Nats - A Law Unto Itself
Well now, aren't we all a touchy bunch!
OK if we are talking about inaccuracies:
Incorrect 1700Z in summer. However, I accept your comment that it is an example of part time class A (I did state that I stood to be corrected). Why no so with P18 then?
Regarding the airprox
It has been discussed here!
It has also been published, so you can read it in full yourself.
HD I will treat your comments with the contempt they deserve.
5miles baby, it is not unsubstantiated, have a chat with your colleagues on S9!
Carbide, the only time I suspect you provide a service outside CAS is if it joining or avoiding weather. How often do you change the service? I suspect that you are trying to take the credit from units such as Cardiff, Bristol, Exeter and Hurn all who DO provide RAS outside CAS.
OK if we are talking about inaccuracies:
In the evening it opens up at about 1730 Z until early the next morning.
Regarding the airprox
It has been discussed here!
It has also been published, so you can read it in full yourself.
HD I will treat your comments with the contempt they deserve.
5miles baby, it is not unsubstantiated, have a chat with your colleagues on S9!
Carbide, the only time I suspect you provide a service outside CAS is if it joining or avoiding weather. How often do you change the service? I suspect that you are trying to take the credit from units such as Cardiff, Bristol, Exeter and Hurn all who DO provide RAS outside CAS.
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear! Hear! I'm with flower on this one.
(twice in two weeks, what's the world coming to!?)
fredator - you lot think you're so good, come on down to BRS or CDF and see what a "2nd rate LARS unit" gets up to. One or two of the S23 guys have been down, and they were a little astonished to say the least.
(twice in two weeks, what's the world coming to!?)fredator - you lot think you're so good, come on down to BRS or CDF and see what a "2nd rate LARS unit" gets up to. One or two of the S23 guys have been down, and they were a little astonished to say the least.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger,
I take the credit from no one!
It has been known for LACC to give the odd short cut. Sometimes this involves being outside controlled airspce. An example of this would be either a EGGD dep to the north routeing to NOKIN which, if turned early enough, goes outside, underneath UN862.
Now, it could be said that that's a join, (even though it goes past the join fix BCN or TALGA) so how about routeing a EGGD or EGFF from AMMAN to VATRY. This is a Ryanair special but they can't accept a RIS. So, if they want to got that way (it's down to the controller and his workload, as discussed before) you have to give them a RAS. That's not joiner or wx avoider.
To answer your question. I change the service whenever I have to.
I also said that L18 availability is published by NOTAM. This changes from day to day. The military sometimes like to occupy the NWMTA later on in to the evening.
P18 - I don't know.
The LARS units I work with are, without a doubt, first rate. They've helped me out many, many times. I hope that I can help them out too, when the time comes. At the end of the day, we're all on the same team trying to get the job done.
Regards
CF
I take the credit from no one!
It has been known for LACC to give the odd short cut. Sometimes this involves being outside controlled airspce. An example of this would be either a EGGD dep to the north routeing to NOKIN which, if turned early enough, goes outside, underneath UN862.
Now, it could be said that that's a join, (even though it goes past the join fix BCN or TALGA) so how about routeing a EGGD or EGFF from AMMAN to VATRY. This is a Ryanair special but they can't accept a RIS. So, if they want to got that way (it's down to the controller and his workload, as discussed before) you have to give them a RAS. That's not joiner or wx avoider.
To answer your question. I change the service whenever I have to.
I also said that L18 availability is published by NOTAM. This changes from day to day. The military sometimes like to occupy the NWMTA later on in to the evening.
P18 - I don't know.
The LARS units I work with are, without a doubt, first rate. They've helped me out many, many times. I hope that I can help them out too, when the time comes. At the end of the day, we're all on the same team trying to get the job done.
Regards
CF
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
On whether NATS airports (as opposed to En Route) provide RAS in Class G, I've just found this interesting quote from the report on Airprox 156/04:
Company policy it may be, but I know that this particular NATS unit does provide RAS to aircraft in Class G!
NS
The NATS Ltd advisor also added that as the civil ATC provider to the B737, the company policy is that it will not provide a RAS to any flight in Class G airspace.
NS
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, Cut Jack some slack? Why? He made a proposition
.
and backed it up with:
I ask as it appears that NATS (PLC) are now setting the agender and defining what goes on in UK airspace and not the goverment organisations set up for that very purpose. This has become apparent as:
1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace.
2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight.
3. New Class C airspace to be introduced above FL195 will not allow VFR flight.
4. NATS wont accept formation flights opperating as GAT.
All of these assertions have been addressed and found incorrect. But then, Jack-ho admits that he has no first hand knowledge of these matters, they are "just what I have been told".
It seems that we have educated the chap then, whoever he may be.
Rgds BEX.
P.S. IMHO LARS units (mil and civil) work VERY hard, and do a fine job.
Is NATS or the CAA/DAP in charge of airspace policy?
and backed it up with:
I ask as it appears that NATS (PLC) are now setting the agender and defining what goes on in UK airspace and not the goverment organisations set up for that very purpose. This has become apparent as:
1, NATS will not provide RAS in Class G airspace.
2, Class D airways are treated as Class A. ie no VFR flight.
3. New Class C airspace to be introduced above FL195 will not allow VFR flight.
4. NATS wont accept formation flights opperating as GAT.
It seems that we have educated the chap then, whoever he may be.
Rgds BEX.
P.S. IMHO LARS units (mil and civil) work VERY hard, and do a fine job.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a trend that NATS have a company policy NOT to provide RAS in Class G from the reports posted here, I see that NorthSouth's quote is from the Airports division, but to clarify I as an en-route controller have in no way been told I cannot provide a RAS in Class G, and although seldom, have done so.
Widger, if only you knew the full irony in that statement. S9 only has Class B a/s FL245+ and CLASS F advisory route G4D. Most of the traffic FL245- is engaged in military activity, and the formations above FL245 are normally en-route to DA's or refuelling lanes, therefore the Military controllers work these flights to prepare for the task. As the Mil have those flights FL245- then it makes good sense for them to control any civil flights FL245- too so that all traffic is known and controllable. So why would we work giving a RAS in Class G on S9? Have I missed your point? Once again, you need to back up your points with examples so we can find where there may be a problem as if needed I know S9 provide RAS's when appropriate.
Although not providing a RAS was indeed a factor in Airprox 198/04 it is only a casual factor as the controller had no reason to provide any radar service at all, it depends on workload, other situations..blah..blah.
5miles baby, it is not unsubstantiated, have a chat with your colleagues on S9!
Although not providing a RAS was indeed a factor in Airprox 198/04 it is only a casual factor as the controller had no reason to provide any radar service at all, it depends on workload, other situations..blah..blah.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must agree with Widger on this I'm afraid.
In my experience LACC routinely refuse to offer joining clearances to mil formations and thus leaving us little option but to work them.
TC also fail to provide RAS to ac joing controlled airspace from the north, pilots tend to have ris imposed on them after being identified by squawk ident.
Now I've added fuel to this fire, I'm going to stand back and warm my hands!!
In my experience LACC routinely refuse to offer joining clearances to mil formations and thus leaving us little option but to work them.
TC also fail to provide RAS to ac joing controlled airspace from the north, pilots tend to have ris imposed on them after being identified by squawk ident.
Now I've added fuel to this fire, I'm going to stand back and warm my hands!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience LACC routinely refuse to offer joining clearances to mil formations
pilots tend to have ris imposed on them
Rgds BEX
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember, and am prepared to be corrected, that there was an SI that said formations could cross CAS but not join and fly along the airway.
Going back to Sector 9, if traffic is flying along G4D, there is the option of giving an Air Traffic Advisory Service. I'd like to ask any pilots out there a question:
If I gave you this service, what would you be expecting in terms of traffic information and avoiding action?
Going back to Sector 9, if traffic is flying along G4D, there is the option of giving an Air Traffic Advisory Service. I'd like to ask any pilots out there a question:
If I gave you this service, what would you be expecting in terms of traffic information and avoiding action?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't remember the last time i provided anything other than a RAS to IFR traffic in class G airspace, nor do I remember the last time any of my colleagues at EGPF did either. Perhaps that's just a peculiarity at Glasgow.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to RAS in Class G, it is a unit policy at ScACC not to provide it, not a NATS policy. There used to be an exception for Loganair flights to Carickfinn but I don't do West Coast so I don't know if that is still applicable. The only other time you will hear the words 'Radar Advisory Service' uttered by a ScACC controller is when traffic is operating on an advisory route (Class F) and also in Class G airspace when the controller wishes to resolve a specific confliction between two aircraft under his 'control'.
This last exception is, of course, a neat little cop out by the powers that be which means that should two aircraft operating under RIS have a clanger, the controller can cop the blame.
I personally believe we should give all Class G airspace to the FISO (they could do with the work) and not provide RAS OR RIS, enabling us to concentrate on the primary tasks inside regulated airspace. Maybe those operators affected would then make enough noise to the higher management/government and we would get the reglated airspace we need to provide a proper service.
This last exception is, of course, a neat little cop out by the powers that be which means that should two aircraft operating under RIS have a clanger, the controller can cop the blame.
I personally believe we should give all Class G airspace to the FISO (they could do with the work) and not provide RAS OR RIS, enabling us to concentrate on the primary tasks inside regulated airspace. Maybe those operators affected would then make enough noise to the higher management/government and we would get the reglated airspace we need to provide a proper service.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for such an enlightened debate. Despite being called an unprofessional half-wit, that obviously knows nothing. It has been established that NATS (at some units) have a policy that they will not provide RAS in Class G. That there has been an SI that states formations won't be worked and that there are Class D airways where VFR is not permitted at all times (I am surprised, as permitting a Mil FJ to cross a Class D airway, that is not permanent, under VFR is a sure way to have an AIRPROX and thus a strengthened case for permanent Class A). As to Class C, I have had no takers, but that is not altogether surprising as it has not come in yet and most NATS controllers seem woefully ignorant of their own companies policies or special instructions. Content to engage in parochial arguments about what sector does what but not engage in the larger debate; which is, do NATS or the CAA/DAP drive policy on airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
half-wit, that obviously knows nothing
nope, YOU said:
It's only what I have been told
That there has been an SI that states formations won't be worked
there are Class D airways where VFR is not permitted at all times
have an AIRPROX and thus a strengthened case for permanent Class A
As to Class C, I have had no takers
NATS controllers seem woefully ignorant of their own companies policies or special instructions.
do NATS or the CAA/DAP drive policy on airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
BALIX:
I wonder if that would work? It would drive all CAT operators back into CAS then there would be no further commercial pressure for additional airways and the MoD would breathe a sigh of relief and carry on believing that it owns the North Sea.
NS
I personally believe we should give all Class G airspace to the FISO (they could do with the work) and not provide RAS OR RIS, enabling us to concentrate on the primary tasks inside regulated airspace. Maybe those operators affected would then make enough noise to the higher management/government and we would get the reglated airspace we need to provide a proper service.
NS
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jack-oh
Thanks for a good read, enjoying this a lot.
To address your point we must go back to when CAA and NATS were one and the same. When the divorce came about the eventual settlement gave NATS [ THE MONOPOLY EN-ROUTE SERVICE PROVIDER] the lions share of the responsibilities and power that it had enjoyed when there were no clearly defined boundaries of task definition; basically the one large melting pot did everything in-house and staff moved freely from one discipline to the other. If NATS were to restrict itself to being purely an ATC service provider there would be massive staff shrinkage and reduction in charges, and the CAA proper would not cope without major increase in staff and resources [budget].
It suits NATS to be in charge of everything, have you noticed how international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority. They want to be separate when it is convenient to be seen to be separate, but in reality almost all of the old strings are still attached under the table.
Gosh...could ANY of this be true?
Couldn't spell self-engrandisement earlier so deleted a really boring paragraph!
RGDS.
To address your point we must go back to when CAA and NATS were one and the same. When the divorce came about the eventual settlement gave NATS [ THE MONOPOLY EN-ROUTE SERVICE PROVIDER] the lions share of the responsibilities and power that it had enjoyed when there were no clearly defined boundaries of task definition; basically the one large melting pot did everything in-house and staff moved freely from one discipline to the other. If NATS were to restrict itself to being purely an ATC service provider there would be massive staff shrinkage and reduction in charges, and the CAA proper would not cope without major increase in staff and resources [budget].
It suits NATS to be in charge of everything, have you noticed how international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority. They want to be separate when it is convenient to be seen to be separate, but in reality almost all of the old strings are still attached under the table.
Gosh...could ANY of this be true?
Couldn't spell self-engrandisement earlier so deleted a really boring paragraph!
RGDS.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
international agreements and future proposals come from NATS and not from the regulatory authority.
It does this mainly by checking that NATS' own SMS is working properly (ANSPs are Required to have some form of accountable Safety Management System) and that NATS operates within the Terms of it's licence.
CAA SRG now work in a similar fashion to what used to be CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate, doing for ANSPs what FOI does / did for airlines.
I think....
rgds BEX
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Annex 2 - Unless authorised by the appropriate authority VFR flights shall not be operated above FL200.
When setting FL195 as the base level for the European class C airspace the above ICAO requirment was taken into account.
Since FL200 is not a VFR cruising level, the highest available VFR cruising level is FL195 and that ties in nicely with the base of the class C.
However, it is recognised that certain flights (military flights and civil test flights, gliders! etc) will have to be accomodated within the airspace above FL195 and there are clearly laid down procedures in place for those flights.
When it comes to Class D airways, TMAs and CTAs, one must remember that VFR flights in such airspace are under an ATC service. Controller workload has a major impact on the airspace capacity. For IFR flights it is simple - everyone gets a slot time if required or if no slot must depart close to the planned time and the flow operates without any problems. VFR flights are even simpler - they have no slots, they have no requirement to depart close to the planned departure time and if the controller is too busy to accept the traffic there is always airspace below the airway where the flight can continue without restriction if it can't wait until the controller is less busy.
The last time I was involved in such things, military formation flights were no problem on the airway - provided that the elements remained within 1nm of the leader. However, the whole idea of being military and having an expensive military enroute ATC network is to provide flexibility and operational effectiveness - something that is not on the civil controller's objectives when it comes to military ops.
Military pilots are well aware that many of the standard UK entry/exit points (north point etc) cross busy civil airspace and often are only too happy to work military going direct.
In France, military flights are often filtered out on civil displays and one can be crossing a major civil flow under military service and the civil controller will not be aware that you are there.
Regards,
DFC
When setting FL195 as the base level for the European class C airspace the above ICAO requirment was taken into account.
Since FL200 is not a VFR cruising level, the highest available VFR cruising level is FL195 and that ties in nicely with the base of the class C.
However, it is recognised that certain flights (military flights and civil test flights, gliders! etc) will have to be accomodated within the airspace above FL195 and there are clearly laid down procedures in place for those flights.
When it comes to Class D airways, TMAs and CTAs, one must remember that VFR flights in such airspace are under an ATC service. Controller workload has a major impact on the airspace capacity. For IFR flights it is simple - everyone gets a slot time if required or if no slot must depart close to the planned time and the flow operates without any problems. VFR flights are even simpler - they have no slots, they have no requirement to depart close to the planned departure time and if the controller is too busy to accept the traffic there is always airspace below the airway where the flight can continue without restriction if it can't wait until the controller is less busy.
The last time I was involved in such things, military formation flights were no problem on the airway - provided that the elements remained within 1nm of the leader. However, the whole idea of being military and having an expensive military enroute ATC network is to provide flexibility and operational effectiveness - something that is not on the civil controller's objectives when it comes to military ops.
Military pilots are well aware that many of the standard UK entry/exit points (north point etc) cross busy civil airspace and often are only too happy to work military going direct.
In France, military flights are often filtered out on civil displays and one can be crossing a major civil flow under military service and the civil controller will not be aware that you are there.
Regards,
DFC
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth
Dunno whether it would work but it seems to me that there are no commercial pressures at the moment if operators are happy to accept the RIS. Whatever, I really don't think we should be offering any service in Class G airspace that the military are using as a playground.
Thankfully, I don't have a Tay validation any more...
Dunno whether it would work but it seems to me that there are no commercial pressures at the moment if operators are happy to accept the RIS. Whatever, I really don't think we should be offering any service in Class G airspace that the military are using as a playground.
Thankfully, I don't have a Tay validation any more...