .

Then the company SOPs are stupid if they constrain the pilot's leeway on a day like today.

and why should a pilot carrying a critically ill child have to worry about a FIS when they requested a RIS or RAS

An ambulance pilot seems unlikely to be stressed by such a minor occurrence on a day like this. If he / she is, then they are in the wrong job.

This sounds to me like mindless application of protocols.

QDM

[BEagle]

I stick with the guidance I was taught many years ago - avoid flying within 10 nm of an aerodrome with a published instrument approach procedure unless you're in 2 way RT contact with them.

I'm entirely happy to advise such aerodromes who I am, where I am - and what I'm doing under VFR, so that they can use that information for their purposes and reduce the mandatory separation they have to provide to IFR aircraft choosing to fly under a RAS.

Commercial operators choosing to fly into places such as Coventry, Exeter or Kirmington should understand that uncontrolled VFR flights may be operating right up to the edge of the ATZ. But pilots of such uncontrolled VFR aircraft should also use a bit of commonsense and not act in a manner which will endanger or seriously inconvenience others.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I am caught between two stools here.

But I tend to fall on the side of the GA guys.

Firstly, I have heard the tales of operators insurers stating that it is RAS or nothing. In which case the policy is not worth the paper it is written on since that service can never ever be guaranteed anywhere. I have also seen the Ops Manuals of quite a few operators whose pilots have stated the same case and what the document actually says (in each one I have seen) is that the pilot must take advantage of the 'best service available' or words to that effect. If the best service (to aid an expeditious approach for example) is purely FIS, then that is what the Ops Manual allows ... and what the pilot should accept, or perish the thought, REQUEST. It's all down to intelligent interpretation ... and not blind acceptance. Maybe the problem is a generation of 250 hour ATPLs ???

I think my second point is that pilots of CAT are generally (with strong emphasis on the general part) ignorant of the various services ATC can provide and the restrictions placed on ATC within each in terms of separation, traffic information, etc. As mentioned, under a RAS, regardless of Met conditions, ATC need to aim for a separation standard regardless. With excellent vis and little cloud cover, any pilot knowing the rules and having been passed traffic information could quite safely 'downgrade' to a RIS and get his head out of the cockpit, look for, and avoid, the traffic. In Class G airspace, it's what he/she should be bloody well be doing anyway even if under a RAS. 'See and avoid' is the over arching rule for everyone. It makes no exceptions. If any CAT operators can't accept this ... then they should make the skies safer for us all and fly in airspace where cotton wool ATC is given ... i.e. CAS of Class C or above (Class E and Class D will still allow VFRs with no 'standard' separation applied.) Alternatively ... wait until all of the route can be flown in CAS.

Finally ... some areas have a good case for more CAS ... others not so. It is for each airfield or operator to make it's relevant case which the CAA will then judge on its merits. What the CAA will look for is for the minimum amount of airspace to be granted to facilitate the safe conduct of flights of traffic in and around the airspace, if it is justified. The fact that those who can't make the case then encounter GA traffic and have to get out of their way sometimes (either because legally the have to in accordance with the Rules of The Air, or because the ATC service they are receiving requires them to) is a fact of life. GA traffic can also cite instances where their ops are hampered by commercial operations. It's a quid pro quo.

I'm afraid the 'Sun' headline stuff about 'ambulance flight delayed by light aircraft' cuts no ice here. Who is to say that the GA aircraft didn't have right of way ... was unsure of position and the pilot panicking a bit ..... had a sick passenger on board who was not used to flying .... was running short of fuel ..... had a dodgy alternator ...... etc, etc, etc, etc. No one ... that's who. If there's a real problem with priority, get the ambulance flight in high to the overhead and then carry out manouevres within the protection of ATZ or CTZ to ensure a safe and controlled approach without having to worry about the rules for flight in 'uncontrolled' airspace.

Outside CAS, there are equal rights (within the limits and requirements of the ANO). If CAT wants preference, they will continue to find it within airspace where the vast majority of GA is excluded ... either by pilot qualification or aircraft equippage. It's called Controlled Airspace :ok:

[WorkingHard]

Beagle - Kirmington do not like being called that. They are very important now they are Humberside INTERNATIONAL airport. I did once ask where Humberside DOMESTIC is but recived no response!

[A and C]

I am not in vavour of more CAS but my point is the pressure will be on GA to use airspace consideratly or it will become CAS, Beagle may consider the pax on low cost airlines "scum" but he should remember that money talks and there are a lot more "scum" than GA pilots and if GA can't see a changing situation and react to it then it will suffer.

As to the services that can be excepted by a CAT flight I am happy with RIS in good VMC but it has to be RAS in IMC however I doubt if most of the young first officers that I fly with know the difference ! we now have a breed of autopilot in at 400ft and out at 200ft FMC obsessed aircraft opperators who spend most of the time head down pushing buttons on the FMC, I encorage the use of the big reality displays ( windows to most people !) but I have an uphill task when these people have only 300 hours total time and very little flying skill.

God help us all when this new JAA CPL turns up and these people only do about 35 hours in a real aircraft and the rest in the sim

[BEagle]

I'm surprised it isn't John Prescott International these days, WorkingHard!

Or, perhaps more appropriately, Bransholme International given that its chief reason for being is to ferry the low life from that Hull-hole to wherever the alcohol is cheap.

Surely its days as an international airport are numbered with RobinDoncasterFinningleyHood spaceport now open?

Anyway, back to the plot. I don't accept that RAS is 'mandatory' in IMC. Given the SA provided by RIS and the relative freedom to make your own decisions based on that is sometimes eaier than being given avoidance turns on every track within 5nm which hasn't been positively identified - even if that traffic is tracking away from you.

At present, quality airline recruiters consider that around 50% of unemployed fATPL holders are virtually unemployable. They simply are NOT the sort of people they want sharing their flight decks. When the ICAO MPL comes along, you can expect to share your beloved Class A airspace with some very inexperienced pilots with 70 hours flight time in real aeroplanes. Hopefully the JAA version of the MPL - or more probably the EASA version - will require initial selection and considerable airline involvement, but there's no guarantee of that.

[A and C]

yes ! thats why the airlines are getting very good deals to use Kirmington the owners (Manchester airport group) are in a blind panic !.

I would rather be at an airport to the west a little way with a longer runway, performance is not an issue at the ex-V bomber base.

[flower]

There are a few places where new CAS is required and those places do have applications in with DAP.
I am however a great supporter of Class G airspace and people out enjoying themselves able to simply get on with flying without a need to speak to anyone. That however does bring with it a responsibility as BEagle has already said of maintaining a distance from IAPs for example.
The vast majority do, they fly without causing any problems to anyone it is however the very small minority who end up causing these debates. Most of those who cause the difficulties appear to be simply ignorant, they are the ones whom i worry less about, it is the plainly arrogant who think they have priority over everyone and will do as they please who concern me most as they simply will not reason with anyone.

[Fuji Abound]

"it is the plainly arrogant who think they have priority over everyone and will do as they please who concern me most as they simply will not reason with anyone."

A very sad day when we change the policy to suite a very small minority.

Drunks can cause us all a few problems from time to time - the answer could be to ban alcohol.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Things change.

Look at how Liverpool (17 LCC Boeings) and Bristol (9 LCC Airbuses) for example have grown busier and busier over the last decade. See how the likes of Finningley and Coventry are headed the same way.

Airspace should not and will not remain static in the face of changed realities. If air travel was in decline it would be possible to remove CAS. The opposite is the reality.

The area where there is real scope to open up airspace is the military. The Navy does not use and cannot justify the huge danger areas they maintain in the South of England. The RAF with its dwindling fleet still demands most of the East coast of England to itself. Accomodating the military in the airspace over England puts them in some of the most highly congested airspace in the world. With the whole RAF standing at a little over 40,000 staff they could all be accomodated in Inverness and be out of everyones way and spend a lot less time transiting to ranges and low flying areas.

GA pilots should be in favour of having more controlled airspace where it is justified by the commercial realities of an airport getting busier. They should take this view in their own self interest. Because if, one day heaven forbid, a PA28/C172/R22 collides with a 737/319/146 and 120 are killed in the air and 25 on the ground then the media and the great unwashed public will go for rich men playing in the their noisy polluting 'planes with a vengance.

GA would be faced with mandatory Mode S TCAS and that includes you glider boy and microlight man. But then the insurance companies would have grounded most of the GA fleet the day after the air disaster anyway.

Everyone is in this together. Resist the temptation to polarise GA from Commercial pilots.

Cheers

WWW

[robin]

You may have a point, but have a look at the PFAs response to the Coventry proposals.

They make a reasoned case for reducing the proposed CAS around Coventry as being disproportionate. It is a many times larger area per movement than any of the London Airports for around 5 movements a day.

It appears that the airport want to accommodate the low-cost airlines which, to save fuel, chose not to use the existing CAS but take a short-cut through Class G.

Thee are similar proposals at other expanding regional airfields but all need to be viewed critically, and reduced to a reasonable extent.

What we don't want though is the case of a mid-air collision when a commercial jet decides to take a shortcut, thinking they have automatic right of way.

By the way, are airline pilots taught to look out? 70 hours actual flight time seems incredibly low and I would question the real-world airmanship of a pilot with that level of experience in the air

[WorkingHard]

WWW I think your response is sound and reasonable. You say "Everyone is in this together. Resist the temptation to polarise GA from Commercial pilots."
Absolutely agree but the polarisation comes from different sides. It is not GA that is necessarily doing the polarisation. We have stacked against us, military, CAT, some atcos (note some please), a number of airports that see GA as somehow demeaning if they accomodate us and of course the good old CAA. comparisons with other countries, especially the USA, shows this polarisation in the UK to be unneccessary on safety grounds.

[flower]

I have been asked why the proposed airspace surrounding Cardiff and Bristol is so complex, well DAP insists you request only the minimum that you can safely accommodate your movements within.
When putting the proposal together there was no question of putting in a request for more airspace on the basis they would ask you to reduce the size, we had from the start to put in a realistic proposal.
DAP quite rightly insists that all airspace users are considered hence why we have what on the face of it looks a very complicated piece of Class D airspace coming in, the minimum class D required for a safe operation.

Locally there have been very few problems as they know Class D transits are not a problem but equally there is still a considerable amount of Class G. It is to some seen also as a benefit as they know when it comes in that ATC will not have the same requirement to wish to talk to aircraft flying out in Class G.

Carefully planned airspace should have a minimum impact on most GA users, equally if you are Class D and there is difficulty due workload issues or density of traffic to accommodate VFR perhaps the airspace should be of higher category.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Robin, COV had 3 737's belonging to ThompsonFly who should be looking at an average of 7 movements a day..

All airline pilots are taught to look out because at one point all airline pilots were PPL's - some of us still are. I have seen and avoided in my 737 more light aircraft than have seen and avoided me - one on Saturday springs to mind.

I know you in GA feel persecuted and unloved. Its because you are. But don't lash out at commercial aviation as it's us who pay the bills (along with the MoD). Unless you fly from your own grass strip then I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy (air is free but hangars and runways and ATC are not).

Cheers

WWW

[Fuji Abound]

"I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy"

Oooh do tell, so what resources would those be then :confused:

[BEagle]

By that token, WWW, then most of us have probably have a certain Cpl A Hitler to thank, actually...

If he hadn't caused so much trouble in the first place, there would perhaps have been no World War 2, no RAF expansion and no disused aerodromes later.

Daft logic, of course. But no more so than yours.

Locos who choose to operate from smaller, cheaper airports with only Class G airspace and a RAS to keep their IFR aircraft away from legitimate GA traffic happily operating under VFR must include the extra fuel costs as part of their business plans.

Either that or go elsewhere.

[Fuji Abound]

"They should take this view in their own self interest. Because if, one day heaven forbid, a PA28/C172/R22 collides with a 737/319/146 and 120 are killed in the air and 25 on the ground then the media and the great unwashed public will go for rich men playing in the their noisy polluting 'planes with a vengance."

I dont think so.

The ATCO (nee TWATCO) will get the blame.

[robin]

Robin, COV had 3 737's belonging to ThompsonFly who should be looking at an average of 7 movements a day..

The PFA response looks at the number of flights throughout the year and proportioned the runway that would force the extension of the airspace. This works out cuurently at around 4-5 a day. Compare that with movements at Gatwick which has not asked for such a massive expansion



All airline pilots are taught to look out because at one point all airline pilots were PPL's - some of us still are. I have seen and avoided in my 737 more light aircraft than have seen and avoided me - one on Saturday springs to mind.

I would doubt that. When flying my glider, when you hear a piston engine or a jet engine, your head starts moving about (and one's sphincter does other things) until you have identified the aircraft in question.

I know of few pilots who are likely to lose sight of a 737. They do however lose sight of microlights, gliders and small aircraft. So shoving us into smaller and smaller corridors (Luton/Stanstead corridor, the CPT honeypot, the Brize/Lyneham area, for instance) only adds to our risks

Many years ago, the great Philip Wills was involved in the design of the Luton Airspace around Dunstable. Reps from the CAA, the airlines, the airport and ATC were chuntering on about extending the airspace to ensure safe passage for airliners. Huge areas of airspace for a small number of commercial aircraft were proposed. He stopped the discussions dead in their tracks when he asked the simple question - 'who is responsible for flight outside the controlled airspace'. Then the powers that be were smart enough to understand that by restricting open FIR they increase disproportionately the risks to VFR flight. 90% of flight is done in the sport and light aircraft sector, but we are being squeezed into smaller and smaller pockets of unregulated airspace.

Of course, when the collisions then happen, like the accident at Brookman Park, there is a call for more regulated airspace. In reality what is needed is less, so we have a fighting chance of passing each other in safety




But don't lash out at commercial aviation as it's us who pay the bills (along with the MoD). Unless you fly from your own grass strip then I bet either the airline passenger or the military have paid for the majority of the resource you chose to enjoy (air is free but hangars and runways and ATC are not).
Cheers
WWW

Wrong. I actually find that the commercial operators are responsible for many of the unnecessary bills I have to pay. Flying from strips, I don't need the Mode S, at times not even a radio,

[bar shaker]

Today aircraft to be delayed was an ambulance flight with a critically ill child on board which had to be repositioned back onto the approach because some clot decided to fly through the final approach at 1500ft, at 6nm, sqawking but couldn't be bothered to call us. It took approximately 20 extra track miles and a five minute delay to the ambulance flight.


This is a joke, right?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

LoCos moving into new airports generates new CAS. Simple as.

BEagle you seem to think that Locos simply transport scumbags on beer tours. Whereas in fact my 572 domestic passengers yesterday carried only 254 bags... the majority were wearing suits and carrying laptops.

Robin, speaking as a gliding instructor I find your defence of being able to hear other aircraft remarkable. I'm doing 287mph at 4,000ft. I hope your lookout is really sharp as I weigh 57 tons and you weigh approximately the same as my rear galley.

I want to avoid an accident between a commercial airliner and a GA aircraft. What do you want?

Cheers

WWW

[dublinpilot]

Why does everyone thinks that they avoid more aircraft, than other aircraft avoid them?

Is it because they are better pilots?

Or is it because they don't ever see all the aircraft that actually turn to avoid them? How can you count the aircraft that you never saw.....never knew was there, but turned to avoid hitting you?

dp

[BEagle]

"LoCos moving into new airports generates new CAS. Simple as."

Nonsense.

LoCos move to cheaper airports, then try to use their muscle to grab airspace. If they'd remained at airports which already have CAS and which are under utillised it would have cost them more.

Simple as.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

What muscle would that be exactly? The muscle that comes from securing the jobs of the ATC, baggage handlers, check in staff, refuelers, despatchers, cleaners, caterers, car park attendents, bar staff and shop keepers?

Not to mention the customers who are paying to be able to use the airport and its new routes.

Should no expansion of air travel be allowed? If not then how do you justify any expansion of GA? Not that there is any. :(

We have always lead the field in aviation in this country. We do so at the moment with low cost aviation. That is a fact to be applauded by anyone with an interest in aviation.

It really is not difficult to totally avoid CAS or to obtain a service from the controlling agent. If you want great open expanses of uncotrolled airspace with cheap fuel and free flight following services then move to Arizona.

Cheers

WWW

[BlueRobin]

Response to Coventry proposals for controlled airspace from the PFA:

www.bluerobin.flyer.co.uk/PFAResponse.pdf

Factor of airspace efficiency might add something to this thread.

[Fuji Abound]

"I want to avoid an accident between a commercial airliner and a GA aircraft. What do you want?"

I want to avoid a collision between two GA aircraft. The more CAS you create the more choke points you create.

Are the commercial service providers going to pay for better services outside CAS - I dont think so. In fact their latest drive has been to increase the administrative costs passed on to GA.

Lets not forget GA on the whole doesnt want or need CAS, LARS, RIF, RAS, FI, LI, or any other service for that matter. On the whole it also doesnt want large airports. It should be up to the commercial operators to accomodate GA.

I hate to mention the States but therein is a model that works well. I have yet to hear a rational arguement against their model.

[englishal]

Encourage GA to contact the ATC controlling the approach by offering a useful service (RIS) otherwise why bother to call them if we're out and about in Class G in fine weather.

[robin]

You try it - when you do call up they ask us to call London Information and not bother them

[BEagle]

WWW, your arguments are much the same as the likes of Walmart use when they move in and attempt to dominate what was previously an equable status quo.

The PFA's rebuttal of the attempted airspace grab at Coventry is highly commendable and deserves every success.

[flower]

There was me thinking the attitude we keep being told about is commercial wanting to get rid of GA, it would appear it is the other way around :hmm:

BEagle, the attitude that LoCos should only have operated from airports fully contained within CAS is a tad naive for an obviously intelligent person, you will be fully aware that there are only so many landing slots and places to park. Also why do those of us who live in areas not served by such Airports have to travel massive distances when we already have airports on our doorsteps.

Having seen exactly how the airspace process works I can only assure everybody just how difficult it is to obtain new CAS and the depths that are gone into to minimise inconvenience to other users. Lets be honest comparing UK airspace to US airspace is like comparing apples with oranges, they have so much more space in the first instance to play with, a very quick cursory glance at a UK chart shows just how close we all are here in the UK.

Whilst being a huge advocate of GA, and the "right to roam" outside CAS with no ATC contact Commercial aviation is a huge industry generating Billions of pounds for the UK economy. It is wrong to try to limit such an industry simply for our own pleasure. I think we probably have it close to being right as every new application process for CAS has to be looked at in minutiae with every concerned group fully involved with the right to respond to every application. However in the same way that we shouldn't just think we can have CAS everywhere we want it , those in GA also have a responsibility to accept that there are places which do require the additional protection

[rustle]

...Also why do those of us who live in areas not served by such Airports have to travel massive distances when we already have airports on our doorsteps...

...a very quick cursory glance at a UK chart shows just how close we all are here in the UK...



Hmmm.

Cake and eating it too. ;)

[slim_slag]

Lets be honest comparing UK airspace to US airspace is like comparing apples with oranges, they have so much more space in the first instance to play with, a very quick cursory glance at a UK chart shows just how close we all are here in the UK.Take one of your cursory glances at a chart of any class B area in the States and you will see there are plenty of airports very close together indeed, they make the UK look quite inconsequential. You find small and large airplanes mixing it quite happily, each respecting the rights of the others to use a common airspace. I bet only LHR would definitely make class B if it was in the US, and yet wouldn't come close to the top 10 busiest in the States.

There was a very interesting discussion on here recently comparing the size of the LHR surface area with the size of the surface area of several busier airports in the US. What it appeared to boil down to is that at LHR, you have A340s which simply cannot climb very well and so gazillions of square miles of very usable airspace is closed off to small aircraft. Yet you put that same A340 at O'Hare and the thing is quite capable of getting smartly off the ground and out of the way of the many small aircraft safely buzzing around a few miles off the departure end of the runway. Seems like they just cannot be bothered in teh UK, and the controllers let them get away with it. In the States I suspect the Chicago controller would be on the radio telling the A340 jock exactly what was expected of him. As it should be.

I suppose it's only to be expected in the UK where ATC is simply underresourced and can hardly handle the commercial traffic, and airline pilots can get in the right seat of a jet with no idea of how GA really works.

[flower]

Hmmm.

Cake and eating it too. ;)


Take Bristol and Cardiff ( ok my local area again I know) as the crow flies 23 miles, time en route in a car at least 80 minutes between the airports.

Again as for the States they often have multiple runways we get stuck with one.

I have already told you I'm pro GA I'm not fighting the CAS corner or GA corner just a tad tired f it automatically being seen as a bad thing with GA and it would seem some working the commercial side always seeing GA as a bad thing. When sides polarise so much we reach impasse, we are all airspace users lets gets real.

[NorthSouth]

Many airlines do not allow their aircraft to accept anything less than a RAS outside CASI've heard this many times but never heard who these airlines are. What if no RAS is available? There are plenty circumstances when the best you can get is a Limited RAS, or a RIS, due to, for example, high traffic density.

Without knowing which airport A and C is talking about it's difficult to address the specifics. There are plenty growing airports in Class G which don't offer a LARS but have a LARS provider nearby. In those cases A and C's light aircraft would be doing the correct thing in speaking to the LARS provider and not A&C's airport. If this was a regular problem then A&C's airport ought to have an LoA with the LARS provider to ensure that any aircraft working LARS which are getting close to the commercial airport are told to change frequency.

There's another side to this. I regularly instruct in Class G airspace where the occasional CAT flight passes through. The LARS provider will invariably ask me to cap my altitude, or worse, ask me to maintain a particular heading, to co-ordinate against the IFR, so he doesn't have to vector him. I always say yes even though I am under no obligation to do so and it can add several minutes to a sortie at the student's expense.

A&C, if you were in good VMC then you also had the option of still having a RAS but telling the controller you were happy to not take those particular vectors - or you could take a RIS. It sounds like the real problem was the fact that although squawking Mode C your traffic was unidentified therefore 3000ft vertical sep required if vectors not possible. What does your ops manual say about required separations from VFR traffic in Class G? I'll take a guess that it says nothing. Maybe it should.

NS

[Fuji Abound]

Slim slag - very well said.

We come to accept the way things are done here and take them in that context.

For example, this weekend I transited CAS twice. On both occasions I got the transit, but on both occasions I had to wait 5 to 10 minutes I guess. I also had to give the ATCO a little gentle encouragement. What was interesting is I could watch the inbounds he was working from my orbit on the edge of CAS. The inbounds were well spaced, visibility unlimited and no one else was transiting the zone. After encouragement on both occasions I routed above and behind the inbounds. In fact there was absolutely no reason for the delay in the first place. However, I was grateful because I got the transit (my comment about taking things in context). In both cases there was no obvious reason for the delay - it certainly would not have occurred in the States.

Moreover, how often do we get after requesting a zone transit - “remain outside of CAS, I will come back to you”. “Remain outside of CAS, you can expect a clearance within xx” would be far more helpful either in response or very shortly after the first call.

I appreciate these issues are slightly of thread but they typify some of the sentiments on this thread. Unfortunately the system appears to be polarised towards commercial traffic having absolute priority as opposed to there being a real effort to integrate all users within the system, and maybe whilst idealistic the bottom line is we all own the airspace and a bit like with real estate the right to roam is worth protecting.

[NorthSouth]

Seems to me the problem with VFR CAS transits is the inconsistency. Last week a PPL I was flying with made an ambiguous call to ATC in an adjacent zone which we intended to route around. The controller took it as a request for a CAS transit and immediately gave us a transit clearance direct to our next turning point, at our current altitude! OK, probably no traffic to conflict, but it was a refreshing attitude. Others will be the opposite - "Flight Information Service, remain outside controlled airspace, report leaving the frequency" - yeah and cheers to you too mate.

I would imagine the best source of consistent standards on this and other ATC issues ought to be the CAA regional ATS inspectors. Over to you Mr Regulator?

NS

[Fuji Abound]

Do I detect a suspicion that those low hours commercial pilots are also those pilots defending CAS (and ever more of it) and those commercial pilots with some proper time under their seat take a different view as to how commercial and GA can (and do) integrate :) .

The real problem is that the new commercial breed need rather more training and need some time outside of Europe.

I reckon six months in the States would do the trick. We could seconde a few of the ATCOs at the same time.

[englishal]

Take one of your cursory glances at a chart of any class B area in the States and you will see there are plenty of airports very close together indeed
Here's a few around LAX (within 40 miles anyway). Some make Cardiff and Bristol look like farm strips. Funnily enough, you can fly right across the LA basin without talking to a sausage if you want.....
http://www.digital-reality.co.uk/acf/images/vfrlax.jpg

[rustle]

Funnily enough, you can fly right across the LA basin without talking to a sausage if you want.....


Point of order: I could fly just about anywhere and not have to speak to a sausage, so this proves nothing. ;)

[englishal]

Nah, but it proves CAT and GA can mix freely in a very busy traffic environment, with large amounts of CAS....though sensibly thought out. (I did my CPL ME upper air work portion of the flight test over the Class C of March Airforce base at 7000')

[NorthSouth]

Nah, but it proves CAT and GA can mix freely in a very busy traffic environment, with large amounts of CAS....though sensibly thought outMaybe, but how you get from the ability to fly VFR straight through the climb-outs of the main runways at LAX by getting the departing IFR traffic to say they're visual with you (as I've done) to doing the same at the nearest UK airspace equivalent - Gatwick - I just do not know. "Kittens", "having" and "CAA" spring to mind.
NS

[Fournicator]

WWW:
Not sure I follow your argument about military use of airspace. While I appreciate the large overwater areas tied up in naval ranges to consume a lot of airspace, I don't think it's really the place most light aircraft want to go flying over, so releasing this airspace is unlikely to improve GA congestion.
As I'm sure you're aware, most of the airspace in a MATZ (all but the ATZ) is not technically controlled airspace for civil aircraft. Only a buffoon wouldn't call the military controller, who will almost always give a zone transit (knowing as they do you have every right to blast through anyway). They will appreciate knowing who you are, and the opportunity to verify your Mode C. In addition, at the peak periods for GA traffic - weekends, most MATZs aren't active.
As one last point, it's also worth mentioning that most military operators are punctilious about making courtesy calls to small commercial fields they transit near, and probably have a much better lookout scan, thanks to relatively good fields of view (compared with an airliner at least), and a traning system that places a huge value on lookout, the skill that will keep those operators alive in wartime as well as peacetime.

QDM:
While a controller can indeed see your 7000C squawk, as previously mentioned the Mode C cannot be trusted unless verified. Mainly though, if you're not talking to them they have absoloutely no way of knowing if you are likely to suddenly change heading or level, so much larger separation minima must be applied than for known traffic.

Overall, I think many of us are missing the point here - the original post was trying to point out how good airmanship from the GA community can help reduce the restrictions, in the form of increased CAS, imposed on us. Surely everyone can appreciate the value in making such courtesy calls?

[flower]

I've heard this many times but never heard who these airlines are. What if no RAS is available?


Sometimes when we offer a shortcut to airlines transiting between airports to beat a slot this means going outside CAS, whilst our unit will provide a RAS the accepting unit will not, this is explained to the pilot. Invariably they have to decline as their SOPs do not allow them to accept a RIS.

We do operate differently from our US brethren in so many ways, I know there are many in GA in the UK who seem to think they offer a better service, perhaps they do but we have to work to the rules the regulator sets us.

[Fuji Abound]

"but we have to work to the rules the regulator sets us. "

Ah yes - so what regulation prevents you giving a transit overhead Gatwick?

[robin]

One notable instance occurred around a regional airport without Class D.

Flying 10 miles out in Class G airspace I was transponding and talking to the radar controller. An infamous airline arriving and positioning for landing had detected me on their TCAS and started bullying the controller to instruct me to move further out. There were implicit threats made by the pilot that he would file an airprox if I didn't.

Fortunately the particular ATCO shut him up and I carried on safely on my way.

There are definite signs that certain airlines are pressurising ATCOs to cut the corners, to lean on non-commercial traffic, and to get operators to ask for larger than necessary airspace reserved for them

We are at the start of a proposal to gain Class D for a local regional airport. Again, they are asking for a huge area of airspace to be reserved for them, and squeezing both laterally and vertically the available airspace for GA users.

[BEagle]

This is what the airspace grabbers at Coventry are after:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/airgrab2.jpg

Those wish to submit their comments have until 16 Jun to do so - just e-mail [email protected] , copied to [email protected] .

It's possible that the head of the directorate of airspace policy, [email protected] , might also be interested in knowing your views....

[Roffa]

"but we have to work to the rules the regulator sets us. "
Ah yes - so what regulation prevents you giving a transit overhead Gatwick?

None, but if you don't ask you don't get...

[Roffa]

Take one of your cursory glances at a chart of any class B area in the States and you will see there are plenty of airports very close together indeed, they make the UK look quite inconsequential. You find small and large airplanes mixing it quite happily, each respecting the rights of the others to use a common airspace. I bet only LHR would definitely make class B if it was in the US, and yet wouldn't come close to the top 10 busiest in the States.
There was a very interesting discussion on here recently comparing the size of the LHR surface area with the size of the surface area of several busier airports in the US. What it appeared to boil down to is that at LHR, you have A340s which simply cannot climb very well and so gazillions of square miles of very usable airspace is closed off to small aircraft. Yet you put that same A340 at O'Hare and the thing is quite capable of getting smartly off the ground and out of the way of the many small aircraft safely buzzing around a few miles off the departure end of the runway. Seems like they just cannot be bothered in teh UK, and the controllers let them get away with it. In the States I suspect the Chicago controller would be on the radio telling the A340 jock exactly what was expected of him. As it should be.
I suppose it's only to be expected in the UK where ATC is simply underresourced and can hardly handle the commercial traffic, and airline pilots can get in the right seat of a jet with no idea of how GA really works.

Do I imagine all the light a/c transitting the London Zone and the airfields that lie inside the Zone that can operate with no reference to Heathrow ATC and used by aircraft without transponder or radio?

Would non-transponder equipped aircraft be allowed to operate in the same proximity to an airport as busy as Heathrow in the States? No, there would be a compulsory Mode C veil.

Within the limits of the class of the airspace there's a lot of light aircraft activity in the London Zone, I see it every day. The grass may be slightly greener over the pond, but not as bright a hue as many would have you think.

[slim_slag]

porco,

I guess we would need to define 'a lot'. As for Mode C, I am sure it helps keep Class B surface areas down to reasonable sizes in the States, but remember most of the traffic skirting around or flying over Class B (no Class A until FL180 remember) is unverified mode C, so would it really help in the UK?

But you bring up a good point about mandatory use of transponders being used to keep surface areas smaller. It should be possible to drastically reduce all this CAS in the UK when they force mode S down everybodies throats. That might be an acceptable quid pro quo for those in the South East. Can you see this happening?

[englishal]

No, there would be a compulsory Mode C veil.
Fine by me. We'll all need Mode S soon anyway.

Actually you can get away with no mode-c with ATC approval.

[robin]

It should be possible to drastically reduce all this CAS in the UK when they force mode S down everybodies throats. That might be an acceptable quid pro quo for those in the South East. Can you see this happening?

When hell freezes over, perhaps. This is the CAA and EASA we are talking about. All they intend is that they won't put in unnecessary extra restrictions. The idea of giving up CAS for GA use....!!!:rolleyes:

[IO540]

The "unverified" status of a Mode C transponding target doesn't affect the usefulness of the return for TCAS purposes.

Also, the verification process appears to be a mere formality most of the time anyway. It's sole purpose seems to be to pick up transponders whose altitude encoder is duff. I do wonder what the point of this verification is, because I could be legally flying under the LTMA at 2400ft, non-radio, with a transponder returning FL150, causing everybody to sh*t themselves, but they have no means of checking because they don't know who (if anybody) he is talking to. And a lot of people fly OCAS non-radio (with a listening watch, say) with Mode C. I often do just that, but then my transponder (both KT76C and the later GTX330) permanently display the FL being returned on the LCD display. Doesn't almost every Mode C unit do that?

Robin

Hard to say what EASA will do. They are making encouraging noises about deregulating "VFR GA". What concerns many pilots is what tradeoffs will be done to placate the objecting committee members. Screwing IFR GA traffic is one possibility. I understand this may not be directly relevant to you but as I've said I don't think VFR GA is really seriously threatened in the long term; as a sport it will always carry on. There might be increasing problems getting one's certified spamcan maintained but for VFR flight there is the "PFA" type route and this looks like it will be widened; in fact the permit scene is well on the way to pushing out the CofA stuff as it is.

[Say again s l o w l y]

I'm afraid not IO, most transponders simply have an ALT selector and you have no idea what it is actually sending out. Most new digital ones will give you a FL readout, but these are in short supply compared to the older types.

[robin]

A while back, and from time to time, I started asking ATC what the Alt readout shows on their screens. Came as quite a shock to see the accuracy.

[slim_slag]

Once called up a busy class B (4th busiest in world at the time, LHR around 15th) and requested an overhead transit. Approach told me my mode C was indicating FL410, I said sorry and will get it fixed and should I turn it off, approach said keep mode C on and immediately approved my transit request. No doubt I was causing TCAS mayham up in the flight levels but ATC didn't care, and neither did I :)

One can transit overhead LAX in the SFRA with Mode C and without a clearance (but monitoring a certain frequency). Off the top of my head there is the Hudson river corridor, and Class E corridors at SAN that cross short final. There should be no reason why a similar approach to controlled airspace cannot be made in these somewhat smaller airfields too. The powers that be just have to make the effort, so I guess it will never happen.

[Chilli Monster]

I do wonder what the point of this verification is, because I could be legally flying under the LTMA at 2400ft, non-radio, with a transponder returning FL150, causing everybody to sh*t themselves, but they have no means of checking because they don't know who (if anybody) he is talking to.
Having had Transponders outside of tolerance it is a necessary requirement if you're going to use that data from an ATC point of view.

And believe me - if the 2400ft / FL150 occurence happened you probably would find someone knocking on your door ;)
but then my transponder (both KT76C and the later GTX330) permanently display the FL being returned on the LCD display. Doesn't almost every Mode C unit do that?
No - mode 'C' transponders that do that are actually in the minority. It's more available on more modern mode 'C' & 'S' units

[flower]

Can i suggest to anyone here who thinks that they would do a better job of controlling that they actually spend time at an ATC unit. Also as to reducing the size of CAS , some of us have to work as close as we safely can to the edges of CAS just to maintain standard separation , it isn't as vast as you may make out.
They work to a different system in the US please do not even attempt to compare the procedures they can be quite different.
Whilst I am happy for aircraft to transit through the overhead I will not restrict the climb of a Jet aircraft when a simple routing east or west of the overhead will keep all people happy.

[robin]

Flower

>>>Whilst I am happy for aircraft to transit through the overhead I will not restrict the climb of a Jet aircraft when a simple routing east or west of the overhead will keep all people happy<<<

I'd rally like to spend some time in the tower and radar suite just to get an appreciation of what it is like. And I don't (normally) denigrate ATCOs.

However, we have now documented examples where VFR pilots have funnelled into a seriously dangerous situations to avoid discommoding commercial departures.

A colleague was one of a number of pilots who asked for a routing through the overhead of a large field, but was 'instructed' to fly to one side of the field and pass outside the ATZ. Others asked to pass on the other side of the field. Again they were 'instructed' to pass the other way

Within minutes they were caught in sea fog close to high ground and having to descend to low level to remain VMC. In the meantime ATC were dealing with a single airliner and took no remedial action despite the cries of anguish from the VFR pilots. Still I suppose 20 VFR pilots don't compare with 300 people off on holiday

Nice one ATCOs

[OVC002]

There may be some circumstances where, compared to the USA, the system in Europe is structured to the relative benefit of GA, rather than CAT, I can't think of any offhand.
Whilst there are obviously cases where they have come unstuck, the FAA trust in the competence of their PPL's, the CAA does not. Hence, in the US, when flying VFR, there is no clearance required to enter 'C' or 'D' airspace. Just that you must be in contact with ATC and squawk mode C in 'C'.
It seems to work there, but given some of the horror stories related in this forum it might not work here.

[englishal]

They work to a different system in the US please do not even attempt to compare the procedures they can be quite different
But that is the point. It works over there, so why not apply it here ????

I would be happy (and I believe it would be sensible) for every "commercial" airport above a certain size (exeter / plymouth / Bournemouth / Gloucester / Cardiff / Bristol / Filton etc...) being surrounded with Class C airspace, to a certain radius, say 5nm, and to a certain altitude (say 5000'). BUT I would like to see the CAS stop at 5000' and have G above it for a few thousand, which is essentially the american philosophy. I would also like to see Class C services being offered by ATC, meaning that if I need to transit (which is less likely due to the above), I call up ATC and then I am given an altitude and mode C sqwark and will accept vectors. This would ease flight planning, especially IMCr IFR, reduce CAS busts (the standard dimensions are standard), and for people not wishing to talk, they can go over the top at 5500.

Nearly all airspace in the USA is toppable, including the Class B layer cakes surrounding the busy airports - which is why they can sign write over LA - they do it at +10,000'.

[flower]

A radius of 5nm is unworkable and only suits the VFR flight.
The problem isn't CAS it is the access too CAS . Come to an airfield where there is no problem with access and where the locally based GA pilots are more than happy for the airspace to be extended.

As for funnelling aircraft in to bad weather, many radar units are not even based at the airfield they work , and in the vast majority of cases are in room with limited access to windows so are unable to see any local weather, we rely on the METAR to tell us what is going on.

Whenever I give a VFR transit I always add the words, " advise if unable to maintain VMC and require to change heading or level" it is then up to the pilot to let me know if they have a problem.

Routings east/ west / north /south of the threshold work well, again at a quieter place like the one I work at you let them know the traffic they are conflicting with once visual then life becomes much easier. When you first start controlling you tend to use belts and braces in all scenarios, as you gain experience and confidence you gain a much greater awareness of what is likely to happen.
We are also not allowed to issue what are referred to as "unsafe clearances" that is why we in many cases cannot give the clearance through the overhead against a departure or arrival, once both aircraft are on the radar frequency then we can do so much more.

I have hosted many visits to my ATC unit and i know many of my colleagues do the same, it is however as easy as picking up the phone and asking if you can arrange to visit the unit , if you haven't been go along and visit if only so you can ask some of those questions that have been bugging you for some time.

[robin]

We are also not allowed to issue what are referred to as "unsafe clearances" that is why we in many cases cannot give the clearance through the overhead against a departure or arrival, once both aircraft are on the radar frequency then we can do so much more..

No, and I accept that, but by waiting until passing traffic actually declares 'unable to maintain VMC' (and we don't do that lightly) we are already in a position of serious risk, but being placed outside the ATZ we are not the ATCOs problem.

In the particular instance my friends experienced, pilots were already declaring a problem maintaining VMC but ATC continued to instruct aircraft to fly into that area without any warning of the conditions they were about to experience

The logic is that is 'Radar' know that a lot of aircraft are intending to make a similar routing, and it is possible to allow an overhead transit (it is legal after all), then he might choose to hold the commercial traffic to allow the fleet through. However, bitter experience shows that pressure from the companies will dictate that the VFR traffic will be sent away or an MOR or complaint will be filed.

That side of the equation none of us GA pilots ever see, but we know it happens.

[flower]

Robin regarding Flight priorities we do not delay flights which may or may not be on a slot for flights with a lower category unless safety will be compromised.
Have a look at MATS part 1 Section 1 chapter 4 page 5.

I'm not to sure where the problem lay with the flights you say were forced into non compliance with their licence, it is however the holder of the licences responsibility to conform to the privileges of their licence, I am not privy nor an I able to ask what qualifications the pilot may have we have to be told and as I said we may not be aware of any problems with visibility in a specific area. Once told of any difficulties I know the colleagues i work with and myself do everything we can to try to sort alternatives.

[slim_slag]

A radius of 5nm is unworkable and only suits the VFR flightAlthough I understand you are only trying to be helpful and explaining the constraints put on you by others, the problem you face is that plenty of people have flown in the USA and seen how they do it. Over there, planty of very busy airports are Class C which generally has a 5 mile radius surface area, and which by demonstration is totally workable. So telling us it isn't workable is only likely to make people think you are part of the problem, which may not be the case. I agree that Mode C is very prevalent and this makes life a lot easier, but then as I said before, when Mode S comes along that excuse will not stand. I think I read somewhere that a massive restructuring of European airspace is on the cards, and they appear to be copying the FAA model, did I imagine this?

[dublinpilot]

Is there a formalised list which priotieies certain type of traffic over others?

If so, what is the order of the list?

I've guessing this is what Flower is refering to when she says:

Have a look at MATS part 1 Section 1 chapter 4 page 5.

Is MATS available online somewhere?

dp

[flower]

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=detail&id=222

There you go, if you go to the section i stated you will find the list of priorities, hope that helps a little towards understanding why we have to put CAT ahead of most VFR flights.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Who is more at risk - the 62 ton Boeing on departure at 250kts, 3500ft climbing OR the C172 at 90kts S&L 3,500ft maintaining a sharp lookout..?

A near miss might spill my tea but the wake will send you uncontrollable. Your arguments about restricting controlled airsace are akin to cyclists wanting to restrict cycle lanes.

There are big heavy fast trucks out there and you'd rather they not be seperated and closed off from you? If Coventry does not get its CAS then there will be a serious flight safety hazard and if the worst did happen one day then GA would be FUBAR'd by the time the next Daily Mail hit the breakfast table of middle England.

Rich playboys in their polluting pleasure craft (as GA would be portrayed) would face the full force of public ignorance and politicians craven desire to be seen to do something. That something being Mode S and compulsory flight plans for every flight like elsewhere in Europe at the very least. Not to mention the insurance companies reassessing their willingness to offer GA cover following a 180 person air disaster wiping out several housing estates...

So which if going to be more harmful to GA?

Cheers

WWW

[unfazed]

Taking Farnborough and Luton as a couple of examples they have very active glider sites very close to their ILS approaches

As far as I am aware the gliders do not have transponders and are able to operate without any major restrictions. In the case of Luton they operate in very close proximity to the main runway approach (Dunstable downs)

Come on ATCO's when are you going to start giving GA pilots a break !

[flower]

Most gliding site operate within certain rules which are laid down in memorandums of understanding between the gliding clubs and ATC

We ATCOs give GA breaks all the time and are extremely accommodating, for goodness sakes stop seeing it as a battle ground it is rather pathetic :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

"If Coventry does not get its CAS then there will be a serious flight safety hazard...."

Best they stop flying right now then. Or move to Birmingham/East Midlands/Cardiff/Bristol.....

How ever do Exeter, Kirmington and Newquay manage?

[Chilli Monster]

If Coventry does not get its CAS then there will be a serious flight safety hazard
Sorry - I'm with Beags on this. When this all blew up I had a look at Coventry's live flight data available on their website. Tuesday had 13 Commercial air transport movements between 0600 & 2000 local. That is a miniscule operation, and doesn't warrant the amount of airspace that's being asked for. In addition to which there are, with 1 hour's drive of Coventry, the following Class 'D' airports:

Birmingham
East Midlands
Luton

With Bristol just outside the hour.

Change the airspace - or move the operation. I think we all know what would be a more sensible idea. If Thomsonfly want CAS move somewhere where it already exists. Changing the airspace with the impact not just on GA, but adjoining airspace and operations makes no sense whatsoever.

[QDMQDMQDM]

You can justify anything by citing 'safety and security' and that seems to be the way our society is going at the moment. There are ever greater infringements of civil liberties, justified by 'security' considerations.

Yes, stick huge swathes of class D airspace around every poxy little airport (13 commercial flights in 16 hours?!) and the world will be a safer place.

Good, but will it be a better place? Get your heads out of your a*ses chaps.

QDM

[flower]

Exeter have an application in for CAS and their operation has grown massively.

I don't know the politics of the Coventry issue, are Birmingham supporting this bid for CAS ? they to date have had all sorts of issues with Coventry so I must admit would be surprised if they were unless it has a direct benefit to Brum, Brum however is well served by CAS so IMHO would see no need for any further expansion.

Chilli are you just touting for more business up there ;)

[ShyTorque]

WWW, you are trying to change your spots, aren't you? It wasn't all that long ago that you might well have been seen as a rich playboy yourself.... surely those UAS aircraft were just playthings for the privileged few, at the tax-payers expense no less! :E

Seriously though, objections from GA regarding the proposed controlled airspace stem from the fact that this is one of the more busy GA transit lanes in UK, between Birmingham and East Midlands airspace, effectively being the connection between north and south of the country. Thompson certainly knew the busy status of the airspace when they began commercial operations at Coventry.

Traditionally, aircraft using Coventry have required a much shorter final approach leg and it is only the arrival of bigger airliners which require a much longer final that has recently caused this to become a problem.

Inbound 737s do, in fact, already have in place a separation service, via Coventry's ATC Radar, albeit with some occasional inconvenience due to "unknown" traffic crossing the centreline to runway 23 at around 7 or 8 miles. Unfortunately, this also relates to MSA for that area and many GA aircraft cannot go higher, especially in winter. It is mainly this traffic that Coventry want to control, understandable to some extent.

The very large amount of Class G that Coventry now want to "grab" (it's as big as Birmingham's, but for far fewer movements) will effectively plug the gap in the existing Class G in that area, mainly to avoid Thompson aircraft having to be vectored, or, God forbid - GO AROUND! (will there ever be a case of an airliner in controlled airspace being held off or orbited for transit traffic?).

There is undoubtedly a commercial issue here and not just one of safety.

If they do get all the airspace they are asking for, they will cause at least two bottlenecks for GA, with some potential for some pilots attempting a poor weather VFR transit below the airspace, in one area below MSA, rather than face an ATC delay. Unfortunately, since the Thompson operation began, Coventry have earned rather a "reputation" for already attempting to control passing aircraft merely requesting a FIS in Class G airspace.

Presumably, no small proportion of the possible "conflicts" for their Class G inbound traffic could already have been prevented by installing a secondary radar - but this, of course would have cost Thompson money that they obviously didn't want to spend.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

ShyTorque - I was making the point that the general public and the media will not portray the general aviation scene in anything other than negative light following an accident. I am a keen GA'er myself.

Beagle old chap I have to disagree. Yes at the moment COV is only home to 3 ThomsonFly 737s and the movement rate is not exactly stellar. But Go Fly at BRS started with 3 737s not even 5 years ago and now is up to 9 aircraft.

You need CAS ahead of Operations else safety is compromised for all. Fine, if COV needs a 20 mile radius zone then lets delete the zones around a couple of disused military airfields and balance it all out. Or close a few ranges. Ohh, silly me that has all happened in recent years anyway. In fact I might be tempted to wager that the amount of Controlled AirSpace in the UK is less now that 15 years ago.

Someone want to take that bet?

Cheers

WWW

[Roffa]

slim,

You'll find the traffic statistics for the busiest airports in terms of movements here (http://www.airports.org/cda/aci/display/main/aci_content.jsp?zn=aci&cp=1-5-54-57_9_2__).

You'll see Heathrow comes well down the list which doesn't bother me, means I don't have to work as hard as those at the airports higher up the list, but it may add amunition for those that like to use these sorts of figures to spice up their arguments. The figures at Heathrow aren't going to increase much over the next few years either unless a third runway is built, it's pretty much at capacity as is.

The simple facts are that the two systems, UK and FAA, are different. Some aspects of one are better than the other but there are pros and cons on both sides. Simply saying that everything in FAA land is better is an over simplification and for me it doesn't wash. I base that on the experience of having flown IFR and VFR over there and also having visited a number of their busiest ATC units.

If there's any reason why we don't have quite such a joined up ATC service as there is in the States then point the fingers at our political lords and masters. The day NATS was privatised and essentially sold into the control of the airlines and main airport operator did anyone ever really think that the lower end of the GA spectrum would be very high up the list of priorities?

The airlines, our owners (the government may hold the golden share but their seat is right at the back), demand that we provide the best possible service to them at the lowest cost, that doesn't leave much in the way of manpower or funds to look after the non revenue customers, unpalatable as that is to myself and many of my colleagues.

[dublinpilot]

Flower,

Thanks for the link.

Looking at the list of priorities, I'm a little confused.

Categories A-E seem to be for Emergency, S&R, Politically important people, and CAA flights.

Then we have normal flights, which include "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures", and also Instrument flight tests.

Lastly is category Z which includes training and all other flights.

I see nothing in the list which prioritises Scheduled, Chartered, Commercial, Fast, Large, Heavy or IFR traffic.

Presumably it is the "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures" but that includes CAT. Is this to say that a light aircraft, which files a VFR flight plan, and complies with normal routing procedures gets the same priority as the commercials? This isn't what happens in practise, at least in my experience.

That section does make a comment (which I don't understand) that the table is not for flow control. Perhaps this is not the section you had intended to reference to?

dp

[Fournicator]

WWW:

Please don't degenerate this into some kind of cockfight about who's got the bigger/higher performing aircraft, that's really not the issue here, and plenty of people here could easily push you right back into the little box you've emerged from. And, for that matter, you can stop showing how much of a brilliant bus driver you are by knowing the trendy three letter identifiers for your stops too.

Rant Off.

[robin]

Exeter have an application in for CAS and their operation has grown massively.


That is true, but they are not putting out their proposals for general discussion.

Worse their 'stepped airspace' is based on an aircraft with a poor rate of climb, which will probably not be in operation at the time the new airspace is instituted.

This means that in places there is a very narrow margin between the base of the CAS and the ground.

Again, this shows that GA is being sidelined in favour of commercial operators and the margins of safety for GA are reduced so that the relatively small numbers of commercial flights have a greater margin.

[BEagle]

"You need CAS ahead of Operations else safety is compromised for all."

So how did ThomsonFly set up their operation in the first place then? Or are you saying that they operate in a hazardous manner?

Sorry, but a few little 737s whose sole raison d'etre is to haul shell-suited oiks to alcohol-fuelled oblivion in various sunny watering holes is insufficient reason for hundreds of GA pilots to be very seriously restricted.

[robin]

Chav-Air rules, I'm afraid

[slim_slag]

Porco,

I'm not actually saying one side is better (though one most clearly is), it's just that when this comes around we always hear the "it's just too busy, just too congested". One way to counter that argument is to analyse all sorts of numbers and come up with a superb presentation as to why that is nonsense. As I cannot be bothered to do that (and wouldn't know how to even if I could) I just say "It's busier and more congested over there, and they quite easily manage to do what you say you cannot". In my mind it has the same effect.

So coventry has less than 20 jet movements a day. Wow. better not tell Porco how that would be handled in the US, let's say it's a good chance there wouldn't even be a tower. I've flown at airports with part 121 ops and no controller. They have ILS's though, very good for keeping in practice when no controllers slowing things up :) Just make sure you get out of the way when the 757 announces on the common frequency he is turning base to final.

So porco, you didn't answer my question. If everything within 30 miles of LHR is squawking mode S, will you need such a large surface area??

[Roffa]

So coventry has less than 20 jet movements a day. Wow. better not tell Porco how that would be handled in the US, let's say it's a good chance there wouldn't even be a tower. I've flown at airports with part 121 ops and no controller. They have ILS's though, very good for keeping in practice when no controllers slowing things up :) Just make sure you get out of the way when the 757 announces on the common frequency he is turning base to final.

There might be no controller in a tower but the approach itself is still controlled by ATC. If you're IFR that may well lead to delays in or out if there's more than one aircraft in the system... I assume you're also talking to ATC if you're flying practice instrument approaches under VFR?

So porco, you didn't answer my question. If everything within 30 miles of LHR is squawking mode S, will you need such a large surface area??

Probably didn't answer because I've got no idea. I'll hand that one over to any airspace planners or DAP reps that might be here. I am just a humble and much maligned UK atco :)

There are airspace classification changes afoot though, so who knows what the future may hold.

[slim_slag]

Porco,

The controller (probably centre) will provide separation services between IFR traffic. No tower, Class E, so he has no idea whether there is VFR traffic in the pattern. Controller will clear the jet for the approach, tell him to get on the CTAF, the jet will self announce on the common frequency and if VMC see and avoid. If there are two IFR arrivals and it's VMC then sure, the second IFR arrival will have to wait until the first one cancels, but in the interim any number of VFR traffic can land. Very nice indeed.

Why would I talk to a controller if shooting practice approaches in VMC at an untowered field? It's class E, no requirement to talk to anybody, or even have a radio. All I need is a safety pilot to keep the flight safe and legal, and see and avoid.

Surprised you don't have an opinion on the mode S, as earlier you said the US can do things because of Mode C veils. One would expect the same principles to apply in the UK, but that's probably the mistake I am making all along.

And I like controllers :)

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Beags, the lack of controlled airspace around COV is an issue and its going to be addressed. Funny enough you'll not find many oiks on ThompsonFlys Coventry to, say, Venice - or Jeresy - flights. Mostly the passengers will be decerning retired A,B,1,2's such as your good self. Anyway - the class of passenger or reason for travel are immaterial.

The fact is that ten years ago there was no Ryanair, easyJet, Jet2 or Globespan. These operators of piddly little 737s now have between them over 150 jets based in the UK. That's half the BA fleet! It is therefore not logical to believe no new controlled airspace is required to meet this significant increase in commercial aviation.

New realities, new airspace.

Cheers

WWW

[robin]

Wow - 150 jets!!

So how many gliders, microlights and other light aircraft are there in the Coventry area who will have a large area of airspace blocked?

We had this problem years ago when the F111s were operating from Upper Heyford. A massive area reserved for a miniscule number of movements. At the time we joked about the fact that these aircraft were destined to blast through the Russian anti-aircraft defences, but they had to keep our Swallows and Ka8s out of their way.

[BEagle]

Sorry, WWW, but you have yet to raise a single cogent reason to justify Coventry's attempted airspace grab. There is sufficient capacity at other airports to support the very few 737s which currently fly from Coventry.

Incidentally, I never fly on locos. All my flights these days are with LH from Birmingham in business class - most certainly not with baConair Well, I did use to fly on the excellent Buzz some years ago before it folded, but I'll never fly with the scratchcard mob.

[Fuji Abound]

If the Locos get cheap landing fees and pay cheap salaries to the air crew surely they can afford the extra gallon or two for the occasional bit of GA avoidance or an extra hold :confused:

[Roffa]

Why would I talk to a controller if shooting practice approaches in VMC at an untowered field? It's class E, no requirement to talk to anybody, or even have a radio. All I need is a safety pilot to keep the flight safe and legal, and see and avoid.

FAR AIM 4-3-21 Practice Instrument Approaches (http://www.faa.gov/ATPubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-21) is the reference I'm browsing through.

Surprised you don't have an opinion on the mode S, as earlier you said the US can do things because of Mode C veils. One would expect the same principles to apply in the UK, but that's probably the mistake I am making all along.

I've not checked back but I don't think I said the US can do things because they have Mode C veils, I think the point I was trying to make back then was that we are currently less restrictive here by not insisting on mandatory Mode C carraige near our busiest airports.

I'm a PPL as well as an atco. I think altitude reporting transponders are a good thing near busy CAS, the safety benefits are undeniable. Whether they need to be A/C or S possibly boils down to how many of them are going to be up and about at the same time. I believe there are technical reasons that make Mode S better if there are going to be a lot of transponders up and on at the same time. So if the regulator wants to mandate transponder carraige it's probably not surprising they've chosen S over A/C.

And I like controllers :)

Top bloke ;)

[IO540]

I think altitude reporting transponders are a good thing near busy CAS, the safety benefits are undeniable. Whether they need to be A/C or S possibly boils down to how many of them are going to be up and about at the same time. I believe there are technical reasons that make Mode S better if there are going to be a lot of transponders up and on at the same time. So if the regulator wants to mandate transponder carraige it's probably not surprising they've chosen S over A/C.

I think the above is exactly right.

I think a big mistake over here was to not make Mode C mandatory near busy places years ago, US-style. That would have defused a lot of the current issue and may have avoided Mode S altogether.

However, Mode S is a pan-European thing so perhaps debating the UK scene is a bit pointless. It all comes down to how many axes were being ground under what table in what Brussels committee.

[slim_slag]

Porco, I guess you are referring to 4.3.21 (c). All I can say is that the AIM is advisory, and the advice given in that paragraph is routinely ignored. The FARs. which are regulatory, require no contact with ATC when manouvering in class E. No doubt if there was an accident and one had ignored the advice given in the AIM, then one might have difficulties :)

[A and C]

All I was asking for was for GA pilots to talk to the approach controler if flying near to the approach path of regonal airports and pointing out that this would avoid disruption to the CAT sector and reduce the pressure for more CAS.

In the case I quoted if the "unknown traffic" had talked to the ATC unit and had his mode C readout checked there would have been no conflict (his altitude might have been capped for a few miles) but I don't think that this would have been too much trouble to him, if the aircraft had not had a transponder I would have assumed that on such a nice afternoon it was a non-radio aircraft and I would have not started this thread.

I don't want to see an airspace grab by the bean counters and the post was inteded to highlight the fact that if GA won't cooperate with CAT then this will just give the bean counters more ammunition to fight for more CAS.

The understanding of the way that GA pilots opperate is deminishing in CAT as most of the new airline pilots HAVE NEVER held a PPL and have only flown small aircraft under strict supervision of the training schools and so have a very blinkerd veiw of light aviation.

So the attitude of MOST of the newer airline pilots is that they want to be kept away from light aircraft simply because the don't understand GA or the way it opperates.

The situation will only get worse as the requirments to get an (F)ATPL go from 250 hours flying time to something around 80 hours with the rest being done on a simulator.

[ShyTorque]

"In the case I quoted if the "unknown traffic" had talked to the ATC unit and had his mode C readout checked there would have been no conflict (his altitude might have been capped for a few miles)"

I agree, A&C. However, one thing that must be borne in mind: In your example, had the pilot chosen to speak to ATC, he was in Class G so ATC could only have REQUESTED that he cap his altitude. The problem comes from controllers thinking they are entitled to control aircraft operating in Class G. They can't. Once a pilot has been inconvenienced a few times (not that capping an altitude normally is, unless the pilot is wanting to climb to MSA due to decreasing weather conditions) he begins to think that the next time he won't bother contacting ATC.

If a controller or CAT pilot is unhappy in those circumstances, the CAT must be vectored or held high. This is a commercial consideration and not normally a safety issue.

However, GA is generally the easy option - the pilots don't have much clout for comeback if they are routinely inconvenienced or put to greater expense by delays caused to them to please shareholders of an airline. An airline has the ability to increase prices. A GA operator / private operator often has not.

[slim_slag]

There was an interesting post recently from a PPL who took his first trip to a reasonably busy UK airport. He planned it carefully, phoned up for an arrival time, agreed to pay the various charges asked of him, and was given a 'slot'. The GA pilot appeared to arrive in good time, was told to hold by ATC, then vectored to final approach and cleared to land. At less than 2 mile final he was sent around because a commercial jet who was number two to land was coming up behind.

This pilot though ATC were great, so I sort of questioned him, but he still thought ATC were great so I thought he had a good time so why introduce doubts. Me, I'd have been cursing them as I followed all their instruction to the letter, had agreed to pay the money requested by them for their professional services, and yet at a very late stage had been assigned a lower priority than a commercial jet behind me (and which didn't have right of way in the technical sense). Instead of being gushing with praise for ATC, I'd have wanted to send them an invoice for the extra cost I was paying on the Hobbs.

[A and C]

Being the owner of four light aircraft and flying for an airline I do see this issue from both sides and have no problem with accomodating light aircraft traffic, but in this case a quick word with ATC would have saved the airlines some money and had very little if any effect on the flight of the light aircraft.

In short the a quick word from this guy could have saved the needless extra flying time by two airliners, inccidents like this only encourage the bean counters to ask for more CAS if there is a good and valid reason for airliners giving way to GA then I have no problem with this.

This thread was started becaue I don't want any more CAS and to encourage GA pilots to cooperate with ATC, this will undermine the requests from the beancounters for more CAS, the bottom line is we must use class G airspace wisely or it will be taken from us.

[Roffa]

I agree, A&C. However, one thing that must be borne in mind: In your example, had the pilot chosen to speak to ATC, he was in Class G so ATC could only have REQUESTED that he cap his altitude. The problem comes from controllers thinking they are entitled to control aircraft operating in Class G. They can't. Once a pilot has been inconvenienced a few times (not that capping an altitude normally is, unless the pilot is wanting to climb to MSA due to decreasing weather conditions) he begins to think that the next time he won't bother contacting ATC.


Here's what the MATS Pt 1 says on the subject, the interesting bit about "control" is towards the end...

Approach Control Service Outside Controlled Airspace

1.4.1 An air traffic control unit at an aerodrome outside controlled airspace (Class F and G airspace) shall provide approach control services to aircraft, as determined by the aerodrome operator and approved by the CAA, from the time and place at which:

a) arriving aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until control is transferred to aerodrome control;

b) departing aircraft are taken over from aerodrome control until they no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner;

c) 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.

1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise.

Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly.

[flower]

It is ultimately down to education. In the days when we had a bit more flexibility over MORS a chat over the phone usually sorted out any issues and most VFR PPLs were horrified to think that they may have in anyway caused any problems.
The time the average student gets in the classroom to fully understand the implications of flying close to an IAP outside CAS without speaking to ATC or keeping a reasonable distance is extremely limited. I have advocated before a ground school for the PPL where ATC also get involved, with no subject taboo. Ultimately of course though money dictates everything these days.
Prior to my enforced absence from work i ran regular trips around my ATC unit and trips to D&D, when I am back in harness I will do them again. Once most have seen a busy Radar display they don't forget it and hopefully also this barrier which some create in their mind between ATC and Private flyers disappears.

[Roffa]

There was an interesting post recently from a PPL who took his first trip to a reasonably busy UK airport. He planned it carefully, phoned up for an arrival time, agreed to pay the various charges asked of him, and was given a 'slot'. The GA pilot appeared to arrive in good time, was told to hold by ATC, then vectored to final approach and cleared to land. At less than 2 mile final he was sent around because a commercial jet who was number two to land was coming up behind.
This pilot though ATC were great, so I sort of questioned him, but he still thought ATC were great so I thought he had a good time so why introduce doubts. Me, I'd have been cursing them as I followed all their instruction to the letter, had agreed to pay the money requested by them for their professional services, and yet at a very late stage had been assigned a lower priority than a commercial jet behind me (and which didn't have right of way in the technical sense). Instead of being gushing with praise for ATC, I'd have wanted to send them an invoice for the extra cost I was paying on the Hobbs.

I would put that in the "ATC stuffed up" category by possibly misjudging the gap required behind the PPL and they took the easiest and safest option to sort it out.

We're human and we stuff up now and again, pilots are human and they stuff up now and again. Do we bill the PPLs for the extra fuel used by 747s and the like when we're vectoring them around CAS infringers as I was doing (not for the first time) a couple of days ago?

Rather I'd hope that the "guilty" party, on whichever side, learns from the experience and doesn't repeat it.

[rustle]

According to the latest General Aviation magazine, AOPA UK are asking anyone who is refused access to class D to let them know by email at [email protected]

Based on this thread, that email address must be full to bursting by now ;)

[Fuji Abound]

"This thread was started becaue I don't want any more CAS and to encourage GA pilots to cooperate with ATC"

Without wishing to be pedantic (because you may well not have meant it in precisely the way stated) this and slims post hits the nail on the head.

You say "encourage GA pilots to co-operate". We should be saying encourage GA and ATCOs to co-operate with each other.

How many times have you received when requesting a zone transit "remain outside of controlled airspace, I will come back to you". How many times have you had to remind them to "come back" and how long has it taken. As I posted before, it is a quick an as easy to say "you can expect a transit within 5 minutes".

As Slim said GA is increasingly treated as a second class citizen. It is not too surprising when GA decides if reasonable courtesy cannot be extened to their request why should they bother. They will remain outside the zone and route around as close as they can. Moreover having been left in limbo so many times is GA is also not surprisingly going to be less receptive to either the commercial guys or ATCO then being very quick to want them to alter their track. Maybe having maintained a radio watch the response should be "I will remain outside controlled airspace, I will come back to you when I am good and ready"

[ShyTorque]

"1.4.2 Aircraft within an aerodrome traffic zone are required to comply with instructions from the air traffic control unit. Flight in Class F and G airspace outside the zone is permitted without an air traffic control clearance. However, controllers may assume that pilots of aircraft flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome in RTF contact with the air traffic control unit are complying with instructions unless they state otherwise.

Controllers are to provide an air traffic control service accordingly."

Porco Rosso, two points on that quote. The pilot in Class G is under no legal obligation to make RTF contact with an adjacent ATC agency (this is what the original point was all about). If he does opt to make contact, it is up to him to request a service and he retains the option to refuse a service or instruction. No pilot with an ounce of common sense would refuse an ATC instruction if safety were the issue. Unfortunately, it appears that GA is increasingly disadvantaged by delays / holding / re-routing for purely commercial considerations of airlines.

ATC unit cannot impose a service outside controlled airspace and should not expect to do so. It is up to the pilot to request a service and for he and ATC to come to an agreement about the type of service provided.

Rustle,

Not every pilot gets a copy of that publication - we don't.

[slim_slag]

I quite agree Porco, we all make mistakes, and nothing wrong with that per se. I guess the point I was making was the controllers stuffed up, and they punished the GA pilot and not the commercial operation. What should have happened is the jet should have been sent around, the jet jockey would throw his toys out the the pram, and the controllers advised of a mistake in a no blame manner. So next time a light aircraft turns up having agreed to pay the charges for a professional service, the controllers get it a bit better. If they get away with it, there is no incentive to change. But I still like controllers :)

Regarding the airline coming after the PPL who busts airspace so costs them money, I suppose when I think about it simplistically and I hate to say it but it's not actually too unreasonable. But then I consider that the small planes were here before the large planes, and the airlines have annexed large amounts of airspace, more than they appear to require IMHO, so I consider it's just a cost to them of doing business in my airspace. Also, they don't compensate me adequately when they mess me around as a passenger - So they can take a hike.

[pulse1]

"encourage GA pilots to cooperate with ATC"

From my experience mainly in the south, the quality of FIS you tend to get from ATC's who have controlled traffic in Class G is so good that I want to use them. My main example is Bristol who I use regularly and it is usually such a pleasure and so useful, that I would not consider not talking to them.

[dublinpilot]

I think this is all about reasonable priority.

As stated above, the paragraph that Flower referred me to, seems to give priority to aircraft on a flight plan following a normal routing. It does not give priority to Commercial, Heavy, IFR etc traffic. At least not as far as I see. I could be wrong.....this is new to me.

As someone who routinely flys with a flight plan (almost all of my flights have a flight plan), it would seem that I should be given equal priority to the commercial traffic. This isn't what happens in practise.

What if every GA flight, filed a flight plan, and followed "normal routings", would we all be treated as equals? Unlikely, or that is what everyone would be doing now.

I think the problem is two fold.

1. Many PPL's have never routinely operated from a controlled field, and are a little frightened of ATC. They plan their flights to remain in Class G, so that they don't have to talk to "big professional ATC", but are happy to call the radio at a local grass strip. This needs to be better covered by the PPL training, and also the PPL's themselves need work on their post skills test experience.

2. ATC providing instructions outside controlled airspace, that prioritises CAT over GA, and refusing transits (or delaying so much that it amounts to a refusal). Most GA pilots would be happy to accept a request to turn a little bit, or climb/descent a little to accommodate someone else. Being told to orbit while someone else goes through (in class G) is a little much, and likely to result in the pilot (not unreasonably) not calling next time.

More freely available RIS would defiantly encourage pilots to call (and hand overs). However I understand this is a manpower issue, and not necessarily in the power of the ATCer to solve.

dp

[Roffa]

I quite agree Porco, we all make mistakes, and nothing wrong with that per se. I guess the point I was making was the controllers stuffed up, and they punished the GA pilot and not the commercial operation. What should have happened is the jet should have been sent around, the jet jockey would throw his toys out the the pram, and the controllers advised of a mistake in a no blame manner. So next time a light aircraft turns up having agreed to pay the charges for a professional service, the controllers get it a bit better. If they get away with it, there is no incentive to change. But I still like controllers :)

When we have traffic going down the ILS at minimum spacing and someone doesn't follow the speed instruction and the spacing erodes, it's usually the innocent party behind that gets broken off and re-positioned. Or as you might like to say, punished.

But we don't look at it that way, we're just after the safest solution to the problem and that is usually to break off the one behind. I'm sure the atco in the scenario you describe thought they were dealing with the problem in the safest way for all as well. Introducing language talking about punishing people doesn't do anything but possibly unnecessarily inflame any debate.

I think ultimately we'll probably just have to agree to disagree :)

[Roffa]

Porco Rosso, two points on that quote. The pilot in Class G is under no legal obligation to make RTF contact with an adjacent ATC agency (this is what the original point was all about). If he does opt to make contact, it is up to him to request a service and he retains the option to refuse a service or instruction. No pilot with an ounce of common sense would refuse an ATC instruction if safety were the issue. Unfortunately, it appears that GA is increasingly disadvantaged by delays / holding / re-routing for purely commercial considerations of airlines.

I wouldn't necessarily consider it purely commercial considerations.

Is the safest option a minor re-route or maybe an orbit for a one ton aircraft at 90 knots or a two hundred ton aircraft at 250 knots?

The latter covers an awful lot of countryside.

Someone has to make the decision, whichever way the atco goes the other side will think they were disadvantaged so it's a lose/lose situation for ATC.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

I wish I'd read this earlier.

I agree with Beagle, who as always, has a common sense view. He should get an OBE. Needs to drag himself out of the 50s though.....

Commercial outfits do not have priority over the rest of the airspace users in Class G airspace. We are all here to fit in and exist together. And ATC units do not have the right to 'control' anything outside their airspace, despite what some of them might think. Southend, Manston to name a few in the SE.... If they want to protect their 1 movement a day ILS trafiic, get a Control Zone. I do however, advocate radio contact to tell them you are there if you are radio equipped (And I'll defend my right to remain non-radio if I choose in Class G)

If operators can't, or won't pay to use airports inside CAS, then their pilot's need to look out of the window for that uncontrolled GA traffic that has a perfect right to be there. I wonder how many pilots advocating overcontrolling were once humble GA pilots before they got their first job in the LHS?

If it's Class G, it's see and avoid, end of subject and I'll fight to keep it that way for as long as I work in a position where I can..

[Chilli Monster]

At less than 2 mile final he was sent around because a commercial jet who was number two to land was coming up behind.
This pilot though ATC were great, so I sort of questioned him, but he still thought ATC were great so I thought he had a good time so why introduce doubts. Me, I'd have been cursing them as I followed all their instruction to the letter,

Can I point you to another possibility?

PPL was told "Keep it tight" and was passed the distance and type of the inbound. PPL then proceeds to fly normal circuit, normal speed with heavy boy tearing up behind?

I'm not saying that's what happened - but it does happen that way. This Flying / ATC relationship is a two way street. If you can't accept something a little out of the ordinary then tell me and I'll formulate another plan. On the same basis if I've got a first or early solo in the circuit and it looks like a dead ringer from early on I'll ask the radar person for a couple of extra miles to make sure it works.

Slim - come and watch some day at a busy, combined GA and Commercial unit. I guarantee you'll leave with a slightly different opinion.

[flower]

Can I point you to another possibility?
PPL was told "Keep it tight" and was passed the distance and type of the inbound. PPL then proceeds to fly normal circuit, normal speed with heavy boy tearing up behind?

Slim - come and watch some day at a busy, combined GA and Commercial unit. I guarantee you'll leave with a slightly different opinion.


The first point, goodness how many times has that happened, far more times than I care to remember.

And again I concur , all those criticising visit a unit and see just what goes on.

[ShyTorque]

I wouldn't necessarily consider it purely commercial considerations.

Is the safest option a minor re-route or maybe an orbit for a one ton aircraft at 90 knots or a two hundred ton aircraft at 250 knots?

The latter covers an awful lot of countryside.

Someone has to make the decision, whichever way the atco goes the other side will think they were disadvantaged so it's a lose/lose situation for ATC.

You're missing the point. In Class G it isn't a decision for an ATCO to make.

In any event, I don't consider a 90 degree track change or a course reversal in class G to be a minor re-route. This has happened to me on a number of occasions, even when I have been in sight of the other traffic and quite happy to make my own separation on a see and be seen basis, as I am entitled and required to do. I also carry passengers who are on a tight schedule, btw; I'm not flying GA for pleasure. Often the man who signs my pay cheque is actually sitting in the aircraft :p

[Roffa]

You're missing the point. In Class G it isn't a decision for an ATCO to make.

It is, up to the point the pilot of whichever aircraft is asked to do something declines the request.

From the section in the AIP dealing with airspace classification, specifically with Class G;



Note 1: Where Air Traffic Control Units provide ATS to traffic outside Controlled Airspace, separation may be provided between known flights.




Note 2: Aircraft receiving services from Air Traffic Control Units are expected to comply with clearances and instructions unless the pilot advises otherwise.

[Fuji Abound]

"Slim - come and watch some day at a busy, combined GA and Commercial unit. I guarantee you'll leave with a slightly different opinion."

I have, but it didnt change my perception.

On the whole I think ATCO do a terrific job - BUT the perception remains their priority is commercial trafic.

It seems to me absolutely clear from this thread most GA pilots would struggle to find a single occasion when AT is really trying to accomodate their needs. Zone transits are given only if it provides NO interference with commercial users, RIS outside CAS is only given if the workload is low, overhead transits at the larger airports are never given, and zone transits are only approved after the envitable "remain outside of controlled airspace, I will call you". Please someone tell me this is not their experience.

I have asked Gatwick on a number of occasions for a zone transit via their overhead - it has never been granted - why?

[WorkingHard]

Let me start by saying I have the greatest faith and trust in UK controllers. How many will (honestly please) put the consideration of CAT before GA in most circumstances?

[rustle]

Flying into a FISO airfield, and we're the only ones inbound, nothing in the circuit.

We'd like a straight in approach as we're coming from the west and rwy in use is 07.

We advise we'd like a straight in approach and FISO advises us that an aircraft needs to depart as he has a slot to meet so can we join deadside and circuit... (For completeness, he hasn't yet taxied onto the runway ;))

Do I ignore the FISO and land anyway, or do I join deadside and circuit to land? Both options are legal.

[WorkingHard]

Rustle - is it not the case that traffic on the ground gives way to landing aircraft?

[Roffa]

I have asked Gatwick on a number of occasions for a zone transit via their overhead - it has never been granted - why?

Up until a couple of years or so ago there was an instruction that prohibited fixed wing transits through the ATZ, but that's not there anymore so no issues there.

The ultimate arbiter for whether or not a transit through the KK overhead is approved or not is the tower controller, not the radar man.

When you call up and, during the pass your message bit, say you want to transit via the overhead it's almost inevitable that you'll be told initially to "remain outside CAS" as the radar man is not allowed to approve your request without getting on the phone to the tower controller.

Radar man may have no issues with your request but if tower say no for their own reasons then unfortunately no is the answer.

Assuming tower man says yes there are at least two further phone calls to be made by radar man. One to the tower supervisor to have your details for the crossing put in to the EFPS system in the tower and then as you get closer to the airfield another call to the tower controller to identify you to him on the ATM (mini radar) in the tower.

I guess if it's busy and workload is an issue then the radar man may decline due to the additional workload imposed.

Anyway, I've had a fair degree of success going through the KK overhead, so keep trying :)

[Chilli Monster]

I have, but it didnt change my perception.
Be interesting to know where.
On the whole I think ATCO do a terrific job - BUT the perception remains their priority is commercial trafic.
Airport employs ATCO's, airlines pay airport, airport pays wages. If you don't provide the airlines with what they want they go elsewhere.
It seems to me absolutely clear from this thread most GA pilots would struggle to find a single occasion when AT is really trying to accomodate their needs.
That's total b*ll*cks and I prove that every day I go to work.
Zone transits are given only if it provides NO interference with commercial users,
Not true - transits can, and are given with equal priority being given to both aircraft.
RIS outside CAS is only given if the workload is low,
That's called prioritising - the first priority is often to the sequence you've got on the approach. Are you trying to tell me you would, in whatever your job is, walk away from the main priority in order to deal with something that isn't as pressing? If you do I suggest you wouldn't last long in your employment.
overhead transits at the larger airports are never given,
Again, total rot - the safest place for a transit is often straight through the overhead, and where I work they get approved more often than not.
zone transits are only approved after the envitable "remain outside of controlled airspace, I will call you".
What's wrong with that? The transit hasn't been refused, you're just being told to wait for your clearance. It's become necessary because of the number of people who train in the US, who think that US rules apply, insofar that once you've established two way comms with an ATC unit you can transit with no formal clearance.

If this thread has shown anything it has proved that the vast majority of PPL's who scream and bellow about how unfairly they are treated by ATC have no conception about many of the factors that affect just how traffic is handled in the terminal environment.

I'm sorry if someone's been held in the circuit. It's not my fault that Brussels has just changed the slot on a departure and I've got to get them away in the next 90 seconds otherwise they wait another hour and a half.

I'm sorry if you get held at the holding point because you want to save on taxying, but I can't get you away because you need 3 minutes separation from the previous departure and the queue at the hold who I can shoot off 1 or 2 minutes apart isn't going to allow that.

I'm sorry you can't get a RIS because the military have gone home for the weekend, and you want a RIS on a CAVOK day when every man and his dog wants to call at the same time as Joe Public want to go on their summer hols, or come back from them.

Get the picture?

[rustle]

Rustle - is it not the case that traffic on the ground gives way to landing aircraft?

Indeed, but he's got a slot to meet, and we're still outside the ATZ (but within 10nm ;))

[tmmorris]

Rustle, surely that's got nothing to do with airmanship, it's called manners? You'd be quite entitled to make that straight-in, but good manners require you to imagine yourself in his position; he has a slot to make, you will lose him his slot if you make the straight-in, and all you have to lose is another 5 minutes in the air (longer if you have to make a big circuit, depending on local procedures).

Tim

[ShyTorque]

Oh my gosh - we are really getting into the small print now! "Note 2: Aircraft receiving services from Air Traffic Control Units are expected to comply with clearances and instructions unless the pilot advises otherwise."

In Class G its a see and be seen environment. A larger aircraft does NOT have right of way whilst positioning outside controlled airspace, except in accordance with the rules of the air - whatever the aircraft size, weight, POB or name painted on the hull.

If I'm requesting a Flight Information Service, that is all I'm asking for, not to be given radar headings to give preference to a "home based" aircraft as if I'm under radar control inside Class A, especially to "avoid" an aircraft I've already seen and said I am well clear of.

A controller giving a FIS is only expected to pass traffic information to the pilot requesting the service, not to "take control" of it. Even under Radar Information, a controller shouldn't try to mandate one particular aircraft to give way to another. It's up to the pilot to take what action, if any, he thinks necessary under the rules of the air and common sense. Radar advisory can be offered or requested, in which case, the pilot should expect headings etc - that's what he is agreeing to. Everything else is by negotiation, hopefully to the mutual benefit and safety of all.

Most ATC personnel at the major airports certainly operate in this manner - but a few at some minor airfields don't. As well as the pilot who doesn't keep clear of CAS or make a radio call when prudent, it's this minority in ATC who make a rod for their own back, which impacts on everyone eventually.

BTW, I'm playing Devil's advocate here - I always do EXACTLY what a controller requests, as politely, accurately and as promptly as possible - even when it inconveniences me in Class G. Sometimes, by listening out, looking out, watching TCAS and building a big picture before I make my request, I have already done what I can to make his, or her, life as easy as possible. ;)

Never call 'em "Sir" though. :E

[rustle]

Rustle, surely that's got nothing to do with airmanship, it's called manners?

Tim

Actually it has everything to do with airmanship I'd have thought, which is why we did the deadside join :)

[Chilli Monster]

Do I ignore the FISO and land anyway, or do I join deadside and circuit to land? Both options are legal.
Ah - but do you want to risk him still being on the ground the same time as you (because he's missed his slot) and he's bigger than you, with a volatile temper ;)

[flower]

We were recently given an instruction that on hearing the request for a zone transit that we were to use without exception the phrase "remain outside CAS". Why ? because so many out there seem to believe once they have requested the zone transit from ATC and are in communication that they may just transit the zone.
Porco Rosso has already explained the lengthy process which can take place at many ATC units prior to a clearance being given.
As for CAT having priority over other flights well yes MATS part 1 again tells us that they do, Dublin Pilot I take it you were filing VFR flight plans not flying airways and thus not going normal routes? if so then you come below normal flights in the priority stakes.
As we say time and time again it is a lot simpler and safer to ask a PA28 to orbit than a B747.

IF you use a unit operating a LARS service they have a dedicated controller juts for you working their socks off trying to give you a good service, if you call up a unit without LARS then there can be a very good chance you will have a very minimum service because of workload issues but you can bet they will do everything they can subject workload to help you out.
WE have limited staffing, LARS is so inadequately funded that it is a wonder any Airport offers a LARS service at all, and so we prioritise. I am sorry if you think you are the poor relation but as with everything in life you get what you pay for, the Airlines pay us, the average PPL does not.

[slim_slag]

Porco,

Suspect we would agree on most things actually.

chilli,

What makes you think I haven't? Have spent quite some time sitting by controllers at Class D, Class B and area facilities, and arranging trips for students at all levels to do the same. Learn a lot myself too. I think controllers are far better trained than 95% of civilian pilots and more 'professional' to boot. I also realise you have a rule book. I have a lot of time for controllers, but that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. Some are obviously incompetent and have bad attitudes, but I've seen them weeded out quite early, which is encouraging. Still some around though.

But don't want to butter up the controllers too much though, an occasional whine is needed to keep you lot on your toes, need to keep the hired help in their place :)

So yes, I reported the 'go around' story second hand, I don't know what really happened, but no pilot has come along and said 's_s, you are off your head'. It actually seems like other pilots have come along and told stories which makes it easy to believe.

Rustle, I think I'd just hang around and wait for him to depart, there is a social side to flying as well as all the legal nonsense. He probably wouldn't do the same for you but then nothing wrong with doing a good turn and that feeling of morally superiority you would get over the commercial rabble is a good one :) You can afford to keep that shiny JAA IR so don't tell me you cannot afford another 5 mins flying time, lol.

[Final 3 Greens]

Rustle, I think I'd just hang around and wait for him to depart, there is a social side to flying as well as all the legal nonsense. He probably wouldn't do the same for you

When I was my first solo, a BAC1-11 arrived in the circuit and insisted on extending downwind so that I wasn't under pressure.

There are some gentlemen out there.

Equally, a few years later, I went around to "let in" a turboprop on royal mail duties, since I knew how much time pressure they were under.

Cost me the price of a pint or two and bought me a lot of goodwill.

In general, reasonableness is a good thing.

[Roffa]

Never call 'em "Sir" though. :E

A wise move, it might upset the ladies :)

[ShyTorque]

A wise move, it might upset the ladies :)

Yer right, they're all a bunch of ladies :p

You know what I meant :ok:

[Fuji Abound]

Chilli

Be interesting to know where.

Solent and Gatwick


Airport employs ATCO's, airlines pay airport, airport pays wages. If you don't provide the airlines with what they want they go elsewhere.


Yes, but the more this attitude prevails, the more resistant GA will become to more airspace grab, the more inclinded GA will be to routing around the zone without talking to anyone, and utlimately the more problems will arise as set out at the start of this thread. That is why a working partenership must be established.


That's total b*ll*cks and I prove that every day I go to work.

You are quite correct. On the whole, within the constraints they impose, the service is very good. In fact I have very few complaints BUT I worry the perception is changing.


Not true - transits can, and are given with equal priority being given to both aircraft.

That may be your experience at places like Bristol / Filton. Ask for a transit through occasional inbound traffic at Stansted or Luton and you will find the experience somewhat different. The problem areas are not th elikes of Bristol / Filton, but natural restriction points that seriosuly hinder the flow of traffic such as Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, Heathrow and to a lesser extent Southampton.


That's called prioritising - the first priority is often to the sequence you've got on the approach. Are you trying to tell me you would, in whatever your job is, walk away from the main priority in order to deal with something that isn't as pressing? If you do I suggest you wouldn't last long in your employment.

True. In fact I cannot recall the last time I have been refused a RIS around Gatwick for example. However I can recall a very recent refusal from Stansted in bad weather - despite gentle persuasion they were not in the slightest bit interest and not busy.

In short if you have not got enough staff to provide the service because your commercial workload has increased get some more staff. Your priority is to provide a consistant service to GA and commercial traffic. Strangely that means being able to cope with the rise and fall in demand.

Of course you have the advantage of pretty much knowing the times of your peak demand as well.

Again, total rot - the safest place for a transit is often straight through the overhead, and where I work they get approved more often than not.

Agreed




What's wrong with that? The transit hasn't been refused, you're just being told to wait for your clearance. It's become necessary because of the number of people who train in the US, who think that US rules apply, insofar that once you've established two way comms with an ATC unit you can transit with no formal clearance.


How long do your orbit? How long do you wait? I have little interest in waiting for as long as it would take me to route around the zone. Guess what I am going to do if the wait is too long? Strangely, I am not thrilled about doing five orbits while you have a cup of tea and I am literally hanging in suspense.




I'm sorry if someone's been held in the circuit. It's not my fault that Brussels has just changed the slot on a departure and I've got to get them away in the next 90 seconds otherwise they wait another hour and a half.

Not my fault either. I suspect if Brussels has screwed up down the line delays should be expected further on. It is sort of like saying if you get stuck in traffic congestion in London when you get to Bristol you get to barge everyone else out the way.

[Chilli Monster]

Solent and Gatwick
I said a busy combined Commercial & GA airport - did I not?
the more this attitude prevails, the more resistant GA will become to more airspace grab, the more inclinded GA will be to routing around the zone without talking to anyone, and utlimately the more problems will arise as set out at the start of this thread. That is why a working partenership must be established.
I quite agree - I think that what you've covered in this statement actually helps the scenario.

Beags said earlier on that he's always used the following rule of thumb - if you're within 10 miles of a class 'G' airport with an IAP they get called. Now, if you call you're helping out the ATC service by telling them you're there. If it's done properly, and the relationship works, then the whole need for a small Commercial airport operation (like Coventry) rapidly dissipates. Therefore - no airspace grab. Obviously if you start getting "Controlled" too much then GA is going to bite back - and for good reason. It's up to the ATC provider themselves to teach from within that it is Class 'G'. it's not CAS, and they have to co-operate. That's what we need to happen. If the airlines don't like that then I'll say it again - go somewhere that CAS is already established.
In short if you have not got enough staff to provide the service because your commercial workload has increased get some more staff. Your priority is to provide a consistant service to GA and commercial traffic.
Actually the priority is to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of Air Traffic. If that means occasionally denying access to CAS or delaying access then so be it.

I love the fact that most PPL's, with no training, are all experts at my chosen career. You did your ATC course - where?
How long do your orbit? How long do you wait?
Call early enough and you probably won't have to do either. Call a mile from the zone boundary and that's your own fault.
Strangely, I am not thrilled about doing five orbits while you have a cup of tea and I am literally hanging in suspense.
That is rather insulting, and has no place in rational debate - mainly because it's a complete untruth.
Not my fault either. I suspect if Brussels has screwed up down the line delays should be expected further on.
Like I said - total incomprehension of the system and how it works. That "slot" is normally because the other end has delays (weather, serviceabilities etc etc). To fit in the flow that aircraft has to arrive at destination at a certain time - therefore it has to leave at a certain time. On that basis I have a finite window to depart them, and if it means you pitch up at the wrong moment you get the slight inconvenience. Sorry, but that's how the game is played.

Real world scenario. Greek airport, popular holiday destination, has a major equipment outage. Arrivals restricted to 5 per hour. That affects every departure for there throughout Europe, some departing from us. Believe me - that departure window cannot be broken (And I'm not going to be in the office explaining why I have).

[rustle]

Rustle, I think I'd just hang around and wait for him to depart, there is a social side to flying as well as all the legal nonsense. He probably wouldn't do the same for you

When I was my first solo, a BAC1-11 arrived in the circuit and insisted on extending downwind so that I wasn't under pressure.

There are some gentlemen out there.

Equally, a few years later, I went around to "let in" a turboprop on royal mail duties, since I knew how much time pressure they were under.

Cost me the price of a pint or two and bought me a lot of goodwill.

In general, reasonableness is a good thing.

In general, reasonableness is a good thing.

Good point.

Isn't that where this thread started? ;)

[Toadpool]

IF you use a unit operating a LARS service they have a dedicated controller just for you working their socks off trying to give you a good service
Sorry, but we don't. Just 1 ATCO trying to juggle ins,outs(IFR & VFR),zone transits, co-ordination with several adjacent mil and civ airfields and area units,etc as well as LARS. As Chilli says we prioritise.;)

[Fuji Abound]

Chilli

"I said a busy combined Commercial & GA airport - did I not?"

Sorry, you are correct, although I suppose solent does support one GA airport and one that use to be (and still does a bit of GA).

"Actually the priority is to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of Air Traffic. If that means occasionally denying access to CAS or delaying access then so be it."

I was being provactive. However, you use the word expeditious and air traffic, without limitation which leaves you close to my point. The service is not limited to meeting these priorities for commercial traffic or GA traffic BUT for ALL air traffic.

"I love the fact that most PPL's, with no training, are all experts at my chosen career. You did your ATC course - where?"

That is always a dangerous one. Whilst I am certainly not an expert, I am a recipient of your service. From my stand point I am no more interested in what it takes for you to provide your service than how a doctor arrives at his diagnosis. I simply require that the doctor makes me better, as I would hope you would provide me with safe, orderly and expeditious flow . If I wanted to understand how the doctor makes me better I may as well be the doctor and not bother with his services in the first place. That is why you are an expert and I would hope do you best to provide me with the serivce I require.


"Call early enough and you probably won't have to do either. Call a mile from the zone boundary and that's your own fault."

Sorry, but you are wrong. I have been transiting CAS for a very long time. I reckon I know when and how to make the call.


"That is rather insulting, and has no place in rational debate - mainly because it's a complete untruth."

True - forgive me for being provocative agian.



"Like I said - total incomprehension of the system and how it works. That "slot" is normally because the other end has delays (weather, serviceabilities etc etc). To fit in the flow that aircraft has to arrive at destination at a certain time - therefore it has to leave at a certain time. On that basis I have a finite window to depart them, and if it means you pitch up at the wrong moment you get the slight inconvenience. Sorry, but that's how the game is played.

Real world scenario. Greek airport, popular holiday destination, has a major equipment outage. Arrivals restricted to 5 per hour. That affects every departure for there throughout Europe, some departing from us. Believe me - that departure window cannot be broken (And I'm not going to be in the office explaining why I have)."

.. .. .. but that is the point. You actually manage the commercial pressures very well and it is not usually in my experience a significant problem. However as CAS grows, as commercial pressures grow, as the sytem causes more and more delays the occasions where GA lose any priority become more frequent (because you are not going to be in the office explaining why), GA gets frustrated and the problems identified on this thread arise. Is it your fault - probably not. However the regulator obviously felt there was a problem by asking GA to report CAS transit denials. The original poster obvioulsy felt there was a problem becasue he felt GA had no place under his localiser. I feel it is a problem becasue I get my call in, in plenty of time and are all to often left wondering whether I will get the clearance and when.

I suppose it is a bit like the NHS. See the patient in 5 minutes and you can claim there are no delays. Tell the pilot to remain out side controlled airspace, I will come back - and the transit has not actually been denied, but by the time it has been granted there is a good chance the pilot's b**%£"" of some where else and even better will not bother next time. Trouble is he has become a different problem because he is now under my localiser not talking to me and there is nothing I can do about it but claim more CAS.

[LowNSlow]

Fuji Abound you seem to have been a bit unfortunate with your experiences with Luton. I operate from a little grass strip under the approach to 26 so get to talk to Luton Radar a lot! On very few occasions have I heard Luton Radar turn down a transit request, if they are in one of their extremely busy patches ,or there is a new controller on then there will be the standard phrase "remain outside controlled airspace" but it is usually suffixed with an assurance that they will reply soon.

Personally I think Luton are a great example of how mixed GA / CAT should operate. In their immediate surroundings they have two active glider sites, three microlight fields, three grass strips, an RAF light training base (Henlow), a busy GA field (Panshanger) and a field that hosts regular summer airshows (Old Warden). Couple this with the demands of easyJet, Ryanair, Monarch, Whizz plus others and a host of bizjets and helicopters flying into Luton (oops plus the Police helo) they cope remarkably well and provide a couteous service.

PS Forgot the Luton Flying School operating from tha airport itself.