London SVFR - all OK?

[JimBall]

Treading on eggshells here. Have noticed - shall we say - a little tension in the air since the switchover to Swanwick. A lot of holds - a lot of refusals. Today "SVFR is being closed due to staff issues" was one tx heard.

Would phone you for a soothing chat - but the numbers keep changing!

Is all well now that Pickfords have left ?

[Dizzee Rascal]

A lot of holds - a lot of refusals. Today "SVFR is being closed due to staff issues" was one tx heard.
Staff issues :mad:?

I know who that is then!

Knowing some of the ATCOs there I suspect it is one individual letting the team down.

Apart from him, that little group of ATCOs are a brilliant bunch, I've shared Tea and Cakes with some of them!

PS. Have you sent my Christmas card Alan?

[Talkdownman]

A lot of holds - a lot of refusals. Today "SVFR is being closed due to staff issues" was one tx heard.

"I suspect it is one individual letting the team down."
Well well. Can't be me. "We do not have a requirement to retain you". Great forward planning.....
BTW Dizzee, great tea and sticky buns, thanks again!

[JimBall]

Issued without any warning today:

Start date/time: 16/12/2007 12:30 UTC
End date/time: 16/12/2007 16:30 UTC
Activity period: null
Lower height limit: 000
Upper height limit: 050

DUE TO ATC STAFF SHORTAGE NO SPECIAL VFR SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED
IN THE LONDON CTR ON 125.62MHZ.HEL TFC INBD TO HEATHROW, NORTHOLT,
LONDON(BATTERSEA)HELIPORT OR HAYES SHOULD CONTACT THAMES RADAR ON 132.7MHZ.FIXED WING TFC WISHING TO LAND AT HEATHROW SHOULD CONTACT HEATHROW APPROACH ON 119.72MHZ. SERVICE WILL BE OFFERED ACCORDING TO FLIGHT PRIORITY AND CONTROLLER WORKLOAD.

Apparently commercial airline traffic gets priority and SVFR is the first to go when staff fail to arrive for work. Which is fine unless you happen to be in a business which needs SVFR in order to stay in business.........

[ATCO Two]

SVFR will be open today from 1400 onwards. Additional staff have been called in tomorrow morning to cover the ongoing staff sickness.
NATS is now, whether we like it or not, a commercial organisation that needs to make money for its shareholders. I am not party to the decisions made at higher levels, but if there is a shortage amongst Thames Radar/SVFR qualified staff, should those limited resources be made available to our airport and airline customers to whom we provide a service under contract, or to a commercial organisation that pays nothing for a service within controlled airspace, and that operates flights under priority Z? I do not know the answer to this question and I pose it for discussion only.

[DFC]

SVFR has always been at ATC discretion.

The flights are not Cat Z, they are normal flights i.e. filed a plan and operating in the normal way (for heli's inbound to say Battersea).

Would you prefer flights such as these to request IFR clearance into the Heathrow CTR?

I know that if my business revolved round heli flights to and from Battersea, and I have an IFR capable heli+ crew, I would file IFR via the heli lanes.

The Heathrow zone is established for the protection of aircraft arriving at and departing Heathrow airport. It is not for the purposes of excluding other flights. It does require ATC to integrate other flights especially those who have legitimate reason to require entry into the zone i.e. destination within it with those being protected.

When the Heathrow zone becomes EG-P-xxx or EG-R-xxx then flights can be excluded.

Regards,

DFC

[Bright-Ling]

I would file IFR via the heli lanes.

Yet again, DFC talks with no expertise - you cannot be IFR on the helilanes and cannot be IFR into/out of Battersea.

And they are Cat Z! :) (MATS pt 1 refers)

Apart from that - good effort DFC!!! :ugh::ugh:

(I am with Red Ken - ban the lot of these silly heli flights unless operating in or out of Battersea)

[alfaman]

At risk of pedant alarms going off everywhere, I can't find any specific MATS Part 1 reference to Special VFR in Flight Priorities: I think you may be referring to the "Special VFR flights are not to hinder normal IFR flights" clause - not quite the same thing, perhaps. Interesting debate, anyway!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

DFC - entry into the London Control Zone by any low-level flight is at the absolute discretion of the controller at the time. If he says "no", that means NO. Full stop.

[ATCO Two]

Alfaman,
Non standard flights in the London CTR such as photographic details are category Z, and are subject to tactical approval on the day. I am not referring to SVFR transits.

[ATCO Two]

In my first answer I was replying specifically to JimBall's post.
DFC - when the SVFR position is closed there are contingency procedures to allow traffic into and out of Battersea to continue. We do not seek to exclude SVFR transits, but if suitably qualifies staff are not available, what do we do? I can assure everybody that the decision to close SVFR is not taken lightly, but this morning we only had two people to cover Thames Radar, Thames Co-ordinator, City Radar (EGLC were on Easterlies) and SVFR. What solution do you suggest?

[roundwego]

Bright-Ling,

What rule stops you flying IFR on the helilanes?

[Bright-Ling]

herewego

Given the fact that the MSA in the LCTR is 1800ft - isn't that a consideration?

(You fancy being told to hold at Kew Bridge at 750ft IFR????)

[roundwego]

Bright-Ling,
If I am clear of cloud, in sight of the surface with good forward vis, why not?
You have fallen into the trap of mixing up flight rules with weather conditions.

[mr.777]

Isn't MSA the lowest altitude to which you can descend an a/c under receipt of RCS (i.e IFR) or vectored RIS or RAS? Weather conditions doesnt have anything do with it.
I stand to be corrected though...

[Dizzee Rascal]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g129/d_rascal/canofworms.jpg

[alfaman]

Hi ATCO Two - my response is related to the one ahead from DFC; he specifically says he is a normal flight, yet Bright-Lings response seems to imply Special VFR always equals priority Z; my point being, that ain't neccesarily so. As for the Heathrow specifics, that's not my aisle, but if I was operating as a normal flight, but got treated as a Z, I'd be a little unchuffed - whatever the root cause.

[Reflex]

To add a little to the discussion.
If you're flying an aircraft (incl Heli) which has a MTOW over 5.7 tonnes then you're paying charges to NATS/Eurocontrol all the time.
For the vast majority under that figure you're paying those charges when IFR or if any part of a flight is made during the night.

To say that the rotary world doesn't pay for the Heathrow Special/Thames Radar (excellent) service is a rather sweeping statement.

[DFC]

There is much confusion.

Category Z flights are non-standard flights such as photographic details.

A to B flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way are simply normal flights. They do not have a lower priority. A simple test of this being if they were IFR, they would get a CTOT or a no delay requirement to depart within 15 minutes just the same as every other flight.

Special VFR flights are at the discretion of ATC at all times and in all cases or categories. That is because SVFR is in place at ATC discretion to permit aircraft who can not comply with the IFR requirements to enter the zone when it is IMC or when it is night or when it is class A - Heathrow.

IFR flights can operate below 3000ft, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface and not be required to comply with the 1000ft above obstacles within 5nm rule. Note - no visibility requirement!

Reflex, I think you mean 2000kg and you are correct - every heli above that weight pays.

Thus while I agree that if SVFR is closed then no calls for cutting the corner or SVFR transits to White Waltham via Ascott should be entertained, operators who are flying commercial air transport to and from Battersea should be accomodated either IFR of SVFR on a different frequency.

As I said the airspace is for the protection of traffic. Not for the exclusion of traffic.

Regards,

DFC

[JimBall]

Very interesting. ATCO TWO takes the stance that if you don't pay for the service, then you shouldn't get the service.

Hmmmmm- so if we paid, would that guarantee that SVFR would always be available ?

I think not.

The airspace belongs to the people. Not the sub-contractor.

[ATCO Two]

JimBall. ATCO Two emphatically does not make the point that if you do not pay for the service, then you should not get the service! Please read my first post again. If you were making a commercial decision about where to allocate limited resources in the most effective manner to fulfil the needs of your customer with the least disruption to scheduled services, what would you decide?
The ownership of the airspace is a moot point. If staff are not available to provide a service in the airspace, then the service cannot be provided. The SVFR service is effectively subsidised by the airlines. Any revenue obtained by charging for the SVFR service would go back to the airlines in my opinion.
DFC - see your PMs.

[JimBall]

Trying to keep the worms in the can.......ATCO TWO I can't understand why you think that the commercial airline shareholders of NATS deserve any kind of payment. Have you studied the shareholder position ?

The Airline Group Ltd, a consortium of seven airlines, has the majority of voting rights and 41.9% of the shares of NATS Holdings Ltd. The Secretary of State for Transport owns 48.9% of the share capital, BAA plc 4.2% and NATS Employee Sharetrust Ltd the remaining 5%.

So - the majority shareholder is the taxpayer. That'll be all those little people asking for SVFR.

Presumably you believe that the non-shareholding airlines should enjoy less access than the 7 ? You refer to "your customer" - who is that ?

The root of this discussion is manpower. For whatever reason, there isn't enough. I trust the majority shareholder is aware.

[ATCO Two]

Thank you so much JimBall for explaining the allocation of shares within NATS. As a shareholder myself I am aware of the figures. My customers are the airlines, the airports to which we are contracted to provide an ATC service, and other airspace users who choose to avail themselves of air traffic services. The majority shareholders in the case of NATS do not provide its revenue, nor subsidise its costs. NATS' revenue comes from the Air Navigation Service charges paid by its commercial customers. Where did I suggest that the SVFR service was only subsidised by the Airline Group?
Please answer the question I posed in my last post about the allocation of resources.
The manpower available is sufficient, but no operation is immune from short notice intangibles like sickness.

[BDiONU]

So - the majority shareholder is the taxpayer. That'll be all those little people asking for SVFR.
Hhhhmmm you, as a commercial operator, are being paid by whomever hires you to fly. Yet you make no payment for the service from ATC. So effectively you're making money from a service provided by the taxpayer :}

BD

[JimBall]

Lordy, it's the time of goodwill to all.....ATCO TWO

NATS is now, whether we like it or not, a commercial organisation that needs to make money for its shareholders.But the taxpayer created NATS. The taxpayer is the majority shareholder. And, guess what, we pay our taxes on the profits we make and through other forms of indirect taxation. If NATS was wholly owned by the private sector, you might have an argument.

If you were making a commercial decision about where to allocate limited resources in the most effective manner to fulfil the needs of your customer with the least disruption to scheduled services, what would you decide?The resources shouldn't be limited. Hell's teeth - this is the busiest piece of local airspace in Europe. The revenue generated by NATS (and the taxpayer) in this part of the UK is gigantic. Why is the service under-resourced ?

When the service is available it is top notch and it's a great 2-way relationship. (I won't go into details about what we're doing for NATS at the moment...). But if London is under-resourced then someone high up at NATS needs to take notice before the majority shareholder gets to hear about it.

Hhhhmmm you, as a commercial operator, are being paid by whomever hires you to fly. Yet you make no payment for the service from ATC. So effectively you're making money from a service provided by the taxpayer

Yep. And guess who pays taxes ? Bit like the costs of HGVs on the public roads..........especially the ones without UK registrations.

[ATCO Two]

The taxpayer created NATS? Really? I thought it was the government. Does the taxpayer pay revenue to NATS? No of course not, but NATS returns revenue to the taxpayer. The airlines who pay for our services expect value for money and are forever pressing NATS to reduce its charges and overheads. As I have stated, the airlines subsidise the SVFR position at the moment, but would they be always be happy for this situation to continue? Just a question.
Again as I have stated, the resources are sufficient for the SVFR operation. It is only when unforeseen and exceptional circumstances such as short notice sickness occur that service provision is compromised.
And you still have not answered my question!!!

[BDiONU]

But the taxpayer created NATS.
Actually the government made NATS create NATS. The government set a price for NATS privatisation (£600m) and NATS had to raise the money on the open market in order to pay the government. Since privatisation the taxpayer has put no money into NATS but has received £600m into the public coffers plus the bonuses from the shares. NATS is a revenue generator for the taxpayer.

Yep. And guess who pays taxes ? Bit like the costs of HGVs on the public roads..........especially the ones without UK registrations.
But as I've explained above the taxpayer doesn't pay anything towards the running of NATS, in fact they make money. So your analogy doesn't work. Personally I'd feel quite uncomfortable using a free service but charging a 3rd party :}

BD

[JimBall]

And you still have not answered my question!!!

How can I ? I have nil expertise in your side of the screen. I just find it unsettling that the ATC for such a busy and profitable piece of airspace can find itself under-resourced at short notice - to such an extent that it has to stop a service.

SVFR is not some sort of bonus. It is a part of the ANO. If we have to pay for it - fine. But then the service would have to be delivered.

And let's not delude ourselves that the £600m paid by NATS was the true value of our national airspace and the infrastructure that supported it at the time. Like any other privatised entity, NATS had to be at an attractive price.

As for "selling a free service to a third party" - meet me anytime to discuss that suggestion! Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a private aviation business ? I'll bear your thoughts in mind when I sign the cheque for this year's corporation tax. If we follow this train of thought you'll be charging truckers for signposts.

How many "British" airlines pay UK tax ? How many airline multi-millionaires live here year round and don't pay as much tax as the cleaner in your office ?

Still - all I originally asked was "is all well......?"

Thanks for the answer(s). And best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.

[BDiONU]

I just find it unsettling that the ATC for such a busy and profitable piece of airspace can find itself under-resourced at short notice - to such an extent that it has to stop a service.
And the answer you received was how do you cover for things like short notice sickness? Its not realistic to roster additional cover 'just in case' only to find you have surplus (valuable and expensive) resource sitting around twiddling thumbs for the entire shift.

And let's not delude ourselves that the £600m paid by NATS was the true value of our national airspace and the infrastructure that supported it at the time. Like any other privatised entity, NATS had to be at an attractive price.
No it didn't have to be an attractive price. The government set the price, it wasn't out for bidding. The government told NATS how much it had to pay. I suppose it could be argued that, like Qinetiq, the price was unrealistically low. However if the government had been going through the privatisation process at the time of 9/11 I suspect the price NATS had to stump up would have been quite considerably lower!

As for "selling a free service to a third party" - meet me anytime to discuss that suggestion! Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a private aviation business?
No one is twisting your arm to run your private business!
How many "British" airlines pay UK tax ? How many airline multi-millionaires live here year round and don't pay as much tax as the cleaner in your office ?
Thats not relevant to your discussion as the service you are expecting to be provided free, gratis and for nothing isn't paid for by the UK taxpayer. Its paid for by NATS customers i.e. the airlines who pay route charges.

And best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
And to you and yours :ok:

BD

[JimBall]

Oh Beady - I'm almost taking your bait.

No one is twisting your arm to run your private business!

If you really mean that, then I am dumbfounded by your complete disregard for the economic engine that keeps this UK going.

What would you like me to do - become a drain on the State ? Ask an employer to pay my pension ? Stop employing people who contribute to the economy ? Stop buying 40,000 litres a year of AVGAS at 1.16 net a litre - 80% of which is tax that goes back to the State ?

It's called enterprise - and we graft for every penny.

[ATCO Two]

You can easily answer my question about resourcing, by looking at the situation as I described it in purely practical and commercial terms. You do not need any expertise in ATC whatsoever.
Thames Radar is contracted to provide Approach Radar services to London City and Biggin Hill Airports. SVFR is under no such contract.
The question is ultimately - do you close Thames Radar or SVFR, if you have an unforeseen staff shortage? What would you do JimBall? Where is the greatest impact on the operation likely to be? Should thousands of fare paying passengers be inconvenienced, or just a single aircraft unable to carry out a particular task? Logically, what is your answer?

[BDiONU]

Oh Beady - I'm almost taking your bait.
Excellent! So I'll take yours.
If you really mean that, then I am dumbfounded by your complete disregard for the economic engine that keeps this UK going.
The economic engine is that companies (etc) pay for the services they obtain from other companies (etc). If a company provides a service for which they don't get paid then eventually they'll run out of money and go down the plug hole. NATS is a substantial revenue generator for the UK in the service it provides to commercial traffic and for which that commercial traffic pays. If more 'private aviation companies' exploited loopholes by obtaining a service from NATS for which they don't pay then NATS would:
Either go down the plug hole
or
would be forced to approach the regulator in order to obtain exemption from having to provide that service as a part of its licence
or
have the law changed in order to be able to charge for the currently freely provided service.

BD

[JimBall]

OK. Final post. First, I don't see how I can answer ATCO TWO's question. I have no idea how many controllers it takes on a Sunday afternoon to run TC and/or SVFR. But there's someone who does - and that same person would know that every winter/summer/whenever there is a sickness or (if like the average workforce) some "sickness" amongst some members of staff. Given that ATC is a nationally-critical industry, you would have to assume that there is a back-up plan ? If not, then how come your management overhead is so high ?
If the National Grid and other essential utilities can cope with flu and Christmas shopping, then NATS can do the same.
(I knew you wouldn't want to hear this answer).
Beady: ignoring your flawed "exploitation" argument, if there's a problem with the system, let's get it fixed. If that means charging for a SVFR service, then let's get it done.
There are many operators who benefit from SVFR. However, if NATS persuades DAP to change the airspace classification to something more sensible, SVFR won't be needed !
All we have to do then is convince the various Class D airspaces around the UK that an NSF is not necessary - nor legally required! Happy Christmas to Birmingham, Manchester and, on occasions, Bournemouth who all seem to have their own rule book.
Please - go ahead and explain why we have to deal with different rules in different places ? Rules that aren't even legal.
I would love to relate the conversation I had with a NATS manager in an English region who maintained that he had the right to invent his own rules.....

[BDiONU]

If the National Grid and other essential utilities can cope with flu and Christmas shopping, then NATS can do the same.
(I knew you wouldn't want to hear this answer).
Those other industries don't have staff who require very specialised training and who must remain current and who have mandated breaks and rest days. Oh and NATS does have a 'back up' plan, they simply don't provide the service ;)
There are many operators who benefit from SVFR. However, if NATS persuades DAP to change the airspace classification to something more sensible, SVFR won't be needed !
Why would NATS have any interest in lobbying DAP to change the airspace? If it disadvantages you then crack on with lobbying for change yourself.

BD

[Roffa]

Ye Gads, I'd rather be at work than go Christmas shopping on a Sunday afternoon!

[Lurking123]

BD, may I just ask who NATS believe is their third largest customer, with a contract worth £726.6M? If I am correct, this is tax payer's money.

[BDiONU]

BD, may I just ask who NATS believe is their third largest customer, with a contract worth £726.6M? If I am correct, this is tax payer's money.
I presume you're refering to the MoD contract? The contract is spread over 10 years and was a good buy for MoD as the cost of supplying the services themselves were much greater. However this isn't money supplied by the taxpayer to run a service, the MoD are purchasing something they need and which they could supply for themselves but its cheaper to buy it from NATS.

BD

[Lurking123]

My point being that the airlines are not NATS only customer. Your comment
But as I've explained above the taxpayer doesn't pay anything towards the running of NATS
is factually incorrect.

You could also say that the public 'own' the majority of the risk.

[BDiONU]

Your comment is factually incorrect.
My statement is factually correct. The MoD purchase a service from NATS. If the MoD chose to purchase that service elsewhere NATS would not go down the plughole because NATS would then require less workstations, less staff, less real estate etc. Whereas the NHS, for example, is reliant upon the taxpayer as thats who pays for it. :)

BD

[Gonzo]

As galling as it is to say it, BDiONU's correct. :}:E

One of BAE Systems' largest customers is the MoD (probably the largest, but haven't checked as I write this). Does that mean that 'taxpayers' fund BAE Systems? No. Taxpayers' money is used to fund the MoD, who then use that to purchase services and hardware from suppliers, such as BAE and NATS.

Even pre-PPP, I'm sure that NATS actually generated revenue for the Exchequer, rather than the other way around.

[BDiONU]

As galling as it is to say it, BDiONU's correct. :}:E

Aaaawww Gonzo! Tis the season to be jolly after all :O

BD

[JimBall]

Beady: Those other industries don't have staff who require very specialised training and who must remain current and who have mandated breaks and rest days.

Afraid you're wrong there. I think you'll find that monitoring a nuclear facility requires some "specialised training".

Why would NATS have any interest in lobbying DAP to change the airspace? If it disadvantages you then crack on with lobbying for change yourself.

Thanks - but I wasn't about to lobby. I am simply stating facts - there is a move by NATS to reclassify the Class A downwards.

However this isn't money supplied by the taxpayer to run a service, the MoD are purchasing something they need and which they could supply for themselves but its cheaper to buy it from NATS.

And there we go. Different planets. Out here, in the real world, the MoD is paid for by the taxpayer. Everything the MoD buys has its roots in the taxpayers' pockets.

[BDiONU]

Afraid you're wrong there. I think you'll find that monitoring a nuclear facility requires some "specialised training".
Doubt it, I've seen Homer Simpson doing it. Although some ATCO's eat as many doughnuts as Homer does. :}

And there we go. Different planets. Out here, in the real world, the MoD is paid for by the taxpayer. Everything the MoD buys has its roots in the taxpayers' pockets.
But if we follow this train of thought truckers carrying MoD goods are being paid for by the taxpayer etc. etc. I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply from my right honourable colleague Gonzo in post #42

BD

[Gonzo]

Everything the MoD buys has its roots in the taxpayers' pockets.

If you go back far enough, every bit of wealth in the whole world has come from taxpayers.......

[Lurking123]

.........but the tax payer does remain the largest single shareholder.

[Gonzo]

Sorry, I've lost the thread of the argument here............

........but the tax payer does remain the largest single shareholder.

and that means?

[Lurking123]

It means I have lost the plot.:}

[istandfornothing]

Great argument developing here gents. If it gets any more convoluted it's in danger of disappearing up its own bottom.
However, I suggest the arguments about NATS' responsibilities to the SVFR community and how this may or not fit into the brave new era of part-privatisation are irrelevant.
CAP493 (MATS Pt 1 to you and I) - CAA SRG document and therefore not the doctrine of NATS regardless of how it is funded, states (Section 1, Chapter 2, Page 5, Paragraph 8.1, line 4, and commencing 9 words from the left-hand side):
"Special VFR flights are not to hinder normal IFR flights"
So, if available human resources cannot support the full Thames Radar/SVFR manpower requirement (for whatever reason - and I suggest unusual levels of sickness is a perfectly valid reason), then SVFR will be the one to go - not because of who is paying for the service - but because the CAA says so.

[Geffen]

istandfornothing,

Well said, unfortunate fact but, well said.

[Gonzo]

And yet, sometimes they do hinder IFR flights, don't they Geffen.......but maybe that's another can we shouldn't open..... ;)

[Geffen]

Indeed, maybe we should apply the letter of the law to the next inbound!! ;)

[DFC]

So, if available human resources cannot support the full Thames Radar/SVFR manpower requirement (for whatever reason - and I suggest unusual levels of sickness is a perfectly valid reason), then SVFR will be the one to go - not because of who is paying for the service - but because the CAA says so.

What do you do when 50% of the formerly SVFR flights pitch up at the zone boundary and request an IFR entry on the heli lane?

Must remember the old SVFR shall not hinder IFR..........R22 ahead as we approach the Bagshott.........we are faster and thus by asking for IFR, the R22 has to get out of our way. Love it. :)

The thing that is overlooked when saying Thames is contracted to etc etc. Heathrow Approach ATC is required to provide the service in the CTR. SVFR is simply a split in the sector.........just like final etc. The dedicated frequency removed R/T from the other busy frequencies. If there is not enough people to do the split then what remains still has the responsibility for providing all services within the CTR.

The thing that limits SVFR i.e. it is at the discretion of ATC is no different if there are suficient ATCOs or not.

Don't want to be limited by SVFR then go IFR. End of. Can't go IFR then bad luck because class A is for IFR and there lies the issue.

Regards,

DFC

[ATCO Two]

OK DFC so where will all these IFR flights go? There is no procedure for IFR flights to land at Battersea. The IFR helicopters flying on the helicopter routes would not be separated from other IFR operations at Heathrow. Therefore the routes would not be available for use. Standard separation would have to be applied between light aircraft under IFR and the airliners. This would severely limit capacity at Heathrow. How long would this situation be allowed to continue? Light helicopters would be charged for that portion of their flights operated under IFR. Would that be financially viable for the operators? The London CTR is not big enough to support the sort of IFR operation that you are suggesting, and even the low level IFR traffic would be subject to far greater delay than SVFR traffic is subject to. If it is not safe to alllow it into the zone, due to capacity constriants or controller workload where would the traffic hold? There would be a huge environmental impact. Then of course there is the question of pilot qualification. I could go on....

[Spitoon]

Whilst I have come this thread rather late - and must admit that I have trouble following some of the arguments - it surprises me that little has been said about the NATS licence.

The licence specifies the services that NATS must provide with, as I recall, some services given greater priority than others. The licence terms change over time - and I haven't been involved in stuff like this of late so I don't know what it currently says - but I wonder whether the service to SFR traffic features at all. Perhaps the licence, which is set by government, will give an indication of NATS' obligation to build in contingency for sickness etc. After all, as has been pointed out, government is a major shareholder!

As for Jim's rather simplistic approach of 'if you need more resources then get them' doesn't seem to work in ATC. It takes a significant period of time to train a controller and every one that gets through the training can probably be put to better use than handling SVFR two or three times over. Throwing money at the problem and putting more trainees through the system doesn't work for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the perennially high attrition rate in NATS ATC training could be reduced in some way - but I guess that's another can of worms.........

[DFC]

ATCO2,

All traffic in class A are separated.

Even if it was a class E (the lowest level of controlled airspace) control zone, Special VFR flights would be separated from IFR flights.

Thus in this case to meet the requirement that all traffic in Class A is separated, the heli lanes and levels must be deemed separated from the IFR flights.

If that is the case then an IFR flight along the heli lane at the same level would be just as much separated as a SVFR flight.

Remember also that SVFR flights are separated from other SVFR flights also so no difference there also.

As for an IFR procedure at Battersea, none is required since in order to fly the heli lanes IFR the flight would have to be visual i.e. clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. Thus a visual approach would be a viable option.

Note that by being IFR below 3000ft but clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, one can effectively remove the visibility requirement for SVFR (or at least reduce it). Not saying that it would be safe in all cases but those are the rules.

If your next question is what does the IFR flight operating visually do if it can no longer operate visually then the answer is just the same as the SVFR flight......but being IFR equipped and with an IFR rated pilot, the options are better.

The point I was making is that in black and white there is VFR and there is IFR. Pick one to fly by. However to be less restrictive, the CAA has permitted the grey to enter the equation this thing called Special VFR but it is totally at the discretion of ATC.

It is the classification of Heathrow Zone as A ( and Jersey zone also) that really makes SVFR necessary even when it is CAVOK. The airspace category is where the complaint lies. Not with ATC and not with NATS since any ATC provider would act in the same way.

Regards,

DFC

[ATCO Two]

It is my understanding that the CAA are trying to dispense with deemed separations, and I do not think that they would countenance IFR routes in a CTR that are not separated by 1000ft or 3nm from the ILS traffic, whatever the current situation. Also geographical separations, and reduced separation between opposite direction helicopters on the routes could not be used between IFR helicopters. There are plans as we know to change the category of airspace in the London CTR to Class C, allowing VFR flight, but even then these aircraft would require an ATC clearance and therefore a dedicated Controller to provide the service so there would still be rare occasions when the service was unavailable due staff shortages.
JimBall, I have given you all the information you require to answer my question and you still miss the point. OK I will pose it again. You have two Controllers available for a Thames Radar and SVFR operation that requires four positions - SVFR, City Radar, Thames Radar, Thames Co-ordinator. These Controllers require legally agreed breaks. (Usually five Controllers are provided). Do you provide the Thames Radar Approach service that is supplied to London City and Biggin Hill under contract, or do you close Thames Radar and provide a SVFR service to a light helicopter that wants to carry out a category Z photography detail in the London CTR? That is the question - pure and simple. There is no poiint bleating on about resources, because as I has said the resources are available. When there is unforeseen sickness something has to give. Try and be objective for once - using your commercial viewpoint which position would you close, Thames or SVFR? Is it better to inconvenience thousands of fare paying passengers or just one helicopter operation?

[cdb]

ATCO 2

Firstly, if its only one helicopter, I'm sure one of the approach controllers can handle a single SVFR clearance! If not, then perhaps its more than the odd heli being inconvienienced?

Secondly, perhaps the heli operators could ask for a scheme similar to the Solent zone, where the controllers have suddenly got a lot more helpful since they have had to give written explanations for any denial of a clearance to enter controlled airspace.

[DFC]

cdb,

If you are operating a normal flight IFR or VFR and are refused your routing request under IFR or VFR then you can report the matter and it will be looked at.

If you can not fly VFR or IFR then you rely on the goodwill of the ATCO on the day to let you fly Special VFR.

In the case of SVFR there is nothing stopping an individual ATCO deciding that for them SVFR is dangerous and thus they will no longer approve it (ever). They have the ANO and the AIP and MATS to back them up because it is totally at ATC's discretion........unlike VFR or IFR.

Extreme but legal and backed up by the rules.

Regards,

DFC

[ShyTorque]

How does a non instrument rated pilot enter class A airspace under IFR?

What is the requirement for submission of written flight plans for an aircraft operating IFR in class A airspace?

What is the minimum equipment list for an aircraft operating IFR in Class A airspace?

[ATCO Two]

cdb,
A good idea in theory, but SRG have determined that daytime SVFR in the London CTR requires a separate validation. Only one of the Heathrow Approach guys holds that validation.

[cdb]

Shytorque

Good points. I don't know about the MEL but I know that non-IR/IMC rated pilots can fly IFR remaining VMC - at our unit its done all the time. Night ratings would be impossible otherwise because all flight at night is IFR.

I think its a slight anomaly in the rules, where IFR flights are permitted to fly clear of cloud, in sight of the surface below 3000' without having to follow quadrantal rule, min terrain separation etc.

Is it any different in class A?

ATCO 2
Is that specifically to provide a SVFR service on a dedicated frequency, or to issue any SVFR clearances whatsoever?

[ATCO Two]

cdb,
I am sure that the Heathrow Approach guys are entitled to issue SVFR clearances at any time, but whether they have the capacity to offer a service to a Category Z low level photographic flight, whilst carrying out their primary tasks, is doubtful.

[ShyTorque]

A fourth question: Under IFR in class A airspace, what are the minimum weather limits that a non instrument rated pilot can fly to when going to a VFR only airport embedded within the airspace over a congested area?

[DFC]

How does a non instrument rated pilot enter class A airspace under IFR?

They can't.

What is the requirement for submission of written flight plans for an aircraft operating IFR in class A airspace?

A flight plan must be filed in the normal way. Before departure or an in-flight flight plan received the required time before clearance is requested.

What is the minimum equipment list for an aircraft operating IFR in Class A airspace?

You need to refer to the ANO for specifics but basically i think the word "everything" could sum it up!

Under IFR in class A airspace, what are the minimum weather limits that a non instrument rated pilot can fly to when going to a VFR only airport embedded within the airspace over a congested area?

A non-instrument rated pilot can not fly IFR in class A airspace. If instrument rated and in an appropriately equipped aircraft, then the pilot can fly below 3000ft clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. An RVR of 800m is appropriate to a visual approach.

but

Helicopters can operate in visibilities appropriate to their forward speed if I remember correctly i.e. you can legally creep along in crap vis when visual.

The built-up area makes no difference....rule 5 makes no difference between IFR and VFR.

Special VFR is a system whereby at ATC's discretion, a flight which can not apply with the IFR requirements may be cleared to operate in a control zone in IMC or at Night or if Class A. The important words being ATC discretion.

Regards

DFC

[ShyTorque]

DFC, they were rhetorical questions, intended to provoke further discussion. Your answers are correct in the main - which unfortunately means that your interesting proposal (although a nice idea if it worked) namely for helicopters to file IFR into Battersea, would be impractical in most cases.

A couple of points though; Battersea doesn't have a runway so RVR cannot be calculated. I mentioned congested areas because single engined helis must follow the routes (and ditch in the Thames if necessary, should the worst happen) whereas twins can also fly direct from A to B in the CTR. Single engined helis, (one excepted) can't file IFR in UK, in any event.

Without SVFR, Battersea would have a lot more free slots though, it must be said.

[SilentHandover]

Do helicopters not all require at least 1500m and to have the surface in sight?

[ShyTorque]

The rules for the Helilanes require visibility of 1000m, or 2000m in the vicinity of Heathrow.

Under IFR some of the routes could not be made available to any aircraft because of low maximum height rules. H3, H9 and H10 all have sections lower than 1000ft, which is OK under SVFR but not under IFR. Unfortunately, these are some of the more commonly used routes.

The thing to bear in mind is that the London Special VFR rules were introduced to increase the flexibility afforded to helicopters. Under IFR, this flexibility would be reduced.

For example, in ideal conditions (sufficient manning and reasonable workload) ATC request just 3 minutes notice by R/T before zone entry in order to issue a clearance. It is often totally impractical for a helicopter pilot to put in a written flight plan because of the type of ops involved (e.g. no facilities and no-notice changes to the task) so this is of huge benefit.

Also, under SVFR (and 6kms visibility) a visual separation can be offered to pilots of opposite way aircraft on the routes; in practice the right hand rule is often used for aircraft to pass each other. Under IFR this would not be allowed, standard separation would be required. :(

[DFC]

The height makes no difference. If it is safe when SVFR then it would be safe IFR provided that the flight was below 3000ft clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

For example, in ideal conditions (sufficient manning and reasonable workload) ATC request just 3 minutes notice by R/T before zone entry in order to issue a clearance. It is often totally impractical for a helicopter pilot to put in a written flight plan because of the type of ops involved (e.g. no facilities and no-notice changes to the task) so this is of huge benefit.

Perhaps you have not realised it but your "ATC request" is in fact filing a flight plan. Perhaps the 3 minutes notice would be a bit short (10 minutes is quoted in the AIP) but having to hold for 7 minutes when you know you are going to get in is better than simply a "SVFR not available" message.

Under IFR this would not be allowed, standard separation would be required

Standard separation is required under SVFR also. Not to mention that in Class A airspace and Class B airspace, all flights are provided with separation be they IFR, VFR or Special VFR.

If you are happy to give away your right to separation against an opposite direction traffic in 6Km SVFR then if you are IFR in the exact same weather, other than having certain rules to follow, where is the difference in safety standards?

Yes it would make Battersea a bit more quiet and would mean that only the better equipped and crewed heli's can make it through but it would keep the system operating for those people who made the investment in crew and equipment.

Regards,

DFC

[ShyTorque]

DFC,
I am aware of verbal flight plans (it's not unusual to be obliged to request IFR crossings) but it appeared that you weren't, hence my comment about written ones. Unfortunately I think your 7 minute hold is very optimistic; even now under SVFR, with the possibility of visual (reduced) "right hand rule" separation on the routes (not allowed off-route, btw), holds can be longer than that.

Under IFR no aircraft is allowed to fly below 1000' above the nearest obstruction within 5 nms, SVFR gives a concession in that respect and also to required separation.

With regard to "safety", unfortunately we are talking ANO rules rather than "pure" safety! Obviously, any helicopter pilot flying in VMC along a line feature is generally quite happy to accept "right hand rule visual separation", irrespective of airspace classification. Everyone does this all day long in Class G without the benefit of ATC assistance.

I've often discussed the rules with London area ATC controllers over the years. Following a letter I sent to the head of LATCC for consideration, "off route" ATC SVFR clearance is now given as "not above 1500 feet" to reflect the change in rule 5 regarding minimum height over a congested area, now in line with ICAO's NB 1000 feet. Pilots are no longer mandated to fly "at" 1500 feet as they had been in the past. This gives more flexibility with regard to where we can fly over London. For example, pilots can now route "Brent to Barnes not above 1000 feet"; hopefully pilots are less likely to attempt to push their luck with regard to "Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" in an attempt to avoid going below the cleared altitude in marginal weather and contravene R157.

To exclude certain flights or pilots (with a historical right to fly in an out of Battersea) is unacceptable. It would undoubtedly have huge implications on the non-IR qualified CPLH, around which the industry in the south depends to a large degree and therefore on the industry in general.

The best answer is to lower the classification of the airspace and get ATC the manning up to strength to cope with the increase in helicopter movements.

[ATCO Two]

DFC,
When the SVFR position is closed, there are contingency measures to allow SVFR flights into and out of Battersea to continue, see the NOTAM at post #4
ShyTorque,
As I have stated before, there are sufficient SVFR validations available at the moment, and more trainees are in the system. We have been talking about a situation where there is significant short notice sickness, requiring the SVFR position to be closed.
As you know, there are plans to downgrade the London CTR to Class C, thus making the system more flexible, but under Class C Rules, VFR traffic is required to be separated from IFR and SVFR traffic. From purely a workload point of view, not much would change.

[foghorn]

What is the position with regards to NATS providing Approach Control services to Battersea? Is NATS remunerated for this or is it just provided for historical and geographical reasons?

[TheOddOne]

I'd like to make a couple of points.

Firstly, it's my understanding that the UK has an ICAO obligation to provide certain Air Traffic Services, regardless of how our particular State might choose to fund these, the basic obligation remains.

Secondly...

We fly PA28 postioning flights at night to/from Biggin to/from Elstree & Denham, remaining outside controlled airspace. Departing from Biggin at night (IFR mandatory) requires 2400' due to Wrotham mast. Crossing the Thames east of the QEII bridge passes under the City traffic. When we speak to Thames, my experience is an excellent service, but it is in the controller's interest that we make contact so that traffic descending for City, can be advised to avoid an unnecessary TCAS situation. Sometimes I am offered RIS, usually though FIS, I assume depending on workload but I feel occasionally due to controller preference. I have wondered sometimes if the controller is working more than one position. I am usually offered the choice, after any exchange I might need to make with Stapleford, of Heathrow or Elstree; I take the latter to ensure separation from traffic there as I route to BOV, before joining for Denham, so I've never really found out if Thames and Heathrow are ever bandboxed.

Now, in a former life and many years ago, during quiet periods at a very large airport, various positions would be very sensibly bandboxed but quite dangerously with the controller working the different frequencies without users on each frequency being aware of the presence of other users on other frequencies. This was eventually tidied up into an official cascading down of frequencies so that all users could hear and be heard if a single controller was working.

What is the present situation with Thames and Heathrow? Are they ever bandboxed? If so, would it not be better if we were all on the same frequency?

TheOddOne

[PPRuNe Radar]

ShyTorque

Under IFR no aircraft is allowed to fly below 1000' above the nearest obstruction within 5 nms, SVFR gives a concession in that respect and also to required separation.

Not true if you follow the exemption in Rule 29 Para (d) :ok:

Minimum height

29. Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 5, in order to comply with the Instrument Flight Rules an aircraft shall not fly at a height of less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a distance of 5 nautical miles of the aircraft unless:

(a) it is necessary for the aircraft to do so in order to take off or land;
(b) the aircraft is flying on a route notified for the purposes of this rule;
(c) the aircraft has been otherwise authorised by the competent authority; or
(d) the aircraft is flying at an altitude not exceeding 3000 feet above mean sea level and remains clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

and provided you comply with any Rule 5 considerations.

Low Flying

5. - (1) The prohibitions to be observed are -

(a) an aircraft shall comply with the low flying prohibitions set out in paragraph (2) subject to the low flying exemptions set out in paragraph (3).

(b) where an aircraft is flying in circumstances such that more than one of the low flying prohibitions apply it must fly at the greatest height required by any of the applicable prohibitions.


(2) The low flying prohibitions

(a) Failure of power unit

An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.

(b) The 500 feet rule

Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.

(c) The 1,000 feet rule

Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.

(d) The land clear rule

An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below such height as will permit, in the event of a power unit failure, the aircraft to land clear of the congested area.


Corect Rule 5 entries now in place.

[Dizzee Rascal]

Departing from Biggin at night (IFR mandatory) requires 2400' due to Wrotham mast.

Not a great deal of difference but it actually requires 2300ft, however, don't forget you can fly lower than the MSA as in the scenario you describe you are OCAS below 3000ft and you might need/want to maintain VMC.

[ShyTorque]

PPRuNe Radar, OK but if aircraft are allowed in the airspace under IFR "per se" in marginal weather conditions, who decides which part of the rules applies? Effectively, that "caveat/let out clause" is essentially what allows "Special VFR".

Your second quote is from an out of date copy of the ANO, because it still contains c) para i ; namely the 1500 foot rule, which has been amended, as has the paragraph lettering. We now apply for exemptions from 5 (2) c, the 1000 foot rule.. :)

[AlanM]

Any reference to the "specified area" is also outdated.

What is the present situation with Thames and Heathrow? Are they ever bandboxed? If so, would it not be better if we were all on the same frequency?

Almost always bandboxed and cross coupled at the moment as the weather is not great and the staffing precludes splitting the freqs. It is best to have the SVFR traffic on 125.625 and Thames on 132.7 so that IF the roles are split it just needs Thames to deselect SVFR. You should hear all transmissions and aircraft replies irrespective of the freq you are on.

ST - 'bout time you came to the new gaff mate.:bored:

[ShyTorque]

Alan M,

Yes, one of these days, I will. I'll let you know in the new year when I'm for do a stopover.

P.S. Look on the bright side, what type of biccies? At least if you're bandboxed due staff shortages, there's obviously fewer mouths to eat them... :)

[SATCO Biggin]

I see a common thread running through this thread?

Lots of talk about resources and staffing and the ability, or lack, to run all the services required.

Commercial imperative seems to have a hand in this.

Safety versus the need to make a profit is raising it ugly head. Something non -NATS units have lived with for decades.

[PPRuNe Radar]

PPRuNe Radar, OK but if aircraft are allowed in the airspace under IFR "per se" in marginal weather conditions, who decides which part of the rules applies? Effectively, that "caveat/let out clause" is essentially what allows "Special VFR".

The pilot is responsible for chosing the rules he flies under and must then meet any requirements. ATC may have further operational restrictions to the level of service they can give (e.g. a minimum safe altitude for radar vectoring, or not giving a clearance to a VFR flight in airspace where it is not permitted), but it's not for ATC to either 'police' or dictate what rules the pilot chooses. Pilot in command means just that :ok:

Your second quote is from an out of date copy of the ANO, because it still contains c) para i ; namely the 1500 foot rule, which has been amended, as has the paragraph lettering. We now apply for exemptions from 5 (2) c, the 1000 foot rule..

You're right guys ... mea culpa, and now corrected ;)

[ShyTorque]

Well, I guess I knew that all along, that's what we do already ;) BUT allowing a pilot with a strong interest in making his destination into Class A under the "let out" clause of IFR, rather than SVFR, is perhaps likely to cause a problem sooner or later.

The controller will expect the pilot to fly "Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface", as for SVFR. However, the pilot, faced with bad weather, may believe he is entitled to press on regardless in the hope of the weather improving "any minute", because he has been granted an IFR clearance..... get my drift? A moot point, but it's because of the subtle change in terminology.

"Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface" might be needed to be included in the clearance. ATCOs would soon get as tired of saying that as the Battersea controllers are of mentioning cranes around the heliport.....

Hopefully this is all semantics. :)

[foghorn]

Almost always bandboxed and cross coupled at the moment as the weather is not great and the staffing precludes splitting the freqs.

Nothing to do with Special getting lonely, then :E

[DFC]

At least with Class C you will not have to separate the VFR-VFR's just traffic info and avoidance on request.

Problem with the UK VMC criteria below 3000ft in controlled airspace though.

Helicopters could fly VFR in worse conditions than they can SVFR if I remember correctly.

One thing that this discussion has highlighted for me is the lack of understanding of the IFR and how flights can be operated IFR but below the SSA or MSA or Radar vectoring Altitude when visual.

Regards,

DFC

[ShyTorque]

One thing that this discussion has highlighted for me is the lack of understanding of the IFR and how flights can be operated IFR but below the SSA or MSA or Radar vectoring Altitude when visual.


Never mind, DFC; I'm sure one day you will understand. :p