(UK) Etiquette on service termination

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hi chaps,

I don't come in the ATC lounge very often, but I hope you'll forgve me barging in to ask a question.



I was on an average sized (~90minute) trip across the UK, VFR, in a single-pilot single at ~1500ft QNH (so below MSA, and around 1100ft agl). Weather and visibility started to deteriorate, so I asked the service working me, who I'd just joined, if they'd be happy for me to climb to an IFR level and upgrade from a basic to traffic service IFR. They were, and provided an excellent traffic service for which I was extremely grateful - certainly enhancing the safety of the flight as I was mostly in IMC, but at-the least now able to climb above MSA which I couldn't whilst maintaining VFR, and also there was certainly other traffic around - very little of which I saw.

40 miles or so further on, as I came towards the end of their area, in IMC, I got:-

"G-nn, service terminates, squawk 7000, suggest freecall xxxxxx for traffic information". (I may have the wording slightly wrong, but that's the gist.)


This was a bit of an irritant when already working fairly hard single-pilot IFR in IMC, in fairly crowded airspace, and preceded by no warning. At the very best, this was going to create an interruption in traffic information.

As the simplest solution and guessing correctly that the weather below me had improved somewhat I asked to stay with them until I'd descended back into VMC and then could return to VFR - which fortunately I could just before I descended below MSA. However, to my simple pilot's mind it was a tad unsatisfactory.

It seems to me that there were at-least three better ways ATC could have handled this...

(1) A handover (possibly to xxxxx, since I was not yet very close to my destination, which also was non-radar.)
(2) A warning before that point that they needed to cancel the service, and asked my intentions.
(3) A request whether I was VMC and/or able to accept a service cancellation before then making the next decision.

Possibly I'm being a little precious about this and certainly should have had a bit more of a prior plan about my next frequency - but knowing what it does to both a controller's workload and mine, deliberately climbing IFR into IMC was a deliberate safety decision (rather than stooging around low level VFR in marginal VMC below MSA as I had been earlier), and having that decision cancelled out leaving me with increased workload and reduced safety information at no notice, was mildly stressful.

Any thoughts from anybody who either controls IFR traffic, or has a lot more IFR experience than my fairly minimal 40 hours or so? Was this reasonable? Should I have declined the cancellation initially and asked for a handover? Can I even legitimately do that?

G

[10W]

Was it a LARS unit ?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Regional airport approach frequency, I was running along just outside the edge of their airspace.

G

[055166k]

Hi Genghis, the fact that you requested "traffic service" imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given; if the conditions were such that this was not possible then a "deconfliction service" might have been more appropriate. Controllers are specifically advised not to offer or provide a service beyond that requested by the pilot so that the descriptive boundaries of each type of service do not become blurred......the exception being a clear and present risk [such as collision]. I think your post is a good read....thank you for that......but actually you have virtually answered all the points yourself! If you need a better description of services look up CAP 774.
rgds.

[samotnik]

Probably pilots should be specifically advised to request an appropriate service as well...

You guys at UK make things much too complicated. ICAO rules are simple - airspace classification is clear and everybody knows what to expect. I'd always wanted to ask you - what is the reason that you provide an air traffic control in some uncontrolled airspace etc?

[ShyTorque]

Genghis,

From a pilot's point of view, I'm not sure why you are surprised or upset about this. From the tone of your post I assume you don't climb into IMC very often.

The service you received is what you can expect as the norm in UK but you got 40 miles worth of cover from a non-LARS ATC unit. I'd say that's pretty good going.

We are required to "Squawk 7000 and go to your en-route frequency" on a regular/routine basis in IMC, in Class G.

Sometimes there is no radar cover further along track and no-one to be handed over to. That's just the way it is; thankfully we have TCAS.

Not ideal, I'd agree. Your other option was a 180 degree turn, avoiding IMC of course.... ;)

[Standard Noise]

It seems to me that there were at-least three better ways ATC could have handled this...

(1) A handover (possibly to xxxxx, since I was not yet very close to my destination, which also was non-radar.)
(2) A warning before that point that they needed to cancel the service, and asked my intentions.
(3) A request whether I was VMC and/or able to accept a service cancellation before then making the next decision.


It seems to me you got a good service. However, let's look at your three points..........
1) That's not always possible for a number of reasons eg where I work, at weekends, we are one of the few LARS units operating, in fact we cover from the south coast (Lyme Bay direction) all the way up to Herefordshire, and if you track from Seaton (pvt strip) to Barton say, there are no units to handover to who will provide a LARS. We can only provide radar services to a prescribed limit, ours is to 42.5nm. Outside that radar services must terminate.
2) We're not required to do this, so we don't (well, some may, but not all). I see nothing wrong in what the ATCO did.
3) Ditto.

Begs the question, how was the ATCO to know you were still in IMC? And what exactly do you propose he or she does about it? There is a reason why we can only work to a set limit, who's fault would it have been if you had been receiving a radar service ie TS outside this limit, in IMC and had bumped into something? The authorities would have been going after the ATCO for doing so, and why, just because you think they should have still been providing a Traffic Service?

I know this isn't a fashionable view among all, but here goes, GA traffic gets a fairly good deal in the UK as far as I can see, but still the Air Traffic community gets complaints because the system isn't perfect. Perhaps you could, through some GA body, lobby the CAA to pay units more money to make it feasible so that every radar equipped unit can afford to offer a LARS function while they are open, then you would have better coverage. Oh, and look at my answer to a pilot a few days ago re co-ordinating onwards with other units, not always feasible.

[Genghis the Engineer]

From a pilot's point of view, I'm not sure why you are surprised or upset about this. From the tone of your post I assume you don't climb into IMC very often.

On the latter point, absolutely correct - as I said, I'm an inexperienced instrument pilot, trying to enhance my understanding.

Yes, I found the circumstance uncomfortable, but I'm trying to enhance my understanding - and very much appreciate the responses I'm getting. I'm being careful not to argue my corner, I'm trying to learn here and am quite willing to accept that my understanding is lacking, which is why I've asked.

The lesssons I'm getting here seem to be

(a) that I need to understand the air traffic services better
(b) that I need to be thinking ahead better towards the next service I'm seeking.
(c) that I have to accept such a service termination, and be prepared for it.

But I'm more than happy to do more thinking, and more learning, and thanks for your time informing me.

I do however think I was right to climb into IMC above MSA and above anybody else down there rather than stooge around in marginal visibility at low level, and yes the service I got was excellent. It's the service termination that I'm really trying to understand.

G

[mad_jock]

From now on G you need to plan your Flight IFR and take it as a bonus if you do it in VMC.

So to start with you will have to work out what ATC services are available on your route and what they can give you.

Actually when you are in the clouds thats when your safe, hasn't been a mid air in IMC for over 50 years.

Once you get your head round IFR and your going places not sightseeing its better to bang up into IMC icing permitting to get away from all the VFR planes.

Always presume you are going to get dumped by the controller you are speaking to and have the next agency lined up in your mind ASAP after sorting things out with the current one. After a while you will know the ones that will give you a service and which ones will tell you to poke off with a basic.

[ShyTorque]

Mad Jock, I concur.

Genghis, my "bread and butter" UK flights, which are usually Class G transits, sometimes beginning or ending in other classes of airspace, often require letdowns into private landing sites, and are always planned to be flown as in IMC for transit. Why? Because, unless held back by fog or icing conditions, we are expected to go.

Having flown for a living in UK since 1977, in a variety of roles, I've seen LARS rise and fall from nothing. Unfortunately, these days, there are large areas of UK without the cover we had only a very few years ago. For example, "Cottesmore Zone" was the most recent to go and has left a big gap in busy airspace. East Midlands controllers try to help out but cannot be expected to take on a task for which they are not paid for.

My point being, ATC are stretched. If a non-LARS unit agrees to give a radar service at all, treat it as a bonus but don't expect a handover, too. We cannot expect a premier service from a shoestring setup. I say that without meaning to be at all demeaning to ATC.

All part of life's sweet tapestry, as my old Boss used to say. ;)

[twentypoint4]

On the subject of radar handovers, sometimes when the receiving controller is busy he/she will instruct the controller attempting the handover to "freecall it". Some controllers prefer it like that rather than receive the handover over the phone whilst planes are constantly chirping away in his/her other ear. I certainly agree a freecall can be just as speedy providing your dealing with switched on pilots who give the pertinent details in a concise manner on first call!... So sometimes when you get "dumped" like that it's not to say we haven't tried handing you over, it's just sometimes more appropriate to freecall you over.

Being inexperienced I can understand why you would feel uncomfortable, but the fact you got in to the sky expecting a seamless radar service whilst flying low level, outside control airspace is a little naive. At least you now know to plan a bit more on which units to talk to for your next IFR flight.

[Slylo Green]

Samotnik,

Why is the UK anymore complicated than ICAO? Outside of controlled airspace the pilot requests the type of service they require, a service isn't forced on them (outside of controlled airspace) so they know exactly what to expect.

Sly

[kharmael]

Genghis' flight sounds a lot like the sort of sortie profile that I am quite familiar with where you stooge around at low level and have all the frequencies for enroute radar providers in the event that the weather goes punk and you have to pull out of low level and continue along your route IMC at Safety Alt in receipt of a radar service until you can either get a vectored descent into VMC low level or until the cloud goes away. :ok:

At no point after a low level abort has any controller ever just dumped me out in the cold. Especially if you say that you've just pulled out of LL. :eek:

Clearly I have a lack of knowledge of Radar procedures as well as I was unaware that "traffic service imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given". If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCAS. :}

Fire away!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Clearly I have a lack of knowledge of Radar procedures as well as I was unaware that "traffic service imparts to the controller that you consider that you have sufficient visual reference to be able to operate on the "see-and-avoid" principle when traffic information is given". If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCAS

As the new boy in the cloud, I've been trying not to say "I'm right and you're wrong", but that's pretty much what I was thinking and doing also, apart from lacking TCAS. Being told where the traffic is, I can update my mental picture and determine whether I need to take avoiding action.

Indeed, I virtually have never asked for a traffic / radar-information service if I have got good visibility as I consider it unnecessary and adding to controller workload for no good reason. So far as I know, the same is true of most other GA pilots - we ask for traffic information only if visibility is poor/nil.

G

[kharmael]

Just had a browse of CAP 774 Chapter 3 (Traffic Service) and I can't seem to find anywhere stating that I should have 'visual references' to avoid traffic. I am happy to have it pointed out to me as I would prefer to have the facts. It does seem bizarre to be IMC but have 'visual references'...? :ouch:

I am loathed to use a deconfliction service unless I am really maxed out and don't have somewhere to be. If there is any traffic around it really messes up one's routing!

Also as Genghis said, if it's VMC then I see no need for a radar service!

:8

[riverrock83]

For a Traffic Service in respect to deconfliction:

Whether traffic information has been passed or not, a pilot is expected to discharge
his collision avoidance responsibility without assistance from the controller. If after
receiving traffic information, a pilot requires deconfliction advice, an upgrade to
Deconfliction Service shall be requested. The controller shall make all reasonable
endeavours to accommodate this request as soon as practicable and provide
deconfliction advice at the earliest opportunity.
When providing headings/levels for the purpose of positioning and/or
sequencing or as navigational assistance, the controller should take into
account traffic in the immediate vicinity, so that a risk of collision is not
knowingly introduced by the instructions passed. However, the controller is not
required to achieve defined deconfliction minima.

(my bold)
How would you do that if you are IMC?

[kharmael]

Because when the controller tells me what traffic is about I would have an idea where everything is relative to me and my routing in my head and whether it's going to be a factor or not. So if the traffic is in my way or poses a confliction I will know what direction to turn or if it all gets too much I can ask for a suggested heading or upgrade to deconfliction service.

Moreover, what's the point in having a radar service OCAS when it's gin clear outside?

[riverrock83]

kharmael
I will re-quote the first part of what I bolded from http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf Section 1 Chapter 11 4.6.1:
Whether traffic information has been passed or not

Agreed though about there should be no need for a radar service OCAS in CAVOK (or equivalent) for GA.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There appears to be an argument building here that we should therefore always ask for a deconfliction service whenever in IMC?

Lovely idea - but a huge imposition on the controllers. Plus as Jock pointed out, given no IMC collisions in 50 years, hard to justify the extra ATC resources to support it.

Traffic service --> situational awareness --> avoidance as required based upon traffic reports seems to me workable, and a lot of experience by a lot of pilots seems to bear that out.

Plus, I've yet to have any problem obtaining a traffic service IFR, and since part of the rules of IFR is I have to be prepared to go IMC, that means that presumably air-trafficers and their managers across the country are quite happy with giving a traffic service IMC, and are aware that they're doing so.

G

[kharmael]

Riverrock:

Well this is what flying quadrantal levels and such is for, plus a massive load of big-sky theory since you're putting your faith in the controller seeing traffic. In addition, if you were under a deconfliction service and the controller didn't register some traffic you'd still fly into it anyway because you wouldn't have been vectored away from it...?

However I would suggest that if the airspace was as congested as it would need to be in order to have a controller not pass all relevant traffic through workload or cognitive failure then a Traffic Service probably wouldn't be appropriate though I can't think of many situations where that would happen OCAS because I think nearly every approach/ radar/ LARS controller I've spoken to in that scenario has been spot on :cool:

[radarman]

Genghis,

From your original post: This was a bit of an irritant when already working fairly hard single-pilot IFR in IMC, in fairly crowded airspace, and preceded by no warning.

Not sure about your experience or qualifications, but the circumstances which caused you to start this thread could well have been the first hole in the Swiss cheese leading to a loss of situational awareness incident. There are some red herring posts on here which get bogged down in the esoteric technicalities of the various types of service, and which don't really address your concerns. When I was controlling I tried not to forget that ATC is a 'service'. In Class G airspace in situations like yours, I would always give the pilot a bit of useful information about the onward situation, with a phrase like 'Shortly leaving my area, no known (or observed) traffic in your vicinity, Squawk 7000 and free-call XXX'. If I knew of, or could see a busy area a little way ahead, but out of my area, I would pass this information and suggest an early call to the next unit. I know that seriously busy units may not have time to add those half dozen extra words, but controllers should also be aware that just dumping a (possibly very inexperienced) private pilot could lead to confusion and possibly panic in the cockpit.

[terrain safe]

Reading through this thread and it seems to me that some people are getting confused between IFR and IMC. As far as the ATCO is concerned the general point that is important is IFR or VFR as this sets what level of service you can get. Now as for offering extra if someone is IMC that comes down to duty of care. If the aircraft is in an area of high ground then you give the minimum height to fly and then work out how to get them VMC again but if you want a seamless flight with controller to controller fly inside CAS the whole way otherwise get what you can outside. Possibly harsh but my 2p's worth....

[kharmael]

It's not about terrain mate, its about being IFR in marginal visual conditions and for some reason people deciding that to have an IFR Traffic Service you need to have some sort of VISUAL references to see and avoid traffic...:confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

if you want a seamless flight with controller to controller fly inside CAS

An extremely valid point, thanks for making it. In my particular case, it happened that there was virtually no CAS in the straight line between start and end points of my route, so I was in class G, but it would have been straightforward to re-route by a few miles into class D, and maybe that would have brought benefits without adding more than a couple of minutes onto a 90 minute flight. That's probably a reasonable generalisation as well and an adjustment worth making as I build experience in instrument flying (as I said at the start, whilst I consider myself an experienced pilot, I'm not (yet) an experienced instrument pilot.)


Regarding V/IFR, V/IMC, surely the default assumption should be that an aircraft flying IFR *may* be in IMC? The ability to see and avoid is a bonus, and pilots will surely use that where able, but it can't be assumed.

G

[Glamdring]

Class G = See and Avoid principle, no matter what service you are getting.

Yes the rules say that you can be in thick IMC flying IFR under a Traffic Service or even a Basic Service, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

If you plan a flight OCAS understand that it is ultimately YOU that is responsible for avoiding collisions irrespective of any radar service you are in receipt of. If you are uncomfortable with that, either don't fly or file a flight plan inside CAS or at least a Class F route.

[NorthSouth]

As far as the ATCO is concerned the general point that is important is IFR or VFR as this sets what level of service you can getThat used to be the case pre-2009 - RAS only if IFR - but is no longer the case. CAP 774 states, for all three types of service, that they are "available under IFR or VFR and in any meteorological conditions". ATCOs can of course refuse someone a service based on workload etc but you can't refuse someone a DS because they say they're VFR and you also can't refuse someone a BS just because they say they're IFR.
NS

[Amexgull]

For years I regularly asked pilots who they would like to speak to next and this often led to discussions about handovers or freecalls and closest radar units etc Then when I took off the blue suit I used the same phrase whilst at the college for conversion and was told categorically that there was no place for that and I was the controller and told the pilot who to go to...Seems like the OP would have appreciated an early heads up. I think that controllers are guilty of forgetting that it is a SERVICE we are providing and unless there is absolutely no other course of action we should at least give prior warning. Its my job to help every pilot who calls me to the best of my ability and if that means I use non standard phraseology to achieve it then so be it - I cringe when I hear how curtly some controllers speak to pilots in class g who are clearly not professional aircrew and are looking for a bit of help whilst muddling through...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Seems like the OP would have appreciated an early heads up.

Pretty much, yes.

G

[anotherthing]

kharmael
If I'm IMC under a traffic service and the controller gives me traffic info then I'd manoeuvre accordingly using the picture in my head or TCASYou either fly in very quiet class G, or I'd be worried about that statement. If you are really in full IMC (not intermittent) and you rely on your mental picture and TCAS to show you the way to avoid called traffic, then you are increasing your risk. I accept against one or two contacts you could do it, but anywhere busy and you are, frankly, delusional about your mental ability, and ignorant of how TCAS actually displays... not having a go at you, just worried that you might think that TCAS is a good subsitute, or that you feel you can retain a complete mental picture of called traffic to allow you to weave your way through it.

Genghis,

I appreciate you might have liked an earlier heads up, and notwithstanding what Amexgull says about having a conversation with the pilot (you can do that at some units, others are just too busy), but if you follow ShyTorques advice and add an extra dimension to your flight planning, then an instruction to freecall etc won't come as a surprise.

I assume you plan meticulously for your VFR flight... it is not difficult, nor time consuming, whilst doing that planning to take note on a chart of the units you will be flying near, and then having a comms plan for the flight (i.e. anticipate where you will go from one unit to another for a service). If you then need to fly IMC, then you have the information to hand.

Otherwise, as ShyTorque also states, another option is acceptance that you cannot continue VMC and turn around.

In an ideal world, we would have a joined up LARS service... you maybe would not get handovers from unit to unit, but the next unit would have your details passed by an assistant and you could then be told to "continue with xxx" ('continue with' infers that you are not getting a radar handover, but that the next unit has your details, therefore instead of a freecall with all of your details, you just need to give callsign).

Unfortunately, HMG does not wish to pay for this gold plated level of service, and unless it makes sense for individual units (safety of their IFR traffic for example), then they won't provide it either as it costs money, money that the GA does not pay.

Amexgull is correct, controllers are there to provide a service, amongst other things, but full planning/forethought by 'the customers' makes the job easier for both.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks for those thoughts - but a query: whilst an inexperienced IFR pilot, I'm not a complete beginner and my experience has generally been that I have been given a handover on long trips across the UK, IFR in class G. If ATCers are going well beyond their required standards of service, then I'm grateful and have presumably been lucky.

This experience was so far the exception for me: I generally have been given either a handover or (less commonly) a warning of cancellation and/or request for my intentions. It's worked well, and I felt I was indeed getting a Good Service.

In this particular incident, I also got a Good Service, which I felt enhanced my safety and reduced my workload. I had a VFR plan, and like all good pilots that was down on various bits of paper in front of me, it didn't vary much from doing it IFR really - just a change of altitude and service requested.

Frequency plans however are of marginal usefulness - I'd already abandoned mine as the international airport I'd hoped to get a service from I couldn't get 2-way with, going with the switch to the regional airport I was talking to. From there the obvious next frequency to me was not the one that had just been suggested to me. This is pretty normal flying around the UK; a lot of flexibility is needed, and depending upon their own requirements controllers will often ask you to switch frequency / service and a LARS controller is often not the best provider if you are very close to a particular airport's CAS.

My sole point really was about the method of termination of the Good Service I'd been receiving, which at the time flustered me a little for the couple of minutes it took to adjust.

For the record, I'm really glad I posted in here, the learning points have been, and continue to be, very valuable. Breaking my VFR-touring mindset of avoiding CAS and instead going into it being perhaps the latest.

G

[kharmael]

anotherthing:

I agree that the sentence which you've highlighted, when removed from everything else I've been saying, would suggest possible reckless flying!
Rest assured that I am fully aware of the untrustworthy nature of the lateral display on TCAS, but it does give a decent distance readout to help one's situational awareness!

However when you couple your cherry-picked phrase with:

"Because when the controller tells me what traffic is about I would have an idea where everything is relative to me and my routing in my head and whether it's going to be a factor or not. So if the traffic is in my way or poses a confliction I will know what direction to turn or if it all gets too much I can ask for a suggested heading or upgrade to deconfliction service."

things become a bit clearer, no? This coupled with the fact that I would be at an independently calculated safety altitude would reinforce big-sky theory since it's unlikely anything else would be at that level enroute.

My MO is to have the least possible interference with my plan, but not at the expense of the safety of the aircraft and this quick check of TCAS and deciding in my head whether things are a confliction or not means the difference between sticking with the Traffic Service and continuing on my planned route only losing a minute or two versus taking a deconfliction service and potentially losing tens of minutes in vectored manoeuvring. :ok:

[WorkingHard]

It is sometimes difficult to know from what perspective some comments are made on these forums but never the less they may be quite telling and could be a warning to all. For example Amexgull tells us to remember that ATCOs are there to provide a SERVICE which is most often the case in reality. Anotherthing however focuses on a basic radar facility covering the UK as a "gold plated service" and the "GA does not pay" as well as "controllers are there to provide a service, amongst other things".
It seems to me that here we have possibly 2 opposite examples of what being an ATCO is all about. It also seems to me from my experiences that the views seemingly expressed by Anotherthing are very much in the minority. How do ATCOs see the job? Are you there to provide the best service you can for all the aircraft flying in your part of the world?
A comment and a question for Anotherthing - GA does pay and pays greatly for the "priviledge" of flying in the UK whereas the "owners" of CAS pay nothing for the exclusive control of that volume of airspace, and if an ATCO is on duty controlling then to what does "amongst other things" refer please?
Keep up the good work ATCOs.

[soaringhigh650]

WorkingHard:

I sometimes wonder about anotherthing? He appears to be a controlling supervisor who works for a company that:

1. Classifies the majority of lower en-route UK airspace as Class A therefore prohibiting VFR operation, i.e. the majority of GA.
2. Consequently says routing VFR at FL90 over the London TMA is impossible on a clear VMC day, despite exactly the same route conducted IFR as being completely possible.
3. Levies an Air Navigation Service charge of 128.34 + VAT for two-seater light aircraft flying into Stansted, despite their runway being empty a lot of the time.
4. Charges Night or IFR flights for GA non-commercial MTOW > 2T aircraft, even when they are flown OCAS and cannot get receipt of any service.
5. Paid out some £50m in dividends to shareholders in 2012.

:E ;)

He also likes to play the "GA does not pay" card when "non-paying" people discuss about preceived safety improvements, despite money being paid through taxes to prop up LARS, government/council-owned airports, the military, and other aviation-related business initiatives.

The fact remains that joined up radar services exist on practically every other country where GA is developed - if you don't fly too low. The main difference is that the route is not "blocked" by over-classification of controlled airspace.

[anotherthing]

Workinghard

Controllers are there to provide the best service they can to aircrew, with due consideration given to equipment constraints, workload at any given time, air navigation law, and local orders.

Any controller that does anything than their best for aircrew is not doing their job. If it came across that i did not think this, then that was not the intention. Sometime however, what a pilot thinks is the best for them is impossible for an ATCO to provide due to any of the above factors. I would not expect a pilot to know what these factors were for every unit they may speak to (unrealistic) but suffice to say that what ATCO A at unit a does may differ slightly form ATCO B at unit b. This is especially pertinent when it comes to the bells and whistles of a service (or a gold plated service) - sometimes, although we want to give the very best, we can't.

Soaringhigh650

1. I do not - you are talking rubbish! I classify the lower en-route airspace that is actually Class A, Class A... funnily enough. Just as I class any other airspace by the classification that it has been given by people way above my pay grade. Airspace that is classified in consultation with many groups. Just because the GA community would like more class G, it does not mean that they can have it... similarly, it does not mean that I would not like to see more class G... unfortunately you have not got a clue about my history nor professional experience in aviation on either side of the mic... and because of this, you make assumptions that are complete tosh.
2. VFR, through (not over as you wrongly state - the LTMA airspace is much higher than FL90) the LTMA at FL90? Best do some reading
3. You are pretty ambiguous about the charge. Below a certain weight there are no en-route charges. It seems that the charge you are talking about is a charge that has nothing to do with the airspace provider (because you talk about being charged even when the runway is empty) and all to do with the Airport Authority. For example NATS provides the ATC service and charges the owners of the airport accordingly on a contract basis - a contract that they have to bid for. How the owners of the airport recoup their money is up to them... done in a manner of ways, including navigation charges, landing and hangerage fees, skimming money from the shops in the terminal. Just because the runway is empty, does that mean they should not charge for the use of the facility? The airport owner is running a business. If you want to pay less charges, fly into a smaller airfield!
4. Don't know the charging policy, not interested in my current job as it has no relevance, but are you stating that you get charged for flying OCAS?
5. NATS is a business. Whether you agree that it should be or not is a moot point, though I see you are based in USA. Given the state of US ATC facilities under Government ownership (and remember not far back to Reagan), I think that there are pros and cons for both systems. NATS has invested more money into ATC than HMG could ever hope to, and it provides a service that is amongst the safest and is definitely the most efficient anywhere. Or do you think that the taxpayer should pay for this?
As a business, NATS has shareholders... people will not invest in any company if they do not get some benefits. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the way the company is funded in some respects, but the result of the way NATS is funded is one of the most modern ATC companies in the World... one that provides consultancy services to numerous other countries, the USA included.

As for taxes, I pay taxes on my car through Road Fund licence, petrol etc. I'd rather that HMG did not add so much tax to my petrol, but as a basic methd it is actually quite a fair way of doing it... the more petrol you use, the more you must use the road system, therefore the more you contribute to the upkeep... exactly the same idea as AVGAS tax.

If you want more, then I'm afraid you will have to pay more. You obviously don't understand the cost of providing these services if you think that AVGAS tax covers everything!

If you think that HMG should provide all the services, and thus have the burden on the tax-payer, why? If you want to do something that is over and above basic needs for living, for example flying, why should you not pay for it? Plenty other things that people do to enhance their lifestyle that they have to fund over and above normal taxes.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I worked out that the particular round trip, for myself and my wife, would cost near as dammit the same whether I flew (2POB, aircraft + fuel costs + airport charges) or took the train (2 return off-peak tickets); specifically about £320.

I suspect that the flying would as well as being quicker and more fun, attracted less subsidy from other taxation than taking the train, even with a share of anotherthing's pension fund!

G

[anotherthing]

Genghis,

You've hit the nail on the head!

Flying is a lifestyle choice that you choose. It is a hobby that you are fortunate enough to be able to afford (though maybe not as much as you'd like given the level of charges!).

You can hire an aircraft, pay fuel and charges for the same price as sitting in a train (if you can get a seat) besides all manner of people.

When you put it like that, I can't see how anyone can fail to think that flying is actually a bargain.

We'd all like things to be cheaper, but I think that when you put it into perspective it is decent value. Unfortunately some people want more for less, or for nothing at all!

I suspect that SoaringHigh650 would moan about having to pay for a ticket just to provide the train driver with a wage and to allow the train company to invest in new equipment etc. Heaven forbid if the train company even think about making a profit or paying dividends to it's shareholders! Surely the public transport system should be paid for by HMG and provided free ;)

[320 or greater]

I sometimes wonder about soaringhigh on this forum as well ... normally whether to ignore or whether to read his tripe!

[WorkingHard]

anotherthing I have another question if I may? In view of comments made here what is your understanding please of what is GA?

[Genghis the Engineer]

That's not playing fair! I doubt that any two people or organisations have ever quite agreed on what GA is.

I used to sit on the RAeS GA committee, and even we weren't sure.

G

[WorkingHard]

Genghis you may be correct but when Anotherthing states "Flying is a lifestyle choice that you choose. It is a hobby that you are fortunate enough to be able to afford", then this is a serious misrepresentation of a very large part of GA. There are a large number of people using aircraft in their everyday work; instructors, student pilots, pipeline inspections, pilots on their own business etc., who seem to be all lumped together (as hobby pilots?) as is suggested by the remark from Anotherthing. I do wonder why, especially as it should have no importance in providing service (not just ATC) to any aircraft commander.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You're right, it should have no relevance.

I hold a professional licence and sometimes use it as such for serious purposes, sometimes I'm just using an aeroplane to get from A to B for work or pleasure, and sometimes I'm just going flying because I enjoy going flying and can afford to.

The purpose of my flight should make no difference, save some very extreme circumstances (police / medical emergency, SAR), which don't apply to me personally, but I suppose potentially could.


Similarly, if I'm driving to see my mother in law, to work, or just because I fancy going for a drive because it's a nice day for it, should make no difference to how I'm treated by other road users, by the police, or by the various agencies that provide the road infrastructure.


At the end of the day I'm allowed to be there, the support I need is being paid for, and I'm entitled to use what's there.

G

[anotherthing]

Workinghard

Firstly, as Genghis points out, the term GA is very gray. Is in non OAT or CAT; is it purely hobbysits?

Are people who use aircraft for work (instructors, pipeline inspectors etc)part of the GA community, or commercial (becuse they earn from it), or both?

Not as straightforward as you are maybe trying to make out, and I certainly don't presume to say it is.

Genghis statedThe purpose of my flight should make no difference, save some very extreme circumstances (police / medical emergency, SAR), which don't apply to me personally, but I suppose potentially could.Exactly. There are different categories of flight, but outside of them then it does not make any difference.

Point me to where I have ever said anything different!

However Soaringhigh650 has a history on PPrune of intimating that he should be allowed to fly wherever, whenever, in the UK, and that he should not have to pay for the privile(d)ge, other than renting his aircraft and fueling it. Service provision should be provided for nothing...

I'm afraid that does not work. As Genghis states, the purpose of his flight should make no difference - and it does not. However, as you well know, you have to fly in accordance with the rules of the airspace. If you can adhere to the rules/requirements of a particular piece of airspace, then it doesn't matter if you are an A380 or a PA28; whether you are flying for the hell of it, of carrying 500 passengers (i.e. 'GA' (for want of a better phrase) or CAT).

As an ATCO in the LTMA I will freely admit, as will any other ATCO, that an aircraft flying at 100Kts at FL90 is more of a pain to me than an A319, but that does not mean it does not get my full attention or the best service I can give it. In fact it is probably the very opposite. Because the aircraft is such a poor performer, it will probably end up getting more attention than the airliners!

If you look at other posts by Soaringhigh, you will see that as far as he is concerned the rules of the air in the UK are wrong... because it does not allow him to fly where he wants under VFR.

Unfortunately all aircraft cannot be accomodated to do what it wants, how it wants to, in every piece of airspace. Sometime you have to show a certain level of proficiency e.g. IR rating to be able to do that.

You can fly in the LTMA (for example as SH650 continually brings this up) in any aircraft you like, for any purpose, as long as you have the correct qualifications and adhere to the rules i.e. IFR Flight Plan. You will be afforded the same level of service as any other aircraft when you do so.

What was a reasonable question by Genghis has been sidetracked in part by Soaringhigh because he has an agenda. Whenever there is talk of Class G, he wades in with his 'service should be better and free' and 'I should be able to fly VFR in any UK airspace talk'. Unfortunately it seems he does not have an idea what the ramifications are of having no restrictions in certain airspace.

[Brian 48nav]

I've agonised for an hour over this - but here goes!

'And your going places' - should be 'and you're( or - you are) going places'

There is no D in PRIVILEGE!

The least that intelligent people can do is use their own language correctly!

Back to my rocking chair!;);)

BTW Who is Soaringhigh 650? Why does he criticise (can also be spelt with a z ;)) UK ATC so often?

[Genghis the Engineer]

(can also be spelt with a z ;)) UK ATC so often?

Spelled, spelt is a type of wheat.

G

[anotherthing]

Brian,

I did not bother to proof read before I posted, hence the 'd' (that and fat fingers).

I have not changed it, otherwise you're post would not have made sense in that regard, but I have placed the offending letter in parenthisis.

Sorry Gramps, you can get back to Countdown now ;)

And yes, the 'You're' is intentional, you will see I have written this and not edited it after your correction!

[Brian 48nav]

Not so Genghis! Either way is correct; source The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

I knew I would be setting myself up!

[soaringhigh650]

Anotherthing,

1. I do not...

Please read my post again. All I have stated was that UK en-route ATC already owns a huge amount of Class A airspace designed to exclude VFR flight.

2 VFR

Please read my post again. I can guarantee I can file a Eurocontrol acceptable route IFR but because it is Class A, the same route cannot be flown VFR. Why should one pay tens of thousands of pounds to get an IR to fly through some chunk of airspace?

4 but are you stating that you get charged for flying OCAS?

I don't myself but I know people who do.

you want to do something that is over and above basic needs for living, for example flying, why should you not pay for it?

Firstly let me clarify that I am NOT wanting things for nothing. I can completely recognize and accept that there are costs which need to be recovered.

Whether you recover your costs through taxation on users, or through user fees, I favor the taxation method and do not favor for-profit ANSPs. But this is just a personal opinion.

Where I do have a grudge is when a pilot talks about an issue with a service, and then someone on this forum sits on their hands and replies with a tone as if to imply "GA does not pay anything and therefore deserves nothing" or "GA needs to pay $$$$$ to get x, y, z rating or install equipment x, y, z which costs $$$$$ to order to use our airspace" then I see these as attitude problems that I CANNOT accept.

If HOWEVER somoene even took the initiative to say that they're listening, and note such things down for future improvements when funding does become available, then that would be a good start in the right direction.

Unfortunately it seems he does not have an idea what the ramifications are of having no restrictions in certain airspace.

As you're someone who claims to be in the know, why don't you tell us what makes the UK particuarly different to heavily congested airspaces in Germany, Benelux, France or Class B areas in the USA?

Where is the "attitude" against developing higher level VFR corridors and routes coming from?

[Gonzo]

Soaringhigh, you do realise you should be aiming at the CAA rather than NATS, don't you?

Your issue appears to be with the airspace and restrictions placed upon aircraft/crew because of its classification. ATC merely carry out the procedures according to CAP493 and CAP393.

It's almost as if there should be a department somewhere in some official authority in the civil aviation industry that sets, and monitors the implementation of, policy regarding airspace. Perhaps it might even direct airspace policy.

Oh, hang on.........

[terrain safe]

Soaringhigh, you do realise you should be aiming at the CAA rather than NATS, don't you?

Your issue appears to be with the airspace and restrictions placed upon aircraft/crew because of its classification. ATC merely carry out the procedures according to CAP493 and CAP393.

It's almost as if there should be a department somewhere in some official authority in the civil aviation industry that sets, and monitors the implementation of, policy regarding airspace. Perhaps it might even direct airspace policy.

Oh, hang on.........

Love the post Gonzo but I can't see the use of the word muppet anywhere....:E:E:E:E:E:ok:

[rodan]

Where I do have a grudge is when a pilot talks about an issue with a service, and then someone on this forum sits on their hands and replies with a tone as if to imply "GA does not pay anything and therefore deserves nothing"

The NATS people have pointed out your errors regarding who is responsible for your other grievances (ie. not NATS), but as an ATCO at a regional airport, I thought I'd take a crack at this bit.

In the OP's situation, in all likelihood the controllers at the non-LARS regional airport are employed, either directly by the airport or by a contractor, to provide services to aircraft inbound to or outbound from that airport, and to aircraft wishing to transit the airspace associated with the airport. Nothing else. If you are passing nearby, you may be lucky and get a great service, or you may be unlucky.

The point is, anything you get from a non-LARS unit has to be regarded as a freebie and taken with the knowledge that you are at the very bottom of that unit's list of priorities. It's not that the controllers don't want to give you a seamless ATSOCAS experience - in the main we take professional pride in doing our best for everyone. But, these days more than ever, some of our employers are very clear indeed that freebies to non-paying customers are not what they want us concentrating on.

That's the way it is, this is what informs the responses that the OP had to his question. The joined-up radar service that you want could exist in this country if there was a massive reordering and nationalisation of the ATC infrastructure, and a way to pay for it all could be devised, but that's a matter you should be taking up with the government and the CAA.

[mad_jock]

But then you get lots of complaints from ATC if you don't get a service and remain unknown traffic.

Apparently that is bad airmanship. The often quoted reason for doing this is if they arn' going to help me why should I help them. Which I must admit has been my view with some units who view a basic service as a license to control you in class G.

[055166k]

Hi Genghis, are you still alive?...I said your post was a good read, and I think it is healthy and proper to debate these things. To assist in flight planning there is a useful LARS chart in the AIP.....try page ENR 6-1-6-3. There is a description given on page ENR 1-6-3-3 etc.
I'm no computer expert, but if you use NATS | AIS (http://www.ais.org.uk) and then hit the IAIP button it seems to give you everything by way of the index.
regards.

[soaringhigh650]

If you are passing nearby, you may be lucky and get a great service, or you may be unlucky.

I can understand this point to a degree. Even with VFR Flight Following over here we can get dumped or not handed off if the controller is too busy with their IFR/inbounds, etc.

No issue here if you have to focus on certain traffic.

But I think the OP was referring to en-route services forpopup IFR flights.

In this case we (in the US) will never be dumped because we would file a IFR plan mid-air (http://www.avweb.com/news/system/183174-1.html) and then put onto IFR frequencies to get a continuous service for the rest of the way. Note that workload goes up quite a bit in the cockpit when manually flown in IMC which explains the OP's 'stress'. The last thing pilots want to face is being blocked by controlled airspace coming down or squeezing us into narrow gaps while the ground is going up.

Soaringhigh, you do realise you should be aiming at the CAA rather than NATS, don't you?

Maybe! But I'm based in the US so I think it'll be up for UK based pilots to do this.

[Gonzo]

Aha, so you'll just snipe from a safe distance then?:}

[Brian 48nav]

Please indulge me! Let me tell you a little story.

A few years ago the lovely Mrs B48N and I thought we would go and live in France. 'What' said No1 son, who incidentally lived in France for a year while doing the Test Pilot Course as an RAF pilot on exchange with the Frogs,'Dad will never put up with the French and the way they do things!'.

This made me think, so I went there with a changed open outlook on life. After all,if for instance, I said to a restauranteur 'Why do you serve cheese before dessert? Everyone knows the cheese course comes last and is served with a fine glass of port!'. He would have said 'Monsieur,If you do not like the way we do things in France,may I suggest you go back to your own country'.

In other words, 'When in Rome do as the Romans do!'.

May I respectfully suggest that if you do not like the way we do things in the UK, you stay away. The UK GA fraternity is capable of fighting their corner without your help!

[soaringhigh650]

I suggest you go back to your own country

I will continue to remain here until the bigots and pompous attitudes are
eradicated from the forum. :p

[Gonzo]

SH, but you are aiming your ire at ATCOs, who have to cope with the rules they are given. You continue to do so even when it's pointed out that the ATCOs don't set the rules or airspace classification, it's the CAA DAP who do so. Of course, contacting DAP to discuss and put your experiences and point of view to them is slightly less fun than baiting ATCOs.

Eradicate pompous attitudes all you want, that's not going to change the Worthing CTA to Class B.

[chevvron]

Ooooooh!!!

[HEDP]

Mmmh,

Unless I am mistaken I have been in a similar situation as that outlined and been unceremoniously dumped by the controller at a really awkward time in the cockpit although thankfully two crew, I hate to think how it would affect a single pilot IFR guy.

For all the ATC hoods out there procrastinating; I suppose the reverse would be pitching up at your zone boundary and calling finals totally unannounced, how would that flick your switch with a busy traffic pattern?

If you would like a little notice of the arrival then I guess what is being got at here is that an "expect to lose the service in 5 miles" call would go a long way to allowing the single pilot IFR guy to have his ducks in a row and perhaps avoid the possibility of disorientation in cloud when the call comes.

Flippant I know but safety first and all that,

HEDP

[2 sheds]

"expect to lose the service in 5 miles"
Good point, HEDP - why not suggest it to CAA/MAA? That would be an extension of the requirement to pre-warn pilots of the next service before leaving CAS.

I suppose the reverse would be pitching up at your zone boundary and calling finals totally unannounced
And that - or similar - happens not infrequently in Class G !

2 s

[NorthSouth]

some units who view a basic service as a license to control you in class GAnd yet others who tell you "G-AB, Basic Service, report leaving the frequency". Or to put it another way, you doesn't pay your money and you doesn't get a choice. :)
NS

[mad_jock]

It all depends on the individual controller.

The shall we say older sounding controllers don't in general do it or give a heads up. And speaking to mates the controllers who are also pilots tend to do what they would want.

Even on the same unit the way individuals deal with the same situation is different so unless you know the voice you won't have clue what to expect.

Personally I now expect no service and if I get one its a bonus. I try and stay in or above cloud sub FL100.

It still gets pretty hairy getting dumped out of London control by decent going into say CAM on a fair wx day. Some just dump you and others keep you until your VMC.

Even getting a service the two airprox I have filed have been under the old RAS service and under a deconfliction. One with a microlight and the other a glider. So although nice to have once your VMC below cloud base I prefer to have all eyes available looking out the window than head in running on vectors.

you doesn't pay your money and you doesn't get a choice.


And they are the ones that phone you and start bitching that you should have spoken to them so that you were known traffic. And they had needed to speak so they could get 5 miles deconfliction on a CAT aircraft which you could see anway and would be deemed seperated from in CAS but under ASTOCAS you would be vectored away from.

If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?

[WorkingHard]

"If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?"

Any takers from ATC on this one? Does it help us all for you to know who is where or are GA only to be spoken to "just in case"?

[Genghis the Engineer]

And that - or similar - happens not infrequently in Class G !

And I've certainly heard the occasional air trafficer throw their teddy out of the cot when it happened.

G

[2 sheds]

And they had needed to speak so they could get 5 miles deconfliction on a CAT aircraft which you could see anway and would be deemed seperated from in CAS but under ASTOCAS you would be vectored away from.

If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?

The controller does not know that an unknown aircraft has "his" aircraft in sight and has to be constantly alert that it might change height and track and compromise the deconfliction distance (which, with the agreement of the other pilot, if in contact, could be reduced to 3nm or 1000ft). (Given the same circumstances in CAS, there would be no "deemed" separation as such, but avoiding action and an attempt to stay 5 nm away from the unknown traffic).

And I've certainly heard the occasional air trafficer throw their teddy out of the cot when it happened.

Sorry that you view it in terms of "teddies and cots". Look on it as an understandable frustration at the occasional habit that can be hazardous for other pilots, not just for the controller's (not air trafficer, or even trafficker) blood pressure!

2 s

[mad_jock]

The case I was describing was the traffic was known and not all units have 3nm

If both traffic are working the same unit and one VFR and the other CAT under a deconfliction it doesn't matter that the VFR can see the IFR they will still be radar seperated. Under CAS rules they don't have to be.

So you have the crazy situation that Class G airports try and keep a 10 mile by however long they normally vector the finals for sterile bit of airspace on the instrument approach and it doesn't matter what the VFR can see they will be controlled away from this. Where as in CAS there wouldn't be a problem.

Most companys SOP's tell pilost they have to take the best service available so they can't drop to a traffic service. And the units have usually got an agreement with the operator to provide a deconfliction service so the controller won't drop the service because then the crew will write a report. The the CAT is paying so the VFR traffic get moved and can collect a 10-20 mile diversion off route and usually gets dumped once clear when the controller has lost interest in them.

The more adaptable controllers will chuck both of you to tower and let them deal with it under there rules traffic permitting, but some units will hold both of you on radar.

[LEGAL TENDER]

it doesn't matter what the VFR can see they will be controlled away from this

in class G you won't be controlled away from anything.. if you don't want to take deconfliction advice, you can just say so and do your own thing.

Likewise, aircraft on a traffic or basic service can be asked to stick to certain limits to help deconflicting from other traffic, but the pilots are totally entitled to say no and do their own thing. Everybody can do their own thing in class G, within the limits of legality!! ATC is not sky cops

[mad_jock]

Thats not the way its working in practise Legal with some units.

You won't get a deconfliction service anyway you will get a basic or if you are very very lucky a traffic service.

And as for refusing an agreement all hell lets loose.

Last time I did that it was 10 plus RT calls to which each responce was "negative" and restating what my intentions were, it finished with them issuing an avoidance instruction to the vector they wanted me on to clear their ILS by 5 miles for a loco who was 10 mins out. I went on route and got a phone call from the SATCO later who I invited to MOR me, which he declined the offer and started bleating about airmanship and stating that I would never make a commercial pilot with my attitude. The thanks mate but I am already a CAT ATPL Captain and if your CAT traffic doesn't want to downgrade to a traffic service they can take the extra track miles caused the phone to be put down.

To be honest from a pilots point of view ATSOCAS isn't fit for purpose. Its confusing and not logical for most if not all none UK pilots. And the rules about deconflicting traffic are more onerous than operating inside controlled airspace.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sorry that you view it in terms of "teddies and cots". Look on it as an understandable frustration at the occasional habit that can be hazardous for other pilots, not just for the controller's (not air trafficer, or even trafficker) blood pressure!

A few choice words of frustration is one thing, bollocking a pilot on RT at length is another! I have mostly heard the former, but the latter which I've heard once or twice is throwing your teddy out of the cot! To be fair, not very often.

G

[Use the Force]

I remember trying to tell the CAA that the new ATSOCA rules were not fit for purpose at the time they were introduced. They ignored flight rules, making it more restrictive than controlled airspace in some cases.

It fell on deaf ears as in the main the ex-mil guys who now have jobs in the CAA did not care what flight rules the aircraft was under when using the old system of RIS and RAS. As in the military.

I used to use the statement in the approach section of the MATS 1 to only separate known IFR even under a RAS, so if the traffic is known VFR I would only provide traffic information, similar to class D. I would avoid other known IFR and unknown aircraft. This also meant I wanted pilots to contact me just to know their flight rules, it made things a lot easier.

[mad_jock]

If you think radar is bad.

You should see the fun and games with procedural.

You can get multiple aircraft on the instrument approach who have taken a basic service because they didn't have a clue what the other one was with the controller passing traffic info to none native speakers who think they have been cleared for the procedure. With the controller more than likely with thier eyes shut and hand on the crash button.

If the controller hadn't asked them what type of service they wanted and confused matters they would have been more than happy to potter into the hold and do as thier told.

[Talkdownman]

Since CAP774 there has been excessive 'over-controlling' of VFR traffic in Class G airspace solely to deconflict it from traffic under Deconfliction Service. The simple provision of traffic information to the VFR flights should suffice. 'Agreements to maintain a specific course of action' are often excessive and overkill.

Service provision is wildly inconsistent between ATSOCA units. Basic Service frequently includes traffic information even though the ATCO should 'avoid the routine provision of traffic information' unless s/he 'considers that a definite risk of collision exists'. The risk of collision in the majority of cases seems to be non-existent. Often the traffic information is more akin to an eye test. 'Duty of Care' is often taken to extreme. I suspect it is probably intended minimise TCAS RAs to avoid paperwork. Many 'agreements' as applied to VFR flights on Basic Service which result in tortuous deviation are often totally unnecessary. If this situation is allowed to continue pilots will be less inclined to contact those units which appear to be unable to provide the services in accordance with CAP774.

[Use the Force]

To me it all comes down to the CAA pushing the accountability down to the service providers.

Lets face it the duty of care section is a can of worms that only a jury would decide on if the unthinkable happens.

In busy class G the procedural service is about luck, plain and simple.

[mad_jock]

Depends on who is on the desk and the pilots knowing the rules.

If the pilots doing the procedures have any misconcpetion that they have any protection at all in the procedure while flying in VMC it falls on its arse.

[Use the Force]

Hence luck?

[Cobalt]

I see the traffic / deconfliction service as it is provided at the moment as the lesser of two evils - the other one being more class D airspace. And I say that with class D airspace as it is operated in the UK, where clearance is less than assured.

Here is my example: Southend now has some CAT that wants deconfliction service. Our general handling / practice area is over St Mary's Marsh, and gets in the way if they have to provide 5 miles separation to an approach from the west, especially if we do climbing/descending and stalling exercises at around 3,000ft.

I always call for a traffic service, and Southend are VERY accommodating - I do not remember a single service refusal. On occasion, they ask me to work to the west side of the marsh, or remain a bit south, or remain below 2,000ft for 10 minutes. I am always happy to oblige, and it sure beats "basic service only due controller workload" from Farnborough.

I do not see this as overcontrolling - Southend certainly is asking politely - but as a give and take.

If that particular bit of airspace became Class D as during the Olympics, we would lose this training area, and I am certain that a clearance into Class D to do some stalling would not be something I could reliably plan to obtain...

[Use the Force]

Cobalt

Don't be daft, if that bit of airspace you talk of, is available for you to fly in for what ever reason, then the you have a right to fly in it so long as you follow whatever guidelines the CAA place.

It might mean you have to file a flight plan, god forbid?

[mad_jock]

If your visual with it why should you have to move or be restricted at all.

You are VFR in Class G.

If the airline wants deconfliction and operates into a cheap regional airport in class G they have to accept it will burn more fuel.

Your students shouldn't be paying for the loco's commercial decision to operate into that airport and the local interpretation of ATSOCA.

[Cobalt]

Use the Force,

Maybe on Tatooine you need to file a flight plan for Class D ;), but here we have no imperials (with Atlas control gone) so a radio call (which technically is a flight plan, too) will do. And that call would be nearly identical to a call for traffic service.

But there is no assurance that a clearance for airwork in class D will be given, and hence it will make that bit of airspace unsuitable.


Mad_jock,

I agree my students should not pay. They don't - with a bit of notice, I can arrange the general "working" direction to suit both. And Southend also is asking nicely for coordination, and are not ordering me around. If I don't like what they ask for (last week they wanted me to stay below 2,000ft when I wanted to teach stalling) I say so and offer an alternative (in that case, remaining west of a point).

It is all voluntary. I had some cases of attempts to give me instructions in class G (not as nasty as some if the examples in this thread), none of them at Southend.

[mad_jock]

Fair enough if your happy. But its still wrong if you are having to be seperated when your wouldn't need to be in CAS.

I have never had an issue getting access to class D and there are more than a few local agreements for training areas inside class D.

And if EZY continue the way they are going there it won't be long before there is a case for CAS. And with recent CAS approvals they will be pretty likely to get it.