Flying through a NOTAM'd display area

[sparkyt]

Just a quick gauge of opinion.

I'm an ATCO and Safety Manager at a busy military airfield near the east coast.

During a display practice involving a high performance FJ, a PA 28 was observed to fly through the overhead at 4000ft despite a NOTAM warning of the display practice occurring 5nm radius up to 8100ft. To add to the story they weren't speaking to anyone and squawking 7000 without mode C.

What is the point of view from users here about flying in Class G airspace close to busy airfields without speaking to any one of a number of ATC units?

[Steve6443]

This is a question which requires two answers - one based on the question of flying in class G, the other with regard the NOTAM.

1) Regarding the flying in a NOTAMed display area:

Unfortunately, too many pilots don't seem to check the NOTAMS so I'm hoping the pilot of this aircraft can be identified and charged accordingly.....

2) Flying in Class G Airspace without talking to ATC

it's not illegal...... even if it's not particularly clever..... but I can understand people who, faced with ATC telling them 'remain clear of controlled airspace' or refusing any sort of service (except that chocolate Tea Pot service - basic) then decide 'why even bother contacting them, they will only say NO hence go NORDO....

[ChickenHouse]

Hard to comment without further knowing the exact NOTAM and what it raised.

If the NOTAM did not raise an official temporary restricted or otherwise closed for public airspace, the PA may have been absolutely legal to do so, even not very wise in particular. NOticeToAirMen are many times just that, a notice.

Do you have any confirmation the pilot did not recognize the NOTAM, other than not answering a call? If not, there is no real argument he or she didn't see it.

People sometimes misjudge what it means to issue a NOTAM, one part being more responsible for observation within the specific area, not less. The usual NOTAM does not change rules of the air and while display practice training the trainer has to follow see and avoid as normal, even more the area of the NOTAM has been noticed to the public to have them a special lookout. Again, you can interpret a NOTAM as either "please do not enter", emphasis on please, or "this is the area we are practicing and will have a sharp lookout", the viewpoint changes much. What if a complaint is filed and the complainer has to explain why precautions for an official NOTAM area were not taken in a sufficient way to operate on adequate safety, why they decided to not file a NOTAM restricting airspace?

I remember a famous parachute drop little king treating a local parachute area as "his" and the traffic under "his royal kingdom regulations", filing a complaint against a fellow pilot flying through "his area", just to get authorities explain him the nature of "his" parachute area in rude and expensive words.

Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise. If authorities decide it is necessary to have radio contact, they issue airspace other than G. And, you cannot be sure the pilot did not monitor the frequency. Sometimes it is wiser in the vicinity of a busy airport to keep your mouth shut and not add to radio congestion - pilot decision.

Was a display training frequency issued, maybe even public in NOTAM?

I assume the OP tried to contact the aircraft?

Was this done in a polite and adequate manner, asking whether the aircraft would be so kind to stay outside the area? If it was rude command, I do understand the pilot had no driving force to answer in any way, even more, flying away grumbling over the buttheads down there. Not very helpful ...

More open questions raised than answered, sorry, but I try to understand the exact situation and yes, it may be complicated and even different from what we, the pilot or ATCO feels. Following recent discussions, on particular younger pilots, I read somewhere about the difference of piloting to airmen-ship, mentioning that many airliner-minded pilots rush through the PPL phase and jump very early on ATPL spirit, where timetables and button pushing keeps you from feeling airmen-ship. I somehow like the approach for a discussion and think we should stay at the fraternity of airmen, not converting to bus-like drivers of the air ;-).

Reading "despite a NOTAM warning" in the OP post, I speculate it was just a "notice" NOTAM. Maybe whoever was in the PA decided it is worth a look at the high performance FJ and did not want to congest the radio frequency? Not a decision I would take, but possible and probably totally legal, once again maybe neither wise nor polite from the pilot. But, airmen-ship includes to operate on incomplete information and on personal responsibility on personal decisions and by a good reason.

Personal note.
I do try to read and recognize NOTAMs, but sometimes my decision can be to fly through such a noticed area, sometimes by fault, but sometimes by intention and the respective caution.
I also try to monitor relevant frequencies, but depending on the radios in the aircraft, there is a limit what I am able to follow, my decision which frequencies to monitor also not free of mistakes.
Just from feeling, I do estimate for certain areas there are the same number of aircraft flying through a parachute area with no radio contact as there are parachute machines not giving the appropriate jump notice calls on the radio. As long we all are aware of that, I see no real issue.

A general remark. It always helps to adjust tonality in a call to a legal situation, stay polite and know what you are responsible for. We decided as a society to not lock away anybody at the first sign of weirdness, but this has the side effect of real weirdos walking around - in such a case to remember - always possible on both sides ;-). I am fine with that little freedom to discuss things in person with the relevant people without some far-minded authority representative and don't want to change it, do you?

[snchater]

Unless the RAF aerodrme activates a TRA then its only 'protected' airspace is the ATZ.

However IMO poor airmanship to fly through a notamed display in the manner discribed - the CAA could try a prosecution invoking "reckless endangerment of an aeroplane" if there had been an incident.

The RAF does have a protected display practice area for the Reds - R313 at Scampton - why not use that?

[treadigraph]

A few years ago I was a Duxford display and noticed a glider cross the eastern end of the approach at, I'd estimate, half a mile or so and perhaps 2000'. Pretty much the point where a lot of the display aircraft perform tear drops or half cubans. There was no conflicting display at he time and he may have been talking to Duxford and been cleared to cross, I did think he might have been very lucky though.

[foxmoth]

What is the point of view from users here about flying in Class G airspace close to busy airfields without speaking to any one of a number of ATC units?

At 4,000' over the top without the notam area in effect it should not be a problem, though normally I would at least listen out on frequency.
As far as flying through the notamed area without calling goes, that is poor airmanship, and with todays aids such as Skydemon and Runway HD there is little excuse for not being aware of these areas.

[Talkdownman]

despite a NOTAM
I think you need to review your safety management capability. Do not delude yourself that a NOTAM will keep itinerant aircraft out of a display practice area. A NOTAM is simply that, a NOTICE. If you want to protect display practice get at least an RA(T). Until then there will be NO PROTECTION. In my view it is the display practice organiser who should be subject to criticism greater than the PA28 pilot for delusional lack of understanding of Class G airspace policy.

[ChickenHouse]

However IMO poor airmanship to fly through a notamed display in the manner discribed - the CAA could try a prosecution invoking "reckless endangerment of an aeroplane" if there had been an incident.
I prefer discussing things on this platform rather than have somebody launch an official prosecution, because that only produces pressure and fear, something we have been proud to avoid for a long time and replaced it by "speak openly on pilot errors".

Such prosecutions are double-edged swords and can be quite complicated.

Just as a speculation, if there would be an incident, the "reckless endangerment of an aeroplane" may as well fall onto the display training pilot and his organization. The balance of responsibility between display pilot and intruder may be fragile to judge.

If the intruding pilot was legal on entering and did document his thorough preflight preparation and was legal in not calling on the radio and there is an incident in the situation we speculate on, it may be a simple pilot misinterpretation of the danger of the, to him unknown, aircraft on display training and maybe not so well airmen-ship, something which is independent of the law. But, the other than usual awareness asked from that pilot is also only for a short period.

On the other hand, the pilot of the display training aircraft does steer a to him well known aircraft with the respective danger awareness and he has to be fully aware of it to be eligible for such a mission. Even further, the display pilot has to be always right on spot in awareness about the training, its danger, the area covered and the possibility of other aircraft entering, if the NOTAM was issued that way. If there was potential foreseeable danger for an ordinary skilled other pilot legally entering the NOTAM'ed airspace, the safety management of the display organization will be on investigation.

I am unable to predict the outcome of such prosecution.

[terry holloway]

A few years ago I was a Duxford display and noticed a glider cross the eastern end of the approach at, I'd estimate, half a mile or so and perhaps 2000'. Pretty much the point where a lot of the display aircraft perform tear drops or half cubans. There was no conflicting display at he time and he may have been talking to Duxford and been cleared to cross, I did think he might have been very lucky though.
Many of us flying in this area have real concerns about the risk of collisions with gliders as well as other traffic. There is invariably no radar cover outside of controlled airspace and apart from Duxford traffic and local GA from 6 local but uncontrolled airfields/strips (Lt Gransden, Top Farm, Audley End, Wyton, Bourn, and Main Hall Farm) there is a significent mixture of aircraft (from light to very heavy) at Cambridge. Cambridge ATC are working hard with the Cambridge Gliding Club to mitigate the risk, but there is no substitute for a really good lookout! Thread drift I know, but alas too many pilots ignore NOTAMed areas, and that today includes the drone test area south of Cambridge!

[Piltdown Man]

How about having a non-NOTAMed display of nine Tiger Moths take place around you only to find a few days later that you have been reported to the Enforcement Branch of the CAA in an attempt to get you prosecuted for something. Rather interestingly, this display did not have a DA and the crowd watching the aerobatics numbered several thousand, more than the organisers were expecting. I know it didn't have a DA because their display was being assessed by Mr T for the granting of one. I was the only person the air that day in that area whose flying was covered by a NOTAM. When I spoke with the CAA's Mr. Frost he didn't expect a question from me about an illegal flying display. "I shall have words" was his reply.

Morals of the story: 1. Always read the NOTAMS, including the ones that describe your own activities. They may be wrong or non-existent. 2. When you starting flinging the proverbial, make sure you are wearing Teflon. Some may stick. 3. Be prepared to re-plan when the conditions change.

PM

[cotterpot]

As far as flying through the notamed area goes, that is poor airmanship, and with todays aids such as Skydemon and Runway HD there is little excuse for not being aware of these areas.

I fly in east anglia. Some military NOTAMs cover huge swaths of the area, including our airfield. If I didn't fly every time there was a NOTAM I would hardly fly at all. We try to speak to the controlling authority, or call them up after take off, and go flying.

[gedney]

What is the point of view from users here about flying in Class G airspace close to busy airfields without speaking to any one of a number of ATC units?

Quite apart from the question of the NOTAM, I don't believe that it's a great idea to operate 'near' any aviation facility without talking to them, be that an international airport or a grass strip. That said, there is a possibility that previous experience might have lead the pilot of this aircraft 'not to bother'.

As an example, a few weeks ago I was flying north to south just over the top of the MATZ of an active training airfield not a million miles away from the one at which I imagine you might be stationed. It was a CAT flight, not GA, but my point remains. I called up their zone frequency as I considered my proximity to them might be of interest to their locally-based aircraft and I would have appreciated any pertinent traffic information from them. The controller was openly dismissive of my call, told me that his wasn't a LARS station and that I should leave the frequency! Having just changed from the mil unit that provides LARS in that area and one from which I was becoming increasingly distant, I didn't go back to them as I didn't want or need to use LARS. So I continued on my way, temporarily talking to nobody, listening to what I considered to be the relevant frequency and relying on TCAS and good lookout!

I'm not bashing the military because a) I served for 24 years and wouldn't do that, and b) there are still some excellent mil controllers out there. That said, towards the end of my time in the mil and definitely since leaving I have noticed a big difference in the quality of service that is received from a growingly large number of mil controllers. Oh, and there are impatient civ controllers of course.

I'm old enough and bold enough to shake off experiences like that and move on but bear in mind that several GA pilots are seemingly under-confident on the radio and given that they are paying a lot for what is supposed to be a pleasurable experience it wouldn't be surprising if some decide to cut out the stress and don't bother talking 'unnecessarily' when in Class G.

Disappointing if the NOTAM was not heeded though......

[cotterpot]

Thread drift I know, but alas too many pilots ignore NOTAMed areas, and that today includes the drone test area south of Cambridge!

I'm not saying the drone NOTAM is but I think there is some responsibility on those that raise NOTAMs to make them sensible. EG one for Binham Norfolk currently 07/01/17 08:07Z to 07/04/17 18:42Z 1700ft 1.0m R for model flying. Clearly thay are not flying every day.

[terry holloway]

I'm not saying the drone NOTAM is but I think there is some responsibility on those that raise NOTAMs to make them sensible. EG one for Binham Norfolk currently 07/01/17 08:07Z to 07/04/17 18:42Z 1700ft 1.0m R for model flying. Clearly thay are not flying every day.
I agree, and when I flew past on Monday (from a go round at Langham, looking for the proprietor!), there was a very empty field! Cromer International was equally deserted, for reasons well understood!

[foxmoth]

If I didn't fly every time there was a NOTAM I would hardly fly at all.

Edited my post to say flying through without calling is bad airmanship! And of course there are many Notams that will not affect a flight, talking here about the ones people should take notice of and do something about by calling or rerouting.

[Rod1]

Always talk to who? In this case it was perhaps obvious but this is not often the case. A mid air near our strip involved 3 aircraft (one maneuvered to avoid another and was hit by a 3rd). All three aircraft were on a sensible frequency, one was on the micro frequency, operating near its home strip, another was on safety com operating near its different strip and the 3rd was talking to a local international airport. There were at least another two frequencies which would have been equally reasonable in that location (another international airport and a nearby licensed GA field) I talk if there is benefit, or if I am close to airspace, but there are often multiple chooses even then. Just talking in itself, can be of little to no value. I disappointing number of pilots think a basic service equals not having to look out of the window.

Rod1

[ShyTorque]

A NOTAM is what it says; the wording is important. Just because it's a "NOtice To AirMen" does not necessarily mean "everyone else is legally banned from entering this airspace, so keep out". Unfortunately, some seem to think otherwise.

Having said that, entering a NOTAM'd area without due consideration is not a good idea.

OTOH, I know of two "semi-permanent" NOTAMs that involved the flying of kites, allegedly up to 2,000 ft agl. One was in a commonly used helicopter transit route/choke point north of the LHR CTR. I looked for months for those damned kites, never saw a thing. Then one day I noticed that the wording had changed and now included a contact telephone number, so I rang it. A woman answered and she knew nothing about what a NOTAM was. I explained in words of one syllable and she explained that her "other half" sometimes flew a kite from a playing field. He only flew it very occasionally for fun and hadn't done so for many months. He was at work every day in the week. Total waste of effort of all concerned. I rang the controlling authority at Gatwick, only to be told that if someone requests a NOTAM, they were required to publish it, whatever the circumstances. Thankfully, that one has long gone.

Another one: a kite NOTAM appeared, for every day, SR-SS. This caused a potential issue whenever I needed to land at an adjacent field landing site, which was of key importance to the business I flew for (it was a large diameter circle, miles wide). I rang the contact number to be told that he was a falconer and sometimes he drove to that area where he trained birds of prey to fly from a perch under a tethered kite, from different locations within the circle. This chap was under the impression that by applying for a NOTAM no aircraft could ever enter "his" airspace, although he wasn't there very often. I explained that I sometimes needed to land very close by "his" circle, he said I wasn't allowed to. I then told him he had more airspace than a major airport nearby, which at that time only had a 2.5 mile radius ATZ. He didn't seem to see that as a problem. I see that NOTAM is still there, but thankfully now based on a much smaller circle.

[foxmoth]

Always talk to who?

That is a case of applying common sense, if you are flying in an area where display practice is NOTAM'd then talk to them, even if you are talking to people it does not mean you relax your lookout though - in fact often these will be areas where traffic is busier so lookout needs to be, if anything, a higher standard than in open areas.

[ChickenHouse]

That is a case of applying common sense, if you are flying in an area where display practice is NOTAM'd then talk to them, even if you are talking to people it does not mean you relax your lookout though - in fact often these will be areas where traffic is busier so lookout needs to be, if anything, a higher standard than in open areas.
Common sense is not commonly the same for everybody, if even existent.
How do you find out how? Quite rarely they publish their COM frequency.
Always listen, ok, but mandatory increase of gaggle in the air, no.

[chevvron]

Common sense is not commonly the same for everybody, if even existent.
How do you find out how? Quite rarely they publish their COM frequency.
Always listen, ok, but mandatory increase of gaggle in the air, no.
The CAA do not like 'extraneous' talk on display frequencies as it has been identified as a contributory cause in several accidents, either by distracting the pilot displaying or by blocking the frequency thereby preventing air to air comms when more than one aircraft is displaying hence the frequency is rarely published.

[Thud105]

"What is the point of view from users here about flying in Class G airspace close to busy airfields without speaking to any one of a number of ATC units?"

A limey buddy of mine had a Jungmeister, and the amount of RF the Siemens radial generated made any sort of radio installation impossible, so he used to fly around keeping a good look-out. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to fly without a radio in uncontrolled airspace?

[foxmoth]

A limey buddy of mine had a Jungmeister, and the amount of RF the Siemens radial generated made any sort of radio installation impossible, so he used to fly around keeping a good look-out. Are you suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to fly without a radio in uncontrolled airspace?
Not at all - but if an area is notamed for display practise or something else that considerably increases the threat level he might be better avoiding that bit of airspace - they are not usually that big that avoiding is a big problem!

[Thud105]

FoxMoth, I'm pretty sure my buddy would've read the NOTAM and flown appropriately.

"Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise."

What makes you say that Chickenhouse? The mags are wired independent from the radio. Why is it "not very wise"?

[Steve6443]

FoxMoth, I'm pretty sure my buddy would've read the NOTAM and flown appropriately.

"Flying G without radio contact is absolutely legal, again maybe not very wise."

What makes you say that Chickenhouse? The mags are wired independent from the radio. Why is it "not very wise"?

I'm not Chickenhouse but I share his views, that flying in Class G airspace without radio contact, although legal, is not very wise. Why? Because unfortunately the Mark I eyeball is fallible and 'See and Avoid' doesn't necessarily work. Class G is Indian Country - there be Cherokees all over the place.....

Now let's imagine there was some magical, mystical device which allowed pilots to communicate with somebody on the ground and this person had a sorcerous device which showed him where other aircraft were, which altitude they were flying and in which direction, then that person on the ground could warn the pilot about aircraft coming close. Wouldn't that be a fantastic improvement to air safety, supplementing See and Avoid?

Given the two options, flying with Mark I eyeball alone or using wizardry to assist you stay free of collisions with other aircraft, which is the wiser choice (assuming you have those options....)

[Heston]

I'm not Chickenhouse but I share his views, that flying in Class G airspace without radio contact, although legal, is not very wise

Given the two options, flying with Mark I eyeball alone or using wizardry to assist you stay free of collisions with other aircraft, which is the wiser choice (assuming you have those options....)

For your magical device to work you need to be getting a traffic service (at least) from a suitably equipped unit. Have you tried that on a busy day? Farnborough for example?

[Romeo Tango]

I would like to add my vote against unnecessary chit-chat in the open FIR. I for one always listen to an appropriate frequency and use a listening squawk if available. Otherwise I talk to as few people as possible.

IMHO GA pilots cannot assume to always get free radar and/or information services in the future, humans sitting in dark rooms with a VHF radio and (maybe) a radar screen are too expensive. If we decide to worry about bumping into each other then perhaps transponders/TCAS and/or flarm etc should become more compulsory.

As a related aside why do London information not have a listening squawk? The frequency is nearly unusable on a sunny saturday.

Ignoring NOTAMS is not so sensible.

[Thud105]

So Steve 6443, its a beautiful VFR day, perfect for a local 'bimble' (as I believe you say over there). As you taxi out your coms go Tango Uniform. You don't need your radio for any part of your proposed flight - do you consider flying in Class G sans radio sufficiently 'unwise' to cancel the flight? Genuinely curious.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Now let's imagine there was some magical, mystical device which allowed pilots to communicate with somebody on the ground and this person had a sorcerous device which showed him where other aircraft were, which altitude they were flying and in which direction, then that person on the ground could warn the pilot about aircraft coming close. Wouldn't that be a fantastic improvement to air safety, supplementing See and Avoid?
That sounds like a nice idea. Where would such a service come from, and who would pay for it?

[chevvron]

That sounds like a nice idea. Where would such a service come from, and who would pay for it?
Sounds like what I used to do when I was still at Farnborough. Have things changed that much since my services on radar were lost to the GA community?

[ShyTorque]

It is obviously still possible to obtain a "Traffic service" in UK's Class G airspace, where available (there are surprisingly large gaps in LARS coverage).

But it will often be a limited service (or basic only offered) due to a number of reasons; for example:

Poor radar performance.
Radar suppression.
Radar clutter.
Traffic density.
Controller workload.
Controllers on holiday - military radar units are sometimes stood down.
Etc.

So, rely on obtaining an ATC service OCAS is only part of the answer. See and be seen is still paramount in Class G.
I'm lucky enough to be assisted by TCAS but that relies on other aircraft using their transponder if fitted, preferably with ALT/Mode C selected.

[The Ancient Geek]

And therein lies the snag - until Mode C transponders are mandatory TCAS can only provide a dangerous false sense of security.

There is no substitute for the Mk1 eyeball.

[chevvron]

It is obviously still possible to obtain a "Traffic service" in UK's Class G airspace, where available (there are surprisingly large gaps in LARS coverage).

But it will often be a limited service (or basic only offered) due to a number of reasons; for example:

Poor radar performance.
Radar suppression.
Radar clutter.
Traffic density.
Controller workload.
Controllers on holiday - military radar units are sometimes stood down.
Etc.

So, rely on obtaining an ATC service OCAS is only part of the answer. See and be seen is still paramount in Class G.
I'm lucky enough to be assisted by TCAS but that relies on other aircraft using their transponder if fitted, preferably with ALT/Mode C selected.
The first 3 points are bollix; some controllers who say any or all of them are just covering their backs in case of an incident.
Poor radar performance? Put it u/s until it's fixed.
Radar suppression? Depends what you are suppressing, but you can always de-select the suppressors.
Radar clutter? Anoprop or bird activity. Neither should show if the AMTI threshold speed is set correctly.
Much as I disliked the Raytheon ASR10, it was SO processed that the only snag was sometimes the processing produced a hole with no radar cover at all, otherwise anyone who tells you it suffers from the above 3 things obviously has never seen raw radar.

[ShyTorque]

Chevvron, I'm very aware of the true reason for the "limited" prefix. I sometimes try to guess "the theme of the day".

The Ancient Geek, you obviously missed the first part of my statement where I said that lookout remains paramount. It would be more correct if you said that TCAS "might" give a dangerous false sense of security. However, when used correctly, it definitely enhances lookout, just as an ATC traffic service can, "limited" or otherwise. A trap for the unwary is to over-concentrate on trying to visually acquire something the TCAS has displayed, at the expense of maintaining a full lookout scan for other, non-displaying contacts.

But the same goes for a radar service whilst flying in Class G, or any other airspace for that matter. I don't know what your experience of the use of TCAS actually is, but from almost two decades of single pilot ops flying with it, mainly flown in Class G and the previous two decades plus flying without it, I have learned to use it properly and I wouldn't want to be without it, given the choice. Many who think the human eye alone is better obviously don't have much practical experience of the use of the equipment, or haven't understood how to use it.

[blueandwhite]

And therein lies the snag - until Mode C transponders are mandatory TCAS can only provide a dangerous false sense of security.

There is no substitute for the Mk1 eyeball.
quite right to.

There are very few substitutes that work so poorly.

[Steve6443]

That sounds like a nice idea. Where would such a service come from, and who would pay for it?

This is one of my pet gripes about flying in UK - the lack of a consistent traffic coverage. In Germany, they manage a system where I take off, call up Langen / Bremen / Munich Information and get such a service every time. Why, in such an advanced country like UK, do we have to put up with 'Basic Service' or other such crap? London Information doesn't even have radar, FFS.....

As for who pays for it, the infrastructure is paid by fuel duties, AFAIK.....

[Steve6443]

For your magical device to work you need to be getting a traffic service (at least) from a suitably equipped unit. Have you tried that on a busy day? Farnborough for example?

Oh yes, gripe number 2.... the number of operators demanding you 'remain OCAS' or refusing any sort of service other than Chocolate Teapot because of 'Controller Workload'. I was flying Sunday, the first truly beautiful day for flying in a long time, the skies were full of flying machines yet the controllers looked out for us.....

[foxmoth]

FoxMoth, I'm pretty sure my buddy would've read the NOTAM and flown appropriately.
Not sure where it was suggested that he would be doing otherwise? The question was about flying through a NOTAMED display area without calling - you seem to have taken this as a restriction on flying in ANY class G airspace without calling. I have flown non radio in the past and quite happy to do so in the future should the situation require it, but will always use the r/t if available.

[rarelyathome]

Good airmanship is about using one's brain. There are times when it would make sense to talk to an airfield, perhaps when a tract of airspace is notammed but not restricted, but there are others when it would be totally counterproductive. For example, crossing a busy training airfield at 4K agl and adding to a very bust frequency with your details which essentially tell everyone that you are no threat is, I would argue, poor airmanship. There are no hard rules for what constitutes good airmanship. It's about awareness and thinking about how you can contribute to safety - sometimes that means keeping quiet.

[Gonzo]

The first 3 points are bollix; some controllers who say any or all of them are just covering their backs in case of an incident.
Poor radar performance? Put it u/s until it's fixed.
Radar suppression? Depends what you are suppressing, but you can always de-select the suppressors.
Radar clutter? Anoprop or bird activity. Neither should show if the AMTI threshold speed is set correctly.
Much as I disliked the Raytheon ASR10, it was SO processed that the only snag was sometimes the processing produced a hole with no radar cover at all, otherwise anyone who tells you it suffers from the above 3 things obviously has never seen raw radar.

No, they're not 'bollix'

Often controllers who are working today are required to say such things, depending on factors such as radar source, aircraft location etc. Required, as in they are mandated to do so by procedure following hazard analysis.

[jollyrog]

Basic Service only, due to you not being one of our inbound bizjets and me having no interest in you whatsoever, other than to send you somewhere you don't want to go, in order to facilitate one of our inbound bizjets.

[foxmoth]

If it is a basic service outside CAS then they can't send you anywhere, they can only make a request.

[Bob Upanddown]

Now let's imagine there was some magical, mystical device which allowed pilots to communicate with somebody on the ground and this person had a sorcerous device which showed him where other aircraft were, which altitude they were flying and in which direction, then that person on the ground could warn the pilot about aircraft coming close. Wouldn't that be a fantastic improvement to air safety, supplementing See and Avoid?That sounds like a nice idea. Where would such a service come from, and who would pay for it?

To answer the Thread Starter's question What is the point of view from users here about flying in Class G airspace close to busy airfields without speaking to any one of a number of ATC units? I think you have to consider look at what you could offer to encourage the pilot to call. This is from a UK point of view.

In times gone long ago, there was a service called LARS that would assist private pilots as they bimbled around the sky. The service was excellent. OK, maybe it was to ensure that a PA-28 didn't collide with one of our military aircraft but it worked (and was paid for by the Government).

I have just looked at the latest card enclosed with my 2017 chart which advertises a number of LARS units and Listening Squawks. Listening Squawks because no-one wants to talk to private pilots unless they are infringing. LARS is a mis-used term which, in truth, no longer exists because all they will give a private pilot is a pointless basic service (because of cuts in Goverment funding??).

The TRUTH is that the CAA and NATS have sat with their thimbs up a dark place while the FAA have developed NextGen. The FAA system will give radar where there isn't any through ADS-B and, of course, the spin offs are TIS for the pilot and instant identification of the controllers. I see NextGen as a win-win for private pilots in the US (and pilots have to pay to install new transponders, etc..). The UK (or EU) should pay for a NextGen system here but, of course, they won't.

All we have is 8.33 which is of no benefit to EU private pilots but is a huge expense (after the expense of Mode S and then ELTs...).

So I think many pilots have simply decided if no-one wants to talk to them and if it is going to cost thousands to fit a new radio to be able to talk to someone, then they won't bother speaking to anyone.