What do ATCs think of VFR

[uncle ian]

Hello from across the great divide!

I have never visited this bit of pprune as a simple helicopter pilot but I want to know how the wind blows on your side.

Recently I was sharing sight seeing duties along the Thames (H4) with a colleague; me in a twin he in a single. Due [apparent] weight of traffic the single was held at Isle of Dogs for 10 minutes then told there was no prospect of routeing west for the foreseeable future. He was obliged, very reluctantly, to return to base with 4 pax who had probably been waiting for 6 months for one of the greatest experiences of their lives.

At the same time, as a twin, I was permitted to route to Vauxhall Bridge off H4 then fly back Eastbound along H4. There were some rather unprofessional exchanges between the controller myself and my colleague. I pointing out that my colleages disgruntlement was understandable. The controller made the following point which I find totally unacceptable and which I seek your comments upon;

"VFR traffic pays no ATC charges therefore has the lowest priority in controlled airspace".

I would make the following points: 1) we were flying on "special flight numbers" therefore had the lowest priority anyway so what's his point, 2) the only reason for controlled airspace is to prevent IFR traffic from bumping into one another, VFR, by definition, provides its own separation and needs no control hence should never pay for ATC services.

I should point out that we could have been under the control of Thames Radar, Heathrow Special, City Radar or City Tower at the time and I ain't saying which!

Any comments?

Uncle Ian

[Standard Noise]

If the ATCO (or airpace) was busy, it may not have been possible for all of you to transit at that time, it's hard to tell without knowing the full facts. So if you've come on here to ask us to condemn our fellow ATCO, you'll be leaving empty handed my friend.

Your query seemed reasonable up until you admitted to "some rather unprofessional exchanges between the controller, myself and my colleague." This is the point at which I was no longer interested in your question. Since you have admitted to being unprofessional on the R/T, I can only conclude that you don't care for the rules as long as they apply to anyone but you.

P.S. The ATCO in question may have made an error of judgement getting involved in a spat with you on the R/T, but he was right in what he said. We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.:mad:

[London Mil]

Standard Noise, I too listened to your reasonable argument right until I read your last two sentences. You are not paid to differentiate between commercial and 'private' traffic. You are paid to manage the airspace in the most safe and efficient manner; nothing more. Every aircraft has the right to transit airspace as long as the previous criteria can be met. I believe this is called service provision and the principles of access are entombed in a plethora of legal documents including the NATS License. It is attitudes like the one you portray that undermine the credibility of controllers across aviation.

[lobby]

"We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right".
Is that correct, so private pilots are not entitled to a service, even though they may be subject to route charges and contribute to airfield movements at NATS airfields thus helping pay our wages? So an aircraft wanting to transit class D airspace is not to do so unless they pay. Fair enough if it was too busy to transit class A but you cannot deny non commercial traffic a service surley regardless of airspace classification and based on the fact it is a non commercial movement!:rolleyes:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

The controller was 100% correct. (Between you and me, sight-seeing flights are a menace!)

Seriously.. if you were planning to remain in the City Zone, which is Class D Airspace, then whilst you would have been responsible for your own separation from other VFR flights ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights. This is usually achieved by passing traffic information. ATC instructions to VFR traffic in Class D airspace are mandatory so you're a) not operating all on your lonesome and b) someone is probably working very hard to provide you with a service for which you pay nothing.

Try spending a couple of hours at Thames Radar on a busy day......

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I think some people are getting their knickers in a twist. The flow of traffic in Civil ATC is based, among other things, on priorities. Eg scheduled flights have priority over non-scheduled. Usually ATC pays little heed to these priorities and deals with flights on a first come-first served basis. If they applied the rules to the letter no non-scheduled flight would get near London during the day! If it's busy - for any reason - then ATC is fully within its rights to refuse clearance and the holding of "special flight numbers" means nothing unless the authority states a category. (Incidentally, Special Flights are NOT always the lowest priority. Often they're of a very high priority indeed).

[London Mil]

HD talks about pragmatism and he is entirely correct. This is far removed from SN's original statement. From the Transport Act 2000:

Section 66 allows the Secretary of State to give the CAA duties and powers in connection with air navigation- essentially those functions currently carried out by the Director of Airspace Policy and which are to be transferred to the CAA. Directions will require the CAA among other things to develop and implement a policy for the use of airspace which meets, so far as practicable, the needs of all users; to promote and facilitate the continued operation of an integrated air traffic service provision; to establish a consultative forum inter alia for the reconciliation of civil and military interests in airspace use; and to meet relevant objectives, for example in relation to the environment.

[SensibleATCO]

I should point out that we could have been under the control of Thames Radar, Heathrow Special, City Radar or City Tower at the time and I ain't saying which!

Why not ?
"We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right".

So where does it say that in MATS Part 2 ?
["Between you and me, sight-seeing flights are a menace!"

So is the attitude of some controllers (and EX controllers!)

[Standard Noise]

"so far as is practicable"
And if in this case it was not "practicable" to allow chummy transit due to volume of traffic, then the ATCO made THE RIGHT DECISION!
Blimey, knew we'd get there in the end.

[DFC]

P.S. The ATCO in question may have made an error of judgement getting involved in a spat with you on the R/T, but he was right in what he said. We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.:mad:

To my reading, these were commercial flights. If it turns out otherwise then so be it but the controller will not be aware that the flight was private or commercial or that the pilot was an ATPL, CPL or PPL. Similarly, the controller is uwaware of what the operator has paid to provide the flights in terms of AOC fees etc etc. The CAA collect a large chunk fo fees and in response provide airspace to meet it's customer's requirements. The ATS providers simply are one of many inputs into the airspace decision process and are required to provide services in accordance with MATS 1 which defines the priorities.

The applicable one here I believe is;

NORMAL FLIGHTS- Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.

Did the heli's file a flight plan (abreviated?). Is operating on the heli lanes a normal route?

I agree that operating special VFR is not a right and is given by ATC on the basis of traffic. However, would you prefer people to file IFR and operate within the IFR requirements for below 3000ft clear of cloud in sight of the surface? Imagine what that would do to your flexibility given that the flights would then get slot times from Eurocontrol and you would be required not to delay them further enroute without affecting your declared capacity with the flow people!

Controllers with your attitude make me wonder why I never bill ATC for all those practice PARS, SRAs, QGHs and other assorted exercises over the years. Not to mention the unnecessary delays when you simply forget about us or make a mistake!

Only allow paying customers into airspace is a great idea. Please provide the method you obtain the information that the payment has been made. Many large commercial operators owe Eurocontrol £10000's in user fees.

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

Good afternoon XYX radar GABCD request zone transit, I had corn flakes for breakfast and I am a CPL holder licence number 123456 valid until 12/12/12 class rating valid until 11/11/11, instrument rating valid until 11/11/11 the aircraft C of A is valid until 10/10/10 and this flight is operating on a commercial basis and the CAA have approved the operation with the reference number 1234567890.

GABCD, XYZ radar good afternoon. Remain outside controlled airspace while we validate your information with the CAA. Please have your VISA or MASTER Card number ready. The clearance your requested will cost £......break break BCA123 turn right heading 230 to establish report established. Localiser only approach today costing £123.

:)

--------

To answer the origional question.....not very much....based on my experience of;

Flight from A to B transiting controlled airspace class D (same aircraft and pilot in all cases).

First IFR using callsign like ABC123............best possible service, could not be more helpful.
Second IFR using callsign G-ABCD.............pretty good service.Bit of doubt initially but no problem.
Third, VFR same pilot, same aircraft, same route, same level..............crap service, did not want to know.

Answer - we always file IFR regardless of the weather and the ATC unit looses the flexibility that goes with handling a VFR transit.

Don't file VFR in the UK unless you have to. Which is the opposite of the rest of Europe!

Regards,

DFC

[AlanM]

Before you ask - it wasn't me!! :) BUT - I was working that day and heard the exchanges. (and if you are who I think you are, I spoke to yr ops after it happened as I was passing the desk)

From a purely personal point of view, the number of transits on the river has to be regulated. We have seen 9 or 10 at a time on the river between the IOD and Vauxhall Bridge all flying on the river at the same height and I lose count at the number of times I have to repeat myself because the pilot is not listening - couple that with the IFR traffic in and out of LCY, and it sometimes gets too busy to give the appropriate amount of traffic information. We now get operators with helicopters from Elstree/Biggin/Stapleford/Manston/Southend/Redhill and Booker to name a few. Often they phone up to activate the NSF and declare 8 - 10 trips. They are always told "subject traffic" which is just that. Some airfields send helicopters and fixed wing, some classic aircraft too.

A twin helicopter has the advantage of coming off the river in EGR 160 south of the river (used to be the Specified Area) and at least deconflicting with the IFR outbound (one or more have had a TCAS Descent on departure towards Canary Wharf).

Yes, it is sad that your pax missed out. Maybe there was one of the 2 medevac or 3 police helicopters in the way (or Battersea traffic). We almost always have survey flights in the London area too. We will always try to get you in but you are Cat Z.

So - London Mil, it is not always practicable to have traffic in the airspace when they want to. Every ATCO on the sector has differing ideas on how they handle such traffic, but I can assure you that when able ALL 20 people on the sector do as much as they can.

Uncle Ian, I do not understand why you won't say what sector was working you - I think it was LCY radar but it is irrelevant really. PM me if you want any more information.

[Jets R4 Kids]

IFR does NOT have priority over VFR - our job is to shift the traffic;
Payment does not have - and hopefully never will have - anything to do with it;
BUT, it's often easier to fit IFR in, as they will fly a heading or level, regardless of WX (except for CB's etc);
Don't know the airspace, don't know the traffic situation - therefore can't comment;
A 'phone call afterwards is a better way of finding out 'Why ??' than an R/T discussion - both sides have usually calmed down a bit !

[2 sheds]

The flow of traffic in Civil ATC is based, among other things, on priorities. Eg scheduled flights have priority over non-scheduled.

What exactly is the basis for that statement?

[AlanM]

Uncle Ian, your comment about VFR not needing any control is sadly way off the mark. You would be surprised how much extra work VFR traffic creates on a sector.

Personally, I think that a NSF is a waste of time: People off other airfields south of Heathrow route H7-H4 rarely phone up to activate or quote an NSF. Maybe we should give all of the helicopters wanting to be on H4 at the same time a slot time +/-5 minutes......

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

2 Sheds... You're probably right in questioning that and I was possibly wrong depending on one's interpretation of the rules. The old MATS2 for Heathrow prioritised traffic in the way I mentioned but that was a local arrangement and may not apply in this case. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused.

[AlanM]

The list that HD refers to used to be in the Pt2 until about 3 years ago when it was removed overnight!

[woolyalan]

What HD and SN say make a lot of sense,

Also, this forum obviously isn't called the 'lions den' for nothing :rolleyes:

[London Mil]

AlanM and SN, my vociferous response was to the following:

We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.

That statement is fundamentally flawed and implies that a controller is prioritising with a set of criteria outside those which are mandated. Of course, if there is a busy flow of airliners queued 2.5nm behind each other then it will be very difficult/impossible to accomodate a SVFR transit. However, that is wholly different form a controller adopting an attitude of "Well it's only a PPL who hasn't paid for the service so I will not even entertain the idea of affording him passage".

SN, I presume that in the light of day you would retract your original statement? For once, I agree with DFC.

[AlanM]

London Mil

I was sat near the guy that had the altercation (the words quoted above weren't the ones I was told of) and I don't know exactly what they both said but it was perhaps not as one sided as we would think (the alleged phrase by the ATCO was not delivered out of the blue).

If the chap involved was that bothered, he should have filed a report and then the tapes would have been pulled. However, irrespective of what was/wasn't said and whether it was "out of order" or not, I believe it was too busy to get the aircraft in on it's requested routeing. (If this is the instance I saw it did get in to CAS, just not the exact "pleasure flight" route they wanted)

So to take this forward, we are not talking VFR transits who normally get across the zones, but a pleasure flight going backwards and forwards on the river. I am not saying you should be penalised, but it is harder to do from our perspective than a simple zone transit. It was not the only helicopter (or the only one from your company as you admit) operating at the time.

To give you an example, if you were to route from a Random airfield called Stapleford, in a single (callsign Beta 22 an EC120) and wanted to go to Vauxhall Bridge you need to be given to the tower to get you south of the field to get to the IOD. They then need to separate you from IFR stuff and possibly hold you at the IOD. They then get a gap (you are going against the inbound track on 10) and at the same time radar are trying to get the other 5 east bound. Then when you turn at Vauxhall Bridge, we need to do the same again - so more phone calls and co-ordination, gaps needed etc etc. All of this takes time both on the phone and the RT and can be unworkable if there are IFR jets needing separating/co-ordination.

[London Mil]

Aln, I fully understand your explaination. What I don't understand is a biased, throw-away comment from SN. I happen to be a professional controller of 20+ years service, albeit in the military, and comments like that really irritate me. We are here to provide a service. We should not differentiate between our customers.

[Talkdownman]

Before you ask - it wasn't me!! :)
Wasn't me either:} Doesn't bother me (85 days to go.....you'll miss me) , I love VFR traffic, I am one very often. But what the Keeper of the Zone has to remember is the the number of traffic calls (ie. 'workload' ) is related to the number of VFR aircraft he lets in by x(x-1) where x = number of aircraft.......(eg 6 aircraft means theoretically 30 calls).....so he needs to keep an eye on how many he lets in............(nb. 'Duty of Care Beast' which bites HARD).

[Married a Canadian]

Ahh I miss Thames!!

I am with Talkdownman on this one...most controllers are not averse to VFR traffic and yes separation can be made easier when one is VFR.
However the problem is if the IFR guy is not happy with the separation...then we have to sort it out..and in a zone as small as the city one there was no where to go....
The two scenarios are the departures trying to look out for a wee helicopter on climbout...whilst following the SID and the climb gradient...whilst having their TCAS go off etc etc etc....or when inbound on 10 trying to spot the guy on the river whilst slamming the aircraft down on the wonderfully shallow glide slope at City.
So even though Mr VFR says he is happy to take his separation from that...Mr IFR can say he is not happy and then the workload really increases.

And that is where I think the Thames guys protect themselves..from the one time someone who is IFR says..thanks but no thanks.

THEN it will come down to categories of flight and which takes priority....and who you will affect if the IFR takes avoiding action (ie Heathrow approach). The snowball affect has greater implications than just some unlucky punter not getting to fly down the Thames.

As a last resort you can watch the credits of Eastenders on large screen whilst hanging from the ceiling.....Same view really!

[Scott Voigt]

I think that it might be better to differentiate between VFR and IFR... Nothing to do with commercial or GA. IFR in controlled airspace do take precident with ATC, VFR is on a workload permitting basis only...

regards

Scott

[Standard Noise]

OK, I'll admit that using the word 'commercial' was wrong. There, I said it, I'm not perfect. What annoyed me about chummy's first post was the way he admitted to engaging in unprofessional exchanges on the R/T but still expected to get exactly what he wanted. If his clearance through CAS (or a particular part of it) was refused on the grounds that the ATCOs (and therefore the airspace) were busy, then tying up the ATCO on the frequency with 'unprofessional' and therefore, presumably unnecessary exchanges on the R/T, he was only making it even more busy. If a pilot wants to hog the frequency with whinges whilst I or any other ATCO is busy, explain exactly why they should then be given clearance through CAS?
One of the conditions for Bristol to be given it's new airspace (thankfully later this month, at last) is that we make it accessible to ALL airspace users. Now while that is not much change in the status quo, it is a much larger area of CAS to deal with and the other users will not necessarily be asked to change their routings, rather that their traditional routings will now be in CAS.

That said, I work at a unit which is under contract to the airport it is based at, and that airports priority is to keep and improve service to it's commercial operators or rather, the airlines that carry the pax that pay the money etc etc. Now, while we do have training organisations on the airfield (one of which is well regarded and widely known in the industry), they are feeling the squeeze as our priority is to the airlines. You guys up in the big smoke and at MIL units might operate differently from that, but that ain't my problem.
The views I air on these forums are not the views of the organisation I work for, but are the views of many of my fellow ATCOs here at Bristol.

So if you feel annoyed by my posts, don't read them.

[London Mil]

SN, we all face similar pressures. At the unit where I work, we have the constant conundrum of whether to provide services to military aircraft (after all I am military) or the CAT that has chosen to go off-route (a good example is the NCL traffic which chooses to fly UL602 DCT as opposed to UY70 - UM150 - P18). The problem is that the CAA expect us to be equitable in the provision of service and we end-up working on the 'first come, first served' principle. Taking the "commercial has priority" to the extreme, you could find that Ryanair/Easyjet/BA etc would be trying to feed ATS units 'backhanders' for preferential treatment in the pattern.

Finally, I think there is a difference between defining airfield/airport utilisation/prioritisation protocols and managing airspace effectively. Bristol/Cardiff will be interesting.

[AlanM]

MaC - Thames misses you as well.

Sat here right now and MS/HBAH have just asked how you were! :)

[uncle ian]

Hello again,

First some facts then some opinions:

Facts:

I'm an ATPL/H with 35 years experience in rotary both military and civilian.

Sightseeing tours are no less commercial than scheduled services.....and are subject to the same degree of regulation by the CAA.

Passengers pay around £140 for the priviledge of seeing our Capital city from the best vantage point aqvailable.

The "discussion" with me about refusal to authorise entry for my colleage that day was instigated by the controller, not myself; incedentally I find "chummy" particularly patronising and offensive, Standard Noise".

and Opinions:

I honestly believe Heathrow Special and Thames are superb in the lenghts they go to to accomodate our needs. I personally fly hundreds of hours each year doing aerial camera work (including at T5), trips into and out of Battersea and, just once this year, sightseeing. I know I'm a pain in the a**e lots of the time and I do appreciate the efforts of AlanM and his colleagues. I have said so in Rotorheads in the past and I am not on a witch hunt.

I don't want to say which of the agencies I was working when this happened because this is not a witch hunt, I would have made a formal complaint had it been.

I have waited a month before raising the issue so that there was no heat left in it but, clearly, I didn't wait long enough.

My question, "What do ATC think of VFR" has been very clearly answered and I find the answers depressing and encouraging in equal measure.

I'm surprised at the volume and strength of the responses.

I agree with AlanM that some form of regulating the numbers of sightseeing tours on Sunday would be sensible but have no useful suggestions.

Incedentally, I'll be flying the camera for BBC'c coverage of the London Triathlon on Sunday (on a unique W and EW number). I know it'll cause problems for whoever's working City tower and radar as it did last year but please be kind and remember its not me that suffers if you're not but several million licence fee payers (of which, no doubt, you are one)

Uncle Ian

[BDiONU]

At the unit where I work, we have the constant conundrum of whether to provide services to military aircraft (after all I am military) or the CAT that has chosen to go off-route (a good example is the NCL traffic which chooses to fly UL602 DCT as opposed to UY70 - UM150 - P18).
Huh? Have you done away with your Priority List then? The one which clearly states which aircraft you work in order of Priority as laid down by HQ 3 Gp?

Bd

[AlanM]

Uncle Ian,

I and my colleagues have absolutely no problem with yr organisation (I just worked yr colleagues in the 2 ship and the one over the Gherkin)

The title of the thread is a bit misleading though - it is more a NSF question than a straight VFR issue.

You are not a pain in the ar$e and we know the job you do, the pressures involved and the need to get you in and out. It is almost impossible to regulate the flow so you are always told subject traffic.

It is sad that you are quite irate about this - come over to West Drayton and see the problems that are faced. Might even buy you a Latte....!:cool:

I am sure TDM will give you every help he can this weekend....!! :)

[Fidgell]

I wont get into some of the petty them and us arguments going on in here, but the long and short of it is that when sat in front of the radar Im paid to defend life and protect against loss of it... same as the pilots. If my colleagues or myself are concerned that worlkload is such that we cannot safely accomodate the needs of VFR traffic in regulated airspace then, sorry uncle but aint happening this time. Would you allow that extra couple of heavy passengers on your aircraft just because they paid even though it puts you dangerously overweight???? Money, attitudes, etc has NOTHING to do with it. I do not question a pilots actions on safety..... please do not question mine!

You say youre disheartened by attitudes and had an "unprofessional" exchange over the RT? Well, maybe this exchange may influence the controllers decision to accept your flight next time if its in the balance over if its safe for you to transit this busy section of airspace. God forbid the thames corridor becomes another grand canyon!

[Married a Canadian]

Uncle Ian.

I agree with Alan...more of a NSF issue than a VFR issue...although as I mentioned we can't regulate if an IFR aircraft won't accept the separation.

Suggestions...for all the pleasure flight operators...Well two obvious ones ....schedule more of the pleasure flights on a Sat afternoon and a Sunday morning when City airport is closed. I know that won't work all the time as customers may not be able to make those times...but at least you can then offer a guaranteed flight down the river. Any Thames guy that turned you down with city closed would be being more than a little unfair I think. Even with other pleasure aircraft in the zone we have the North south of the river...traffic information...and normally pilots who know the routes so although RT maybe high you are not in the way of city traffic.

Outside of those times maybe check the city departure/arrival schedule...and arrange pleasure flights when they are not at peak.

I suppose it then comes down to the CAA after that and whether or not they would raise the priority for a pleasure flight...given that they are indeed as you say carrying fare paying passengers.

The city zone I would go as far to say though is unique and the probably one that a safety regulator would not want to tamper with. Right underneath the Heathrow arrival/departure routes, City traffic inbound/outbound underneath...and the centre of the capital city with parliament and the palaces and the financial hub smack in the middle of it all.

If an incident ever did occur here then a controller/pilot sure would have to have their back covered. And the first cover we have on Thames is being able to limit the traffic...and to do that we use the list straight out of the MATS 1 with flight priorities.

This will happen again in the future (hopefully without any RT banter)...it is unavoidable in such a complex bit of airspace....but I would say 99% of the time on Thames from my time there it was never down a VFR issue. Always the saturation point of the frequency and the number of planes in and out of city. It will take lots of discussion with the regulator and the CAA to change the flight categories here.

Uncle Ian..hope you get good service in the future..sorry I am no longer there to throw my haphazard RT into the mix. Helicopters over here are less frequent and when they do come along are called all sorts of rude things that an ex Aberdeen guy like myself finds amusingly offensive!!

[London Mil]

BD, the priority list has changed and it does not differentiate between CAT and military. The list is based around airspace and in simple terms Upper Air and CAS taking priority (after emergencies etc).

I guess you hadn't heard that 3 Gp ceased to exist at 2359 hrs on 31 Mar 06.:)

[A Nonny Mouse]

Just a quick point for those who think that all we need to do to keep VFR appart from each other and from IFR is pass traffic info.
Unfortunately in these modern new fangled times with TCAS (especially since überlingen) this is no longer the case.

I have personally had to fill in several reports in situations where both aircraft had been passed traffic on each other - were visual (glorious CAVOK weather) and still the IFR aircraft "TCAS Descends" causing problems to all.

We can no longer get away with reduced separation (visually) or passing traffic both ways. We are being pushed down the route where we have to separate VFR from IFR aircraft regardless.

Very sad:hmm:

[BDiONU]

BD, the priority list has changed and it does not differentiate between CAT and military. The list is based around airspace and in simple terms Upper Air and CAS taking priority (after emergencies etc).
Hhhmm, thats not quite how it reads. Type of service etc. counts.
I guess you hadn't heard that 3 Gp ceased to exist at 2359 hrs on 31 Mar 06.:)
I was gonna say HQ MATO ;)

BD

[London Mil]

Wll, if that's the case, I suppose I'll start giving an RCS in Class G:ugh:

[chevvron]

Course if Heathrow and City Zones were the same airspace classification, wouldn't it partially solve the problems? Earlier on in the discussion it was implied that the change from class D to class A may have had an impact on the controller's actions.

[Married a Canadian]

Chevvron

They would either have to make the city zone class A or the Heathrow zone Class D and I don't see either happening.

The problem I think here for the controller was not so much airspace classification but aircraft type. Being a single engine helicopter the pilot was going to have to remain on the river (which is H4). If he had been a twin he could have come off route and remained out of the way of the city departures.

[FinalVectors]

IFR does NOT have priority over VFR - our job is to shift the traffic;
Payment does not have - and hopefully never will have - anything to do with it;

Thats all very true. I allways try to give same service to VFR as IFR traffic.
It been written here..they dont pay. Well I look upon that different; maybe they dont pay my company so much..which I really dont care about as long as I get my salary....BUT they pay mostly from their own pocket the same way or probably even more that the passengers in the airliners..So in that aspect I think the maybe even deserve even better service ;)

But ofcourse its not allways possible to give the same service since we have to give priority according to what the "bible" (4444) says... "Safe, ordely and efficient". And a slow mover kind of f:mad:k up that orderly and efficient part most of the time :}

But anyway..what I dont like..is collegues who as fast as they hear a VFR calling (even when they have little to do) tell him to "f:mad:k off". We are paid to give service to all aircrafts however they fly or whichever size ;)

[Standard Noise]

The problem is that the CAA expect us to be equitable in the provision of service and we end-up working on the 'first come, first served' principle. Taking the "commercial has priority" to the extreme, you could find that Ryanair/Easyjet/BA etc would be trying to feed ATS units 'backhanders' for preferential treatment in the pattern.
Finally, I think there is a difference between defining airfield/airport utilisation/prioritisation protocols and managing airspace effectively. Bristol/Cardiff will be interesting.

Just to answer these points:-
1 - The CAA can expect what it wants, but there ain't anyone from the CAA who's going to tell me who I do or don't have to let through our CTZ. That decision is based on operational capacity. Being equitable is all very well, but it's not our main priority at an airfield.
2 - No airline has enough money to entice me into their 'pocket' and I think I can safely speak for my colleagues at Bristol when I say they feel the same. Much as some airlines might like your idea, not at Bristol I'm afraid.
3 - I wasn't thinking about 'airfield/airport utilisation/prioritisation protocols'. I was talking about managing our current (and future) airspace effectively. For a unit with such a small chunk of CAS, our LARS stats bear out that we let a hell of a lot of people transit it and that's not because of the NATS licence or some other bit of paper the CAA insist NATS follows, we've been doing that at Bristol for years and it won't change. However, as I said, we will give priority to commercial IFR traffic on the basis that that is what pays the money to our customer (BIA). I don't think that our new airspace will change what we do, although we will certainly be showing a large increase in CAS transits when the LARS stats are calculated. In some ways it will make our lives easier because we will be able to control the traffic and vector around it more easily, whereas before we could only request it to do certain things since most of it was remaining outside CAS anyway.

So, London Mil, here's a question (with no edge to it and asked in the spirit of friendship). When was the last time you visited a busy regional on a liason visit? Fancy it? If so drop me a PM and we can arrange something here at Briss. Then you can watch what we do, how we do it, and understand a little better why we do it the way we do.

Uncle Ian - patronising indeed? Well, I've been called a lot of things but that's a new one. I'm an Ulsterman, a bit loud at times maybe brash sometimes but I just happen to speak as I find and tell it as I see it, if that makes me sound patronising then you are entitled to that opinion, not that I am likely to change. But let me say this, we have sightseeing trips here at Briss, we also have an awful lot of other things (Bristol International Balloon Fiesta next weekend for example) and we always try to accomodate, however that doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want, fact of life I'm afraid. What won't do it for me is some bloke in a puddle jumper or egg whisk arguing the toss over CAS transit clearances, regardless of whether the noddys in the back are paying for the trip or not. Transit is based (certainly at Bristol) on one thing, operational capacity. Arguing or engaging in "unprofessional exchanges" on the R/T isn't going to make that change. You say you have been flying for 35 years. In that case sir, you should have known better than to let your mouth run away from you.

[London Mil]

Edited because I m rapidly losing the will to live.

SN, I suspect you and I are not going to contribute much more to this thread.

[OVC002]

Helpful and professional is the way I would describe most UK controllers. VFR or IFR.

I am still very curious, however, about the differences in culture/procedures/regulations that allows SOCAL approach/LA tower to thread so much VFR traffic through their class B without a problem, but gives rise to such a vitriolic exchange here.

Do they have different spacing requirements or just are just more comfortable accepting some risk?

[FougaMagister]

Flying VFR through a zone (say, Class D airspace) and not expecting to increase the ATCO's workload by not requiring separation from IFR traffic is naive. We all know that ATC will keep a close eye on that VFR spot in the middle of its IFR traffic and will actually provide separation regardless. Whenever I fly VFR , I never expect some sort of "right of way" through controlled airspace. Whenever I request VFR transit, I make sure I have listened out enough to have the mental "big picture" and I usually end my request with "...traffic permitting" - OK, it's not standard R/T! Also, except when crossing controlled airspace (obviously under radar control), I usually ask for Flight Information Service only so as to limit the extra ATC worlkoad.

Visits to ATC units should be mandatory for CPL holders. It allows to appreciate what mixing VFR with IFR traffic means for a fairly busy radar unit.

However, those who say that the level of priority should be fee-based are wrong in flight safety terms. With an increasing number of commercial flights routing, at least partly, through uncontrolled Class G airspace (Coventry and Doncaster spring to mind), having uncommunicado VFR traffic mixing it up with the big jets/turboprops would be a bad idea. After all, if VFR traffic had to pay for any type of ATC service (even Flight Information Service), most light aircraft pilots would probably not bother to talk to any other station than their departure/destination airfield. Does anybody believe that flight safety would be enhanced?

Cheers :cool:

[dunnarunna]

Standard Noise - What a knob. Shows his true feelings by refering to aircraft / pilots in a derogatory way as 'Puddle Jumpers & Egg Whisks'. Lighten up and stop being so bolshy.:ok:

[Gonzo]

dunnarunna,

You'll hear those words in every single ATC ops room in the world, I'll wager. Don't take it too personally!

[foghorn]

dunnarunna,

You'll hear those words in every single ATC ops room in the world, I'll wager. Don't take it too personally!

And of course a lot of those ATCOs fly themselves. It's not a them and us situation!

[chevvron]

The sooner all CTR's (including Heathrow) become class C the better; then make MATZs class C also and give every civil airport with a notified iap a class C CTR of similar dimensions to a MATZ.

[foghorn]

every civil airport with a notified iap

Some civil airports with IAPs don't get that much traffic or if they do it's mainly training. Why not Class D in this case?

[chevvron]

Some military a/d s don't get much traffic apart from training either; I just want to see a level playing field for everyone with an approved and notified iap.
Check your pms

[DFC]

Standard Noise,

Thanks for the info. You will be glad to know that the next time I am down your way, we will be IFR. Even if it is CAVOK, we will be IFR.


Imagine if every IMC holder or IR holder flying a "puddle jumper" on a sunny Sunday morning transit of your airspace filed IFR for the transit portion of the flight? You might find that a) Your job just got a lot more difficult and b) you were responsible for an ever growing portion of the NATS delays or lack of capacity to use an alternative term.

As for airlines giving backhanders?..........I think it was called UKATTS.......when the standbys were full, only the usefull controllers got a ride i.e. StandardNoise would not get a jump seat unless we operated inot Bristol. :D

Low cost actually removed the ability of airlines to make a difference with the old ID90s.

and of course the new security situation removed the discretionary jump seat option. :(

Regards,

DFC

[AlanM]

DFC

If you file IFR your priority does not improve. (well not for the airfields under the LTMA)

Therefore you are less likely to get a transit as you will of course need separating from the IFR traffic. Therefore, it is easier to refuse your transit for our zones. (the only way to do it would be for us stop stop LHR/LCY)

Guess what - we are working for (by contract) the airport authority at the airport who's zone we are the controlling authority. Guess what they want us to do!?! Go on file OCK-CHT at 2300ft and see what happens.........

Standard Noise must be wetting himself reading this (oh and we won't get a copy of a FPL if you file to go through the Heathrow zone either!):D

[T9-ATCO]

Well my dear friend I will be honest with you concerning your problem with understanding ATC!!! You Said that VFR flights are not separated by ATCO, well you are not right!!! According to the airspace classification VFR flights are separated in class B airspace from IFR and from other VFR flights and in class C only from other VFR flights. In class A VFR is not even allowed to fly. In D class for example VFR must be provided with traffic information, so if I have one IFR and 5 VFR flights in CTR, imagine how many traffic information must I provide!!! And last but not the least VFR operations may be suspended by ATCO when deemed neccessary!!! No hard feelings, but that is life!

[NorthSouth]

The sooner all CTR's (including Heathrow) become class C the better; then make MATZs class C also and give every civil airport with a notified iap a class C CTR of similar dimensions to a MATZ.Yeah, right, I can just see the MoD agreeing to huge swathes of new CAS surrounding, to mention a few, Carlisle, Hawarden, Humberside, Dundee, Lydd, Shoreham, Yeovil, Plymouth, Filton, Gloucester, Oxford and Cranfield, and I can similarly see the airlines being delighted with the notion that their aircraft will now be vectored to maintain separation from all VFR traffic. Ditto for the military - 5nm/1000ft separation between IFRs and VFRs inside a MATZ? I don't think so!
NS

[AlanM]

North South - you are in trouble now mate.... you missed Farnborough! :)

[Gonzo]

Why, is there an airport at Farnborough? :confused:

[NorthSouth]

VFR flights are separated in class B airspace from IFR and from other VFR flights and in class C only from other VFR flightsT9: maybe you do it differently in Sarajevo but ICAO Annex 11 says of Class C:
"IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights."
NS

[SilentHandover]

Gonzo

Nope but there is an Aerodrome at Farnborough.

:ok:

[NorthSouth]

North South - you are in trouble now mate.... you missed Farnborough! :)Oops, sorry, also forgot Scatsta, Kirkwall, Wick, Inverness, Stornoway, Benbecula, yeah OK I'm bored now I'll shut up.
NS

[chevvron]

You also missed Biggin, Norwich and Exeter. Anyway I was talking tongue in cheek 'cos the military would love to make all MATZ regulated airspace.
By the way, the only people who call Farnborough an aerodrome are the local NIMBY's, hence the road signs, the correct title being of course 'TAG London/Farnborough/Samuel Cody/Frank Whittle AirPORT'!.

[NorthSouth]

the military would love to make all MATZ regulated airspaceFor civil traffic maybe, but presumably then exempting their own traffic from the rules for Class C.
NS

[uncle ian]

My job for the Beeb yesterday, the Triathlon, went without a hitch, thanks very much. I'm sure that had nothing to do with this thread; it was what normally happens.

AlanM, I'm not at all cross; I was astounded to be engaged in a conversation by an ATCO about another aircraft (albeit with my Company callsign) which confirmed what I and many colleagues have experienced over the years. That is that SOME, not all, ATCOs have a bias against VFR. My original question was, indeed, about VFR and not NSF and used that incident to illustrate my point. I could equally have quoted the differences in treatment of VFR between neighbours East Anglia and Luton........any guesses from you guys which we like and which we loath, or the dreadful disdain of many (NOT ALL) military controllers for us?

In your responses and your arguements among yourselves you could not have shown better that my question was justified.

I am delighted that most of you recognise that those responses typified by Standard Noise (pm me SN and I'll tell you what patronising means) need to be challenged.

Thank you for the offer to visit you at work, I'll try to take you up on it (although I don't drink Latte!). Believe it or not I think I have a very good idea of your workload, I try to keep a mental picture of traffic around me based on listening out and being advised by ATC. What you understand but some of your colleages fail to realise is that our job frequently involves more that simply getting from A to B so if we fail to respond first time every time its because some film director (or sight seeing customer) is blocking you out; or if we don't spot the traffic one mile away its because we are now pionting away from it.

None of us has an easy job and its good to know that most of us, on both sides of the great divide, do our best to make the other guy's life easier.

Uncle Ian

[Standard Noise]

Standard Noise,
Thanks for the info. You will be glad to know that the next time I am down your way, we will be IFR. Even if it is CAVOK, we will be IFR.

Fill yer boots matey, although it won't improve your chances of getting through our zone any quicker (unless you're carrying 200 weary souls back from Las Palmas or summat similar).

dunnarunna- I know loads of ATCOs (and a few ATPLs) who call 'em puddle jumpers and egg whisks. Get a life matey!

[SensibleATCO]

dunnarunna- I know loads of ATCOs (and a few ATPLs) who call 'em puddle jumpers and egg whisks. Get a life matey!
And so do I. But unlike yourself they do not use it in the condescending and unprofessional manner in which you did.
Regards
SATCO
PS Get a life matey!

[DFC]

DFC
If you file IFR your priority does not improve. (well not for the airfields under the LTMA)
Therefore you are less likely to get a transit as you will of course need separating from the IFR traffic. Therefore, it is easier to refuse your transit for our zones. (the only way to do it would be for us stop stop LHR/LCY)
Guess what - we are working for (by contract) the airport authority at the airport who's zone we are the controlling authority. Guess what they want us to do!?! Go on file OCK-CHT at 2300ft and see what happens.........
Standard Noise must be wetting himself reading this (oh and we won't get a copy of a FPL if you file to go through the Heathrow zone either!):D

While I will grant you that a transit OCK -CHELT is more than a bit less likely than a route through the Bristol overhead as most operators recognise the difference in traffic level and complexity. Heck, even at cruise levels we get vectored away from that kind of route anyway! However, you seem to forget two things;

a) When we file an IFR plan with IFPS, the IFPS decides who gets the plan and I can guarantee that IFPS will address you for all IFR flights through your area of responsibility.

b) If we are delayed then unlike VFR, IFR delays are recorded and attributed to the sector/ service provider.

IFR pilots requesting increased separation?.........never heard of it as one of those IFR flights or as a VFR flight.

We do complain about the non-ICAO VMC minima in UK class D which does reduce safety levels. If we knew that VFR flights would be atleast 1000ft below the cloud then we would not be so jumpy. The idea of having a VFR aircraft skimming the cloudbase while we are IMC just above the base or descending is one of the reasons why IFR pilots of aircraft that are not so manoeuverable get jumpy. Not because we want separation from VFR flights who have the ICAO visibilities and separations from cloud.

Imagine the uproar if an IFR flight requested increased separation from another IFR flight that was 5nm away. Lots of ATCOs complaining about pilots needing to get back into their box's and stop making silly requests.

Everyone discussion airspace classes should go to the Eurocontrol website and read the minutes of the last few airspace meetings. Lots of discussions where UK representatives could not understand Class C airspace which were responded to by a statement of why not - you operate your class D like it is class C? :)

Regards,

DFC

[eastern wiseguy]

When we file an IFR plan with IFPS, the IFPS decides who gets the plan and I can guarantee that IFPS will address you for all IFR flights through your area of responsibility


Not strictly true......I have seen many FPL's returned with "flight of no significance to IFPS" on it...and some of those were crossing an international FIR boundary.

As to crossing airspace VFR or IFR I will do it ....(so would Noisy) but the bottom line is if we are too busy to safely accomodate traffic then it is a re-route or "remain outside CAS... timecheck".

[AlanM]

Who said OCK-CHELT????????

I lost interest at that point........:ugh:

Again you show your lack of knowledge by telling me what flight strips I get ploked in front of me. Keep filing if it keeps you happy. Don't be surprised when I say pass your full details......

[Dizzee Rascal]

Again you show your lack of knowledge by telling me what flight strips I get ploked in front of me. Keep filing if it keeps you happy. Don't be surprised when I say pass your full details......

eg. EGKB-EGLC FL100 often get's "no details, what is it" on the phone:mad:

[GroundBound]

why not - you operate your class D like it is class C

Exactly

GB

[chevvron]

DFC is VERY wrong in his assumption about en-route non area units getting FPLs; as far as I know no-one does, unless it's actually inbound to an airfield in your CTR.

[AlanM]

DFC is VERY wrong

That's all we ever hear......:ugh: You can't teach an old dog new tricks Chevvers.

[chevvron]

Probably thinks his FPL goes to his filed alternate as well.

[DFC]

DFC is VERY wrong in his assumption about en-route non area units getting FPLs; as far as I know no-one does, unless it's actually inbound to an airfield in your CTR.

Chevvron,

The Manager at TC who we discussed this with at length clearly indicated that IFR flights transiting any part of the TC area of responsibility will be received and placed into the HCS even if they are coming from and/or departing into class G.

The Strip will be printed somewhere behind old AlanM's head and the ATSA will load it into a strip holder and very often it is the assistant who will decide if the strip is placed on the traffic display initially.

If AlanM does not understand why he does or does not have a strip when an aircraft calls or the telephone rings then perhaps he should spend a little more time talking to the ATSA who resides behind him!

There is no need to go down the old enroute aerodrome ATS usits ignoring flight plans addressed to them, the CAA issued clear guidance on that one a short time ago. The IFPS also provides for ensuring that if the operator decides to address a plan to another address (unit) then it will be so addressed.

AlanM looses interest at the point where he can no longer put up a decent argument.
Is that aircraft 6 miles behind me AlanM........No I am not happy. I want increased separation so that it is 10 miles behind me. :) ;) ;) :)

Wonder why someone is having a moan elsewhere on the ATC board about IFR flights requesting increased separation. To quote AlanM's colleague - "Its a bit Irish".

:rolleyes:

Regards,

DFC

Someone asked why SOCAL can shift so much VFR traffic.........the answer is that in the US, people have learned the hard way that discrimination or tarring everyone with the same brush is not a good way for society (including the aviation element) to act. In the UK however, call as a G-ABCD puddlejumper VFR and it is assumed that you are out to ruin everyones day with sloppy flying.

[vintage ATCO]

There is no need to go down the old enroute aerodrome ATS usits ignoring flight plans addressed to them, the CAA issued clear guidance on that one a short time ago.

Oh yes, and what was that pray? I'm too tired to look it up, even if i knew where to look.

DFC, I think I know who you are from a previous life, but I challenge you again to state here what your qualifications are to pontificate (often incorrectly) on ATC matters.

[AlanM]

Chevvron,
The Manager at TC who we discussed this with at length

There you go starting a boring, pointless post full of crap with a comment that lets you down!

As if GM LTCC has any interest in you and your IFR flight outside CAS. Bless. He certainly pulled the wool over your eyes. Keep filing IFR, we collect money and you get nowt.

Bargain.:D

P.S. I lose interest becuase you won't accept a point that 2 or more people make, and you still don't know the difference between CHT and CHELT!

[eastern wiseguy]

"Its a bit Irish".


Careful......bit bloody racist.....Both me AND noisy are Irish and there is nothing wrong with our controlling methods.:= :=

[Standard Noise]

Beejasus, beejasus, someone's dissing me and me mate eastern!:=

[chevvron]

DFC - you obviously did not read my message; I specifically said en-route non area units.

[Bright-Ling]

Mr DFC sir.

Time for a hasty retreat>>>>>>>?

B-L

[T9-ATCO]

NorthSouth you are right, I know the airspace clasiffication, my mistake, but the point off discussion is exactly the same, ATCO does separate VFR flights in certain classes of airspace!!! In some of them traffic info is enough and so on!!! In class A only IFR are allowed, in B VFR and IFR, and all are separated, in C VFR is separated from IFR and IFR is separated from other IFR, VFR-VFR only traffic information and traffic avoidance on request...

[AlanM]

.... unless it is a Class A CTR then SVFR is allowed.... and they are separated!

[Walk the line]

Ye settle pettle....Im a bit Irish too. And I control (and fly:eek:) :)

[DFC]

DFC - you obviously did not read my message; I specifically said en-route non area units.

Chevvron,

Heathrow, Gatwick and City are not area units. Their radar units may be loacted at an area unit but they are not area units. :)

AlanM,

Is that the CHT navaid or the CHT position in the HCS adaptation used for strip outfall?

No problem today making a brief transit of the TMA IFR on a private flight. Perhaps you were not at work!

Could also be that the aircraft type would probably cause you to assume a commercial flight.

Never assume! ;)

Regards

DFC


Vintage,

Don't think we have met. How many jump seats have you had when travelling UKATTS? :)

[chevvron]

Er, I think DFC just agreed with me!

[Gonzo]

Back to topic......

What's VFR anyway?

[uncle ian]

Gonzo,

Glad you asked since it seems an alien concept in this Forum.

It's where, horror of horrors, mere pilots are responsible for their own separation.....can you believe it! It is assumed that these people can SEE one another in real time and space using only their eyes and then take any avioding action required entirely without direction from ATC.

Hard to grasp, isn't it?

Uncle Ian

[AlanM]

You asked a specific question, and I gave you what I thought was a full account of what happened.

Yes - you can separate yourself from VFR - BUT an IFR can request his own separation from you.

Thought we had achieved what you set out to ask.

[Gonzo]

This VFR thing sounds quite dangerous. :eek:

I'm more than happy remaining in Class A. Far less risky business goes on! :}

[AlanM]

Not for long though Gonzon..... Class C is a coming!!

[uncle ian]

AlanM,

My post was very tounge in cheek and more a comment on the arguements going on between Air Traffickers than any critisism of you or your colleagues. You seem to have missed my last post where I assured you I am in no way angry or upset. I asked the question "what does ATC think........." and got a very varied answer which was no more than I expected, though very interesting to me.

Rest assured I have found the regular controllers of LHR and LCY airspace more than helpful and, without doubt, the most professional of any I have encountered anywhere in the world [that represents a significant cross sample]. That is partly why I was so surprised at the incedent I described and felt compelled to venture into your forum in the first place.

I beg you not to see this as a matter of conflict between us.

Uncle Ian