VFR South of Liverpool Zone

[HS125]

Does anyone know what is going on here, I've flown in this area 3 time in the past two weeks and it would seem that Hawarden ATC have hijacked the airspace as their own class D zone.

I realise (and support the fact) that it is good airmanship to contact airfields that you will be operating in the vacinity of especially wwhen (as in the case of Hawarden) they have IAPs ouside controlled airspace but the manner of this is absolutely ludicrous.

This morning all southbound traffic leaving the Liverpool zone via Chester was instructed to contact Hawarden Approach, they then instructed everyone to remain below 1500' The cause? A single IFR AS350. When I eventually instructed Hawarden that I was going to contact Liverpool Approach for rejoin I was told "Negative, Stay with me, I have the Liverpool Zone south of Chester."

A few things occur to me:

1. The Liverpool Zone doesn't exsist south of Chester. Its class G and open FIR

2. Non of the traffic concerned intended to enter the Hawarden ATZ and will have crossed the 23 Final Approach Course before being handed off to Hawarden.

3. Surely theres a Flight Safety case against keeping all the VFR traffic below 1500' thus condensing the VFR traffic and it would be better to ask all the contacts for the intended operating level and resolving any potential conflicts.

4. Not once has the controller said Please, I know its technically not standard but it doesnt hurt to be polite and they ought to realise that theres no obligation for VFR traffic to even speak to them let alone accept level/route restrictions.

5. I frequently fly under IFR and when those flights take me outside controlled airspace and in VMC Im looking out of the window for Traffic as well as monitoring the TCAS as I would expect others to do.

Can anyone comment on what's going on here or suggest how the situation could be improved

Thanks

HS125

[Chilli Monster]

Various options:

1) "Squawking 7000, going en-route frequency, goodbye" would be a good response

2) CHIRP it - this is unacceptable behaviour

3) Phone call to the Air Traffic Manager at EGNR voicing your concerns (phone number in the UK AIP)

4) Phone call to the Principle Inspector ATS, Central Region, voicing the same.

It's not Class 'D' but 'G', they should be requesting, not telling. It's not on and shouldn't be happening.

[chevvron]

You say you didn't enter the Hawarden atz, so it would appear they are restricting traffic where they have no right to do so.
At my airfield, we have iaps in class G airspace; we will request someone to take certain action in order to resolve conflictions with IFR traffic, but we are all too aware we have no right to instruct them outside the atz.
Hate to have to say this, but if you feel strongly, why not contact the ATSSD regional office at Manchester? I admit I'm not familiar with the airspace structure in this region, but there could be an loa (letter of agreement) between Hawarden and Liverpool allowing IFR inbounds to Hawarden runway 23 to penetrate the Liverpool CTR, and that's what the controller was referring to when he said they had the airspace, although as you say, it looks from my 1/2 mil that there's a class G gap between the edge of the CTR and Hawarden atz.

[Red Dragon]

There seem to be a few assumptions being made here on guess work alone.
Chevvron, you are right in that there is a portion of airspace in the Liverpool CTR that is delegated to Hawarden when runway 23 is in use and they require it in order for IFR traffic to be vectored for the ILS/SRA. By the way it's known as an RMA (Radar Manoeuvring Area).
Outside of that it is class G airspace. However when Hawarden are vectoring IFR traffic outside the RMA in class G they are providing it with a RAS. The reason behind Liverpool instructing VFR traffic south of their zone to contact Hawarden is it then becomes known traffic which can be identified, thereby allowing the Hawarden Radar guy to provide traffic information rather than 5 miles avoidance to unknowns.
There is a letter of agreement between Hawarden and Liverpool, however this is not part of it. It's just two units who are closely located working together to help provide the best level of service to all concerned.
Adopting an attitude of 'it's class G and and as long as I'm not entering the Hawarden ATZ I don't need to talk to them' is correct but naive. There are others using the airspace and by talking to the closest/most appropriate ATC unit you're not only doing yourself a favour but other airspace users. Everyone flying VFR in class G should be carrying an airspace map and if there is an IAP track marked on it and you're likely to be flying close to it then talk to the unit concerned. Just look at the statistics with Airprox's in class G between VFR and IFR to confirm this (It's why the IAP was marked on the final approach to 05 at EGNR).
I'm sure ATSSD would agree!

PS.HS125 re point 3...the VFR traffic isn't instructed to stay below 1500ft, it's requested.
re point 5...not many PA38/PA28/C172's carry TCAS.


RD

[Regular Cappuccino]

Phone call to the Principle Inspector ATS, Central Region,

Did you mean "Regional Manager Air Traffic Services Safety Regulation" (RMATSSR), O nervous one..?:}
RC

[Chilli Monster]

That's the one (I've got enough stuff trying to explode out of my head at the moment as it is!).

[HS125]

Thanks to everyone for the reponses.

I applaud the liason between the two units (Liverpool and Hawarden) which I have seen working well for the past 13 years I have been flying in the area. I also felt that I highlighted the fact that I accept that it is good airmanship (and highly advisable) to contact a unit with IAPs outside of controlled airspace.
I also recognise that it is a step forward to have the course marked on runway 05 in this case as to do so on 23 would put the 'fan marker' mainly inside the Liverpool zone and divert attention away from the marker.

I understand that not many PA38s etc have TCAS but many do have the ability to 'be seen' on another aircraft's system. Indeed the aircraft I had been flying did not have TCAS. As I am normally used to flying a corporate jet I am also more than aware of the problems faced by IFR traffic.

The 1500' issue can only be a request in these circumstances but I felt the manner of the request had been somewhat impolite and was unsympathetic to the needs of most of the traffic in the area.

[RAC/OPS]

HS125 check your pm's!