Coventry Traffic via BCN
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OCEAN WUN ZERO,
The C550 out of BW "used" to freecall Brize as soon as it had departed and then went on to join CAS at DIKAS in the climb FL260 or thereabouts. I say "used" as im not very au fait with the current operations of this flight!
The C550 out of BW "used" to freecall Brize as soon as it had departed and then went on to join CAS at DIKAS in the climb FL260 or thereabouts. I say "used" as im not very au fait with the current operations of this flight!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skypartners
That is the crux of the matter, as a controller I have always sought to provide the very best service that I can without consideration to the colour of [aluminium] skin.
The instruction to offer a different grade of service to any particular operator goes against every professional standard that I have ever adhered to.
I would thank all contributors for such a full and healthy discussion
...by the way...the execjet [ and it is only used as an example..not a target] is a C56X.
Furthermore, I was unaware until now that NATS units [EGBB] could limit their service to own customers only; in the absence of any other suitable Radar service it denies an essential element of safety for reasons of preference rather than workload.
If the explanation is merely that no piece of paper has been signed then ATC has sunk to depths unseen before.
The instruction to offer a different grade of service to any particular operator goes against every professional standard that I have ever adhered to.
I would thank all contributors for such a full and healthy discussion
...by the way...the execjet [ and it is only used as an example..not a target] is a C56X.
Furthermore, I was unaware until now that NATS units [EGBB] could limit their service to own customers only; in the absence of any other suitable Radar service it denies an essential element of safety for reasons of preference rather than workload.
If the explanation is merely that no piece of paper has been signed then ATC has sunk to depths unseen before.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: oxford
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just retired from Brize ATC, I am happy to suggest that Brize could take BCN leavers (from approx 10nm NW of BCN) inbound to BE; their outbounds could also be taken and handed over to London Mil or straight to Sector 23. The daily BW bizjet inbound and outbound is routinely handled by Brize.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's side am I on?
As an business operator at CVT I am on the side of justice in this matter. I don't think it's healthy for this airport operator to claim ownership of the region. As a pilot I struggle with the moral dilema of the controllers - applauding those who ignore the pressure to provide CVT aircraft with a lesser service and flying well clear of the one's who are actively participating in something which, I firmly believe, shames them. Does the same nonsense go on between Solent Radar and airlines operating out of Hurn?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting tiresome
UK AIP ENR 1.6.4 has the answer.
(a) Tip to Operators: Adressing your flight plan to EGWDZQZX will help a lot. (IFPS will not do this for you)
(b) Tip to Civil sectors: Don't ask the Mil if they 'want to work it', just tell them that you have traffic for them, as pointed out by norvenmunky
Tip (a) combined with tip (b) has an estimated 99%(1) success rate. For the other 1% of occassions, the ICF is 135.15, just call and hope it isn't that Wing CO at Swannick Mil with the official line that happens to answer the call (yeah, right!)
Happy aviating peeps.
(1)82% of statistics are made up on the spot.
UK AIP ENR 1.6.4 has the answer.
(a) Tip to Operators: Adressing your flight plan to EGWDZQZX will help a lot. (IFPS will not do this for you)
(b) Tip to Civil sectors: Don't ask the Mil if they 'want to work it', just tell them that you have traffic for them, as pointed out by norvenmunky
Tip (a) combined with tip (b) has an estimated 99%(1) success rate. For the other 1% of occassions, the ICF is 135.15, just call and hope it isn't that Wing CO at Swannick Mil with the official line that happens to answer the call (yeah, right!)
Happy aviating peeps.
(1)82% of statistics are made up on the spot.
(b) Tip to Civil sectors: Don't ask the Mil if they 'want to work it', just tell them that you have traffic for them, as pointed out by norvenmunky
I am sure I know what response that will get!!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Number 10
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately norvenmunky speaks rubbish - 'litlle knowledge etc etc!' Having very close contacts at Swanwick I am reliably informed that the mil have been instructed not to accept any BE in/outbounds. Not being militant civil ATCOs, I imagine they will do as they are told! If anything freecalls them on 135.15 (good luck because that is the wrong frequency for this region anyway), the mil will just inform the pilot to contact London FIR . The mil will know if the traffic being worked by civil is inbound to BE because the Track Data Block will have a BE designator on it so there is no point civil trying to fob them off by saying they have 'got traffic for you' as pointed out by Hippy and norvenmunky. If Coventry and Birmingham continue their immature petty politics then nothing is going to get solved here. Coventry need to apply to the CAA for a service provider if they wish to make use of the BB to BCN route.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore, I was unaware until now that NATS units [EGBB] could limit their service to own customers only; in the absence of any other suitable Radar service it denies an essential element of safety for reasons of preference rather than workload.
That has been going on for years and years at mnay airfields. The usual answer when the lack of a service is questioned is that "the primary task is providing a service to aircraft within controlled airspace".
Does the same nonsense go on between Solent Radar and airlines operating out of Hurn?
Bournemouth is within controlled airspace and lies beneath the Solent CTA so not the same case.
The mil will know if the traffic being worked by civil is inbound to BE because the Track Data Block will have a BE designator on it
How does the radar tell where a 7000 code is going???
Regards,
DFC
That has been going on for years and years at mnay airfields. The usual answer when the lack of a service is questioned is that "the primary task is providing a service to aircraft within controlled airspace".
Does the same nonsense go on between Solent Radar and airlines operating out of Hurn?
Bournemouth is within controlled airspace and lies beneath the Solent CTA so not the same case.
The mil will know if the traffic being worked by civil is inbound to BE because the Track Data Block will have a BE designator on it
How does the radar tell where a 7000 code is going???
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does everyone seem to suggest that NATS at BHX are being any less professional than any other NATS unit?
Having met many of them in the past, attended meetings that have included both managers and controllers, I am firmly of the opinion they are just as professional and unbias as the rest of you!!
I don't know, as doesn't anyone else here it seems, know the full reason why BB won't handle this traffic. There may well be GOOD operational reasons why this at the moment causes operational complications that need to be resolved.
Feeding traffic from BCN to GROVE inbound to BE does cause issue with BHX traffic flows within BB's CAS. I don't suggest that BE traffic can't be handled, but I do suggest that the setting up of formal procedures and operational instructions IS required before such activity occurs. What the OPERATOR needs to do is get a meeting organised with BB/MIL/LACC Ops representatives and see EXACTLY what can be mutually sorted out.
On a seperate note, as far as I am aware ATC provision at BB (currently NATS) is wholly paid for by Birmingham International Airport. BB ATC MANAGE the airspace, which, is available to all under the UK Airspace Charter. BB currently handle very fairly BE/BB traffic mixing from within the CAS system. MDI's are shared equally between the 2 airfields etc when applicable, and arrival BE arrivals from the WELIN sector are dealt with EQUAL priority to BB arrivals.
Attempts to suggest that BB (NATS) as a unit is deliberately working against BE doesn't quite wash I'm afraid. Yes, BE traffic causes ATC complications, but you all have complications occur within your respective airspace regions don't you? You do your best to resolve those, I expect BB to work to resolve theirs, and am sure in the fullness of time and process will.
30W
Having met many of them in the past, attended meetings that have included both managers and controllers, I am firmly of the opinion they are just as professional and unbias as the rest of you!!
I don't know, as doesn't anyone else here it seems, know the full reason why BB won't handle this traffic. There may well be GOOD operational reasons why this at the moment causes operational complications that need to be resolved.
Feeding traffic from BCN to GROVE inbound to BE does cause issue with BHX traffic flows within BB's CAS. I don't suggest that BE traffic can't be handled, but I do suggest that the setting up of formal procedures and operational instructions IS required before such activity occurs. What the OPERATOR needs to do is get a meeting organised with BB/MIL/LACC Ops representatives and see EXACTLY what can be mutually sorted out.
On a seperate note, as far as I am aware ATC provision at BB (currently NATS) is wholly paid for by Birmingham International Airport. BB ATC MANAGE the airspace, which, is available to all under the UK Airspace Charter. BB currently handle very fairly BE/BB traffic mixing from within the CAS system. MDI's are shared equally between the 2 airfields etc when applicable, and arrival BE arrivals from the WELIN sector are dealt with EQUAL priority to BB arrivals.
Attempts to suggest that BB (NATS) as a unit is deliberately working against BE doesn't quite wash I'm afraid. Yes, BE traffic causes ATC complications, but you all have complications occur within your respective airspace regions don't you? You do your best to resolve those, I expect BB to work to resolve theirs, and am sure in the fullness of time and process will.
30W
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: darn sarf
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(b) Tip to Civil sectors: Don't ask the Mil if they 'want to work it', just tell them that you have traffic for them, as pointed out by norvenmunky
Try it and you'll be surprised what traffic they will work.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
munky,
I didn't say 'tell them to work it', I said 'tell them you have traffic for them' which is true; you have traffic, it wants a service from you.
I suspect we are arguing the same point and we are both in a position to know the likely outcome.
I didn't say 'tell them to work it', I said 'tell them you have traffic for them' which is true; you have traffic, it wants a service from you.
I suspect we are arguing the same point and we are both in a position to know the likely outcome.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester
Age: 79
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether this thorny issue of Air Traffic Services Outside Regulated Airspace (ATSOCA) will ever be properly resolved? It is only natural that operators will wish to fly direct to/from BCN rather than go around the houses within the "airways" system. It's high time that someone got a hold of this problem and made proper arrangements for services in the general interests of flight safety. Who that "someone" is I am not sure these days - perhaps it ought to be the CAA/SRG? Won't be holding my breath however ...!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the issue will ever get sorted as well.
As far as I can see, proper arrangements for services are in place. You have Swanwick (Mil) who provide a Military Middle Airspace Radar Service in the area and Brize Norton who provide a Lower Airspace Radar Service in the area. I really can't see what the issue is, or why Birmingham have to get involved (except for allowing zone transits to arrive rwy05 and depart rwy23, which they seem happy to do.)
In fact, putting it like that, what is the issue?
As far as I can see, proper arrangements for services are in place. You have Swanwick (Mil) who provide a Military Middle Airspace Radar Service in the area and Brize Norton who provide a Lower Airspace Radar Service in the area. I really can't see what the issue is, or why Birmingham have to get involved (except for allowing zone transits to arrive rwy05 and depart rwy23, which they seem happy to do.)
In fact, putting it like that, what is the issue?
Last edited by Hippy; 7th Jun 2005 at 19:37.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry BCN
Widger
Your information about the mil receiving payment for the Brecon procedure is completely wrong. there is no contract in place for the service.
The only payment the mil receive is for the route charge element of aircraft routing Otringham to Newcastle / Teeside direct.
Your information about the mil receiving payment for the Brecon procedure is completely wrong. there is no contract in place for the service.
The only payment the mil receive is for the route charge element of aircraft routing Otringham to Newcastle / Teeside direct.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole issue is one that the CAA as the Safety Regulator and the Airspace Regulator ought to address - unfortunately, it takes the view that RAS provides an acceptable target level of safety but is unwilling to give anyone an idea of what is considered to be 'acceptable'.
The provision of any ATC service in Class G airsapce between the Birmingham CTA and Brecon has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with NATS at Birmingham or its controllers. NATS provides a service to Birmingham International Airport under a commercial contract to that Airport for the provision of ATS to Birmingham's flights.
That airline operators such at TOM choose to fly from airports that do not have the protection of controlled airspace or to route outside controlled airspace, or at airports that do not have adequate controller staffing to provide radar services throughout their opening hours, or where the equipment is not totally fit for purpose (i.e. no SSR at Coventry) is a matter for those airlines who are (as the CAA will point out) entirely responsible for satisfying themselves as to the suitability of such airports and their technical services, for the airline services to be operated.
In the case of Coventry, TOM's parent company TUI owns the real estate and so has the solution in its own hands.
It just needs to spend some money upgrading the radar to provide SSR, and to increase salaries so as to attract sufficient radar controllers to be enabled to staff radar on an H24 basis.
Coventry ATC could apply to the CAA to provide approach radar services beyond 40nm from Coventry (providing that its radar coverage is adequate) and so could thoretically offer RAS or RIS below flight level 245 to its own traffic operating in Class G airspace towards and from, Brecon.
It just needs TUI to get its chequebook out...
The provision of any ATC service in Class G airsapce between the Birmingham CTA and Brecon has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with NATS at Birmingham or its controllers. NATS provides a service to Birmingham International Airport under a commercial contract to that Airport for the provision of ATS to Birmingham's flights.
That airline operators such at TOM choose to fly from airports that do not have the protection of controlled airspace or to route outside controlled airspace, or at airports that do not have adequate controller staffing to provide radar services throughout their opening hours, or where the equipment is not totally fit for purpose (i.e. no SSR at Coventry) is a matter for those airlines who are (as the CAA will point out) entirely responsible for satisfying themselves as to the suitability of such airports and their technical services, for the airline services to be operated.
In the case of Coventry, TOM's parent company TUI owns the real estate and so has the solution in its own hands.
It just needs to spend some money upgrading the radar to provide SSR, and to increase salaries so as to attract sufficient radar controllers to be enabled to staff radar on an H24 basis.
Coventry ATC could apply to the CAA to provide approach radar services beyond 40nm from Coventry (providing that its radar coverage is adequate) and so could thoretically offer RAS or RIS below flight level 245 to its own traffic operating in Class G airspace towards and from, Brecon.
It just needs TUI to get its chequebook out...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Number 10
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lippiat,
You are talking utter tosh and need to do some homework ; Widger is correct. You might want to take a look at the NATS/MOD contract which basically has procedures in place to recompenses MOD for working civil traffic, which is why the mil log every civil track they work.
You are talking utter tosh and need to do some homework ; Widger is correct. You might want to take a look at the NATS/MOD contract which basically has procedures in place to recompenses MOD for working civil traffic, which is why the mil log every civil track they work.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, I think the option of giving the Mil a pre-note might founder. I happened to notice as I walked past the LJAO N position yesterday a piece of paper which had written on it in BIG letters:
"Do not accept any EGBE/EGNX arrivals from BCN"
Don't know abut London Mil, however.
"Do not accept any EGBE/EGNX arrivals from BCN"
Don't know abut London Mil, however.