Stansted need to do better [Archive]

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2007, 10:03

There have been moans on here and elsewhere about zone transits.

Personally, I find the willingness of pretty much all “zone controllers” to give transits very good, with one notable exception.

Stansted are hopeless.

I find it is very rare for them to give a transit.

I also feel on occasions they don’t set out to be helpful.

For example, XXXXX request zone transit just out of Cambridge.

Now to me that is a clear indication that if you do nothing else at least give the pilot a squawk so you can have him identified and see if traffic flow will permit.

But no, it is the usual remain outside etc., I will come back to you. Of course it would take exactly the same amount of time to utter the same words adding squawk xxxx.

By the edge of the zone a squawk is eventually given, indication that a transit is likely to be approved. Half way round the zone the transit is still not given or, if as is sometimes the case, it is, it is far to late and a complete waste of time. Cynically, is this just so that the statistics show the transit was approved a bit like having your eyes tested in casualty as soon as you arrive!

Now I always ask for a transit as early as I possibly can whatever I am flying but often because I am also aware I am moving over the ground a lot faster than most light traffic.

So I have got that moan off my chest. Maybe I have just been unlucky. Yes, I know I could file on their refusals, and yes I really do understand at times they are busy, but, and this is really my point, if they don’t identify the traffic as early as possible, there is going to be no chance to fit you in, and if it was simply always their intentions to not give the transit, for goodness sake own up straight away because all the sooner we can adjust our heading rather than having to dither around wondering whether or not it will be given.

Finally, and for the avoidance of doubt (and without wishing to sound too conceited) I know my RT is up to scratch, infact I was wondering recently about the standard of the RT of some of the CAT being vectored into Stansted which added to the delays and which seems to have detiorated in recent times.

Come on chaps - you need to do better.

Have others found the same, or am I the exception?

Say again s l o w l y

6th Sep 2007, 10:37

No, you're not the only one.

I have never been allowed a zone transit at STN, but it is a seriously busy bit of airspace.

They just aren't interested at Essex Radar.

chevvron

6th Sep 2007, 10:40

The next Farnborough LARS sector to open will cover the areas around ie north and south of Luton and Stansted CTRs; sometime early next year I'm afraid though.

TractorBoy

6th Sep 2007, 10:57

I'm interested in people's experiences with Stanstead. I'm based at Stapleford, and hoping to do my first jaunt to Duxford in a few weeks, and have never talked to, let alone transited, Class D airspace. I guess I'd better plot a route around....:uhoh:

bigdunk

6th Sep 2007, 11:11

reading your last about visiting Duxford i am as well and some of the other guys gave me some tips have a look at thread Thinking of flying to duxford? it may help

FullyFlapped

6th Sep 2007, 12:33

Yes, I have to agree about Stansted.

Compare and contrast with their "neighbours" at Luton, who I have found to be unfailingly helpful (I have never been refused a transit in the (literally) dozens of times I've made that trip).

Mind you, Stansted are not alone, as we all know : and on the plus side, there are plenty of helpful zones out there, too ...

FF :ok:

Pianorak

6th Sep 2007, 14:48

Goodness gracious, I must have been lucky having been offered a zone transit without having requested one.
I was squawking 0013 and listening out on Essex Radar when I thought they wanted to talk to me – except they didn’t, they were after somebody else flying in the same area. Having cleared that one up they asked would I like a zone transit. Thank you, Stansted! :)

Bravo73

6th Sep 2007, 16:18

Chances of zone transit if you call them 'Stansted Approach' on initial call: Zero, zilch, nada.

Chances of zone transit if you call them 'Essex Radar' on initial call (and sound like you know what you're doing and they don't have 20-odd 737s stacked up, waiting to come in): Reasonable.

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2007, 16:45

Chances of zone transit if you call them 'Stansted Approach' on initial call: Zero, zilch, nada.

Hadnt thought of that when I have called them Essex Radar in the past:

Next time they pee me off I am going to tell them that I am qsy ing to Stansted approach to see if I have any better luck with them :).

Mind you they rarely seem to be able to read back my aircraft type correctly so whats in a name eh.

Bravo73

6th Sep 2007, 16:53

Mind you they rarely seem to be able to read back my aircraft type correctly so whats in a name eh.

Ah, maybe then they just struggle to write out the strip correctly so, rather than let you through, they just throw it in the bin and keep you outside... ;)

Fuji Abound

6th Sep 2007, 17:38

I suppose they are a bit behind the times in Essex then. :)

Must be the Tippex on the radar screen and all that.

Twiddle

6th Sep 2007, 17:41

You may have a point on the squawk, although I'd say that's a 50:50 thing, if you say squawking 7000 on initial call they'll usually give you a squawk there and then, otherwise I've not really had an issue with a zone transit, almost always granted, except when they are so busy you can't get a word in when common sense tells you it's not worth asking anyhow.

In fact the other day they let us fly a few orbits for a friend to get some photos of his house almost under their extended centreline inside the zone during a fairly busy period, you can't get much more obliging than that?

Chilli Monster

6th Sep 2007, 18:31

Managed it on Saturday, no great problems (Southend to Duxford). Called Essex nice and early. One orbit just east of the field and then slotted between an Easy and a Ryanair.

Mind you - I get transits of Birmingham too ;)

S-Works

6th Sep 2007, 18:41

And I even get airways joins out of East Mids...................... :p:ok:

niknak

6th Sep 2007, 23:33

Fuji and SAS display an alarming ignorance of what actually goes on within the Stansted zone and surrounding airspace, most of the time it's busier than you can ever imagine and at busy times it's manic.

All I can say to those who are prepared to criticise without any idea of what the real picture is, is to arrange to spend a few hours with ATC at Stansted or at Swanwick with Essex radar, and you'll realise what complete and rubbish you have been spouting.:rolleyes:

Saab Dastard

7th Sep 2007, 00:06

arrange to spend a few hours at Swanwick with Essex radar

I second that recommendation! What a top bunch of people - and not just those serving Essex Radar, of course! :ok::D

Weren't they at West Drayton until quite recently? I was one of the lucky ones to have a visit to WD (thanks BRL!), and I seem to recall seeing Essex Radar there. Of course my memory could be at fault...

SD

Say again s l o w l y

7th Sep 2007, 00:27

niknak, you've got to be kidding me. I have been in and out of Stansted hundreds of times as crew and taught next to it for 3 years, so I do know a little bit about the traffic there.

Essex are busy, of that there is no doubt, in fact at times it's mayhem, but from the sound of it they seem to be a bit more GA friendly than they used to be.

From a commercial point of view, they do a superb job, but from a GA point, I feel they have been lacking. They may not care and that is fine, but at no time have I ever been allowed a non IFR transit, not even to simply cut a corner here and there.

Even at quiet times I have alway been refused transits, or even a FIS when operating close to their boundary. I have been on many visits to ATC units around the country and I am full of respect for all of them, but I have seen and heard what could easily be perceived as a lack of interest toward GA hilst flying.

The airspace around Stansted out towards Clacton is some of the busiest on this planet, but they are the only unit I have ever used that don't seem to want to know when you are near them. Try getting a FIS or RIS outside of the zone..... Aye right! Luton-no trouble, Bournemouth-no trouble, Glasgow-no trouble, Edinburgh-no trouble, Manchester- no trouble, Birmingham-no trouble etc. etc. Even Norwich seem to have time to talk to you!

Fuji Abound

7th Sep 2007, 07:25

Fuji and SAS display an alarming ignorance of what actually goes on within the Stansted zone and surrounding airspace, most of the time it's busier than you can ever imagine and at busy times it's manic.

Why is it whenever AT is criticised in any way certain stock standard comments come back?

Yeah, I know go and spend a few hours with .. .. ..

How do you know I haven’t?

Do you not gain some idea from my post that I do a reasonable number of zone transits and have some perception of when a zone is busy and when it is not?

Did you note the careful explanation I gave, and the point made that identifying the aircraft half way around the zone is useless.

To be blunt, if a transit might be possible, identify the aircraft as soon as possible and if you are not going to give a transit tell the pilot so - as soon as possible. It is not that hard really.

Strange thing - it makes your job easier and makes my job easier.

Maskedhedgehog

14th Sep 2007, 11:53

I'm training on Essex at the moment and I'm afraid to say zone transits are at the bottom of my list ... nothing personal but when I'm trying to get Luton traffic through the LOREL stack I haven't got the capacity (at the moment :}) to deal with you guys ... saying that, I do Luton to ... your chances for a transit are much higher there ... although this doesn't mean you all need to come pestering me now whilst I'm on Luton :)

Chilli Monster

14th Sep 2007, 16:16

Masked - a question (1 ATCO to another)?

When I got my transit I was outside at 2000ft, dropped down to 1500ft just before Great Dunmow, orbited abeam the field, then crossed in between two on the approach at about 2 miles. During this the frequency changes were Essex Radar - Stansted Director - Stansted Tower - Stansted Approach. Bear in mind this wasn't some slow 80-90Kt puddle jumper, but something that cruises at 150Kts

Keep it simple - why not straight over the landing threshold at 2000ft? No holding, no change in level, transit's out of your hair a lot quicker. I do it all the time - it saves a lot of messing around.

Fuji Abound

14th Sep 2007, 16:23

Chilli - good question.

I would also liek someone to answer my first question.

In short if you are not going to give a transit say so straight away, and if you are or might assign a squawk straight away - am I missing some good reason for not doing this - however busy you are!

S-Works

14th Sep 2007, 19:16

I have to say that Stanstead are the Kings of shoddy service, they make Solent look like sweethearts. I rarely transit through VFR and even IFR the reluctance to accept me is pretty obvious.

Makes you realise the gulf between GA and CAT when you talk to that shoddy lot.

Then they wonder why they get there airspace busted all the time. Well let me tell you..... Because you are in one of the busiest transit corridors between north and south and do squat all to support the people who make an effort to contact you for a service and then wonder why no one bothers and the inexperienced end up infringing.

No doubt DFC will be along in a few seconds to quote some ANO or dogma to me to say why I am wrong......

Fuji Abound

15th Sep 2007, 08:26

In short if you are not going to give a transit say so straight away, and if you are or might assign a squawk straight away - am I missing some good reason for not doing this - however busy you are!

So I suppose the controllers at Stansted are even to busy to give a reply!

I think Bose may have it.

niknak

15th Sep 2007, 13:55

Again, you've missed the point and if you'd bother to go and see you'd know why.
Some of the posts posts on here reflect very badly on G/A as a whole, CAS is there for everyone who is capable of using it in a professional manner, but priorities will always exist.

It's an incredibly busy and complex piece of airspace, so before accusing Essex Radar and Stansted Tower of providing a "shoddy" service, go and have a look, then you can come back and admit that you were wrong.:rolleyes:

Roffa

15th Sep 2007, 16:32

And aside from the u/t who pitched up a day or two ago, what makes you think Essex atcos are queuing up to read this and respond anyway? Not everyone reads PPRuNe you know, it's not in the contract.

bose, just curious, when you talk about an IFR transit do you mean an ad-hoc request or do you mean trying to join airways with a flight plan already in the system?

Fuji Abound

15th Sep 2007, 17:42

Again, you've missed the point and if you'd bother to go and see you'd know why.

I have thank you.

Mind you I have no idea what the point I have missed is?

It requires zero intelligence and even less time to respond to a request for transit with I am sorry it is not possible today or to assign a squawk if it might be possible.

I have politely asked for a reason if there is one why this is not possible.

I suspect the absence of an explanation is explanation enough.

Not everyone reads PPRuNe you know, it's not in the contract.

Well it should be.

What is in the "contract" is to facilitate a transit if at all possible. The moment the relationship breaks down between GA and CAS controllers things have gone badly wrong. It doesnt happen anywhere else in my experience but Stansted controllers are dangerously close to being as unhelpful as possible - not because of their regular refusals to give transit but because of the way they handle transit requests.

englishal

16th Sep 2007, 04:15

Keep it simple - why not straight over the landing threshold at 2000ft?
I have often wondered that myself (from a pilot perspective)...? Surely it must be pretty easy to allow zone transits 90° across the field over the landing threshold at a safe height? Most, if not all IFR traffic in and out will be on known or predictable arrivals or departures....

zkdli

16th Sep 2007, 06:46

It might be of interest to know that I believe, two AIRPROX have been filed in the last three weeks, by civil airliners at an airfield in class "D" airspace against VFR transits across the airfield that passed a little close to them while VFR.
Perhaps that could be part of the problem, combined with the fact that if a pilot gets a TCAS RA he will respond to it, even if the other aircraft is VFR and providing separation against the IFR aircraft. This means that the IFR aircraft inevitably files a MOR and usually has to be repositioned.
When the airspace is as busy as Stansted perhaps the controllers don't want to take the risk?:)

DFC

16th Sep 2007, 09:43

As a professional pilot I do not want UK Pilots transiting UK class D airspace while I am in there in IMC. I am happy in other places but not the UK. Why? - check the UK difference in how close a VFR flight can be to the cloud base in the UK compared to the ICAO standard! The requirment to keep away from could was put there for a reason and it was not to help the bimbling ppl/cpl out of IMC.

When flying fur fun of course I want to fly as efficiently as possible (reduce carbon footprint etc) and want to safely cross class D when possible however, one must apply a bit of common sense to such requests

The filing of an airprox or even an MOR does not say that safety was not ensured. Each are simply personal opinions regarding the situation. It is the subsequent investigation and discussion that determines if safety was not ensured and then makes proposals to ensure that in future the same should not happen again.

I have yet to see an airprox or incident final report that recomended controllers should refuse access to certain airspace.

Before going down the TCAS route, everyone should refresh the parameters for an RA and the levels at which RAs are inhibited. If I remember correctly, TCAS only tries to ensure 300ft vertical separation below 20000ft. The worst one should get against an intruder in level flight 500ft above one's level is "monitor vertical speed" - no big problem when one is descending or about to.

I can see both sides of the argument here.

How many pilots want their request for transit (no flight plan in the system) to be told hold at (VRP) expect onward clearance at (1 hour from now). Or how about being brought into the zone and held and held and held and held and standby and standby and held and held.
Or even be taken into the zone and vectored all the way round just 2nm inside the edge with a 20 minute hold before crossing the final approach track. :E

Lets have a complaint from the B757 drivers that on departing Stansted for say Gatwick have to fly north of the field before going north of Luton, overhad Benson, 15 miles west of White Waltham, overhead Odiham and almost all the way to Shoreham before beign vectored some 50 track miles into Gatwick. Do they complain, No. Why? because their exprience and airmanship tells them that with the London area, that is actually not a bad routing even if they would prefer to depart 23 at Stansted and join straight onto right base for 26L at Gatwick. Meanwhile the PPL doing the same in a C182 VFR could probably land before them if City give a VFR crossing with little delay!

How much extra time for having to go round the Stansted CTR 5? 10 minutes?. Even if it is 20 mnutes then it is probably quicker than having to hold for a gap in the flghts that have alrady filed a flight plan in the normal way.

The problem with Stansted unlike Solent is that in terms of VFR transits, they are very limited vertically and have much more traffic.

Regards,

DFC

Fuji Abound

16th Sep 2007, 10:11

DFC

The issue is not about transit procedures, but efficiently dealing with requests.

The reason I call up with loads of time before reaching class D is so that I can take an alternative route without adding greatly to the flight time.
If I have the courtesy to do so, then I think the controllers can have the courtesy to indicate whether a transit will be likely, and if they want to ascertain early how I might fit in with their arrivals, assign a squawk.

At Stansted there must be many occasions when the controller has no intention of giving a transit. Fine. Own up and do so before we are left having to follow the edge of the zone because we thought a transit might be given.

Not only does that create a problem for the controller but also for the inbounds if you end up routing around the zone directly under the inbounds at top of class G.

Stansted is also the exception when on a number of occasiosn I have been offered a transit, having routed half way around the zone because it took that long plus the distance inbound to the edge of the zone before the controller could get his act together. Personally I would have been far to embarassed to have offered the transit by then. You might well imagine it was curtly refused on more than one occasion.

In short at the moment I stand by my original comment - pathetic.

Come on Stansted you need to do a whole lot better. I dont have a problem anywhere else including SVFR through Heathrow who are superb!
Please sort yourselves out.

Final 3 Greens

16th Sep 2007, 12:17

As a professional pilot I do not want UK Pilots transiting UK class D airspace while I am in there in IMC.

There is a very simple answer to that, isn't there DFC.

But if you do fly in the UK, you'll just have to accept the rules.

Roffa

16th Sep 2007, 14:25

englishal wrote:

I have often wondered that myself (from a pilot perspective)...? Surely it must be pretty easy to allow zone transits 90° across the field over the landing threshold at a safe height? Most, if not all IFR traffic in and out will be on known or predictable arrivals or departures....

90 degrees to the threshold is the simplest way, the debate would be what is a safe altitude?

The safest altitude would be 1,000ft above the missed approach altitude, though at places like Stansted that would put the transit traffic in Class A, so not an option.

So, instead, you'd probably be cleared at a lower altitude and held if necessary such that at the time you're crossing the threshold there isn't IFR traffic on a shortish final that would conflict in the event of a go-around.

I await the armchair experts' views on this with interest ;)

Say again s l o w l y

16th Sep 2007, 14:43

The problem with being sent over the threshold is in case of a missed approach. You could be right in the way....

However. Other airports seem to manage it with no loss of seperation. LAX for example.

It is a British disease that tries to seperate GA and CAT. Many other parts of the world seem to be able to combine all types of air user without too much difficulty. In just as busy airspace as we get here.

I'm in no way saying that it is easy to do it, but here in the U.K you can often say that nobody even tries. That is what I find hard to swallow.

Mal S

16th Sep 2007, 14:51

Guys & Girls,

I am newbie PPL and my first contribution to PPRUNE, If you are still tracking this thread CHEVVRON can you or anyone else clarify the reference to Farnborough LARS and the area around the Luton CTR. I would have assumed Farnborough would not provide a service that far north? If I'm being particularly stupid let me down gently! Still very much at the bottom of the learning curve!!!

Many Thanks

Mal S

Bravo73

16th Sep 2007, 15:35

Mal,

Welcome to PPRuNe.

It might be better if you either post your query on an existing Farnborough LARS thread or start a new thread.

This thread is specifically about transits through the Stansted zone.

HTH

Roffa

16th Sep 2007, 15:48

sas wrote:

However. Other airports seem to manage it with no loss of seperation. LAX for example.

I stand to be corrected but I think you'll probably find the LAX VFR corridor is vertically separated from LAX departures/missed approaches, so no issues there. If it's not then it would surprise me greatly.

It is a British disease that tries to seperate GA and CAT.

It's not a case of applying IFR separation standards to VFR/IFR traffic mixes, rather just making sure that they don't bump into each other.

The rules say only traffic info is necessary in Class D here, no atco that values their licence in the UK is probably just going to leave it at that. Irrespective of what the rules say it wouldn't be very defensible in court. "Yes I could see the returns about to merge, but hey, I've done my bit".

I'm sure that would be seen as a rather pathetic defense :rolleyes:

Chilli Monster

16th Sep 2007, 17:27

The safest altitude would be 1,000ft above the missed approach altitude, though at places like Stansted that would put the transit traffic in Class A, so not an option.

So, instead, you'd probably be cleared at a lower altitude and held if necessary such that at the time you're crossing the threshold there isn't IFR traffic on a shortish final that would conflict in the event of a go-around.

I await the armchair experts' views on this with interest

OK - I'll bite.

How many go-arounds does Stansted have as a percentage of their total movements?

How many go-arounds does Stansted have, again as a percentage, when the weather is good enough to allow 2000ft VFR transits via the landing threshold?

I would suspect the percentage is miniscule. So on that basis, why deny a procedure that is probably safe 99.9999% of the time, and easily solved the other 0.0001% of the time by the VFR doing what they're meant to be doing and avoiding the IFR go-around visually? (Which is why you pass traffic information to VFR's on IFR's).

Or - another solution. How many IFR's go around outside of 2 miles final? Even less of a percentage. So transit crosses 2000ft a mile or two downwind of the threshold - aircraft go-around commences go around inside them (between them and the threshold). No conflict, no workload.

Roffa

16th Sep 2007, 18:38

Dunno, don't do Essex, was just making a general point.

Traffic information is two way though, I guess the heavy driver as he hits TOGA won't mind being told that he's got a Cherokee coming in to his 12 o'clock at half a mile one thousand feet above. Of course he won't be thinking "shut the **** up I'm busy enough and why have you put conflicting traffic right in front of me anyway?".

Okay so it may not be a regular scenario but that is not in itself justification for setting it up. Would you give VFR traffic a transit through your final at 4nm and 1,200ft, or 6nm and 1,800ft, if there were a steady stream of IFR arrivals and just rely on traffic info? What happens when one of the IFR arrivals justifiably asks for traffic avoidance and screws your sequence?

Thatsthewaytodoit

16th Sep 2007, 18:44

Chilli - Your suggestion is fine, that is just how Ludon do their North Sourth transits and it works very well.
With Luton you know on initial call whether a transits is likely to be available - not of the Stansted "Standby" and you wait for the rest of the day!
TWTDI

mm_flynn

16th Sep 2007, 18:45

I believe (but haven't checked) places like LAX require the IFR to follow the approach to the MAP or DH (or for an ILS thrown away early) to proceed to the localizer MDA and then the MAP. All of this so that the VFR transit IS separated even on a go around and the transit would typically be around 1000 feet above the MDA.

Roffa - It does seem, as an end user, that some ATCOs try to apply IFR standard separation for VFR/IFR (RAS seems even more conservative - However in Class G you never can tell if the non-participating is IFR or VFR :( ). Even in Cowboy Land (USA) the controllers aren't supposed to let an IFR and VFR blip merge, which seems a reasonable compromise on workload, following the airspace rules, and Duty of Care.

Roffa

16th Sep 2007, 19:09

Hmmmm, so someone who ends up with an unstable approach for whatever reason, let's say a wake vortex encounter, where the safest way to get out of it is to hit TOGA and climb away isn't allowed to?

Don't think much of that if it's correct.

If you're not going to permit just passing traffic info and then watch the blips merge, as would be allowed by the rules, then you are taking some form of action to ensure some (not "standard") separation over and above what is actually required, none.

Which is what I think most UK atcos do, they don't try to apply IFR/IFR criteria to IFR/VFR, but they will try to build in some separation. In busy airspace it's partly to ensure safety and partly to ensure minimum disruption ie reducing the liklehood of the IFR legitimately asking for avoiding action.

Fuji Abound

16th Sep 2007, 20:42

Roffa

Any chance of a comment please about my original question or am I just wasting my time or being stupid

.. .. .. or any other ATCOs or Stansted people who might just happen to read this thread.

PS - sorry if I have upset your sensibilities, just my opinion and experience you understand. Every where else I actually find really good and have no complaints at all. :)

mm_flynn

16th Sep 2007, 20:46

The VFR corridor is at 3500 (No ATC communication required) and VFR transit routes are at 2500.

As published for LAX
MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 600 then climbing
left turn via heading 020^ to cross SMO R-095 at or
below 2000, then continue climb to 5000 via SMO
R-068 or POM R-248 to POM VORTAC and hold.

If some one goes missed at 2 miles, they are going to have a 6 or 7 track miles with a hard altitude limit of 2000 feet. Note - My previous comments are memory from guidance I was given (but don't have a reference).

Just our of curiosity, how often do inbound aircraft get sufficiently destabilised that they feel the need to go to TOGA 4 miles out? As compared to level off at say 1000 ft until the MAP

126.825

16th Sep 2007, 22:10

i dont work essex or stansted radar whichever you want to call it but i still have an opinion....

i always try and give transits and the like......i understand the VFR rules and the fact that we dont separate VFR and IFR aircraft......

however...and its not a moan or a rant but........there is a common belief amoungst PPL's (and i am one!) that they have a right to fly through class D airspace.

class D aispace is CAS which with permission VFR aircraft can enter etc. a heads up for most PPL's is that the controller working CAS is paid by, lets say NATS, for inbound and outbound aircraft from stansted or in my case gatwick. NATS gets paid from BAA for each respective airport to safely vector inbound and outbound aircraft to that airport, the costs are then passed onto the respective airlines......so who do PPL's pay for the service? the CAA? Nope NATS is part privatised?!

so when you do get a FREE transit of which there are many dont begrudge the controllers when you dont get one because 9 times out of 10 its because they are too busy......... and they are paid primarily for he traffic in and out of their respective airports.

safe flying....

Chilli Monster

16th Sep 2007, 22:18

126.825 - probably the poorest argument I've seen here yet.

126.825

16th Sep 2007, 22:21

you obviously didnt read my post correctly...it wasnt an argument merely a heads up.........

Chilli Monster

16th Sep 2007, 22:33

No - I read it. The minute you start talking about who pays for what in respect to airspace you lose the argument. (Or your "heads up" loses credibility - pick whichever option suits best).

126.825

16th Sep 2007, 22:43

win, lose? its about right and wrong.....and the way it is, not about winning and losing?!
most people are grateful when they get something for nothing not moan when dont get it?!
many of my friends are Essex controllers and they work hard doing the job they get paid to do.......only to get slagged off for not doing something their not paid to do when they are working their butts off? sound fair to you?!

mm_flynn

17th Sep 2007, 06:09

I seem to remember NATS argument around the Bristol CAS, proposed Coventry, and several other Class D airspace implementations was broadly,

"VFR pilots shouldn't object to this because they can still use the airspace with almost equal ease - they just need to make a quick zone transit call"

While I have some sympathy with the 'who will pay argument' around LARS type services (a real requested service), and an understanding that sometimes density of traffic will make transits impractical, 'who pays' to use a mandatory service that resulted primarily from the 'expropriation' of common airspace for the benefit of a limited group of commercial operators is a poor argument. Worse it reinforces the perception of VFR pilots that controllers begrudge offering the transit.

BEagle

17th Sep 2007, 06:53

mm flynn, that's precisely why I've objected to the airspace grab proposed by Coventry and also to the one proposed by RobinFinningleyHoodie International Chavport. We all know that the VFR transit assurances won't be honoured once LoCos start ferrying 737 loads of drunken yobs to various continental airports..

RobinHoodie wants enough airspace to facilitate radar vectors to 10 mile final. No doubt for the commercial benefit of their customers. Whereas all they really need is a descent from the overhead procedure with some protection given to approach lanes. It might cost the LoCos more, but it would reduce the level of Class G airspace theft they propose.

Anyone refused a VFR transit through Class D airspace should certainly submit a report!

Chilli Monster

17th Sep 2007, 08:19

Anyone refused a VFR transit through Class D airspace should certainly submit a report!

Even the idiots who call a) 1/2 a mile to run to the boundary; or b) already inside?

(Much as I'm pro transits in a safe manner to facilitate all airspace users there are those who abuse the situation ;) )

S-Works

17th Sep 2007, 08:51

however...and its not a moan or a rant but........there is a common belief amoungst PPL's (and i am one!) that they have a right to fly through class D airspace.

What a load of tosh.

PPL's have just as much right to fly through Class D airspace as the chav carriers or anyone else. The airspace belongs to all users freely and equally unless we have become a police state while I was not looking.

As IO540 is fond of saying SHOW me a link to a legal reference that denies this right.

I agree that it serves to give priority to traffic under certain rules. But if you believe what you have said I suggest you give up both your PPL and your job as a controller.

slim_slag

17th Sep 2007, 09:07

An aircraft shall not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome to which this paragraph applies unless the commander of the aircraft has obtained the permission of the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome.........Rules of the air.

So if you have to ask permission, and that permission can be denied, it cannot be considered a 'right'.

S-Works

17th Sep 2007, 09:35

The rules of the air apply to anyone.

I ask AGAIN, show me where a PPL does not have the right to use Class D airspace.

Permission cannot be withheld without reasonable cause. We all have the RIGHT to use our soverign airspace.

slim_slag

17th Sep 2007, 12:48

I think the word/concept you are searching for is privilege. If you want a reference then read the ANO 2005. If you want to know what it means then make an appointment at the Citizens Advice Bureau :)

PPRuNe Radar

17th Sep 2007, 13:13

Permission cannot be withheld without reasonable cause. We all have the RIGHT to use our soverign airspace.

Reasonable cause would be the airspace operating at capacity, a figure which is known by the ATC unit, the UK Flow Management Unit, and Eurocontrol.

Note that because it's quiet when you call, that doesn't mean that the airspace hasn't just been at capacity for a given period, or is about to become extremely busy shortly. On the flightdeck you will have no way of knowing.

There is no reason however why pilots who make a transit request in good time (a minute or two to the boundary would not be 'in good time' in my book) should not be told straight away what the score is. Either to expect a clearance, to expect no clearance for the foreseeable future (with a short reason provided), or to expect a clearance in X minutes due to YYYYYY.

As BEagle says, there is a conduit to report any entry refusal to the CAA. Feel free to make use of it, but don't necessarily be surprised if quite often there is a legitimate case made as to why entry is refused. There's a responsibility placed on the ATC unit to provide justification in each case to the CAA or else face the consequences.

Personally I have never had any problems transitting Class D airspace, with flexibility being the key to a successful crossing, either by accepting a slight delay, or suggesting a different route to the controller. Building up an air picture and letting the controller know you have traffic in sight and are happy to pass behind/above/below etc also gives hard pressed controllers a little nudge to think about more options.

Nice to see that snobbery is alive and well though ... lo cost being classed as Chavairs. The gin soaked ex forces officers of the world living in their own little days of the British Empire are just as worthy of scorn ;) Dinosaurs :yuk:

S-Works

17th Sep 2007, 13:17

Yep, read the ANO. Please quote me the section where it states that a PPL is not entitled to access Class D airspace.

If you want to make a point and shut me up you merely have to point me exactly at what I am asking for which is merely a confirmation in writing under law that states that a PPL does not have the right to transit Class D airspace.

After all we know for a fact that anything that is not SPECIFICALLY excluded is legal. I merely want to see the exclusion.

It would be much simpler than trying to be a smart ass and point me at the CAB whom I assume know as much about aviation law as you seem to.

PPRadar, I am not arguing against the fact that the airspace may be at capacity and a transit may not be possible. I am merely being a pedant and wish to have it proved to me that a PPL is not entitled to use Class D or any other Class of airspace for that matter. The discussion here is about the standard of service that Stanstead provide (or dont as the case may be.)

slim_slag

17th Sep 2007, 13:54

Oh deary deary me.

A PPL is entitled to access Class D airspace once he has been given permission to do so by the controlling authority. Read the reference I provided earlier.

A PPL does not have a right to enter Class D airspace because your aircraft rating is a privilege which is entirely at the mercy of the CAA or whoever it is now granting the things. It's not a right as you originally claimed, since weaseled out of. Read the ANO, then something like the human rights act, and see whether flying a light aircraft is mentioned in our list of rights.

Now, I may well be a smart ass but at least I know what I am talking about. Whereas you definitely are, but you don't :)

Wrong Stuff

17th Sep 2007, 15:17

Fuji Abound

17th Sep 2007, 15:37

I go that way quite a lot.

Whilst I have never done so before I think it is time for me, and I would suggest everyone else, to start filing on Stansted zone transit "refusals".

Clearly they appear to be the exception in terms of the very poor service they give.

Just because the Eurocontrol flow management limits have been reached within a block of airspace, that does not mean transits are not possible.

There is an intersting article in Flying this month talking about flow control in the States. The point was made that it is very very rarely the case the sky runs out of room, the problem is a lack of tarmac.

The artcile goes on to talk about airspace access and the proposal to charge in the States.

However, the point is made that when you drive along the highway do you get out of the way for evey commercial vehicle on the road because they are using the road for commercial purposes - bu**er me do you!!

Perhaps we should defend our rights of free passage more strenously?

Flingingwings

17th Sep 2007, 15:57

Perhaps one of the transit differences between Luton and Stansted might be the provision of a designated route at Luton :confused:

FWIW I've never had a problem with Stansted or Luton, and on many occasions they've actively gone out of their way to make my life easier :ok:

Guess you cannot please all of the people all of the time :eek:

Fuji Abound

17th Sep 2007, 16:13

FW

Ah yes, but I think you rotary guys get special priviliges. :)

Flingingwings

17th Sep 2007, 16:23

And rightly so me thinks :cool::E

But the Luton lane is not limited to just rotary.

Fuji Abound

17th Sep 2007, 16:44

Absolutely.

Mind you never had a problem with Luton myself either - they are excellent and ever heplful having.

Interested that your priviliges also get you through Stansted - now that is a special trick.

mm_flynn

17th Sep 2007, 17:17

A PPL does not have a right to enter Class D airspace because your aircraft rating is a privilege which is entirely at the mercy of the CAA or whoever ...
On that basis the CAT driver with his ATPL does not have a right to enter, nor does the AOC holder who is operating the aircraft as all of these are privileges that are at the mercy of regulators. Of course only acting through due legal process to remove said privileges.
The thread has also moved into a fairly negative area rather than a potentially useful exchange of views on
1 - Do some ATC units have better processes/capabilities for handling transits (and are there ideas from other parts of the world that could increase capacity, reduce work load and not materially change safety)
2 - Do some ATC management teams staff more accurately (not necessarily better or worse) to meet real demand
3 - Are there latent priority/'attitude' differences that result in individual controllers, managers, units having a different approach to 1 and 2

DFC

17th Sep 2007, 17:26

slim_slag

17th Sep 2007, 18:02

On that basis the CAT driver with his ATPL does not have a right to enter.....Yep, that's correct, though he will have been cleared to enter some time before. The closest thing to a 'right' the ATPL or PPL has is to declare an emergency and enter - but even that's a privilege.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. So do as DFC suggests and play it nicely.

mm_flynn

17th Sep 2007, 19:14

On that basis the CAT driver with his ATPL does not have a right to enter.....Yep, that's correct, though he will have been cleared to enter some time before.
Which is fine, everyone accesses the airspace on the same basis. However, it does rankle to have access described in terms of sweets dolled out at ATC's discretion, rather than various legitimate users who are organised by ATC to get maximum use out of airspace and runway capacity, safely.

Which is where the thread started - Does Stansted do this as well as they can/should! And possibly can we learn something so as to not p!ss in each other's pots.

slim_slag

17th Sep 2007, 19:34

No, I don't think we would ever get access on equal basis. You don't even get that in the States.

In the States, AOPA works in two main ways.

1) Behind the scenes negotiation using terms like 'shared' access. Note, not equal access, 'shared'. It's close but not the same.
2) Donations to targetted politicians re-election fund.

US AOPA don't go around pissing people off telling them that these spoilt private pilots with too much money and their noisy toys have 'rights'. They work behind the scenes. Negotiate and compromise. They have even compromised on the new FAA funding legislation, a little....

What need to happen is some controllers are reminded that GA pilots are customers too.

PPRuNe Radar

17th Sep 2007, 19:36

I don't remember the last time I saw Stansted or Essex listed on the CFMU regulation list when it wasn't for fog or wip or an incident.

I don't think that it is a reguar place where flow is applied to the airspace.
Even Heathrow is rarely regulated for the whole day.

You don't need regulations to demonstrate you are at capacity. Flow managers can use a variety of techniques which allow volumes of airspace to operate at or above capacity without anyone on a flight deck ever being any the wiser. These techniques can be tactical or strategic and generally would not involve light aircraft in any case.

On that basis the CAT driver with his ATPL does not have a right to enter, nor does the AOC holder who is operating the aircraft as all of these are privileges that are at the mercy of regulators.

The CAT will have filed a full flight plan, and provided the pilot remains in Controlled Airspace for the whole flight and thus doesn't require a join then the clearance granted at the departure airport is good all the way to destination. This is regardless of the fact that different ATC units are responsible for different parts of the route, the philosophy being that the profile of the aircraft will be co-ordinated ahead of it's passage. Clearance limit points might be issued along the way, or holding, but in the event of radio failure the pilot (and ATC) know what to expect. As they're scheduled customers of the destination airfield, they are unlikely to be refused entry in any case.

VFR GA could quite legitimately file a full VFR flight plan for a route totally within Controlled Airspace (e.g from Edinburgh to Glasgow) and they'd be treated the same as the CAT flight with a clearance and co-ordination taking place automatically.

VFR flights could also file VFR flight plans with transit units along the way if they choose to. Whether this will help is debateable since many pilots don't know how to address them correctly anyway, and many ATC units won't do anything with them even if they are received.

Stansted has had a reputation for many years of being very hard to get a transit clearance from. The problem is that much of it is anecdotal and perhaps seen as people just bumping their gums. What the CAA are interested in are factual reports which detail the refusal (date, time, details, etc) which they can then discuss with the ATC provider. As I said earlier, sometimes the provider can provide a valid excuse which the CAA accept. Sometimes they can't. What the CAA can't act on is a general opinion, either on an internet website or other forums, unless there is reported evidence which they can investigate.

The ball is firmly in the court of GA pilots who have been refused a transit.

Fuji Abound

17th Sep 2007, 20:29

PR

You make some excellent points.

Anecdotal evidence, particularly when it is frequent, usually has some substance and often more than the anecdotal evidence alone would suggest.

Pilots dont like having to file (me included). If I were Stansted I would want to do something about it, but you are correct, the answer is to file so the CAA can judge the full extent of the problem.

Your comments on CAT on a flight plan are totally valid. Never the less there is often a regrettable distinction between CAT on a FP and GA on a FP in terms of when they are "dumped" outside the system.

SS

Whilst you may not have been intending to imply that AOPA UK "pisses people off with rich boys toys" to be fair to AOPA UK I have never known them to take this approach (and I am not know for my support of AOPA UK).

WorkingHard

17th Sep 2007, 21:14

SS with "these spoilt private pilots with too much money and their noisy toys have 'rights'. " you are well out of order Sir. GA is NOT repeat NOT rich private pilots at all. If you think that is a fair definition then please 1) look up the correct definition and 2) if you have any thing to do with aviation please retire gracefully.

zkdli

17th Sep 2007, 21:36

126.825

17th Sep 2007, 22:05

just for your information....... those controllers on essex (stansted) that "cant be bothered" to let you transit compared to those nice controllers at Luton that go out their way to be helpfull.....

many of them are one in the same........they do Luton and Essex, so maybe your not getting a transit because they are busy or just about to be.........

TractorBoy

18th Sep 2007, 08:12

Please help me understand something. Stansted is as busy and at times busier than Gatwick. The airspace is not particularly large in the scheme of things, being only about five miles either side of the approach lanes and from ground level up to about ten miles out in to the approach. why is it necessary to fly through it rather than around it.
From where I am looking on the maps, the only sort of denied transit that would cause a big detour is for aircraft routing nw/se or se/nw. Are there really that many routes in those directions?

I fly from Stapleford, and I currently fall into to the limited radius category due to hiring costs etc. That means that all those nice airfields to the north (Duxford, Cambridge etc) are tantalisingly out of range for me at the mo, due to lack of transit. Just have to save up, I suppose. Plus I really don't fancy the A10 corridor that seems to be busier than the M25 on a Good Friday.....

slim_slag

18th Sep 2007, 08:22

SS .... you are well out of order Sir. GA is NOT repeat NOT rich private pilots at allWhat I said was US AOPA don't go around pissing people off telling them that these spoilt private pilots with too much money and their noisy toys have 'rights' So what do I mean by that?

Well, it's a perception of many and it will be used against GA for the slightest reason. When Kennedy Jr crashed there were newspaper articles calling private pilots the 'NRA of the air' and that's a negative connotation that needs to be avoided.

One way to avoid it is to lobby quietly and behind the scenes. Don't get on your soap box and demand your 'rights' - especially when what you are demanding isn't a right at all. If you read the context of the offending sentence in my posts and then in the context of the thread you might see what I mean.

Though I do accept it could read the way you did, so hope I have cleared that up.

What do you do with people who fly over the village because it is their 'right' to do so, and buggers it up for the rest of us when the council gets complaints and starts investigating? Hopefully you slap these people down....

Just for interest, my opinion is that there is a sizeable minority of GA pilots who fit my description, but the vast majority are decent and hard working people enjoying a hobby that is becoming less politically correct every day.

So we need lobbyists to fight our corner, but as I also said - you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. So do as DFC says, and log every refusal and let the more diplomatic people take that up with the authorities. I would not be good at that, and neither would other people who have posted on this thread. At least I admit it :)

Roffa

18th Sep 2007, 12:28

126.825 makes a good point there (unlike some of his earlier ones :) ) and that is the fact that many/most of the Essex (stop calling it Stansted, it's Essex Radar you're talking about) controllers are multi-valid holding two out of, and sometimes all three, Essex, Luton and Gatwick validations.

So why are the same people so praised for offering transits at Luton and Gatwick yet castigated for being the most unhelpful atcos on the planet when doing Essex?

I suspect it's because out of the three validations the busiest and most complicated position is Essex Radar. All the other approach positions in the room (including Heathrow and with the possible exception of Thames) are a bit of breeze compared to the current crappy airspace design and volume of traffic that Essex have to deal with*. The workload even in routine traffic situations is quite high so there's little scope for providing ATSOCAS and it may go some way to explaining if not excusing why transits are sometimes declined.

Anyway, if you really believe Essex are routinely pathetic and unhelpful, instead of tub thumping on an internet forum that won't actually achieve anything constructive do start reporting specific instances to the CAA and then you might actually achieve a change if indeed a change is necessary.

* this description also applies to Thames Radar.

WorkingHard

18th Sep 2007, 14:59

SS - Thanks for the explanation, no harm done. Just as a matter of interest most of my flying is for business purposes where time (and fuel) really is money. I plan a route as direct as possible but avoiding a number of units based on prior experience, Essex being one. IF I get a more direct route then that is a bonus, I prefer not to speak of "rights" per se but I also beleive some units believe they "own" the bit of sky they watch over and need to be re-educated. In just the same way some years ago there was the odd military controller who would issue instructions to civilian aircraft in the open FIR and they had to be re-trained.

Fuji Abound

18th Sep 2007, 15:26

So why are the same people so praised for offering transits at Luton and Gatwick yet castigated for being the most unhelpful atcos on the planet when doing Essex?

Roffa - you appear to have made this personal.

My comments were never a criticism of individual ATCOs - I have said on many occasions you are a great bunch.

My issue is with Stansted (or Essex radar if the name is important).

I fully understand that Essex radar has ATCOs who have doubtless worked all over the world (well all over the UK at least).

The issue is that for some reason when they get to Essex they are usually less than helpful. I dont know why - hence the question.

Is Essex busier than most - yes, but refusals dont seem to relate only to times when they are busy.

Is the airspace more difficult to manage than most - well yes, maybe.

Does that excuse poor R/T? IMO - no.

Once again, it is not specifically the issue of whether or not zone transits are granted, but the way in which they are managed.

Once again, give the aircraft a squawk on first call up, unless you have no intention of giving a transit.

In short, I still dont get what is so difficult about doing so. Surely it helps us all - unless of course as I have said before (with my usual conspiracy hat on) the object is to lull us into thinking a transit will be given when infact it ends up not being given, or, is given so late, as to be a waste of time.

If you are not going to be able to give a transit, all I ask is own up straight away, tell us so, and let us navigate accordingly.

It is not rocket science - is it?

In short you are there to manage the airspace efficiently - that is what you get paid to do. You are not managing the airspace efficiently if you leave users having to guess their routing and having to skirt close to the boundary of the zone with minimium seperation from in bound CAT.

If I am going to transit under inbound CAT at the top of class G I make a point of telling the controller because it is a good working partnership - he knows where I am and not going to do anything silly and visa versa. Of course I could simply not bother - no squawk, no communication. I know, I know poor airmanship - perhaps just as poor as ATCOs who cant tell me within reasonable time whether a transit will be approved or not!

It is not personal, I am sure many of the ATCOs are out the same school, but there is something going on at Essex that I have a feeling is more to do with Essex than the individuals concerned or the individuals concerned are over worked and cant cope with the traffic flow without causing us inconvenience.

Roffa

18th Sep 2007, 16:08

I'm not taking anything personally, as I said I don't do Essex so have no axe to grind with you there and it wasn't me that used phrases such as pathetic and unhelpful which if I were an Essex atco wouldn't actually encourage me to engage with you.

Anyway, as I said, despite you perhaps suffering a bit of a misconception that you can change things just by general and anonymous posting on PPRuNe, it's unlikely you will.

On the other hand, if you do actually want to achieve something, feel free to PM me with who you are, where you are and some more specific details about your complaint or what you'd like to see happen and why and I'll put you in direct touch with someone at Terminal Control who is actually able to do something about it.

Can't do fairer than that now, can I?