Coventry Traffic via BCN

[055166k]

Another example of intelligence by-pass from the ops office at London Area Control Centre Swanwick.
Apparently Birmingham refuse to offer a service to traffic in/out of Coventry and the Swanwick Controllers have been INSTRUCTED to transfer all Coventry traffic leaving airways at BCN to contact Flight Information. This is absolute lunacy!
In the event that three or four aircraft leave at BCN for EGBB/EGBE [ not at all unusual ] it seems less than safe to have any traffic element working a different agency to the rest.
What do you think?
By the way...did I mention the situation of a couple of "BCN joiners" coming the other way at the same time....that was fun!

[flower]

The military work traffic into Birmingham leaving at BCN, I would have thought that Coventry traffic could be handled in the same way.
The new airspace going in next year will reduce the mileage flown outside CAS routing via BCN but nevertheless that bit of Class G can get quite congested.

[30W]

Firstly there is NO EGBE/BCN procedure. If you consult the UK AIP you WILL find a very specific EGBB/BCN procedure. It does not apply to other airfields.

Your wish to use Class G airspace is up to you, but to do so without setting up formal agreement with BHX ATC and perhaps the military as to joining/leaving procedures at the BE end of the procedure seems foolish.

Mil might offer you a service IF you have included them as an adressee on your Flight plan??

30W

[055166k]

Oh! I see...it's a "jobsworth" thing.

[30W]

No, it's NOT a jobsworth thing!!

Before filing and getting airborne just EXPECTING to fly an AIP published route to/from an airfield it is not published for, just what planning and discussion took place?

Have you consulted/negotiated with LACC Ops/Military Ops/BB ATC?? I fear not as usual. The folks in LACC Ops Planning are extremely good at their job. what they have achieved with UK traffic rate growths over the years through resectorisation etc has been a great effort. It is a very complex task given the small volume of airspace through which passes so much traffic.

Have you had a meeting with the military to discuss possible provision of MARS? No, probably not.........

If you don't give them a heads up by including them as an adressee on your FPL's then they won't give a service - that includes BB traffic. If you follow the rules pre agreed rules with them, they offer an excellent service given multiple problems on that section of airspace NE of BCN.

NATS who you seem so keen to knock have made great effort to accommodate your BE business into an already busy system, so don't knock them, applaud theeir effort to date and work WITH THEM to achive what you aspire to in the future. When I arrive back at BB after a long night flight, and am no.1 for 33 but can't go 'staright in' because your TOM flights want to launch from BE I don't come on here, or the RT raging about it - it's part of a system where NATS are trying to do their best by all parties.

Your company however sometimes seems to want everything their own way -and now!! Try learning that there is a correct way to approach these matters - that is full consulation/negotiation with all service providers along your intended route.

I bet you don't even know the full details/requirements of the UK AIP in respect of the BBP(Birmingham Brecon Procedure) do you? If not get your own house in order first! Then as Coventry is NOT part of this route, and procedures for ALL ATC providers involved (NATS and Military), I suggest TOM approach the matter as they should have done before attempting to fly the route. Carry out full consultation and negotiation with all units involved through joint meeting and try and work forward from there.

NATS have made great efforts to assist your business operation, both at BE and Doncaster. Work WITH them and not against them and you might get better results. Just remember, TOM is a just a very SMALL part of a much bigger aviation system, and everyone has to work to fit in with each other. You just seem to demand and expect....... When I'm returning from a LONG overnight charter flight and am no.1 for BB, but can't go 'straight in' because BHX are accommodating your TOM departure and climb into CAS, I don't rant either through here, or on RT. It's part of NATS TRYING to accommodate us all. I can't go 'straight in' any longer - oh well, that's life - just accept you can't have all that you want either!

30W

[VectorLine]

30W

Some good points made there.

However, you have bitten big time on the bait.
055166k is/was a Swanwick ATCO (note the staff number), not a TOM employee and is clearly stirring the sh1t.

[LostThePicture]

Sh1t stirring aside, the point made is a very valid one. Two aircraft leaving at BCN, one for Birmingham and one for Coventry. Until recently both would have worked the military, but now we are told, just when the airspace is starting to reach its busiest, that Coventry inbounds will be refused and should work London Information.

This IS lunacy, not least because the FIR are being asked, or rather told (were they even consulted?) to work without radar in an extremely busy triangle of airspace. Clearly the intended result of this change to procedures is for all Coventry inbounds to find an alternative route which remains inside CAS.

I put it to you, 30W, that you are not being as accommodating as you profess to be. You EXPECT a service from the military on leaving at BCN, but are perfectly happy for it to be denied to an aircraft inbound to a "cheaper" airfield down the road.

The fairest and most equitable way of dealing with this problem is not for BE/BB leavers at BCN to work two different agencies - that's sure to end in a nasty incident sooner rather than later - it's for the Mil and Birmingham to refuse ALL traffic leaving CAS at BCN and rejoining at GROVE. After all, CAS is there to protect flights like yours. Yes, it is a Birmingham and Swanwick Military would be well within their rights to say no to all flights during the daytime, and you would be forced to fly an alternative route via the Worthing sectors. How would that suit?

Oh, and maybe you should simply check a person's profile before slating them for being something that they're clearly not.

LTP

[055166k]

Favouritism...or something?

Every day a Cessna execjet takes off from EGBW[Wellesbourne] and joins at BCN at levels up to FL360......can't seem to find anything written down about that.
30W...the very relevant point is that an Air Traffic unit is deciding which aircraft it will offer a service to, and which aircraft will be denied a service. Now this bombshell is a major milestone in NATS service down-grade, and be aware that aircraft which are denied a service have paid the same NAV charges that you have. Let me ask a question:- you are inbound GROVE and receiving RAS from 118.05...running almost parallel on your right is a Coventry inbound....do you really want that traffic to be talking to non-Radar London Flight Information?.....because that is what the operational instruction [to Swanwick controllers] states has to be done!!!
By the way, there used to be an advisory route, Delta Green 40 or something, that went BCN...abeam Droitwich....etc....and so the re-introduction of regulated airspace should not create a precedent.
The regulatory body, the CAA, has failed in its duty to provide adequate and sufficient airspace protection for a half dozen or so airports that have experienced massive growth.....in my view, to such an extent that there should be calls for an Enquiry.....the CAA seems to have absolutely no comprehension of the scale of the problem that it fails to address.

[PPRuNe Radar]

I put it to you, 30W, that you are not being as accommodating as you profess to be. You EXPECT a service from the military on leaving at BCN, but are perfectly happy for it to be denied to an aircraft inbound to a "cheaper" airfield down the road.

I read it that 30W was saying that a service is available but that BE operator(s) have done the square root of bugger all to make the appropriate arrangements with anyone to avail themselves of that service. I don't mean on the day and at the time but as part of the pre flight preparations. A procedure to receive a military radar service exists. It just requires the operator to do some donkey work.

As the opearators and providers have also put in place a BB/BCN procedure which is promulgated in the AIP, then it is incumbent on any operators and providers who wish to have a similar formalised BE/BCN procedure to make the appropriate contacts and negotiate one. It won't just appear by magic.

Of course, maybe LACC could provide an ATSOCA radar service to these aircraft ??

The regulatory body, the CAA, has failed in its duty to provide adequate and sufficient airspace protection for a half dozen or so airports that have experienced massive growth.....in my view, to such an extent that there should be calls for an Enquiry.....the CAA seems to have absolutely no comprehension of the scale of the problem that it fails to address.

Now THAT hits the nail firmly on the head !!!

[30W]

LTP,

I made a presumption that the post was from a TOM pilot, in that presumption I was wrong - I hold my hands up and appologise!!

The point I make however is still valid, there is NO Covenrty Brecon Procedure - one has NEVER been negotiated. I suggest simply that before TOM files and flies one, it ensures a procedure is established with ATC units for one. It complicates issues for BB ATC in particular, so proper discussion IS required, not a case of just 'winging it' on the day.

Without all of this worked out and agreed in advance the next step could perhaps be NX departures filing to HON to join the BB-BCN route. They are part of the 'Midlands Group' so why deny them also?? I purely play devils advocate here, but the denying access argument is only the same.

I have no agenda to denying a 'cheaper' airfield sown the road access to the route - at the moment however it is NOT a promulgated BE route! If they want to use it, I certainly have no objection! It needs sorting properly though structured consultation.

BE traffic has no less right to a military service than BB traffic, I fully agree. Again, the end user, the airline involved needs to negotiate this with them.

If 055166k wants to stir (I have no problem with him/her doing so), perhaps a series of 1261's from concerned S23 controllers will far more succesfully achieve the final aim??

As for fairness, there are several detrimental impacts on BB users of the BE operation. As a BB user they effect me, but yes, I DO accept they are necessary to support another operation who DOES have the right of access to the same airspace. I have no axe to grind whatsoever from that point of view, it is just simply an inconvinience at times like to all of us many different things are.

30W

055166k,

No, I wasn\'t aware that BW traffic joins at BCN, and accept that isn\'t in accordance with the AIP procedure.

Differences for the BB ATC operation though are considerable. A BW departure/arrival does so entirely though Class G airspace to/from BCN. A BE departure/arrival has to be fed though the nowdays busy BB traffic patterns and adds considerable difficulties for them. I fully expect that NATS BB are against this, with due reason, and that has impacted on LACC policy also.

Perhaps, and hopefully this will get sorted in time. As for procedures in S23 it makes no difference I guess if traffic is to/from BB/BE or BW. If it did would you be happy for there to be no sector procedure or agreement in place for it? This is perhaps the case for Lon Mil and the BB ATC interface at the moment, and hence where the difficulty lies.

Should we all be floating round the Class G working \'different\' agencies - well of course not ideally! It is the very real difficulty of Class G operation however - no one owns or is in charge of it.......

Upgrading of airspace from Class G would be welcomed by all, perhaps except GA and military. I don\'t know the numbers involved, but I\'m sure PPrune Radar will agree that the numbers involved on this route are far less than that required for classification change. Lets face it even GD traffic has to leave controlled airspace and look at the volume of movements that has..........

Rgds
30W

[DC10RealMan]

I am one who works on the FIR, The first I knew of this was three days ago when I saw an OPNOT thingy telling me that Birmingham ATC would not work this traffic, but instead it was to come to the FIR, it did not explain what I was to do with it. Later that duty an eastbound Coventry arrival called me with no notice above FL100 with 20 miles to run to the edge of the Daventry CTA. The foreign pilot did not know the bases of the Daventry CTA either. I expect nothing else with the FIR being a mere ATSA position.

[norvenmunky]

Why not just call the 'Westies' at Swanwick Mil and make your opening line... 'prenote on a BCN leaver for Cov'

Betcha they would take it. Depends whose on shift with regards to what they actually do with it as it approaches Brum.

SQK 7000, change to en-route and good luck!

[PPRuNe Radar]

I spent ages typing this answer only to find Whipping Boys SATCO has got cold feet. Never mind, I'll leave it here for posterity !!!



Excellent teflon answer there about the responsibilities of the regulator ... maybe you could get a job in the CAA Wing Commanders old boys club, or DAP as we call it :0

I am not sure why you expect NATS to do the running for the regulator. Remind me who has the responsibility ??

Following the separation_of National Air Traffic Services from the CAA in 2001, the CAA is now the UK’s independent aviation regulator, with all civil aviation regulatory functions (economic regulation, airspace policy, safety regulation and consumer protection) integrated within a single specialist body.

With regard to your Stone b)

Let me throw a couple of stones into the pond (may I emphasise that these are not necesarily my own thoughts but arguments I have heard in the past):

b. Why does NATS not wish to provide ATSOCAS. Look at the the latest Business Plan and, despite the terms of the NERL License, the organisation appears to be distancing itself from 'risk'.

The NATS En Route licence does not mandate them to provide Advisory services (RAS or procedural) except for the Advisory Routes or within areas specified within the AIP (these are general conditions of the core services). Show me any area specified in either the London or Scottish FIRs apart from North Sea helicopter areas .......... shouldn't take long, there aren't any

You could tenuously say that the fact they are licenced to provide an 'Air Traffic Control Service' in the whole of the UK FIR is the CAAs way of dealing with this. But since they don't specify the level of 'service' required in the licence and define 'ATC Service' as

the giving of instructions or advice to aircraft, whether in flight or on the manoeuvring area or apron of an aerodrome, for the purpose of:

(a) preventing, or assisting in the prevention of, collisions between aircraft; and

(b) managing the flow of air traffic for the purpose of expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic where appropriate in consultation with the CAA or any other provider of air traffic services or any international body responsible for co-ordinating air traffic services

to which instructions the recipient aircraft are required to submit, save to avoid immediate danger.

then there's plenty of holes in that argument. Flight Information Service meets it for a start, plus in Class G the aircraft are NOT required to submit to instructions from ATC. So maybe it doesn't apply to Class G airspace by that token ??

But what if the operator demands a service under the belief the licence forces NATS to do something for them outside Controlled Airspace ? Read on.

1. Without prejudice to the general power conferred under this Licence, the Licensee shall make available:

(a) the Core Services so as to be capable of meeting on a continuing basis any reasonable level of overall demand for such services; and

(b) the Specified Services.

-
-
-

5. Without extending the obligation as to the overall level of services to be provided under paragraph 1(a), the Licensee shall meet each request for the provision of the Core Services reasonably made by any person.

6. For the purposes of paragraph 5 above, a person shall be held to have reasonably made a request for the relevant services where:

(a) the Licensee has been notified of, and has not rejected, a legitimate flight plan from the commander of an aircraft or a recognised flight plan processing centre to a bona fide flight which is required by applicable safety requirements to submit to the instructions of a person providing air traffic control in the relevant area;

So even if you don't accept that NATS need do no more than provide a FIS in Class G then we have another get out, being that within Class G airspace there is NO requirement to submit to the instructions of a person providing an air traffic control service therefore the licensee (NATS) has not been ordered to meet the request in Para 5 since Para 6 says it must be where the pilot has to submit to ATC. Maybe the CAA should have had some ATCOs read over the draft before this was all signed up. The lawyer speak obvioulsy makes sense to lawyers but in ATC terms is like a string vest If I was a NATS person involved in drawing it up, I'd be quite happy with the leeway we have managed to have written in to our 'contract'


So back to your original question as to why NATS does not wish to provide ATSOCA. Well, we do. Through FIS, through Advisory Services where we are mandated to do so, and by radar services (RIS or RAS) where NATS has made a choice to do so (but is not mandated by the licence to do so). In all other areas, it is not our core business. We believe our limited resources are better placed solving the major issues we have in areas where we are mandated to provide a service and where the operators are feeling some pain. Resectorising, providing revised Controlled Airspace structures, cutting down delays to commercial operators within CAS, new centres and equipment. That kind of thing.

An example - look in the SRD for Edinburgh departures heading out over the N.Sea towards the Netherlands. The NATS prefered route is direct SAB. Try doing that whilst remaining inside CAS! What is really disingenuous, is that the licensed service provider will not give anything other than a FIS between the edge of the TMA and the upper air. Is this really Service Provision?

Now of course, if you want to go to Holland and stay in CAS, then within a few lines of your 'selective' example routeing is one for exiting the UK via LAMSO. Guess what ?? It's within CAS all the way. KLM use it all the time from Edinburgh. Why can't traffic go the same way to start off with and then cut across to PETIL (as per your example) once they are in the Upper Air. Ah yes, a bloody great MDA is in the way which precludes the ability for it to be a standard route. Speaking to guys I know who work in the airspace involved, the second part of your diatribe quoted is complete crap. They can't recall the last time someone flying out via SAB to get in to the Upper Air (or staying below for that matter) was given a FIS as the maximum level of service as you state. Their SOP is to give a RIS normally as minimum (which can be limited as per the MATS Part 1) and they are 'empowered' to upgrade to RAS if safety reasons dictate. If you are trying to bash NATS then a little checking goes a long way to maintaining your credibility.

Maybe this is one area where the CAA could be more robust in madating a minimum level of service.

The CAA could try and tighten up the licence to force NATS to do other tasks on a mandatory basis. But NATS has the right to argue that they won't do them. The CAA can then accept that and go back to square 1, or they could possibly bring in a third party such as the MoD and increase their service provision scope, or they can put it to the Secretary of State for resolution. Given the pressures NATS faces in its core area, it would be a brave Secretary who would force them to divert resource without extra funding and manpower to areas where the minimum level of service as per ICAO (FIS and Alerting Service) is already being met.

Stone c)

Why don't the mil provide the service? Why should they? Is there any valid arrangement where they can recover route charges from NATS? One could also argue that it is in the military's best interests to provide services (maintenance of tactical freedom etc). Why should the user/operator make arrangements directly with the military? Surely this should be a NATS responsibility?

The only reason the Mil should provide the service is if they are directed to or have 'advertised' they will provide a service. Cost sharing is not normally a problem as there are precedents. Look at the Inverness/Lossiemouth agreement for one. Operators should know what level of service is available from the AIP. If that service doesn't meet their needs then it is for them to make alternative arrangements to receive an enhanced one. This has happened throughout the years. Things such as the East Coast Trial Route, Mil RAS to specified flights over the North Sea, etc, etc. Or there is even the published Military Middle Airspace Radar Service. But in each case, prior co-ordination to ensure the task can be provided is required. And guess what .. that's not a NATS responsibility.

It seems to me that, with the growth of regional airports (Coventry, Finningley, Norwich etc), we are encouraging cheap flights whilst not necessarily ensuring the maitenance of high levels of safety. Somebody has to draw a line in the sand; this would be way outside the remit/powers of the CAA.

I agree with all that except your last statement. It is precisely the remit of the CAA. The DAP trumpets loud from the CAA website:

The Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP) is responsible for the planning and regulation of all UK airspace including the navigation and communications infrastructure to support safe and efficient operations.

Yep, they ARE responsible for UK airspace and supporting a safe and efficient operation. Its about time they started doing something about it instead of expecting operators, ATS providers, and airfield owners to continually come up with ideas which merely tinker at the hotch potch in an un co-ordinated manner.

My solution. Start with a clean sheet of paper. Bring in lots of airspace expertise commensurate with what UK PLC actually wants to achieve (sorry Wing Commanders club .... 90% of you will have to go and find real work - tongue in cheek .. well, a little). Redesign the whole of the UK airspace setup with an eye towards Single Skies, Functional Airspace blocks and enhanced Flexible Use of Airspace. Then sell the model to the world !!!

[Turn It Off]

Why not transfer it to Filton radar for a LARS - It is well within their area of function as a/c leave n/e of BCN?

Much safer than giving it to FIR who have no radar.

[flower]

Filton aren't there all the time though are they, although I agree when they are it would surely be better for them to get a radar service off them than transfer to a non radar service.

I believe the EGBB-BCN procedure was originally introduced for just the one airline, seems that they can all do it now so there must be flexibility in the system to provide for a EGBE-BCN procedure if investigated

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

A few points of order, comments,questions.

30W I am led to believe that BE had an agreement with BB that expired on the 1st of May for BCN tfc to be treated as In or out of BB. This was suposed to be re done in a new letter of agreement that is now posponed to @ 1st July. But does not include any BCN proceedures.

BE have been attempting to get operators not to file via BCN but this has met with various noises from ops departments that resemble a very empty think bubble and then nothing happening till the A/C calls for start or free calls inbound and the ATCO is put under pressure to make the Sh1t work.

Does any one know what service and from whom the C550 that operates in and out of BW gets? There are rumours that BB have had to delay releasing TOM 23 Deps from BE for the arrival of this A/c into BW.

Any TOM pilots out there, can you please explain why there is little or no complaining about the delays being encountered into and out of BE. A certain Irish operator would by now have broken all the doors down in the TWR to get a resolution, it would help the case I am sure.

Another point of order, The official line from a Wing CO at Swannick Mil is that they too will not work BE ins or outs. So there goes the pre note theory.

It occurs that there may be an underlying issue regarding the ongoing terminal enquiries. The theory goes somthing like, lets make the proceedures at BE nice and complex so the poor sods dont know what day it is , mix in a few 1261's and then tell the planners that the whole thing is unsafe so dont give them the capacity to operate 40 high perf CAT movements a Day

[viva77]

I'm puzzled. Why can't EGBE provide a radar service?

[DFC]

If the Coventry flights joining at BCN were all re-routed via ORTAC and the ones comming the other way routed inbound via the LTMA, how many delay minutes would be created because of NATS attributable delays? It is in the interest of NATS to keep delays down and thus to accomodate such traffic as far as possible.

Having said that, NATS only provide a FIS in class G from BCN to Coventry.

The only reason the Mil should provide the service is if they are directed to or have 'advertised' they will provide a service

Well the military do advertise the Middle Airspace Radar Service and the AIP contains clear procedures for obtaining such a service. They also advertise a H24 LARS service at Brize. These advertised services provide H24 radar cover from BCN to the point where traffic enters the area of responsibility of Coventry ATC.

I believe that NATS may have overstepped the mark by making an instruction that aircraft will be "instructed" to call a certain frequency in Class G airspace. Who pilot's talk to in class G is up to the pilots.

Regards,

DFC

[Skypartners]

Silly question for non-ATC bod

Erm - putting all of that to one side is it appropriate for ATC to be used in a commercial spat between two airport operators? This seems to have nothing to do with airspace and everything to do with where pax will buy their duty frees. Let me ask the Brum controllers? Do YOU think this is your problem or are you just hardworking professionals who'd prefer to be getting on with the job of being the best?

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

VIVA 77
It is my understanding that BE Rad would be more than happy to work the Tfc. Problem is outbound who do they talk to at 40 nm SW, and at the edge of radar cover it is hard to offer a suitable service especially whilst trying to avoid 15 contacts over the M1 with another high speed inbound.
Inbound a freecall could find itself without a radar service outside manned hours until the ATCO has finished his/her required break.
In addition the Big Brother outfit do not make it easy for arrivals and deps to get an expiditious routing.

Skypartner
Quite right it is Highly inappropriate for ATC to be used as a whipping boy but you come up with another explanation for the outragous things that are going on!!!!

" Do YOU think this is your problem or are you just hardworking professionals who'd prefer to be getting on with the job of being the best?"
Whos side are you on anyway.