Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest! [Archive]

Timothy

15th Sep 2014, 22:43

I publicly acknowledge that I contributed to the feather ruffling, and I am very sorry for the effect that it had on the individual controller.

I, too, was under a lot of pressure, as a very high worth individual had paid a very worthwhile charity for the homeless a very great deal of money for the experience, and I had told him, quite rightly, that the time to do it is early on Sunday when the Class D is only notional, as City Airport is closed.

I would imagine that the homeless charity will suffer a substantial loss of income as a result of what happened.

The issue of whether Class D airspace should be closed to any VFR traffic when the airport that it serves is closed is a matter which I am discussing at a senior level with NATS and most certainly will discuss with CAA/SARG, starting tomorrow at the FASVIG meeting. It comes down to questions about how Class D is managed compared to the ICAO definition, and questions of what should happen when there are not enough resources to manage airspace.

That informs the vociferous debate about Farnborough Class D, because TAG's whole premise is that they will always permit access (not just transits, any legitimate activity). If CAA/DfT say that it is acceptable to refuse access to Class D because of shortness of staff, even when there are no IFR arrivals or departures, then it will redouble GA's efforts to resist Controlled Airspace.

So the floor is rather covered with cans of worms, but, no doubt, all will be resolved in the usual, friendly, constructive and professional way.

Lone_Ranger

16th Sep 2014, 08:59

I would imagine that the homeless charity will suffer a substantial loss of income as a result of what happened.If so, I would suggest this "High worth individual" is such, in Financial terms only
.......maybe its just your perception of people

Timothy

16th Sep 2014, 09:39

That is a very narrow view of how these things work.

What is needed is positive enthusiasm from people who have had the experience. That is what encourages others to bid large amounts of money.

If someone says "it was fantastic" then others will follow.

If they say "it was OK, but we didn't see as much as we hoped" then not so much.

This particular guy has paid his money, and was very nice about it. It's the next guy I am concerned about.

mad_jock

16th Sep 2014, 09:39

But it doesn't change the fact that airspace is being denied not due to traffic factors but because an organisation which has control over it doesn't want to spend the cash to proved the resource to allow it to be used.

If it does want to spend the cash revert the space to uncontrolled at the times its not used. Maybe not the whole of the airspace as I presume some of it will be used when required.

But to refuse access because that area has been allocated to another controller and they would be overloaded with VFR traffic in it isn't really playing the game with the access if safe principle of class D.

It is more than safe VFR traffic being there and it won't compromise IFR traffic. So apart from it costs money what's the reason to exclude the VFR traffic? .

good egg

16th Sep 2014, 10:57

This is just a guess at the reason - I don't know if it has any validity/merit...

The City CTR contains a huge number of buildings/areas of national importance...
The City of London
Houses of Parliament
Canary Wharf
Buckingham Palace is a stone's throw away
And many, many, many more.

Also a large proportion of the zone is very built up, not just R160.

If the airspace was completely unregulated (/unmonitored) in a free-for-all then I suspect various security agencies would be somewhat twitchy.
Not that I'm saying that a simple prior phone call would prevent a "nutter" from causing mayhem, but it may mean that the total number of flights, and the associated risks of collision, particularly in the vicinity of these important areas is, in some way, mitigated by regulating traffic.
If that means a sight-seeing tour, or other non-standard flights, are delayed to a more appropriate time then that seems a reasonable response. We are not talking about open countryside here where the risk to people on the ground is minimal.

There may be some merit in de-classifying a portion of the zone (let's say, for example, the area to the east of a north-south line through City Airport) outside the airport operating hours however, this also creates the potential for problems at changeover times from regulated to non-regulated airspace (or vice versa). Sometimes published operating hours are extended (albeit these are covered by NOTAM...but often only issued very close to the published closing time) leading to a possibility of confusion as to whether the zone is regulated/non-regulated.
Where to draw any particular line in the zone would inevitably open a can of worms. This combined with confusion regarding opening/closing times, in my opinion is a recipe for confusion. So, again in my mind, the current arrangements seem preferable.

Although ATC is not a policing force it is there to provide a safe service to aircraft (how far does duty of care extend?). When it is not possible to maintain that level of safety then some form of regulation is surely necessary. At the moment, as I understand it, non-standard flight applications are to be submitted in advance of the planned sortie. Somebody, somewhere assesses each flight against all other known flights in the area at the time and makes a judgement call on whether the number, and complexity, of flights is acceptable in terms of ATC's ability to provide their service. Does ATC have a responsibility to separate VFR flights within Class D? Clearly no. That is the pilots responsibility, but ATC do have a duty to pass pertinent traffic information. When traffic is so dense that pertinent traffic cannot be passed then ATC would have failed to provide the necessary service.

The status quo, in my opinion, is the most sensible option. With airspace users on non-standard flights notifying the powers that be of their intentions before taking to the skies. If the powers that be suggest altering flight times to avoid congestion then that is most likely to mean that the operator can get on with his/her flight in relative peace and quiet...something both parties would eminently prefer.

Again these are just my thoughts, I am open to better understanding and more appreciation of other peoples thoughts.

mad_jock

16th Sep 2014, 12:36

Seems fair enough to me.

I think the main problem is due to the position not being filled with a bum on the seat as a sector in its own right. The airspace is lumped onto another sectors airspace. This controller has no capacity to deal with the VFR TONC.

So the traffic has to be barred from using empty air.

If there was a bum on seat there wouldn't be a problem with this traffic using the airspace.

Does the controlling authority of a piece of air have the right to close it so that they save costs?

And it not unusual with issues like this to get different views from the managers and then in the pub to find out the real reason for the issue over a pint.

And I am not saying this is the case in this airspace.

"Never going to happen mate, that will completely screw with the weekend late starts and early goes and also the holiday roster"

"eh explain I thought you have a moving cycle with a full watch"

"we do but on the weekend we take it in turns to come in at the start of shift and the others come in time to take over. So not filling that position means another person gets an extra 2 hours in bed and another one gets to bugger off early as well"

"And we double up on holiday over the weekend as well so people can leave Friday and then start work again on Monday so there will be two off at the same time. Instead of the normal only one during the week"

"I thought you had to maximise access to controlled airspace"

":mad: that, why should 2-3 puddle jumpers screw with 30 ATCO's quality of life just because they want to go flying on a Sunday morning. Its not as if they pay anything for the service. And over 50% of the time nobody wants to fly anyway because the wx is pants so everyone would be sitting bored anyway"

Now I actually sympathise with that point of view there is nothing worse than sitting around in an airport with bugger all to do. But I also see the problem with closing controlled airspace for the same reason.

Timothy

16th Sep 2014, 13:35

MJ,

That is indeed my point. I could see both visually and on TCAS that the Zone was virtually empty. The issue was that the poor controller was trying to do too many tasks not related to the control of the Class D airspace. That is a staffing issue.

Also, I believe that Class D is not supposed to be used for security purposes, only air traffic - is that right?

mad_jock

16th Sep 2014, 13:48

Also, I believe that Class D is not supposed to be used for security purposes, only air traffic - is that right?

I think you need to have a bit of common sense with that one. Better for it to be controlled than restricted.

Timothy

16th Sep 2014, 14:23

Agreed, but it would still be interesting to know what the book says on the subject.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

16th Sep 2014, 18:32

mad_jock I hope that the many ATCOs who bend over backwards to provide a first class service, whether it be to A380s or clockwork mice, read your posting above.

When I was operational, senior management never seemed to understand that to provide required breaks there would always be more ATCOs than seats. So, at the end of a shift there will be those who have been working and have not yet had their meal break. Subject to contingency cover some of those members of staff had the option to leave early if they so wished. Leave was always strictly controlled and it was often difficult to get a couple of weeks of in mid-summer.

Your friend(?) apparently said: "And we double up on holiday over the weekend as well so people can leave Friday and then start work again on Monday so there will be two off at the same time. Instead of the normal only one during the week" Lord knows where he works - Barra? Islay? I've never heard such nonsense. Places I worked were on a 24 hour shift system and weekends were busy.

Of course, when things got hot and controllers worked into their break time it was all forgotten. Heathrow was often understaffed during the years I was there and more than once I broke the rules on breaks to keep traffic moving. The alternative was to have traffic holding until 1 o'clock in the morning. The priority was to provide service to commercial aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers. Therefore, in the event of staff shortage, the first position to be closed was SVFR.

You wanna try over 2 hours on GMC in bad weather? Been there, got the tee-shirt and the grey hairs. I hope it is different now.

I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?

Warped Factor

16th Sep 2014, 18:49

To summarise HD's post above, mad jock you are talking through your ar*e.

mad_jock

16th Sep 2014, 19:53

And I am not saying this is the case in this airspace.

Again your getting your knickers in a twist about how things used to be run at your unit.

Unfortunately not all units work in the same way as Heathrow.

And you have just proved the point with your final question HD.

I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?

So you don't pay for anything so you don't get access, which is exactly opposite to what the discussions on CAS stipulate which is when there is no traffic to effect then access should be granted. Not they aren't paying so they can sod off.

eastern wiseguy

16th Sep 2014, 20:00

With regard to the "original poster" ,who has ,( thus far) not had the testicular fortitude to explain WHY he placed Timothy in a position to justify HIS post,please see his attitude on infringement reports. (11 May 2014)

soaringhigh650

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 550
Monthly reports on more of the same garbage....
--
"Will you stop infringing my Class A dog food!"

What a charming chap.

dash6

16th Sep 2014, 20:43

"City" Zone was free airspace not many years ago. It did'nt pose a threat then. Why not publish hours of use,and allow access outside those hours?

GAPSTER

16th Sep 2014, 20:59

Well I'm afraid Mad Jock you are still talking total crap.The jobbing ATCO has no say over getting up late or getting away early or any of the other spurious bs you've seen fit to try and legitimise with the use of quotation marks.You may well want to address management regarding staffing provision but I couldn't possibly comment.

As for your dismissal of HD 's comments,well they are actually completely relevant to the present day operation.

mad_jock

16th Sep 2014, 21:13

Well with a full rolling watch system where does the person usually sitting in that position go when the airspace doesn't have traffic going through it?

throw a dyce

16th Sep 2014, 21:18

MJ,
We used to encourage the GA community to go flying early (7am) on a Sunday morning,and not once did they ever take it up.The ATCOs were there due to the opening hours of the airport and minimum staffing.Our break was a day shift and NO fat in the system.
The answer I got one more than one occasion was that they were recovering from their hangovers the night before.Yet they would complain when messed around at busy times during the week.:ugh:

mad_jock

16th Sep 2014, 21:29

Well I am sure timothy will speak to the right people and get to the bottom of it.

PPRuNe Radar

16th Sep 2014, 23:17

Soaringhigh650 has had his/her wings clipped for a while. Impersonating someone purely to **** stir is not acceptable.

Timothy

16th Sep 2014, 23:44

One (hopefully) final thing.

If the controller I spoke to would like to call on my mobile 07785 503543

I will apologise in person for any upset.
I will explain the situation from my side.
I will not tell anyone that you have done so, unless you clear me to do so.

Warped Factor

17th Sep 2014, 08:44

There's a well known phrase involving a bargepole that, if they've any sense, the controller involved would be wise to pay heed of.

throw a dyce

17th Sep 2014, 11:00

Timothy,
When I was in Nats any problems had to go through Watch Management.
I would raise a STAR report,submit it to Watch Management and that would go to training and ops for investigation.It would be then published with the findings etc.I'm sure the process is similar in other units.
If the controller chose not to file then I think you will have a long wait.I certainly would not stray from that process.

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 11:32

I think that the investigation has been very thorough and I am expecting to receive a letter from NATS management explaining it in detail. I am very impressed by, and grateful for, how seriously senior NATS management have taken this.

I think that we all agree that the fundamental issue was that the Class D zone itself was undermanned, in that one position was dealing with two zones and an area.

Thus, I could not get access not because there was not "room" in the Zone, but because the individual position was too overwhelmed by unrelated traffic to provide service in the City Zone and had been instructed not accept pop-up traffic, as a matter of procedure and principle, rather than based on airspace capacity.

The question, and I do think that this is a question for the CAA and DfT rather than NATS, is whether that's "OK".

I think that the GA community feels very strongly that access should be provided if the airspace has capacity, and that the duty on the controlling authority is to ensure that the lack of capacity is not limited by controller workload.

So the question moves on from what happened last Sunday, which cannot be changed now, to a matter of policy.

The GA community is already aware of one Zone/Area where agreements have been made to bandbox APP and TWR to the detriment of Zone access, and we are acutely aware of the threat to GA in the South East if the Farnborough airspace comes into being and then access is limited by anything other than physical airspace and IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation.

If there is a move towards, on the one hand, undermanning zones and, on the other, over prescriptive VFR/VFR separation resulting from "Duty of Care" considerations, then this must be a matter of consultation and debate, not of a gentle slide of culture.

I do understand that Thames/Heathrow has acute problems arising out of training for the LL Class D reclassification, and the wider adoption of SERA, and, under those circumstances there are bound to be periods of thin staffing, but I would say that if that is a case a NOTAM should be promulgated announcing that there are service reductions.

I have done my personal bit to mitigate future problems by filing an NSF, but that is not the principle issue. We must have a robust mechanism for dealing with reasonable pop-up requests as well.

The person I do feel sorry for is the controller at the time.

We've all done it. We know that the employee we are dealing with at the time...the call-centre operator, the waiter, the nurse, whatever...is powerless themselves to provide a better service, being tied down by company policy and procedures, but, nonetheless, we have flown off the handle at that person because they are the only point of contact with the organisation and the only possible source of an immediate remedy, as opposed to a long-term solution, which doesn't ameliorate the situation at hand.

And, later, having had the encounter, and having calmed down, we are all sorry that we have flown off the handle at someone who is not to blame.

It is that sorrow and apology that I would like to extend to the individual controller, whichever end of the bargepole he wishes to sit...so either this is my apology, or it is available by phone...his choice :O

Squawk 7500

17th Sep 2014, 13:48

Don't sweat it. The homeless charity is the real victim here.

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 14:20

I assume that's meant to be funny, but I am simply trying to underline that just because NATS classifies a particular type of activity at the bottom of it's heap, and some may think that "sightseeing" is a marginal activity of no consequence, it ain't necessarily so.

This (http://passage.org.uk/) is the charity involved. It helps people on the street, who may be there because of mental illness, despair or their families have disowned them, by giving them food, clothes, shelter, education and opportunity.

Yes, I raise a fair bit of money for them with these flights, yes that money is very well used and yes, they may well be the losers.

Squawk 7500

17th Sep 2014, 14:48

Then maybe the CAA would clear you for Cat B priority for humanitarian purposes? You would have no problem getting access if that's the case.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

17th Sep 2014, 14:52

<<bandbox APP and TWR to the detriment of Zone access,>>

And where was that happening? The radar controllers are at Swanwick.

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 14:55

At a Zone not far from Swanwick, is my understanding.

Squawk 7500, are you convinced that you are adding anything to either the content or the tone of the discussion?

Squawk 7500

17th Sep 2014, 15:08

Southampton.

And no. Just trying to highlight how irrelevant your cargo is. I'm not sure why it was even mentioned.

Dan Dare

17th Sep 2014, 15:40

The Passage (http://passage.org.uk/) looks like a very worthwhile charity so I had to make a small contribution in compensation for the times I have not been allowed to provide access to available airspace.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

17th Sep 2014, 15:47

Now the discussion has moved from London to the south coast I'll not participate any further except to say that at some airfields TWR and APC have been bandboxed since the year dot..

northernboyo

17th Sep 2014, 16:13

Southampton!! What does that have to do with city!!

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 16:33

northernboyo, things have moved on to wider issues of access to Class D airspace. There are dark rumours (that is to say, I have heard but have no evidence) that access to Solent is being limited, or is going to be limited by controller capacity. That is exactly the issue I had at City, so it is entirely relevant.

Squawk 7500, so long as there is a prioritisation of traffic, the cargo is relevant.

Someone at DAP/SARG and someone at NATS have sat down and decided a hierarchy of priority, with ambulances and presidents near the top and NSF and pleasure flights right at the bottom.

They may feel that that is entirely justified, but in that decision do they have all the information? Yes, someone may die if the ambulance doesn't get through, but reducing funding to a homeless charity has consequences too.

So I say that it is also entirely relevant.

northernboyo

17th Sep 2014, 17:00

I have never been refused access to Solent, be interesting to see if anybody has or just rumour........

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 17:04

I agree that Solent has, for the last few years at any rate, been very good.

The rumours I have heard are recent and about a change in arrangements which may be yet to happen, or even yet to be agreed.

Squawk 7500

17th Sep 2014, 17:34

I didn't say cargo was irrelevant. I said YOUR cargo was irrelevant, as in it doesn't fit in any of the flight priority categories.

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 17:49

In an immutable world you would be right; I don't believe in immutable worlds.

Vortex Issues

17th Sep 2014, 19:41

Flight Priority Categories (from MATS Part 1)
4.45 Controllers shall give priority to aircraft according to flight priority
category listed below, where category A is the highest priority and Z is
the lowest priority.

Category Type of Flight

A: Aircraft in emergency (e.g. engine fault, fuel shortage, seriously ill passenger). Aircraft which have declared a ‘Police Emergency’. Ambulance/Medical aircraft when the safety of life is involved.

B: Flights operating for search and rescue or other humanitarian
reasons. Post accident flight checks. Other flights, including
Open Skies Flights, authorised by the CAA. Police flights under
normal operational priority.

C: Royal Flights Flights carrying visiting which have been notified by
Heads of State } NOTAM/Temporary Supplement

D: Flights notified by the CAA carrying Heads of Government or very senior government ministers.

E: Flight check aircraft engaged on, or in transit to, time or weather
critical calibration flights. Other flights authorised by the CAA.

NORMAL FLIGHTS:
i) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.
ii) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit.

Z: Training, non-standard and other flights.

From the UK AIP (ENR 1.1.4)

4.1 Non-Standard Flights (NSFs) in Controlled Airspace
4.1.1 A Non-Standard Flight (NSF) in Controlled Airspace is an aerial task that may not necessarily follow published routes or notified procedures; a formation flight of civil aircraft other than for VFR transit of CTA/CTR/TMA; or flights to and from a temporary landing site for multiple short term operations.

4.1.1.1 Applications for NSFs within Controlled Airspace should primarily be made via the NATS Non-Standard Flight Application website (Non-Standard Flight Applications | NATS (http://www.nats.co.uk/nsf)) with the minimum 21 or 28 days notice (see paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.6). If applicants are unable to utilise this website, applications may be submitted to the units listed below.

..........

4.1.2.1 Those applications which are agreed will be allocated a non-standard flight reference number. This is only an approval in
principle and prior clearance must be obtained from the appropriate ATC Watch Supervisor on the day.....

......

4.1.2.1.4 Operators are to note that in no circumstances can any discussion be entered into on any frequency in the event that permission
is refused or withdrawn

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 20:20

"City" Zone was free airspace not many years ago. It did'nt pose a threat then. Why not publish hours of use,and allow access outside those hours?
Ummmmm, well, actually, the airspace around City was established because there were a significant number of incidents involving traffic out of City and on its way toward CAS.
Let's stay logical.

Good Egg was making the point that even when City Airport is closed, Class D is required to keep London safe.

dash6 said that historically the airspace was Class G while City Airport is closed and London survived.

It is not to either of their points that Class D was created to protect IFR traffic. That was not relevant at the time, on a Sunday morning, when City was closed.

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 20:55

I agree. The discussion should be about how Class D is managed when there is no IFR traffic.

eastern wiseguy

17th Sep 2014, 21:26

It should be managed to the benefit of ALL parties.

If the controller feels that they have reached a limit then access is denied. I only ever denied access to my CAT D airspace when I was too preoccupied with other tasks.

As far as not separating IFR/VFR. I was ALWAYS of the opinion that regular heads up and a little bit of judicious holding of VFR traffic ( the airmanship of which I had no idea) was preferable to letting it ramble freely in the zone whilst TCAS TA's or worse RA's were reported to me. TCAS doesn't know you DON'T require to separate.

By all means allow access.....but if you can't ...then don't.

Timothy

17th Sep 2014, 21:34

My comment was about separating VFR/VFR.

And my comments have been about not allowing access because the controller is doing other tasks not related to the Class D airspace; thus it is a staffing issue, not a controller issue.

eastern wiseguy

18th Sep 2014, 02:34

Mea culpa .

The GA community is already aware of one Zone/Area where agreements have been made to bandbox APP and TWR to the detriment of Zone access, and we are acutely aware of the threat to GA in the South East if the Farnborough airspace comes into being and then access is limited by anything other than physical airspace and IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation.

It is a staffing issue.....but ULTIMATELY it will fall to the question of whose budget will pay for that staffing. There is NO other question for NATS management.

The controller on the day IS THE STAFF.

The operating authority will do everything in its power to save cash. Budgets have been geared towards the retention of contracts. Within NSL we have ALREADY lost Gatwick and Birmingham so cost is king. There has been a general reduction in the level of service provided e.g. Radar being provided by the Tower controller .Support staff pared to the bone . Engineering staff reduced to an on call level. Before I retired last year the ENTIRE staff were being called upon to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources.

I am certain that it has not improved in the intervening 12 months.

Good luck getting your client into the zone for a look see.

Vortex Issues

18th Sep 2014, 06:00

Andy Mayes

18th Sep 2014, 07:05

Talkdownman

18th Sep 2014, 07:34

Is Thames Radar still abused as a pseudo-LARS unit between Lechlade and North Foreland?

Timothy

18th Sep 2014, 07:37

I think we are now at the nub of the question.

NATS want to reduce staff to the point where Class D access is compromised.

ICAO, SARG, DfT, Licences, Agreements, and particularly ACPs say that Class D should be accessible to VFR flights.

It is therefore a matter of policy.

That is what I am lobbying about.

(And, Eastern Guy, sorry if I have used too many double negatives, but if you read what I have written, I am completely accepting that Class D should be about IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation (though even that exceeds my understanding of ICAO) but the issue on the day in question was only VFR/VFR separation, and that is not required in Class D.)

TDM, no, Thames only provides ATSOCAS to its own IFR traffic and to traffic about to enter the Zone.

Talkdownman

18th Sep 2014, 08:01

According to the UK IAIP Thames Radar should be open 0600L-2230L. Its hours are not inextricably linked to London City opening hours. Thames has other responsibilities such as providing Biggin APS, and covering (cross-coupling) the 'SVFR' desk for Heathrow at breakfast-time and cocoa-time. Otherwise in 1987 it would have been christened as only 'City' Radar instead. (Now that would have stopped people calling for LARS at Lechlade…)

What is the SVFR position going to be known as as from today? 'Heathrow VFR'? 'Heathrow Not-So-Special'?

Timothy

18th Sep 2014, 08:09

TDM,

To be fair, Thames/Heathrow normally provide a superb service to Heathrow SVFR, City VFR/SVFR and to IFR inbounds and outbounds. Really superb. That is what I said in the first post.

As I understand things, they are going through a difficult patch at the moment with SERA and LHR Class D retraining.

However, they do have a duty to maintain the service they are contracted to provide, and (and this is the important bit) we in the GA community must resist any de facto slipping of Class D VFR provision.

I have raised two other places where there are concerns, Farnborough and Solent. This is as much about precedent as anything else.

Talkdownman

18th Sep 2014, 08:35

Are you saying that on the occasion in question Thames/City/SVFR was 'band-boxed' (for whatever reason) onto 132.7 and the operative consequently did not have sufficient capacity to provide service as obliged to do so under contract? If so, there are staffing issues and/or supervisory issues which Nats should address promptly. Or do some ATCOs still have an aversion to 'tiddlers'...

mad_jock

18th Sep 2014, 08:40

And the penny drops what the problem is.

Timothy

18th Sep 2014, 08:54

I have absolutely no reason to suspect that Thames/Heathrow controllers have any aversion to "Tiddlers" as you call them. We normally get a superb service.

There is one posting above, from Heathrow Director which includes the expressions "clockwork mice" and "I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?" which does show an attitude which some in the GA community think is widespread in NATS, but my experience is quite the opposite.

Indeed, I am an IR instructor based at Biggin Hill and I have to take IR students into the airways system.

You can imagine how popular is a PA28 or Cirrus going from Biggin Hill to Gloucester or Cranfield IFR! But I need to do it to cover the syllabus.

I have never had the slightest hint from the TC controllers that they are inconvenienced by our presence, though, having played on the simulator at TC, I know just what a pain it is for them.

I have nothing but respect and admiration for the TC and TA controllers.

Talkdownman

18th Sep 2014, 09:09

"Tiddlers" as you call them
Not as I call them. As called by those with the aversion to them. I concede that such individuals are few, but they have existed, and they have expressed their displeasure in the past which has included 'manipulating' relief breaks to avoid such 'low-level' sectors…

As you know, I am very pro-GA, I have to be with my qualifications, but GA has not, in the past, endeared itself to Thames ATCOs by saturating 132.7 with inappropriate, protracted and persistent ATSOCA requests.

Timothy

18th Sep 2014, 09:13

TDM,

You have been out of Thames a long time now. Those days are long, long past. I wonder if anyone on Thames/Heathrow now even remembers them?

Talkdownman

18th Sep 2014, 09:26

Yes, I don't dispute that. In fact, for your information, it has been seven years, but I still fly regularly in the area, training and corporate. I am pleased to hear that Nats has grasped the 'Tinpot Radar' (not my words - a Nats Heathrow GM's words) nettle and finally got a grip on the many vagaries of the sector. GA and Nats at those units you mention must meet amicably in the middle without prejudice and aversions. Any posturing, on either side, will not help. CAA has a head of GA. Perhaps Nats needs a 'Head of GA' to resolve this. For all I know maybe it already has one, for, as you have reminded us, I've been out a long time now...

Timothy

18th Sep 2014, 09:43

Oh yes. That gruff voice, once heard, never forgotten ;)

Talkdownman

18th Sep 2014, 09:46

[response to removed post]

GAPSTER

18th Sep 2014, 18:52

I grew up in ATC with quite a few people who refused to work 'non-revenue traffic'....those days (in TC at least) are long gone.Most,if not virtually all of us,see providing services through class D airspace as part of the job with the requisite responsibilities to the traffic requesting it...they will occasionally suffer small delays to allow IFR traffic precedence but I have never had any complaint due to this.I'm afraid you will have to read between the lines as to why the problems manifested here are existing these days.

Timothy

18th Sep 2014, 21:40

I actually don't think that "reading between the lines" will do. It shouldn't be necessary.

NATS is contracted by DfT to provide a service. That is why SARG, and, if necessary, DfT, must decide what is acceptable when VFR pop-up traffic requests access in the total absence of IFR traffic.

Mahogany Fighter

19th Sep 2014, 23:08

As a lurker on this forum and a very occasional poster, I thought I must pop up and comment because I believe I was flying and heard Timothy's exchange with Heathrow last Sunday. I recall the Heathrow SVFR controller explain politely that he was unable to accept you for the pleasure-flight because he was expecting other pleasure flights and you hadn't booked in prior to getting airborne. The controller then offered you a direct transit through the zone from south to north which you accepted and then threatened to complain about him to DAP as well as telling him he didn't have any traffic to justify not letting him do what you wanted!

I would have to say in 25 years of commercial flying on and around
the heliroutes, I have never heard such an arrogant and un-justified outburst at a Heathrow controller. The controller later had to extract you out of a Restricted Area which you tried to tell him only applied to helicopters despite you flying some plank. When you finally left the zone to the north, after having passed me, you immediately asked to come back in southbound. I thought to myself, I would be surprised if they let you back in and the controller told you to stay outside and offered you a number to call the Supervisor. You again snapped back that you didn't want the number and would just complain directly to the CAA. You could could almost hear everyone else on the frequency saying out loud what the controller involved must have been thinking. The controller was busy by this time with some Biggin traffic and numerous transits and pleasure flights. I heard no evidence of you being refused access, just you being told you could not buck the system by not bothering to activate an NSF like the rest of us had.

You say you have never had a bad service in 20 years yet the one time you are told you are bucking the system and behaving like a knob you post all over a number of forums and try and grass up the people who have been servicing your trips around the City for years. I hope they have your card well and truly marked.

You indicate you have spoken to NATS and the CAA about this. What have they told about your one refusal in 20 years other than you behaved like a petulant child?

Finally, I recognised your name as a long term AOPA member, like me, but also thought that soaringhigh (James somebody) was an AOPA do-gooder. Are you one and the same or at least working in cahoots to stir some sh**? I would prefer AOPA fought its battles via official means rather than talking rubbish on here.

Timothy

20th Sep 2014, 10:42

Most of that l accept and I have apologised.

But I have no idea who SoaringHigh is. I may know him or her by another name, but if so I don't know that I do.

But none of that changes any of the points about access to Class D airspace.

ZOOKER

20th Sep 2014, 13:31

132.7….Good heavens, I think that was the old 'London Airways' frequency for Upper Amber 34, (BPK-POL), back in the early 1970s. No tiddlers using it then.
I remember 'potting' OO-SGA and HB-IGA on it from EGNX one Sunday afternoon.

161R

21st Sep 2014, 07:47

Thread Drift Warning

132.7? - Preston Radar surely.....Amber 1 and Blue 1 if my memory serves me correctly

ZOOKER

21st Sep 2014, 08:32

161R, Actually it could have been, I have the 1971 AERAD High-Altitude in the loft somewhere. Just trying to inject a lighter note or two.
Carry on...

Talkdownman

21st Sep 2014, 10:36

Carrying on...I used to do that Sector (25) at Preston Radar (Lindholme JATCRU) on 132.7...so I should be able to remember or not whether BPK-POL was UA34 or not. Al Zheimers tells me it was UA39…UA34 was over on the west side WAL-HON-MID way….I'll ask my nurse to help me up in the loft...

Minesthechevy

21st Sep 2014, 11:18

Howzabout this?

http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/404851-atc-airways-frequency-details-early-1970s.html

About half way down

ZOOKER

21st Sep 2014, 11:32

Talkdownman, thanks, it was UA39. I must admit, I haven't looked at that map since 1986. Thanks for the link back to the history page too 'chevy.

Talkdownman

21st Sep 2014, 12:28

Subsequently Upper Blue 4 (double Bedford strips, double Hucknall strips for the LTMA outbounds…)…ah, Nurse...

RouteDctEGXX

21st Sep 2014, 17:14

So while the old guffers talk about airways that no longer exist, has the OP had an official reply from the CAA / SARG / NATS / anyone else?

Timothy

21st Sep 2014, 21:35

Nope, not yet, but I have been led to expect one from NATS. I haven't engaged with CAA or DfT yet, I am waiting to hear what NATS has to say.

There is no real urgency. Personally, I now have an NSF number, so I should not get a repeat experience at LC, and it will be a while until Farnborough make their next move - which is the one that is really critical when it comes to NATS delivering access to VFR traffic.

Timothy

21st Sep 2014, 22:45

I keep saying mea culpa. I am sorry, I have learnt a lesson and I am unlikely to do it again.

But bear in mind that my point is that, from what I understand, the controller was under instructions from management not to let any pop-up VFR traffic in. That will be clearer when the letter from NATS management arrives.

Una Due Tfc

21st Sep 2014, 23:05

So in essence, a vfr was refused entry to class D because the controller responsible was swamped with his/her workload in combined sector, and to guarantee safety of aircraft already in their area of responsibiliy (well done that controller, it takes guts to stand up and say you are at your limit). Then said pilot went on a rant on freq and made a bit of a fool of themselves? Just so we're clear?

I've had pilots make serious and very dangerous errors under my control, I would never, ever in a million years give them a lecture over a frequency. Incredibly unprofessional

Timothy

21st Sep 2014, 23:12

Um...

I keep saying mea culpa. I am sorry, I have learnt a lesson and I am unlikely to do it again.

But bear in mind that my point is that, from what I understand, the controller was under instructions from management not to let any pop-up VFR traffic in. That will be clearer when the letter from NATS management arrives.

Your move ;)

Una Due Tfc

21st Sep 2014, 23:57

As a controller from another FIR (only classes A, C and G in mine), it looks very much like a staffing issue.

Also, it seems when I corrected a few typos in my post, it was moved. Apologies

le Pingouin

22nd Sep 2014, 07:39

I'd agree UDT.

Timothy, when you're running with staffing limitations (several illnesses in the unit for instance) it's typical that you reduce services that will have the least impact. That may include not permitting certain activities to help manage workload, particularly when they're workload intensive and aren't routine. It minimises the disruption to the overall service and helps keep things safe.

Timothy

22nd Sep 2014, 08:47

Yes. I am sorry to be boringly repetitive but that is my point.

We are told, on the one hand, that if staffing becomes in any way an issue, the first thing to go is VFR access.

But, on the other, we have been promised that it's ok for Farnborough to plug the OCK gap, but we don't have to worry because VFR access, both transit and for other purposes, is guaranteed.

There is also a rumour of long term staff reductions at Solent which, by the same reckoning, will compromise access.

So, yes, I behaved badly on that Sunday, when this issue bit me, and I have apologised wholeheartedly, but I won't let a barrage of finger wagging about that distract me from the main issue of access rights to Class D airspace.

There seems to be a division between those who say "it's our/my airspace, we/I will decide" and those who say "it is airspace which you are licensed to operate under certain terms and conditions for the benefit of all parties."

ShyTorque

22nd Sep 2014, 10:13

I think you are being rather naive expecting one controller to only be dedicated to a relatively small bit of airspace. You have to remember that it is also the function of Thames Radar to control the aircraft inbound and outbound from both Biggin Hill and Southend.

Not strictly true, in that the airspace around Biggin Hill ATZ is Class G.

Controller workload seems to be a more common problem, not just in the south.

I have twice recently been told to "stand by" and remain outside Class D for protracted periods. In one case the delay was made worse by the controller allowing other similar VFR traffic, which called up after us and was further away, into the airspace well ahead of us. Having held for ten minutes plus, we assumed ATC had forgotten us and we called again, only to receive a terse reply and told to stand by again.

In cases like Farnborough, we arrive at the situation where GA pilots have Class D airspace control forced on them, sometimes to benefit a small number of users. Then when situations like this occur, pilots are told they should be grateful for the service they have been getting in the past because they aren't paying for it. It's not surprising that folk object to the airspace grab in the first place, especially where it would create one or more potentially dangerous choke points to traffic obliged to to fly around the airspace.

G-XXXX

22nd Sep 2014, 11:57

An interesting read of a topic. I have wondered for a fewmonths now when the GA community would start kicking up a fuss about this.

The closure of SVFR has always been a pain in the rear whenit comes to Thames. As seen recently we have "thin" staff due to variousreasons and it’s commonly hated when you arrive at work and see the levels oftraffic expected and the lack of staff to cope with it. At the end of the daythe company’s line is commercial IFR come 1st so when the traffic ramps up andyou need more sectors open on the Thames side unfortunately you know you areabout to see someone rushing down to immediately close SVFR. It’s commonlyagreed that this is just a pain for all. Thames is basically forced to take-oversome of the responsibilities of SVFR such as priority helicopter and stillmonitoring for infringements. However we are also aware that this means some ridiculousrestrictions have to be put in place, like having to route round to the southto get into Battersea (not too useful when you have just departed Ellstree!)but are hands are tied, we are already annoyed that this seems to be the manning’sget out of jail free card at the expense of GA and our personal workload. Yetwe are the ones getting an earful of questions as to why they have been told toremain outside, as after all “we have the airspace now right?” so where satthere having just been basically thrown an entire sector with the company linebeing it shouldn’t be a problem you just say remain outside to everyone and tofreecall Farnborough! Or if they are inbound to land in the zone then they willget indefinitely delayed and get to them when you can. So then when someonecalls up to cut the city zone with next to nothing in the way we are leftlooking like the bad guys for saying no. If it was up to me SVFR closureprocedure wouldn’t exist. So now the inevitable questions seem to have startedto be asked by the GA community maybe this will change.

Just for a little perspective, and I invite any pilot tocontact NATS about a visit to Swanwick, a request for a helicopter to transitvia City airport overhead on easterlies can take up to 3 different phone callsbefore a clearance is even given. City Radar, City Tower and Bellmarsh Prison sothey don’t go to panic mode because a A109 was 5 miles away! (it happens) notto mention the attempt to balance giving enough terrain clearance yet ensuringyou don’t give someone on a 5 mile final a TCAS RA (apparently the don’t likethat).

GAPSTER

22nd Sep 2014, 17:47

Here's something else for you guys to chew over....

VFR transit granted access to CTA/CTR...given a clearance limit remaining clear of the active to await onward clearance.Busy with plenty of IFR inbounds.Approx 1.5 nm from threshold..."I'm crossing the active in 2 minutes" !!

Me..."no you're not,make an immediate left hand orbit"...followed by "report visual with landing B737 3nm to the (cardinal point) of you"

Traffic commences a RIGHT hand orbit stopping half way and heading directly at the inbound...further strongly emphasised directions from me followed by instructions to fly a certain direction...this to get this clown out of the zone and out of my hair...again incorrectly followed until further remedial action taken.

Qu. Why...(and this is the 2nd such occurrence within a couple of months) should I now risk my licence,because have no doubt,if this had gone seriously wrong that is a very legitimate concern...Why should I continue (as I have done for a fairly lengthy career) to allow VFR access if one side cannot follow very straightforward instructions and honour the mutual contract?

I realise this is a different scenario from the one originally posted but I would welcome some rational responses.

ZOOKER

22nd Sep 2014, 18:47

GAPSTER,
Notwithstanding your MATS Pt, 2/SATCIs (the contents of which we are not party to), what Class of Airspace did this scenario occur in?

Timothy

22nd Sep 2014, 18:49

Gapster,

Just to be clear, if an IFR aircraft were to make an error, would you be questioning whether to offer a service to IFR traffic in the future?

ShyTorque

22nd Sep 2014, 19:16

Qu. Why...(and this is the 2nd such occurrence within a couple of months) should I now risk my licence,because have no doubt,if this had gone seriously wrong that is a very legitimate concern...Why should I continue (as I have done for a fairly lengthy career) to allow VFR access if one side cannot follow very straightforward instructions and honour the mutual contract?

I realise this is a different scenario from the one originally posted but I would welcome some rational responses.

The obvious answer is to take up the issue with the individual concerned, obviously after landing and try not to tar every other pilot with the same brush.

GAPSTER

22nd Sep 2014, 19:43

Z Class D

Timothy....no,but the errors made by IFR traffic,in my experience at least,do not have the (immediate) potential for real grief.Also I'm not sure that the described scenario counts as an error, at least initially,as a readback of the clearance limit had been received therefore (arguably) there was no error but rather a disregarding of what had been agreed?

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2014, 19:45

In that case its a clear breach of the ANO as such there is no mutual contract. Just a failure to comply with ATC instructions in controlled airspace.

Fill out the forms and let CAA enforcement deal with it.

GAPSTER

22nd Sep 2014, 19:48

...and,yes thank you,I'm aware of the obvious answer but the question still stands.This is not about tar and feathers...what about self protection for an honest ATCO doing his best in his eyes for all the aircraft requesting a service.I reasonably expect a level of airmanship and cooperation in return.

GAPSTER

22nd Sep 2014, 19:49

Great answer...let the **** hit the fan and deal with it afterwards.

Why I asked for rational responses

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2014, 19:59

Its the only answer you can have.

You can't refuse access to class D because you say you can't trust VFR traffic.

There is no way VFR traffic will be more trust worthy unless there are a few public cases go through so that level of traffic get there **** together.

And letting a danger to air safety go and do there stuff in someone else airspace/ cause mayhem in class G doesn't solve the problem.

GAPSTER

22nd Sep 2014, 20:31

Ok I'll pass that particular baton to you.

....their?

GAPSTER

22nd Sep 2014, 20:35

....and actually yes I can.I just don't have to be dim enough to say that's why.Not the way I've ever done the job and probably not the way I will do it in the future but given what occurred I wouldn't blame a colleague for opting to protect him/herself.

Timothy

22nd Sep 2014, 23:56

I just don't have to be dim enough to say that's why.

That's really depressing.

We have had MATS Part 1 quoted to say that we cannot argue with a controller who doesn't offer a clearance. Fair enough, we must trust them to make the best decisions.

But now we are told by a current and active Class D controller that controllers may not be honest about why they are refusing clearance. The implication being that they can and will wield their power to grant and deny arbitrarily, according to their own prejudices about VFR traffic.

That undermines the whole premise of Class D.

All the more reason why a proper enquiry should be made into how policy is set and how it is enacted.

Nimmer

23rd Sep 2014, 06:55

What is a class D zone for? In my opinion it is there to protect IFR passenger carrying traffic landing at international airports. It also allows access to VFR, aircraft with the controllers authority.

One of the the above is a commercial entity, with schedule
Es to meet and large costs to pay, landing at an airport which also has time demands on its runway. The other is someone flying for p,ensure on a sightseeing trip.

Given this, which one will the controller give priority to? Remembeint that this controller also works for a commercial company dependent on the airlines for its income.

Is it time to start charging for VFR crossings??? It's a commercial world after all.

Timothy

23rd Sep 2014, 07:38

What is a class D zone for? In my opinion it is there to protect IFR passenger carrying traffic landing at international airports. It also allows access to VFR, aircraft with the controllers authority.
Um.....

Have you read this thread?

It is about City Zone when City Airport is closed. So you might better ask the question what is a Class D zone for under those circumstances?

RouteDctEGXX

23rd Sep 2014, 07:46

Taking Nimmers post a little bit further - class D is to protect IFR traffic arriving at / departing from an airport but permits VFR access when cleared by the controlling authority (i.e. the bloke (or lady) at the other end of the headset).

Putting Gapsters sentiment in a slightly more constructive way, IFR jockeys have to jump through an awful lot of hoops before they can sit there and push buttons. They are professional people, trained to an international standard, constantly being checked, monitored, reported on etc.

I'd not discount the amount of training and checks Mr Smith in is PA28, indeed the CAA make it hard enough I think. However I've been on the receiving end of multiple life stories over the RT filled with irrelevant information, and blocked frequencies, and incorrect routings, which builds up a doubt in my mind - does this person really know what they are doing - after all not everyone with a licence to drive on the road can handle a car like Stirling Moss.

I've never refused VFR access to class D based on "this guy sounds a bit dim so I'm going to tell him to remain outside and pick up my Daily Mail again" but I have experienced some - how should I say? - unusual airmanship (similar to Gapsters story) one of which resulted in reporting action, so Timothy please understand that us controllers aren't out to screw over the GA by keeping them out of "our" airspace, but we may be hesitant on occasion based on what comes across on the RT.

GAPSTER

23rd Sep 2014, 10:58

Timothy...I realise we have strayed somewhat from your original post.I hope you don't mind that and I am interested in your input to the wider debate of VFR access.

Though I did indeed imply that access could be denied simply at the whim of the individual ATCO I don't think I have seen this happen without good reason for many years.In fact I cannot personally recall when,if ever,I have refused a transit.Now this of course will be due very often because G/A pilots (in my experience)will listen out,realise how busy the frequency seems and take an alternative route.

If I wanted to uphold the legalities I could instruct a hold at a VRP...outside the zone...to await onward clearance.If this were not forthcoming eventually the chap gets fed up and clears off remaining outside.Again I'll stress that I have never done this and cannot say I have any real intention of doing so.It's inflexible in the real world where I want the crosser close in and visual ready for a quick 'cross behind'.

My real point is how do I as an ATCO judge that the airmanship on which I am depending is not of a standard that may(underlined) compromise the operation and my livelihood?

Timothy

23rd Sep 2014, 13:46

compromise the operation

I think that the answer lies in policy decisions.

"The operation" should include the expedited transit of and access to VFR traffic.

I can see why people can think that "the operation" is getting IFR traffic out of and into the airways system and that anything else is a dangerous distraction, but that is not how it is supposed to be. Class D is supposed to be about the protection of IFR traffic in a known mixed traffic environment.

If the powers that be believe that Classes A, B or C are justified, then they should put in an ACP and have the question debated openly.

But while we have Class D it should be operated as Class D.

My particular example of the exclusion of VFR traffic when there is no IFR traffic (and there is not going to be any for nearly three hours) merely exposes a situation for scrutiny.

Once that question has been answered there it becomes easier to apply the answers to other situations where there is relatively little IFR traffic, with lots of gaps of extended periods (eg Farnborough) up on through the moderately busy, to the Class D around Gatwick and Heathrow.

Crazy Voyager

23rd Sep 2014, 14:30

Doesn't this bring back an old topic though, who will pay for it?

GA pay no enroute charges, but then again they rarely use the airways system.

NATS was sold off to the free market, and many airports now have in-house ATC or other companies than NATS either already or they are in transition, the old state-monopoly is gone and will probably never return.

If City airport pay NATS for ATC, why would they want to pay a penny more than they need? Why would the airlines want to pay higher charges at City so that more controllers can be made available to handle increased VFR traffic?

I think it was said earlier in the thread that in the US ATC for anything that isn't overflying (if I've understood it correctly) is payed for by the tax payers and only overflights pay en-route charges. This means that the GA community can stand up and ask for more out of ATC, but in the UK, ATC is a private market payed for by the users. Is it realistic to demand the use of airspace and controlling resources when you're not paying for it?

Timothy

23rd Sep 2014, 14:45

Well, that takes us to an argument as old as the hills.

Who wants the airspace? Who wants to be controlled within it? VFR GA certainly doesn't. The airspace is there for the protection of IFR CAT, so IFR CAT should pay for it.

I think that the question of paying for airways routes is a different matter. As my light aircraft isn't quite light enough, I do pay quite hefty Eurocontrol charges. But I consider that just part of the cost equation. Do I want the safety and convenience of IFR? Then I will pay for it.

I actually have some sympathy with the view that any aircraft which wants to fly IFR in the airways structure should pay for the privilege (ooops, that just got me drummed out of AOPA!) It is a service, and we are used to paying for service.

But being given (sometimes grudging) access to airspace which should be treated as open FIR when there is no IFR traffic to protect is a different matter.

That would be like charging pedestrians a Road Fund Licence to cross the road. Their preference would be that there should be no road to cross in the first place!

ShyTorque

23rd Sep 2014, 15:13

One of the the above is a commercial entity, with schedule
Es to meet and large costs to pay, landing at an airport which also has time demands on its runway. The other is someone flying for p,ensure on a sightseeing trip.

You're very much mistaken if you believe that all VFR aircraft requiring to enter Class D airspace is flying for pleasure on a sightseeing trip!

Timothy

23rd Sep 2014, 15:29

Indeed, if that were the criterion, one would have to look very seriously at who travels on EZY to Spain. Only holidays in the sun? Pah!

If NATS starts to evaluate different flights according to, what? the amount of pleasure they give? then they need to do some serious research into the value of each movement.

That brings me back to the charity flight that I started with. That "pleasure flight" bought approximately 1000 potentially life-saving meals to ill and dispossessed people.

How many footballers wives flying from Farnborough to get their hair done in Madrid, where they don't use so much conditioner, does that equate to?

(OK, don't take the hyperbole too seriously, but you get my point :) )

Cripes

23rd Sep 2014, 17:00

So would the GA community be prepared to pay some sort of fee for ATC Services or are they militant against it? (I don't fly myself so I'm unsure of the general consensus.)

All I seem to hear is "I want to do this and I want it for free." You don't drive on the roads or expect Satellites to be sent into orbit to provide you with mobile phone coverage for free, so why ATC with all the costs involved?

I don't have a problem with VFR, they make the job more challenging and interesting. But there has to be some give and take.

Timothy

23rd Sep 2014, 19:51

l cannot speak for GA, but I think I already answered for myself.

If the airspace is there for my benefit I am happy to pay, if the airspace only interferes with what I am trying to do, it would be invidious to have to pay for it.

Talkdownman

23rd Sep 2014, 20:30

ISTR London City CTR went H24 after 9/11 for security reasons. But, hey, what would I remember, I have
been out of Thames a long time now. Those days are long, long past

ShyTorque

23rd Sep 2014, 21:09

Then it should be properly controlled 24/7, too!

Nimmer

24th Sep 2014, 06:30

Yep it should be properly controlled 24/7. Who is going to pay for it???

This is an old topic, but it more relevant in today's commercial world. The airports pay NATS for the approach service, this cost is very much dependent on how many controllers are required, to provide an extra controller for VFR access at all times will be an expense the airport is not willing to pay for.

Plus, now I have done this, extended a commercial airline downwind to make a gap to ensure a VFR crossing aircraft via the threshold does not come too close to the inbound and therefore does not need to orbit etc.

However if I have a constant stream of inbounds and I extend one I need to extend them all, more track miles more fuel plus a lost "gap", so poor runway utilisation. The airport authority will not stand for this, they demand the standards they pay for. I have read the letters of agreement between the approach function and the airport, they are very specific. Spacing is monitored, complaints made, controllers informed of their errors etc.

So constant VFR access to class D yes, but maybe time to pay up.

throw a dyce

24th Sep 2014, 06:50

Remain outside controlled airspace and what's the big number on your Visa Card? Sorry don't take Amex..;)

Should rake in enough to pay for the AVAA to man the position.

EastofKoksy

24th Sep 2014, 08:27

In the days when I used to attend what was then called NATMAC the GA representatives used to argue, while keeping a straight face, that any kind of regulated airspace was a ''privilege''. They kept saying that ATC should therefore accommodate all requests. I suspect there is a snow ball's chance in hell of getting agreement for GA to pay for ATC services.

cockney steve

24th Sep 2014, 10:36

If one starts with the premise that the air and the sea belong to everybody , equally, one then has Governments "defending" the air/sea surrounding their "territory"....then we move forward , to a decision that, not only will we have a set of "traffic rules" to ensure safe passage,but we'll decide to regulate who is, or isn't allowed access to what is already their right to use.

GA is already hidebound by legislation and costs it makes a substantial contribution via fuel duty and keeping the Belgrano in coffee.

Perhaps you'd all be happy if tollbooths got set up on the most congested roads? Don't want to pay?...divert round the "B" and unclassified roads , then.
The HGV's pay far more than you do, so they get priority!

Yea! that would go down a bundle!

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 11:33

Nimmer,

Yep it should be properly controlled 24/7. Who is going to pay for it???

The answer lies in the rest of your post. The airlines using the airport demand regulated airspace to protect their traffic from VFR users. The airport subsequently requests the controlled airspace, which unfortunately, in general, inconveniences VFR transits merely wanting to fly through, as it was previously allowed to do. Now you want VFR users to also pay more to be inconvenienced? If there was no more VFR traffic allowed to cross, it wouldn't get any cheaper to man the ATC position.

If I'm required to pay to fly through Class D airspace, I'd expect no priority to be given to IFR traffic because my operating costs have arbitrarily been increased and therefore profit margin has been reduced.

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 12:11

All I seem to hear is "I want to do this and I want it for free." You don't drive on the roads or expect Satellites to be sent into orbit to provide you with mobile phone coverage for free, so why ATC with all the costs involved?

I don't have a problem with VFR, they make the job more challenging and interesting. But there has to be some give and take.

The roads are paid for out of tax payers' contributions and had to be built in the first place. The mobile phone network is a purely commercial venture and one can choose not to contribute at all, or at least to choose an alternative provider (using the same airspace!).

The air wasn't paid for by anyone, it is a naturally occurring thing, so the comparison isn't a valid one.

The "give" is seldom given to VFR traffic in Class D.

I have only formally objected to proposals for imposition of more Class D once in the past (and I use the word imposition deliberately; thankfully the Coventry airspace grab was rejected), but judging by the attitudes shown by some ATCOs here, I really do think I will make a point of doing so on all occasions in future.

Una Due Tfc

24th Sep 2014, 12:20

GAPSTER

24th Sep 2014, 14:52

[quote]
The "give" is seldom given to VFR traffic in Class D.

I'd like to see that backed up with some solid evidence.Plain wrong.

Cripes

24th Sep 2014, 15:42

ShyTorque

The roads are paid for out of tax payers' contributions and had to be built in the first place

Yes and CAS was set up to stop aircraft hitting each other. That's not going to go away. So what is to be done about it? You can't expect to just blindly fly through large aircraft descending on final and expect there to be no eventual consequences.

I have only formally objected to proposals for imposition of more Class D once in the past (and I use the word imposition deliberately; thankfully the Coventry airspace grab was rejected), but judging by the attitudes shown by some ATCOs here, I really do think I will make a point of doing so on all occasions in future.

I suppose that answers my question about militancy in the GA Community. Wholly rejecting future Class D proposals because of the attitudes of a few controllers on a forum. Although maybe I shouldn't tar all the GA folks with the same brush just because of one statement on a forum.

It must be frustrating when you are refused a transit due to 1 pending IFR departure but that is an individual unit and controller problem.

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 17:33

I think we are finally getting at the nub of the problem here. IATA are calling all the shots these days. The airlines pay my wages and are demanding reduced charges left right and center. It sounds like in order to keep the class D in busy UK airspace aceessible to GA (as is their right), more staff are needed by ATC. The airlines just aren't going to pay for that. This is the issue IMHO

I wholeheartedly agree.

I make no comment on the individual case of the OP, who has apologised after admitting he was in the wrong. However, it has brought out some disturbing and disappointing responses.

Sadly, the tone of this thread from some ATC contributors is "Well it's now my airspace and you don't deserve access unless you are prepared to pay".

GA obviously does have a right of access to Class D airspace under VFR (that's why it's only Class D) but it seems some would prefer it just went away altogether. Protracted holding of VFR traffic, or a mandatory major re-route such as the one quoted, i.e. all the way around the LHR and LCY CTRs when the airspace is deemed closed because the airport has no IFR traffic and ATC won't man the position will one day cause some one to run seriously short of fuel, or worse. ATC need to bear in mind that VFR traffic isn't necessarily carrying IFR fuel reserves. Some of us need to land off airport in Class D airspace. In the case of a planned landing inside City CTR, for example on a revenue flight, this would obviously cause a major problem.

It appears that ATC either don't understand these issues, or simply don't care. If this is the case, then there will quite understandably be major objections to any further airspace grab proposals.

If ATC has no sympathy for GA, then why should GA have sympathy for ATC?

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

Now, I'm deliberately playing the devils advocate here, but it's a point well worth making, especially as it's increasingly difficult to make a profit in GA.

Timothy

24th Sep 2014, 18:14

It must be frustrating when you are refused a transit due to 1 pending IFR departure but that is an individual unit and controller problem.

I don't want to stray too far from the original problem here. I was not denied access due to "1 pending IFR departure"; I was denied access when there were no IFR departures for at least the next 2½ hours because LC was closed.

I am sorry, but that gives the lie to all the comments about IATA, CAT, importance of flights, schedules, slot times, costs of MAs, danger to IFR flights and so on.

NATS stopped me going into pretty much empty airspace (according to what I could see on TCAS and visually there was one other aircraft in the zone.)

The problem was that the controller was controlling a lot of other things and had been instructed not to take pop-up traffic so as not to get overloaded.

So the rest of it, including the "who pays?" arguments are interesting but belong in another thread.

Though there is the one interesting question as to who should pay for Class D airspace when the airport is closed. In most countries the controller switches on an autoresponder to say that the zone is Class G and that he or she has gone home to a well-deserved cup of Horlicks.

But I do understand that the Security Services want a Known Environment over London even when LC is closed. Who should pay for that?

The obvious answer would be the Home Office, but I can't see why it should be LC, LC's users or GA VFR users.

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 20:22

It's not just ourselves we have to protect, it's you guys too! We have a duty of care over you all. If we have several of you in the zone and, heaven forbid, two of you collide, it's highly likely that you can all kiss goodbye to flying over the city full stop. We have to be able to pass traffic information to you all, in order to assist you to see and avoid. Sometimes, we might have 5 (or more) of you in close proximity. That's 20 pieces of traffic information that need to be passed if we are doing it properly. That takes time, and unfortunately, we aren't only there just to do that.

Surely that is the sole reason for the existence of ATC!

Point is though, in cases where transit access is totally denied, as was here, pilots must route around and will most likely go by the shortest distance around the outside, in Class G. This results in the situation where aircraft will be following the same route in opposite directions and at very similar altitudes with no ATC input.

There are already a number of choke points in the London area, especially at that end of the CTR. Closing swathes of Class D creates less safety, not more.

Una Due Tfc

24th Sep 2014, 21:10

"Surely that is the sole reason for the existence of ATC!"

Indeed. But who pays for said ATC.

It's a simple fact that those who pay the bills (the airlines) get priority to the detriment of those who do not when things get busy.Someone has to pay the leccy bill for the radar....

Timothy

24th Sep 2014, 22:09

Defruiter,

As I understand it, Heathrow Radar 125.625 is normally split from Thames Radar 132.7, across two positions, but at the time in question the two positions were combined into one, because of staffing issues.

Is that different from your understanding?

Timothy

24th Sep 2014, 22:34

We are round in circles a bit here :)

As I understand it, the controller was instructed not to accept pop-up traffic because he was covering both positions. That is a staffing issue.

Whether Southend and Biggin IFR traffic on top of LL and LC VFR traffic justified that decision, I cannot say.

Timothy

24th Sep 2014, 22:43

I think that that is where the confusion lies.

I have been doing that flight on a very regular basis, on average every other Sunday, I would say, for ten to fifteen years and it has never been refused before.

That the controller was covering Thames because of shortages resulting from the SERA/LL Class D training is the reason I was given.

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 22:48

"Surely that is the sole reason for the existence of ATC!"

Indeed. But who pays for said ATC.

I'd say we all pay, either directly or indirectly. But, as was pointed out earlier, the airlines demand the protection, in general GA doesn't

Timothy

24th Sep 2014, 22:56

It sounds like you probably do on a regular basis :ok:

See you 9am Sunday?

Squawk 7500

24th Sep 2014, 22:59

Just as an added thought for the GA guys:

When we have staffing issues, the initial course of action might be to regulate the known IFR traffic to prevent overload. This will probably involve applying flow control to issue slot times, MDIs/ADIs, NBTs etc. and can cause lengthy delays.

So when you pitch up at the zone boundary requesting a transit, and you're told to remain outside for 10 minutes, just think that the IFR traffic ahead of you could have been sat on the ground for an hour or two, full of passengers, taking their delay without complaint. I know it's easy to look at the snapshot of traffic you hear on the r/t, but take a moment to think about the big picture.

You can prevent all this frustration with a quick call to us before you depart. Let us know what you plan to do and we'll advise whether we can accomodate and any delays you might get. I guarantee we will always do our best to fit you in, and if we can't there will always be a good reason.

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 23:19

Speak to you on the airwaves sometime

You often do speak to us (regular user for well over ten years) and I am the first to sing the praises of the service offered on 125.625. Sadly, the service offered elsewhere is sometimes not so accommodating, or, dare I say it, so competent.

Timothy

24th Sep 2014, 23:21

Ha ha!

Which loops straight back to the OP, in which I said:

in my 45 years and thousands of hours of aviation all over the world, Thames/Heathrow Radar are the best and most accommodating unit I have dealt with.

Maybe we should lay Groundhog Day to rest there?!

ShyTorque

24th Sep 2014, 23:50

pitch up at the zone boundary requesting a transit, and you're told to remain outside for 10 minutes, just think that the IFR traffic ahead of you could have been sat on the ground for an hour or two, full of passengers, taking their delay without complaint. I know it's easy to look at the snapshot of traffic you hear on the r/t, but take

Squawk 7500, if landing in Class D, I always do, as per the mandatory requirement for the LHR CTR's inner area, which has been carried over from the recently changed Class A days ( I was doing this long before AIC Y049/2011 was published). However, the nature of the job means we cannot always do so ten miles in advance for a transit flight. But we never "pitch up at the zone boundary", we do try very hard to give the required notice; we try to be as helpful and expeditious as possible, knowing that this is mutually beneficial.

As for airline passengers being delayed on the ground, no doubt you are aware of the requirement for operations in the Heathrow CTR for VFR and SVFR traffic to have the "equivalent delay" applied, apparently so even if the GA movement has absolutely no effect on IFR traffic.

ThamesOperations

27th Sep 2014, 01:01

You may have be mislead into thinking that "Defruiter" is the controller involved, which I can assure you, he is NOT. :ugh:

GAPSTER

27th Sep 2014, 12:42

....and like that,he's gone

Capt Kremmen

28th Sep 2014, 11:16

Squawk 7500

It's qiuite simple. GA traffic, avoid CAS like the plague.

Timothy

28th Sep 2014, 11:17

Nope. GA traffic, remember that CAS is there for you too. Don't be put off.

Capt Kremmen

28th Sep 2014, 12:27

They don't need you, they don't want you, you contribute nothing, you're an irrelevant nuisance !

Timothy

28th Sep 2014, 16:26

That is most unfair. Most controllers bend over backwards to be accommodating and helpful.

I would venture to suggest that some of the small number of negative comments on here, ostensibly from controllers, come from people who either have not controlled for some time or have never controlled. (Though I rush to add that the one person who has been identified as a retired controller, TDM, always gave exemplary service when he was in Thames.)

That is the nature of anonymous forums. I hate the Secret Seven names and the ability to rush out, stick your tongue out, then run back and hide behind mummy's skirts, especially when you are doing a Sandie Shaw imitation.

That is why I always fully identify myself, so that I have to stand by what I write and my credentials can be checked.

Capt Kremmen

28th Sep 2014, 17:41

Timothy.

Your first sentence. Yes, ATCO's CAN be helpful and accommodating to GA especially - some might say, only - when their workload is light. If that is the case then that is understandable.

Aviation is divided into two broad strands: Commercial and GA. Commercial aviation pays the mortgage and the school fees, puts bread on the table and provides a dividend for shareholders.

It provides scientific research, new aircraft designs, complex airport terminals, managerial skills at all levels and a level of technical ability that permeates the entire global industry. What the accumulative value of all this is, I can only guess; many billions.

And GA ? Well, for most, it is a pleasant hobby. A desirable recreational pursuit. And really, that is it. We can pad it out a bit by referring to the FTO's it supports. All the instructors and the maintenance engineers, the chaps that sit on the gang mowers forever cutting grass in the summer etc.

The bald and unpalatable fact is that there is no real need for GA, anymore than there is for sailing small sailboats. It is a desirable hobby but not, in the scheme of things very essential.

I can hear 'Disgusted' of Tunbridge Wells muttering into his pint, who is this Kremmen fellow, just who does he think he is, rubbishing our beloved pastime. NO I AM NOT. I'm attempting a little balance, using a bit of perspective. Emphasising if you like the gulf that exists between the reality that is commercial aviation and that which is a pleasant, un-necessary but wholly delighful GA.

GA contributes nothing of any consequence to Commercial aviation and that is why GA is seen as an irrelevance.

ShyTorque

28th Sep 2014, 18:21

Capt. K,

I think you need to revisit what the term GA encompasses. It's far more than private pilots on jollies!

Timothy

28th Sep 2014, 18:28

...absolutely.

But even private pilots on jollies have as much right to be there as a tubeful of people going to Malaga or the Algarve on jollies.

throw a dyce

28th Sep 2014, 19:08

Capt Kremmen,
When I trained as an ATCO in the early 80's,a PPL was part of the training.I know quite a few ATCOs who kept flying,and quite a few who are now Commercial Pilots.I kept PPL flying for some 20 years.Also we had a Fam Flight Scheme which was excellent to see what happens up front.However that took at hit post 9/11 for obvious reasons.
I think you are being unreasonable on Controllers.Just because we are busy and you are told to standby means the controller is doing what he trained to do.Priorities and managing the traffic.
There is also the safety factor.I have helped several PPLs who got lost,and have seen a few aircraft crash because the pilot was too ignorant/proud/scared to ask for help.Most controllers I worked with were only too willing to assist.
You over simplify aviation as well.Military,SAR and Ambulance,Gliding,Aircraft performance,all types of airspace....the list is endless.
We have a list of flight priorities and GA is at the bottom.However Commercial is well below emergencies and Royal Flights.
I will never hide behind my user name and if you PM me with a question,I will always answer with my name.:)

Capt Kremmen

28th Sep 2014, 20:07

Well I expected a bit of flak and I wasn't disappointed.

Shy Torque & throw a dice

I am well aware of the breadth and depth of GA. I had in mind the majority component. Again I'm aware that a portion of what is lumped as GA has a commercial aspect so is excluded from my observations.

ShyTorque

28th Sep 2014, 20:29

Capt. K,

But you wrote: GA contributes nothing of any consequence to Commercial aviation and that is why GA is seen as an irrelevance.

Some of us in GA use the airspace because we need to depart and land at the airports within, so we certainly do pay, and much more per head than the IFR "bucket and spade trade" traffic.

GAPSTER

29th Sep 2014, 07:17

As a working ATCO who is very aware of his responsibilities to ALL traffic requesting access to the airspace I administer (and service outside) and has done his best to accommodate those requests over the years I would like to disassociate myself from all comments made by Capt.Kremmen...

....whose professional credentials I would be interested in knowing something of.

Timothy

29th Sep 2014, 07:33

He's a Capt, for goodness sake, what more do you need to know :}

Capt Kremmen

29th Sep 2014, 08:45

ShyTorque

You're in a tiny minority of the whole.

Gapster

Anyone would think that I'm suggesting that commercial aviation and GA are in opposition !

Or, that commercial, like the US. 7th Cavalry wouldn't, at the drop of a hat, ride to the assistance of GA if an emergency arose.

None of that, have I inferred.

Because of the absence of a profit motive on the part of GA, commercial and GA have little in common. The interests of GA are not high on the commercial agenda which is profit driven. When the bills are due to be paid, GA do not have to put their hand in their pocket.

As to my 'professional credentials' ? They are neither here nor there. My comments are based on the observations of many, many years in aviation. They are the opinions of one individual. I know that because these opinions run counter to those held by others, they will tend to 'ruffle a few feathers'. That is the nature of a 'discussion forum'.

Timothy

My 'pen name' is related to the late, great much lamented TV personality, Kenny Everett whose inventive alter ego was: Captain Kremmen: "He's so hunky". You're maybe not old enough to remember !

ShyTorque

29th Sep 2014, 09:38

ShyTorque
You're in a tiny minority of the whole.

I disagree. By definition, the term GA encompasses the entire corporate industry, business jets, rotary wing etc, as well as the other included types of aviation.

What is General Aviation - iaopa.eu (http://www.iaopa.eu/what-is-general-aviation)

Capt Kremmen

29th Sep 2014, 09:48

If what you are doing is motivated towards profit, then it is 'commercial'.

Timothy

29th Sep 2014, 09:58

So where do my charity flights fit in?

No profit motive, but producing great financial and other benefits to people who desperately need them.

Definitely not commercial, and therefore to be sneered at by the commercial side and placed in the lowest category by the ANSP?

Similarly, if someone flies their private aircraft on business and creates wealth, employment and tax revenue from their company by doing so? Still beneath contempt?

Things really aren't that black and white.

Capt Kremmen

29th Sep 2014, 10:28

You can play around with words as much as you like. I agree, 'things' aren't 'black and white'.

There is some blurring at the edges. But, it ain't called a Commercial Pilot's License for nothing.

If you draw a salary, declare a dividend, hold an AOC, are registered in a pension scheme, get paid leave or recognise a host of other indicators, then you're commercial - in it for gain and your special friends are NATS - and you pay for their services.

ShyTorque

29th Sep 2014, 10:30

Capt. K: If what you are doing is motivated towards profit, then it is 'commercial'.

Timothy: Things really aren't that black and white.

Therein lies the rub. We all need access to CAS and to arbitrarily close airspace to GA, unless for exceptional reasons such as protecting national security, is unacceptable.

Capt Kremmen

29th Sep 2014, 11:41

Personally, it wouldn't make any difference if, while flying GA, I was denied access to CAS. At the moment I go around it or under it or, over it if such is possible and it doesn't lead me into additional expense.

An in flight emergency might have me reaching for 121.5 depending on what was at stake.

ShyTorque, your reference to 'national security' provokes the following. Place names have been omitted.

One week or so ago, I returned to the airfield and parked at about 4.30.pm. Someone from the Tower came past and said that the airfield would be closed as from 6.0pm. with no more arrivals or departures after that time. All due, apparently, to the departure of a certain person back to the Land of the Free from Boscombe. No prior notice had been given; no Notam issued.

My question then was: Where would pilots go if they had left their car at the airfield and needed to get home to feed the kids, let the dog out for a pee and perhaps prepare supper. The nearest diversion was half an hours flying time away.

I began to feel quite offended. I wrote to the CO at Boscombe and one week later received a very friendly phone call from a WingCo. It transpired that they, Boscombe, had phoned the airfield and asked whether it would be feasible to close the airfield prematurely and without notice, that it wasn't obligatory but would be helpful.

While waiting for Boscombe's reply, I had checked with other airfields in the vicinity. It was business as usual for them and they hadn't been asked to close early.

I did ask the WingCo. how he would have gone about trying to contact the half a dozen or so farm strips that lie within about a six or seven mile radius of Boscombe !

So, this little episode quite expressively underlines the importance of GA in the scheme of things.