Unhelpful controllers at Birmingham?

[No. 2]

I was reading the June edition of Flyer and came across a shocking letter from a CPL student concerning an incident he had with Birmingham ATC during 170A test.

The student describes a planned route that would take him through Birmingham ATC. On contact with ATC he was told to remain clear of controlled airspace. Anticipating this the pilot carries out plan B, which would presumably take him around the CTZ. However, a few minutes later the pilot says that another controller from Birmingham contacted him and "gave him a dressing down". The controller went on to say such things as "to plan a route through our controlled airspace in this day and age is wholly inappropriate" and "never being able to get a clearance" and "shouldn't even be trying", in a tone that was described as aggressive.

Would ATCOs, particularly any from Birmingham, care to comment?

[almost professional]

while I do not try to fly through brum's airspace I do spend a fair amount of time on the phone co-ordinating zone transits and It is rare to be told that the transit is not going to be possible, like our own situation normally with some flexiblity on behalf of the pilot and controller something can be worked out-mind you in todays airspace sharing environment an attitude such as the controller quoted is likely to be frowned upon-the hoops we are going through to gain extra airspace to accomodate a large increase in ATM's has to be seen to be believed!

[Warped Factor]

If no-one from EGBB ATC responds you could bring it up on their own forum here (http://www.egbb.co.uk).

What was said by ATC, if correct, sounds a wee bit unprofessional to me :(

WF.

[Manu Forte]

If you would like a response from Birmingham, here are one individual's thoughts on the situation. Firstly I do not condone rudeness on the R/T - it is not good practice in any situation and usually counter-productive in the ATC environment. Having said that, a few points need to be made.

I cannot comment directly on a "shocking story" taken from a magazine with which I am unfamiliar (and cannot access without paying for it), particularly when the sparse details given do not ring true, however the following observations may offer some explanation of the frustration which may have been felt by the controller at the time.

Being instructed to remain outside controlled airspace on first call is standard for all free-calling traffic at Birmingham if the controller cannot deal immediately with the call. This is as a result of a number of infringement incidents where a pilot has considered he has a right to enter the CTA if two-way communication has been initiated. It is not a knee-jerk reaction, rather a defence measure contained in unit instructions.

Birmingham has suffered from a controlled airspace infringement problem for many years, partly as a result of having the Honiley VOR, a major area navigational aid, very inconveniently situated on the main runway final approach at a range of six miles from the airfield. The days of VFR pilots looking out of the window to determine flight path seem to have vanished, replaced by the slavish devotion to needle-following.

Each and every request for zone transit is considered on merit, taking into account traffic density and the impact the planned route may have on Birmingham traffic. The majority of such transits simply wish to travel in the straight line joining A to B, although many will make significant diversion to accommodate the ubiquitous VOR. At the end of the day it's down to track and level versus inbound and outbound traffic.

Birmingham is staffed with the number of ATCOs needed to fulfil our contract with Birmingham International Airport, no more, no fewer. Apart from the final positioning director, there is just one radar controller dealing with all initial calls from arrivals, departures and extraneous traffic as well as carrying out liaison with two en-route centres and adjacent airfields. We manage the Birmingham traffic very nicely, thankyou, this being what pays our salaries. Unfortunately the frequency is often overloaded as a result of calls from the following:-
a) pilots calling for FIS, often for less than two minutes on a short flight, sometimes I suspect just to talk on the "big boys' frequency". Please, if you're that way inclined, go play somewhere else. London FIS on 124.75 for instance.
b) pilots calling for RIS or RAS. Birmingham lies within an area covered by three LARS units, Brize, Shawbury and Cottesmore, all staffed and paid to provide such services. Birmingham is not, has never been, and will never be a LARS unit.
c) pilots calling for zone transit, and here we get back to the original point after my admittedly off-message wanderings. Any transit through HON is going to interfere with IFR airfield movements (430 of them per day at the moment, just in case you think we sit on our backsides doing nothing all day) and possibly the controller involved in this case felt that to plan a transit for training purposes through such a congested area may not have been the brightest idea in the circumstances. If he was as busy as I suspect he may have been (and after 32 years I've seen a few of such sessions) I can understand if he was less than happy at the time.
d) transits which you may consider to be clear of the final approach/departure track may be refused because of environmental reasons involving NPRs. Because of our proximity to large conurbations the airport company are very hot on this, and rightly so.

In summary, I'm sorry you were so shocked by what you read, I'm sorry if the pilot whose experience you report (third-hand with large gaps in the story) was indeed treated rudely. We handle large numbers of transits, and FIS/RIS/RAS requests every day, and have long held a reputation for dealing with the vast majority of such requests to the general satisfaction of our non-paying customers. In return, please try to think beyond the limits of your own cockpit and spare a thought for some very busy guys and gals on the ground. We do our best - try to cut us some slack if we don't always get it spot on.

[EGCC Rwy 24]

Obviously, none of us know the percentage of truth/elaboration in this "story". Layman's thoughts:


ATC are very busy - how did they find a spare man to deliver a dressing down
Is an over the air dressing down ever appropriate, especially delivered to a trainee pilot - why not just sort the immediate problem and leave the aftermath for later?
oh yes, lastly....... did it really happen? The pilot concerned is noticeably absent!

[pilotwolf]

OK... my view...

Attitudes and helpfulness depends on the individual controller, likewise the 'professionalism' of the airspace use and co-operation depends on the airmanship of the individual pilot...

I haven't flown very much in the UK compared to the US but it seems that zone transits are rarely refused in the US even at major international airports, eg LAX. Is this due to inappropiate staffing levels in the UK?

Birmingham is staffed with the number of ATCOs needed to fulfil our contract with Birmingham International Airport, no more, no fewer.

Presumably this also includes the use of the airspace associated with the airport? If this is so and transits, FIS, etc are regularly being refused due to the high volume if traffic the one controller is dealing with then surely you are understaffed?

Here's an example of unexplainable different controlling at BHX... same day, same controller, about 15 minutes apart., Sunday afternoon, busy frequency, lots of aircraft flying around, visi decreasing in smoggy Midlands weather - legal but rather crappy.

Controller: G-XXXX, you have infringed my airspace, by .25mile at 1500, (think altitude is correct), I told you you MUST REMAIN clear of controlled airspace.
G-XXX: ..apologies, I hadn't realised - confirming leaving controlled zone.
Controller: G-XXXX, roger. Repeat remain clear of my airspace at all times.

The controller was very sharp, and (possibly unintentionally) came across as being rude - it sounded unprofessional. Yes, there was an infringement but as she was working the aircraft, knew his position, altitude and track it seemed a little bit excessive in the rebuke.

Same controller about 15 minutes later, giving us a FIS as we were skirting the zone along the south and west sides, gave numerous traffic reports, offered an alternate routing to assist in avoiding the dense traffic from local fields - "as I have multiple returns and I know the visibilty is poor in places", intially we declined the alternative but then after a few minutes changed our minds - "No problem, FIS until you are out of range, call for frequency change when required", this was followed by several more traffic calls and a "GoodBye" as we changed frequency. Polite, professional and helpful throughout.

Why the difference??? Bad timimg on behalf of the other pilot? Previous problems with the other pilot before we were on frequency? Differences in the radio calls?

[Manu Forte]

Let me clarify a couple of points:-

We are busy, but not understaffed for the job for which we are paid, namely dealing with Birmingham traffic, i.e. inbounds and outbounds. We are not paid for, therefore not staffed for, extraneous traffic outside the CTA. Whilst we endeavour to assist anyone who calls, we must limit that level of service to allow us to deal with our prime task. (We are, incidentally, staffed to open an extra coordination position at the busiest periods if the prime task requires it.)

I can't really comment on differences in attitude toward individual aircraft, but I would note that what seems a piffling degree of infringement assumes higher significance if that infringement takes place very close to a final approach track. Over the past few years we have lost important pieces of the CTA to the G.A. fraternity therefore almost any infringement is important to us.

Good points also from EGCC Rwy24. The original story is rather suspect to say the least. Mind you, there's nothing new in a bit of ATCO bashing - we should be used to it by now.

[flower]

It is a great shame that the dedicated LARS units are not taken more advantage of in the Birmingham area. Birminghams traffic levels have risen considerably over the last 8 years without I believe an increase in staffing levels (correct me if i'm wrong here). Whereas in the past they would endeavour to provide a service it is increasingly more difficult for them to do so.

Each week you see in the NATS airport weekly review the number of zone infringers they have to deal with , in a number of cases having to break of traffic and reposition. I can understand how they have got to a stage of feeling rather agrieved at this.

I do work at a LARS unit we have the resources to work the traffic , we get paid the extra money to provide the staffing to provide the service.

As for the issue of zone transits, All ATCOS will attempt to allow zone transits if traffic permits. They don't turn around and say no just for the sake of it, sometimes though when you hear an aircraft telling you they are going to transit through your Zone it can get your back up :* The phrase "request "Transit through your Zone or via your overhead is likely to get a much more pleasant response , we after all are only Human ;)

[Romeo Romeo]

Whenever I have spoken to Birmingham (and it's quite often because I go round the west side of their zone when going south), they have always been very helpful and polite. I have asked for a zone transit in the past and got it, but it was a couple of years ago now. Whenever I have asked recently I have been refused (no doubt for good reasons), so I now don't bother asking and plan to go round, which I think lowers the stress for everyone! My opinion of Birmingham ATC is that they are helpful but busy - certainly not impolite.

[Cloudhopper]

I have to say the guys at BHX do seem to be very anti GA, I spend a lot of time around the edges of the zone and on occasions when I have called and been asked to Standby (Standard Reply) the frequencies are usually quiet. I appreciate that there are busy times when the GA aircraft cannot be dealt with but when it all seems the service from BHX is still next to nothing. I have on occasion monitored all frequencies and still been on Standby when all is quiet.

[Scott Voigt]

Birmingham sounds like a good reason NOT to have private facilities within the full airspace system. A tower I can see, they do indeed only worry about the airfield. But any unit working radar should be concerned with not just the airport that they are serving but ALL aircraft within the system. Now, this is NOT a cut at the controllers that work at Birmingham. This is about the system that they are forced to work with.

I know that someone came on here and told us about what happens at Birmingham from the controllers perspective. It appears to me that if this is a normal occurance then they are indeed understaffed to work with everyone flying within the system. A countries airspace is a national treasure and shouldn't be limited by local or regional dictates. The National Airspace of any country should operate seamlessly for the benefit of all...

As to the pilots retorts that no one should ever sound curt on frequency. You're right, in a perfect world we wouldn't. We wouldn't raise our voices to our spouses, children or pets either. But you know, we all have stressers on us at different times and it does happen. Sometimes the matter of a fact straight prhaseology does sound curt and unfriendly. When you are stressed and busy, you aren't worrying about being friendly. You are worried about keeping the traffic picture and keeping people from coming to a poor demise. This on top of dealing every day with people who also consider themselves professionals yet seem to be unable to talk or fly as such from time to time. It is yet another stressor. Throw in the mix of GA who are doing the best they can ( and normally are doing a splendid job ) but not always understanding what is being required of them due to the lack of education... It is sometimes just a bit more than one can take after a few hours... It takes it toll. We sometimes get a bit tense or snooty. It comes from frustration from time to time...

I could go a bit further with all of this, but you get the point. The majority of pilots out there are doing the right thing. But there are those out there due to either thinking that they know what they need to know and don't get further education or those who just haven't been in the system long enough to really understand all that they need to know, and those who never were given all that they needed to know due to being instructed by another baby instructor whose ink on the teaching certificate is still wet...

later

Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman

[No. 2]

Manu Forte,

Thank you for your response, however the length of your explanation was unnecessary. The point of the thread was to highlight the inappropriate RT response that a particular pilot received by an ATCO. It was in no way intended to question the service provided by Birmingham ATC. And yes, there is little to go on apart from the letter published in the magazine, however it is ridiculous to even suggest that this was aimed at ATCO bashing, so don't even go there.

EGCC Rwy 24,

Did it really happen? Well for all we know it could be complete rubbish. However, for the moment let's just assume that the letter published in Flyer wasn't made up and that the pilot concerned does other things besides spend all his spare time viewing this forum and therefore hasn't replied.

So back to the original point of the thread-Is this kind of exchange suitable over the radio?

[bookworm]

I found the length of Manu Forte's post extremely helpful. It helps us to plan to maximise the probability of a transit clearance and tells us what makes life difficult for the controllers.

I haven't been through Birmingham in the last year or so, but last time I did I got a helpful, courteous and professional service, with the routing I'd requested, just as happens almost every time at Essex, Luton, Gatwick, Thames and the rest.

[vintage ATCO]

No. 2, you posted the original post - 'shocking letter' - and asked for a repsonse from a Birmingham ATCO. You got one, a comprehensive one, and a follow up (good reply, Manu Forte :ok: ) Now what is your problem?

Was it an appropriate response? No, of course it wasn't. Neither are some I get from pilots but it's all in a days work. It's all a bit third and forth hand so maybe it didn't all happened the way it was reported.

Fair enough to raise but I just don't see the point of your latest reply.

[pilot_2b]

well
i have to say i have just completed some work experience at birmingham airport and spent a day with the atco's.
some of the light aeroplanes that fly through the controlled airspace can cause problems or disruption to the positionig of commercial aeroplanes and it really does anoy the atco's. they told me that they aim to provide an outstanding service to commercial aeroplanes and light aeroplanes alike but if a light aeroplane is disrupting the path of a commercial aeroplane then that aircraft will have to move because there are paying customers on the other aircraft and it is not a leisure flight. and i saw for myself the actions taken by the pilot of a light aircraft whilst trying to land on runway 33

believe they do work hard up there

[niknak]

No 2.

I'm with vinatge atco - Manu Forte gave a very comprehensive and helpful explanation as to what goes on at Birmingham and also was very open in clearly stating that no atco is perfect and we all have infalibilities, which goes a long way to giving some explanation as to why the "incident", as unnecessary as it was, may have happened in the 1st place.

Cloudhopper - being told to "standby" and then hearing nothing for a while is not unusual, it usually means that the atco concerned is dealing with another more pressing matter, such as coordination or using another frequency which you can't hear. I suggest that before you post such unhelpful remarks about the standard of service that you get from Birmingham, you go and spend an afternoon at the unit, I wager it will open your eyes to the real world.

[No. 2]

vintage ATCO,

No problem.

The information Manu Forte was comprehensive, but they needn't have explained what they do in order to defend themselves. I merely wanted their views on a situation where someone asked for a zone transit and was then subject to a telling off. Of course this is only based on the information in the article but it appeared, to me at least, a rather heavy response by the ATC officer at the time. According to the article this wasn't a standard response to a zone transit made at the time; instead another ATC officer actually made the point of contacting the pilot, some five minutes later, for the sole purpose of telling him off for asking for such a request.

[TOM1]

No2

You asked for a responce from a Birmingham ATCO and you got one. Yes he answered your question in the first sentence and then very appropriatly tried to give you some background. If all you wanted was for every ATCO in the country to say " we do not condone that type of R/T response" (which every one will give) then it would be a very pointless discussion forum.

[No. 2]

TOM1

Point taken. :cool:

[martinidoc]

pilot_2b

Most commercial flights operate to permit the public to indulge their pleasure of travelling and going to exotic places on holiday.

Light aircraft are flown by those who wish to indulge their passion for aviation, or are training for a career in aviation.

I do not complain about my fellow human beings' desire to fly away on holiday, but I fail to see why this type of "commercial" operation should be treated in principle any differently from the light aircraft flyer who pays his fuel, duty, landing and nav fees pro-rata for his use of the airfield and its facilities.

All light aircraft operators accept that for very good safety reasons they will usually have to give way to larger and less manoeuverable jet passenger aircraft.

I might add that at my own base airfield EGNT almost without exception the ATCOs try very hard to coordinate light and heavy traffic to minimse delay to GA users, perhaps this is because several of them fly too!

[TOM1]

Just a little more to this story.

I happened to mention this topic when I returned to work (and yes I do work at Birmingham) the watch manager on duty was a little surprised to say the least to hear that it had been taken this far. He remembered the episode well as he was the Watch Manager on duty at the time and explained to me what happened as a follow up.

First of all YES comments were made on the R/T that were not appropriate. The watch Manager spoke to the instructor of the aircraft on the telephone later on and apologised for the comments made. He also made it very clear to the ATCO concerned that his actions would not be accepted.

Having done all this where I come from that would be incident closed, so can anyone explain to me why, having accepted we had made a mistake and apologised for it the pilot felt it neccasary to go in to print to a magazine? We now have a situation whereby not only is the ATCO who made one silly comment being put through the mill but all of Birmingham ATCO's are being labeled "unhelpfull controllers at Birmingham".

Maybe I am getting a touch sensitive in my old age but I would not have thought that this is the best way to harmonise relationships between ATC & GA pilots.

Like I have said previously we made a mistake on this occasion and admitted to it. If a pilot has a gripe about ATC talking to unit management will often get results, making comments to magazines/newspapers often does not.

[boredcounter]

Thanks. As an Ops guy for the only base operator at BHX, I give your boys n girls 10/10. The hassle of getting the exodus away at seven in the morning, and not so much as an ASR, Kinda speaks for itself. Still the Eye in the sky gets off, Special VFR, oh and Police 41 at any time, steered in and out, without any hassle by the controllers, and all with humour.
Is it not time, You, (soz), STN' LTN and any other overworked 'provider of ATC services' said just that. We are overworked, contact, Wolverhampton on........................

Oh and still Police 41 is kept out of the way, or my pilots cautioned as to his where abouts, whilst still close to the ILS.

VFR pilots, if EGBB ATC get curt, or steer you clear, you got a DTY or BUZAD arrival about to mow you down. Have you got TCAS.

TRY YOUR COMPLAINT TOWARDS:
LHR
LGW
STN
LTN
EDI
GLA
MAN
and perhaps LBA, MME in 2 hears time..........................

Bored.



Perhaps, I could sue you for my guys extra fuel burn...................

[Bright-Ling]

Ahh, you see. That's the problem with ATC and "PR":

If BAW192 is rude or unprofessional we think he is an @rse.

If one person at an ATC Unit is rude or unprofessional then that unit is an @rse.

Simple as that.

(For p1$$ taking purposes only can you give us a clue as to who it was?)

[No. 2]

TOM1

Interesting post. I'm pleased to hear that the watch manager brought it up. Apologies for the title of the post, admittedly it was inappropriate and in no way did I intend to label everyone at Birmingham as unhelpful; neither the ATCO concerned.

Personally, I've only ever been treated well by ATC. I was just a bit surprised by the incident and, as you say, I didn't think that it was a positive step either toward improving relationships between ATC and GA. A case possibly of what goes around, comes around?

[martinidoc]

Boredcounter

"Perhaps, I could sue you for my guys extra fuel burn..................."

This sort of provincial selfishness and protectionism for your base operations, if translated across all other bases would be highly detrimental to all, and particularly small outfits like yours

I agree ATC need more resources, but it should not be for ATCOs to make judgements about the relative commercial priority of one type of flight over another. Their primary role is to maintain safety and their secondary role to maximise the efficient use of airspace. Regretably as privatised organisations there may well be unfortunate commercial pressures upon them to favour one type of flight or even one operator over another.

[DRJAD]

This is a very interesting thread for a new PPL (going for IMC) like myself. I have not (yet) had recent experience of flying near the Birmingham zone.

It calls to mind a refresher lesson at Leeds some time ago, when I was told, in the circuit, to turn onto base for a 2 mile final. I turned, with my instructor's agreement, and ATC subsequently curtly informed me that I had made a one mile final "and I told you to make a two mile final." I was chastened, and somewhat nervous subsequently.

However, the point of my post is this: when I came back to flying last year to obtain my PPL, that day had stuck in my mind, and made (makes) me very careful to estimate my position very carefully, and I'm sure it has helped prompt me to keep a cross-reference en-route between instrument estimations of position, and whatever available visual cues there are. To be as alert to positioning and to the whearabouts of nearby controlled airspace as I can be.

In other words, sometimes a sharp word can work beneficially.

(I am not condoning outright rudeness, though.)

[ratsarrse]

I wouldn't be able to judge the difference between 1 or 2 miles either. Not visually anyway. I can't judge 20 feet.

[chiglet]

Many moons ago, I was the APC ATCA at Brum and heard the following exchange......
Birmingham Approach this is Gxxxx. I have just overflown your airfield and I'm lost. Can you tell me where I am please?
Roger, Gxx what is your heading?
My heading is 120kts, over
Granted Brum had a LOT less movements, but:{ it DOES go on
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[PPRuNe Radar]

ATC subsequently curtly informed me that I had made a one mile final "and I told you to make a two mile final.

Just tell ATC that your navigation equipment is RNP-5 approved :)

That means your accuracy will be within 5NM for at least 95% of the flight. If it's a good enough required standard for the big boys ...... ;)

[ShyTorque]

As one pilot who often DOES get to successfully transit the BHX zone, firstly thanks to the controllers who make it possible. We can usually tell when it's busy / fraught for you peeps and do try to make our passing uneventful and efficient and then get out of your hair asap. We don't mind being moved up / down & side to side, it's still usually quicker than going round :ok:

Can I make a suggestion? A while back, EGBB ATC published a semi-permanent NOTAM advising pilots not not to expect a service unless actually directly requiring to enter the airspace. Seems to me that it might be time to republish it a few times, perhaps with an explanation that it is due to controller workload.

Pilots can easily relate to that, those likely to cause the most problems for controllers (i.e. those with less time under their belts) are usually suffering from high workload too. :)

Don't like any sort of rudeness over the r/t either. It's seldom necessary or appropriate, it leaves the recipient (either way) a potential flight safety risk while he /she ruminates on it. Far better to do it by phone afterwards if one really must.

I am surprised and disappointed that the individual went griping to the press after he had received an apology; very unprofessional IMHO :(

[Bombay Bad Boy]

I dont think Boredcounter was suggesting they get a priority cos they are BHX based. They get no favours, they are treated fairly which is what makes me feel we are doing a good job when I read his comments.

As I can only speak for myself, this is my philosopy to GA's.... If I can accomodate you, I will, BUT only if I can still maintain the high level of service to the IFR in/out guys n girls who pay our wages.

Awareness is also a key, ie JCB2 slips in and out of the zone VFR
all the time without any problem, WHY ? because he is fully aware and apprectative to the traffic situation, uses common sense and possesses a very high standard of Airmanship. I'm not saying no one else does, but you can trust some crews to do what they say they are gonna do more than others!

We welcome views on improving service on our website, and even answer questions from all aviators relative to birmingham. Its there to help ANY aircrews understanding of Brum ATC!

www.egbb.co.uk

As regards to a dressing down on the freq, Ive been there(previous unit), done that, got the t-shirt.....THEN......had the tapes played back to me of my R/T, had the bollocking from my manager, THEN the bollocking from the Unit Manager ! I had my reasons at the time but looking back they dont seem so relevant and I was wrong. We make mistakes then learn from them.

Update for "Cloudhopper"
This morning I had 3 GA's all getting a FIS merrily going about their business, a 4th GA called and was told to "standby" BUT no one else was on Freq!! In fact all freq's were very quiet..... WHY? because I was busy on the fone speaking to London Radar controller, then London Group Supp, Then Tower, Then Director about the MSK CRJ with the Oil Eng Temp warning light that was 50 miles away and returning to Brum, possible Emergency !

Quite Freq doesnt always mean No work or anti GA !!!

BBB

[GroundBound]

Just had a read of the Birmingham web site - which raised a few thoughts. I presume the airspace is class D (I don't fly there and I don't have a map to check it, but it can't be B (below FL250) and it can't be C (none in the UK) , and if it allows VFR transits then it can't be A).

Now, my understanding of class D airspace is that VFR separate themselves from everyone else, and ATC does not provide a separation service of any form to VFR traffic. Also, in class D, ATC only separates IFR from IFR, and advises IFR of VFR, but doesn't separate IFR from VFR (unless avoidance is requested by the IFR traffic). However, VFR do need a clearance to enter class D.

The thoughts thus raised are - what does the clearance do? Why shouldn't a pilot plan a VFR transit of Class D airspace?

Don't flame me, this is a reasonable and valid question :) Nor is this aimed at EGBB, as it is something which applies to all class D, in every country.

What does ATC do with VFR flights in class D? If ATC doesn't separate them from each other, and doesn't separate IFR traffic from them, then ATC has no reason to ever reject a VFR flight. If it is done on safety grounds, then it seems that ATC is trying to do more than it is supposed to do i.e. take over the VFR pilot's (clearly defined) responsibility.

A couple of quotes found on the Brum web site:


Be prepared for Radar vectors should ATC decide they need to move you away from a particular area.

Have an alternative route ready just in case Zone transit cannot be approved.

Well, why would ATC need to move a VFR pilot away from a particular area? If it is not to avoid infringement of other airspace, then it can only be for some sort of separation purpose - but in class D, ATC do not (should not?) provide separation to VFR.

Why should a clearance ever be rejected? Again, it seems only for safety reasons, based on separation requirements, which ATC are not supposed to apply to VFR in class D.

And a further comment from this forum
Any transit through HON is going to interfere with IFR airfield movements

Well doesn't that make the point? A VFR flight, responsible for its own separation from all other traffic is interfering with IFR movements, and ATC who are not responsible for any separation of VFR flights (even with regard to the IFR/VFR combination) doesn't like it! :confused:

I can well understand a controller (having been one myself) looking at a screen and seeing VFR traffic interfering with IFR traffic and feeling decidedly uncomfortable. :uhoh: However, if it class D, that situation is what the CAA has foreseen, and it is not for ATC to try to provide separation when that is not the aim of class D airspace. If it seems unsafe, then the airspace should be C or B, not D!

From the previous comments in this discussion, I expect this view will raise some hackles - but please discuss amicably.

:)

[vintage ATCO]

Having been a radar controller in Class D airspace for 25 years I can tell you that I would never clear a VFR aircraft through it and expect it to stay out of the way of the IFR. Some pilots' idea of separation isn't mine! So, we went in for a bit of 'controlled VFR' and kept them out of the way, either by radar or vertically. As our unit had a very good reputation for allowing VFR traffic through then clearly we didn't upset anyone, or too many!

The rules say 'pass traffic information to the IFR about the VFR'. The IFR can then ask for traffic avoidance. Then what do you do, take the IFR off the ILS to avoid the VFR? No, you make sure the VFR isn't a factor in the first place. A few extra track miles for the VFR but he gets through the CTR. The IFR continues on his merry way down the ILS. Everyone's happy.

It's the real world.


VA

[GroundBound]

VA

Entirely understand your reaction. However ...... :)

Some pilots' idea of separation isn't mine!
Indeed, but in class D airspace its the pilot's responsibility, not yours, even though that is an idea which can be hard to swallow. :( Also, what looks horrifying on the radar screen may be perfectly acceptable to a pilot in visual contact with the traffic - passing 1 mile abeam and behind a 737 is visually "well clear" although the radar picture will look awful.

So, we went in for a bit of 'controlled VFR' and kept them out of the way, either by radar or vertically
So, arbitrarily making the airspace class C instead of class D! If one chose to be awkward, then the question that follows is "on whose authority?" :hmm:

Don't get me wrong, and please don't take offence - I fully understand the best intentions of ATC and the almost manic desire to keep aeroplanes apart- its what the job's all about :) However, my point is that in class D airspace, as defined by the "powers that be", whether the controller likes it or not, it is not your responsibility do so, for VFR flights. If it were, then it would have been declared class C, or B. As I said, if airspace isn't safe then it should be re-classified, rather than ATC making its own interpretation of the rules, because it seems "right and safe".

There is another thread running on the Private Flying forum related to airspace classification, and "why is it so complicated"? I think it is important for pilots - particularly flying IFR - to realise that in class D airspace, when they are VMC they are not "separated" from VFR flights, since VFR flights are legitimately entitled to be there (if VMC). Also, for the VFR pilots to understand their responsibilities in keeping clear of any other traffic IFR or VFR.

I can understand how hard it is for a controller to see aeroplanes getting close on the radar and desperately wanting to intervene on safety grounds, :eek: - but in class D it is not ATC's responsibility (unless IFR/IFR), and it should be "traffic information" to the flights concerned, and not ATC separation - that's what class D is all about.

[vintage ATCO]

On whose authority? My licence, my pension.

I can certainly tell what a mile looks like on radar . . . . You need to ask the UK CAA why they don't go for Class C, or Class B below FL245. I am only relating what the majority of UK controllers do inside Class D.

I have had pilots of IFR complain about the proximity of VFR traffic. And as I said, what do you do if the IFR asks for traffic avoidance?

Still, I no longer do radar so the world can sleeply safely in their beds. :D

VA

[almost professional]

The phrase 'duty of care' comes to mind-most of us operating in class D know the rules and are quite aware that the good book says we do not separate VFR/IFR .However at the subsequent court of enquiry it will no doubt be the atco who is blamed for the airmiss or worse.The primary purpose for establishing the airspace in the first place will be protecting the instrument approaches and the climbouts and it would seem stange to then reduce the level of protection by in effect allowing VFR traffic to route through with simply traffic info'-without being unkind to my GA friends there are people out there who do not belong in that situation(including the pilot who deliberately went off freq' inside CAS thus causing my trainee to take traffic off the ILS and delay some four or five subsequent arrivals so much for airspace sharing!)
As VA says a little common sense and agreement with the parties concerned should allow everybody to stay happy-I will resrict the level of VFR transits or offer a reroute to enable my IFR traffic to continue 'head down' in the cockpit at the critical time in an approach-often I can sweeten the pill by offering a radar service in return-this seems to work-the last two days have been the busiest of the year so far for transits and we did not refuse anyone, just deviations or level caps mainly
VA-if you miss the tiddlers so much you should come north-its just like old times!:O

[brimstone]

Groundbound - In Class D airspace the controller also has to pass traffic information to VFR flights on IFR flights and other VFR flights. If he feels that he does not have the spare capacity to do this then I think this a valid reason for declining a zone transit request.

If there was an incident and the controller had not fulfilled this minimum requirement then I think he could be held at least partly accountable.

[Jerricho]

Brimstone has hit the nail on the head.

Also, it is sometime surprising when reading through the UK AIRPROX Reports that the board finds "incident attributed to late sighting of traffic by one/both pilots", for what ever reason (cockpit workload, dropped handheld GPS and trying to pick it up.......etc).

[TC_LTN]

Excuse me for quoting large chunks of MATS Part 1 but I think it would be most enlightening for those unfamiliar with the document and help this debate.

While I accept what GroundBound says about the basic ICAO requirements within Class D airspace , the 'Illustrious Authority' decided to 'amplify' the requirements, a few years ago, with paragraphs below.

After you have read them, I would be interested if to know if you agree with Vintage ATCO's view together with my own and those of most other ATCOs operating in Class D airspace that 'seperating' VFR from IFR traffic is not only necessary to cover one's bottom but actually 'mandated'?

3.1 Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific.

3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the
effective management of overall ATC workload.

3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.

[GroundBound]

TC_LTN

Thanks for that posting - MATS Part-1 is not a document normally seen outside ATC. I would agree about it emphasising the implied duty of care etc.

Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic.
The text makes the point about preventing collisions , rather than providing separation, so I am not so sure about it mandating separation of VFR.

This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other.
To me, this confirms that passing traffic information is the desired way, and that "see and avoid" is what is expected - again this is not talking about "separating" VFR.

3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the
effective management of overall ATC workload.

3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.


OK - these 2 are killer paragraphs, as they allow more or less anything to be done in the name of "safe orderly and expeditious", and management of workload, and are open to lots of possible interpretations.

It does seem to me, though, that the need to "amplify" the requirements for class D airspace to the extent that it effectively becomes class C airspace in practice, suggests that the classification in the first place is wrong.

I have always believed the idea of airspace classification was primarily linked to safety, volume and type of traffic. As such class D would be applicable to areas with lower volume of flights and consequently fewer chances of conflict.

In the specific case of Brum, which triggered this thread, it seems that the traffic volume is greater than what would be appropriate for class D airspace?

[Slaphead]

GroundBound

I'm in agreement with my ATCO colleagues over the subject of VFR access to Class D airspace.

We are required to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious service to the IFR movements into our airfields and the reason that the controlled airspace has been established is to protect the airfield arrival and departure routes. There are occasions when VFR transits are possible but sometimes you need to 'control' them by specifying a route or altitude but this is not to provide separation but to build in some traffic avoidance. This is one of the requirements for IFR traffic inside Class D airspace. On other occasions VFR transits will get through the controlled airspace with no restrictions and on other occasions, generally due to workload, they can't be accommodated.

I can't speak for Birmingham because I'm not valid there but I can say that at Luton and Stansted we will generally do our best to offer an alternative route through controlled airspace if the requested route is not available but this is subject to workload. It is also worth mentioning that there are often VFR activities operating under a letter of agreement already going on inside Class D airspace which already impact on the way in which IFR traffic is handled.

Our regulator ATSSD accepts that there will be occasions when access to controlled airspace is not available. They have also recently issued an ATSIN specifically about Class D airspace to remind VFR pilots that they won't be separated from other traffic inside Class D airspace. You are right to say that sometimes there is confusion about classes of airspace but it seems to me that Class D airspace can work well and can be accessed by VFR traffic but not always on demand.

[bookworm]

Looks like between them, GroundBound and TC_LTN have hit the nail on the head. The blame for UK ATC's flouting of ICAO standards as regards separation in class D airspace can be laid squarely at the feet of CAA ATS Standards and not individual ATCOs. :)

(Actually I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation, but it is different to the interpretation of the standards to be used in class D by many other states.)

BTW MATS Pt 1 (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=222) is available online.

[GroundBound]

Thanks for that Bookworm - I think you've got the point entirely :ok: . I am not trying to knock UK ATCOs (having been one myself in the distant past :) ), nor suggesting that they don't provide a good service to VFR transits in class D.

Looking from a GA pilot perspective, I find class D airspace rather puzzling, since, on the one hand it doesn't provide ATC separation of VFR (from anything), but on the other hand requires a clearance to enter (for what, then?). Class C seems much more logical, as ATC separation is provided between IFR/VFR and a clearance to enter therfore has a real purpose.

I shall be flying in Irish airspace next week, and there the zones are class C, although I would have thought, from the traffic levels (apologies if wrong, here :O ), that class D is more appropriate, whereas the much more complex and busy airspace around Brum is class D when class C seems to be required - where's the logic to it?

This particular thread, and the Brum web site, seemed to indicate that the airspace is actually handled like class C (for well explained reasons :) ), but it always bugs me :( (as I am involved in making various sorts of rules) when rules are established, but not followed. If there are good reasons for not following the rules, then the rules need to be reviewed and updated if necessary.

Rant over :) :)

[Warped Factor]

The biggest potential problem for me with VFR transits through Class D is when the routeing request goes near the final approach at an altitude that will conflict with IFR traffic.

Sure I only need to pass traffic info and leave it at that. But if the IFR flight then asks for avoiding instructions I can't afford (at Gatwick) the subsequent disruption to the approach sequence.

So the VFR traffic will always be controlled to an extent that will not disrupt the IFR traffic. This may mean a slightly altered routeing or a level restriction, but it rarely means no access at all.

In the Utopia Airport Control Zone I'm sure they apply the rules strictly as written, but over here in the real world it's just not quite as black and white.

WF.

[alphaalpha]

Two points from the perspective of a GA pilot who regularly transits class D CTA/CTRs:

1. If the CAS areas were class C, controllers would have to provide full separation standards between VFR and IFR. This would disallow instructions of the type '...traffic is a 737 on 4m final to runway xx, report traffic in sight and route to pass behind....' Such instructions to VFR traffic seem perfectly safe, require minimum of controller input, and (I suggest) allow more traffic to be handled than if providing a Class C separation service.


2. Under a VMC RIS in class G, traffic information is passed, but the other aircraft is often not seen by the pilot. It's aften really hard to spot other aeroplanes, especially looking down, against the backdrop of the ground. Applying this to class D, it's comforting to know that we're not only getting traffic information, but there is a degree of separation in the ATC planning (and postive separation is available for the asking -- although not popular at very short notice, i suspect).

Therefore my view on Class D in the UK is 'it ain't broke, so it don't need fixing.' Have there been any dangerous VFR/IFR conflictions in class D recently (other than flights without clearance)?

AA.

[contact_tower]

Having worked both with C and D CTR's (Formerly in Sweden and now Norway)
I have to say that I feel quite comfortable to just pass traffic info to IFR about VFR, and vice versa when in D airspace. As pointed out, class C prohibits instructions like "cleared to transit CTR east of field, traffic one c-130 on 5 miles final rwy 28, report traffic in sight, and cross final behind"

A method I use a lot.

The only time I seperate IFR from VFR is when seperating is less laborious then traffic info. If this becomes the main modus operandi, pilots get complacent, and never look over the glareshield when flying IFR in D. Even if they get traffic info, they might expect us to keep the VFR traffic well clear, and get pi**** when they suddenly find themselfs in formation with a F-16 or what have you. "Where did he come from?" Well probably from your 3 a'clock, like I told you 2 minutes ago.......:O

Well, I shold shut up, VFR is 70% of the movements where I work........:\

[Shagster]

From the first post; the controller was wrong for saying what he said, but what he said was absolutely correct!
A CTR is set up to provide added protection to ac in the critical stages of flight ie, take-off and landing. In the interests of flight safety CTR transits should be kept to a minimum and only be used if there is no acceptable alternative. A balance between safety and expidition......

Expedition.......:O

[GroundBound]

Contact_Tower
"cleared to transit CTR east of field, traffic one c-130 on 5 miles final rwy 28, report traffic in sight, and cross final behind"
That sounds like a perfectly sensible and appropriate clearance for Class D. It identifies the traffic, allows the VFR pilot to find it and make his own separation and makes it clear in what way.

Perhaps this is what was meant by other controllers who have contributed, although it didn't seem to come across to me that way :confused:
- we went in for a bit of 'controlled VFR' and kept them out of the way, either by radar or vertically.
- I will restrict the level of VFR transits or offer a reroute to enable my IFR traffic to continue 'head down' in the cockpit
- So the VFR traffic will always be controlled to an extent that will not disrupt the IFR traffic.
- route 1nm east/west of the overhead AT 2000ft QFE (copied from the "Thanks to Brize" thread)

[VectorLine]

Again quoting the MATS Part 1

Basically reinforcing 'duty of care' and helping to foster 'over control' or our 'manic desire to keep aeroplanes apart' (as groundbound put it)

CAP493
Chapter 5 section 1.1.5

Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a risk of collision exists.

[DVR4G.DEP]

I think the best controllers are Manchester (EGCC), they are so laid back, proffesional, calm under pressure and very helpful even if they have had a bad day.

They are helpful to light a/c pilots, and a pleasure to talk to. They do the ATC Proffesion Proud.

It makes ALL the difference when you have good Controllers, on behalf of all pilots just to let you know it is appreciated, without mentioning names a few ATC centres can learn a lot from EGCC.

[Topofthestack]

:) EGCC, the best? Well they can afford to be 'laid back' etc with 2 runways, less traffic than LL, KK and probably SS now, cheaper beer, nice countryside around, cheaper housing and costs of living, better quality of life, no M25 etc. I might have less grey hair and more of it if I'd been posted up there! Post them down south and see if the attitude remains the same!;)

[vintage ATCO]

- we went in for a bit of 'controlled VFR' and kept them out of the way, either by radar or vertically.

Yep, that was me and, yep, I have radar vectored VFR traffic after first asking if they could accept radar vectors.

GroundBound, I don't know what environment you have operated in but round here it can get very busy. Even contact_tower, whose methodology you like, admits that it is 70% VFR. In this neck of the woods, it isn't. I think my colleagues and I have got the point across to you that we operate Class D in a way we think discharges our Duty of Care and sustains our licence and pension.

I know in an ideal world you are right, but this is the real world. And before you ask, someone somewhere has decided we do not have Class C airspace in the UK. So we don't.

Give it up. :rolleyes:


VA

[flower]

Vintage ATCO

you are spot on in your comments, those of us who work class D airspace have found through experience exactly what we can and cannot do.

A litle bit of controlled VFR is not the end of the world and i'm quite sure most GA pilots would prefer that than be re-routed around the zone. I always ask an aircraft if they can accept a climb or descent or can accept a vector away from the traffic if necessary. I will endeavour to get them the routing and level they require however sometimes I have no choice but to give them a slight deviation .

We all make mistakes and sometimes after I have said something to a pilot I regret it but as I have posted previously we are after all only human and perhaps it was just the one thing that pushed the ATCO over the edge that day ,but as an apology was given to post in a magazine was unworthy of the pilot.

[bookworm]

I think it's one thing to talk about the theory of this, and another to witness the practice.

I just got back from a daytrip from Cambridge to Alderney and, as ever, was highly impressed by the level of help (and routings, some of which might make the front page of the Daily Mail if I said any more) that the controllers at Essex, Thames, Heathrow and Farnborough managed to give me. And what's more, it's always like that...

Thank you guys and gals. The folks that complain about lack of VFR access to controlled airspace must be talking about a different planet.

[ATCO Two]

Hi Bookworm,

Were you flying a PA30 today? If so I was the Thames Radar Controller who cleared you via London Bridge. We can be more flexible with routeings in the Specified Area if you are a twin. Also twins are faster (meaning transits are quicker), and the pilots (generally) are more competent. Therefore on balance a clearance is more likely. You may be interested to know that a DC6 was given a similar routeing to yourself into Biggin Hill shortly afterwards.

[vintage ATCO]

That DC6 came right over my house here in Luton. :D
Knew what it was before I saw it. ;)

VA