Controlled Airspace
Guest
Posts: n/a
Controlled Airspace
In the Sottish Sunday Herald 11/6/00,in an article about Prestwick's attempt to regain controlled airspace, a CAA spokesman is quoted thus:
"Saying putting a controlled airspace in will stop unknown planes from flying into the zone is unrealistic - it's like saying all cars will adhere to a speed limit designed to prevent people speeding on the roads"
An interesting analogy - As the CAA are admitting there is a problem, I wonder what they would claim to be doing to solve it, apart from fines. How about penalty points on the licence & totting up towards a ban ?
Any thoughts people?
[This message has been edited by off watch (edited 12 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by off watch (edited 12 June 2000).]
"Saying putting a controlled airspace in will stop unknown planes from flying into the zone is unrealistic - it's like saying all cars will adhere to a speed limit designed to prevent people speeding on the roads"
An interesting analogy - As the CAA are admitting there is a problem, I wonder what they would claim to be doing to solve it, apart from fines. How about penalty points on the licence & totting up towards a ban ?
Any thoughts people?
[This message has been edited by off watch (edited 12 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by off watch (edited 12 June 2000).]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi OW,
The CAA regularly prosecute for infringers of the London CTR and London City CTR. Fines are in the region of £1500+ plus costs, depending on the disruption caused, and the seriousness of the transgression.
The CAA regularly prosecute for infringers of the London CTR and London City CTR. Fines are in the region of £1500+ plus costs, depending on the disruption caused, and the seriousness of the transgression.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The C.A.A. comment sounds like a PR reply for public consumption.
Everyone in ATC knows pilots frequently infringe CAS (see MOR digests for evidence) but a response like this makes it sound as though applying for CAS is almost a waste of time.
----------------------
respect my authoritiee !
[This message has been edited by Eric T Cartman (edited 14 June 2000).]
Everyone in ATC knows pilots frequently infringe CAS (see MOR digests for evidence) but a response like this makes it sound as though applying for CAS is almost a waste of time.
----------------------
respect my authoritiee !
[This message has been edited by Eric T Cartman (edited 14 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stories like this dont help us......we are surrounded by clas E airspace...ie they can cross at 15 mile final 2-6000 feet without callling...Pain in the **** ..particularly when traffic is a tornado...However I have to say ..why not call...let us know where you are...we will give you a better service than the FIR and keep you safe....seems they are afraid to do so ,but please believe me its better that you do
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's an idea - as it looks like Sumburgh will lose it's controlled airspace before too long, why not donate it to Prestwick - just like you would an internal organ! 
And on the subject of press releases, in an inteview about our place, a NATS press officer stated we weren't short of controllers, and we are training to fill the gap. As one of my collegues said - if we aren't short of staff, what is the gap we are training new staff to fill?
And on the subject of press releases, in an inteview about our place, a NATS press officer stated we weren't short of controllers, and we are training to fill the gap. As one of my collegues said - if we aren't short of staff, what is the gap we are training new staff to fill?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bagheera - It is nice to hear a response like that and a shame that the willingness of ATC to provide a service to aircraft outside controlled airspace is *very* patchy. I suspect that this contributes to some peoples' reluctance to call.
By way of example, Luton App is a model of helpfulness, both for transits as well as ATSOCA. By contrast, Essex Radar appear actively to discourage contact from anybody not inbound to EGSS. By reputation at least, the zone infringement stats are inversely proportional to the two units' willingess to talk.
2Donkeys
By way of example, Luton App is a model of helpfulness, both for transits as well as ATSOCA. By contrast, Essex Radar appear actively to discourage contact from anybody not inbound to EGSS. By reputation at least, the zone infringement stats are inversely proportional to the two units' willingess to talk.
2Donkeys
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, 2Donkeys, but I cannot help thinking that whilst at STN and Essex we have approach frequencies used by professional pilots flying IFR and therefore exhibiting a high standard of R/T discipline with most transmissions being short and to the point, whereas I have at least once missed the turn onto the LLZ at LTN because 'Golf - Able - Whatnot VFR from Twitcher's Field blah blah blah' (ad nauseam) has taken the frequency over with his urgent request for Flight Informaion Service when the weather is CAVOK and he would be better served looking out of the window.
Sorry, but ATC at big airfields is there for the big aeroplanes, and the system runs better without mixing in the puddle-jumpers.
I can admit to being a puddle-jumper pilot myself, on days off, but I prefer to go around the outside and keep my eyes peeled!
[This message has been edited by Rd'H (edited 17 June 2000).]
Sorry, but ATC at big airfields is there for the big aeroplanes, and the system runs better without mixing in the puddle-jumpers.
I can admit to being a puddle-jumper pilot myself, on days off, but I prefer to go around the outside and keep my eyes peeled!
[This message has been edited by Rd'H (edited 17 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't disagree with anything you say Rd'H, having regularly been neglected whilst somebody reveals their inside leg measurement.
It doesn't take away that there are a very large number of infringements at Stansted, some of which would undoubtedly be avoided if Essex Radar actually spoke to the puddle-jumpers once in a while.
Compare and contrast with Gatwick, another NATS unit, but very different in approach.
2Donkeys
It doesn't take away that there are a very large number of infringements at Stansted, some of which would undoubtedly be avoided if Essex Radar actually spoke to the puddle-jumpers once in a while.
Compare and contrast with Gatwick, another NATS unit, but very different in approach.
2Donkeys
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rumours are that Essex Radar and Luton Approach positions will become one and the same.
The countdown until the end of LARS on 129.55 is ticking I fear. Just as well the corridor between EGGW and EGSS is nice and wide below 2500. There'll be a lot of tin concentrated into it after the NATS takeover.
2Donkeys
The countdown until the end of LARS on 129.55 is ticking I fear. Just as well the corridor between EGGW and EGSS is nice and wide below 2500. There'll be a lot of tin concentrated into it after the NATS takeover.
2Donkeys
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mmmmmm & 2Donkeys
As you have both rightly pointed out Gatwick APC and Essex radar are in the same room under the same management, albeit with their backs to each other. However it all comes down to the personalities sitting in those positions.
As we all know, some controllers can be far more helpfull than others.
FBW
As you have both rightly pointed out Gatwick APC and Essex radar are in the same room under the same management, albeit with their backs to each other. However it all comes down to the personalities sitting in those positions.
As we all know, some controllers can be far more helpfull than others.
FBW
Guest
Posts: n/a
The whole issue of LARS and the relationship between the ATC service and GA aircraft in the FIR needs sorting out. We "puddle jumpers" get official encouragement to make use of LARS via the CAA, GASIL etc., but in practice the level and "user friendliness" of service varies widely from unit to unit. EGGD is always very positive, others (we all know examples) are less so. Most PPLs do most flying at weekends, when the LARS service is patchy anyway due to the closure of many military units. So, what is the real story here? -- Do ATCOs want light GA in the open FIR to request Flight Info or not?
A related issue is the attitude of the local LARS units to the PFA rally. I have no involvement in organising this, so I don't know the inside story. AIC 18/2000, item 7.1.1 tells rally goers not to call Thames, Heathrow Radar, Luton or Stanstead -- so, on perhaps the busiest weekend for GA movements of the year, when a LARS service would be of greatest value, the GA community gets the cold shoulder. This suggests to me that the powers that be regard LARS as a token service -- if they thought it valuable, we would have been given extra coverage next weekend, not been told to keep quiet.
I appreciate that ATCOs are probably not making the policy decisions here, but your views would be interesting to get.
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
A related issue is the attitude of the local LARS units to the PFA rally. I have no involvement in organising this, so I don't know the inside story. AIC 18/2000, item 7.1.1 tells rally goers not to call Thames, Heathrow Radar, Luton or Stanstead -- so, on perhaps the busiest weekend for GA movements of the year, when a LARS service would be of greatest value, the GA community gets the cold shoulder. This suggests to me that the powers that be regard LARS as a token service -- if they thought it valuable, we would have been given extra coverage next weekend, not been told to keep quiet.
I appreciate that ATCOs are probably not making the policy decisions here, but your views would be interesting to get.
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
Guest
Posts: n/a
IMHO what ATC want depends on the airspace category they work in. At Liverpool in late 80's, pilots were told, by Notam, not to call for FIS unless planning to enter the Control Zone (cat.D). This was due to 1) NATS inability to man the FIS positions properly at LATCC & attempts to push the job onto individual airfields & 2) RAF Valley started to close at weekends leaving long distances between airfields in the NW. Liverpool did not want, for example, acft from Blackpool to Dublin calling with their life story out in the Irish Sea , while trying to put their own traffic on the ILS.
At Prestwick, with class G airspace, we would like everyone within 25 miles or so to call, so, 1)we don't have to take avoiding action on unknown traffic & 2)we can perhaps help avoid nasties by giving info on low flying military acft seen on radar.
At Prestwick, with class G airspace, we would like everyone within 25 miles or so to call, so, 1)we don't have to take avoiding action on unknown traffic & 2)we can perhaps help avoid nasties by giving info on low flying military acft seen on radar.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wouldn't get your hopes up about getting CAS around Prestwick in the near future, even though I understand the discussions have been taking place for quite a while, this things take ages. We asked for a VOR/DME approach as a back up to our ILS only runway when they removed the NDB on that end - that was about two years ago. The procedure was finally due to arrive in the Spring 2000 - well it was +19 here today so I reckon we're into the Summer now, and still no new approach!
Guest
Posts: n/a
R'dH
Your comments are a little like saying because some people drive like idiots lets make it safer by lowering all the speed limits. The problem is in the quality of the training. I used to instruct at LTN. The majority of controllers at LTN liked the mix of aircraft. Our radio courses were well taught (by a LTN ATCO amongst others) and our students were taught to be brief and disciplined on the radio. As a PPL I flew into AMS in a TB10. No problem because we did our homework and did as instructed. Unfortunately a very few controllers think it is a great job except for the aeroplanes. I also recall a (now closed) airfield in the south that had a small amount of biz traffic and a great deal of light aircraft traffic. The controllers hatred of light aircraft was very apparent by his surly and unhelpful attitude to students on the R/T even when the airfield was quiet, which was most of the time. I would emphasise that these controllers are a small minority in my experience (privately and now professionally) and I understand that when light aircraft were effectively prevented from operating at LTN some of the controllers there actively protested and were disappointed when it happened.
[This message has been edited by WeeWillyWinky (edited 21 June 2000).]
Your comments are a little like saying because some people drive like idiots lets make it safer by lowering all the speed limits. The problem is in the quality of the training. I used to instruct at LTN. The majority of controllers at LTN liked the mix of aircraft. Our radio courses were well taught (by a LTN ATCO amongst others) and our students were taught to be brief and disciplined on the radio. As a PPL I flew into AMS in a TB10. No problem because we did our homework and did as instructed. Unfortunately a very few controllers think it is a great job except for the aeroplanes. I also recall a (now closed) airfield in the south that had a small amount of biz traffic and a great deal of light aircraft traffic. The controllers hatred of light aircraft was very apparent by his surly and unhelpful attitude to students on the R/T even when the airfield was quiet, which was most of the time. I would emphasise that these controllers are a small minority in my experience (privately and now professionally) and I understand that when light aircraft were effectively prevented from operating at LTN some of the controllers there actively protested and were disappointed when it happened.
[This message has been edited by WeeWillyWinky (edited 21 June 2000).]