I/V A/D
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10W,
Good points. I was aware that slots don't provide separation but my most recent involvement in an ATC's loss of separation was on an overloaded sector so there is a link between flow management and the ability of ATC to provide the services they they are required to provide in various airspaces.
I had of course assumed that the pilot had filed a flight plan before departure because otherwise, I would agree that it is unfair for a pilot on a pre-planned route (whatever flight rules) to file 10 minutes before the boundary when us long tube fliers have to file 4+ hours in advance to gain a delayed entry to the same airspace. But that is something that needs looking at by the CAA or at European level and not by the individual ATCO. If the rules need changing then that is where the efforts need to be placed.
You said: The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area and nats said By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights
Asuming the flight had filed a VFR flight plan before departure i.e. was operating normally in accordance with a filed flight plan........where does it say that IFR flights have priority in class D TMAs?
No one wants to get in anyone's way. But not operating on the long established (and sill used by the CFMU) rule of first come first served is operating outwith the rules I believe.
Of course the VFR flight (with a flight plan) could choose to hold awaiting safe clearance. How long would you hold the VFR flight for before you end up with the VFR flight stating PAN, divert me, I am low on fuel?
Don't forget that there is no requirement for a VFR flight to carry diversion fuel - simply destination fuel plus final reserve. It would be a good idea to carry a bit extra to allow for delay in gaining access to the TMA (20 minutes?) but that is it really. One good reason for filing VFR and compying with the more onerous weather requirements is the fact that the fuel load can be reduced!
Don't forget the TMA is established for traffic into and out of the TMA airfields and by NATs' own definition, Cumbernauld is a STMA airfield.
-------
Can'tremember who made the comment about wake turb but it is a wasted comment when one could fly at or just below the base of CAS and be only 500ft below a B747 that you are not aware of. What is the difference then flying at FL85 and passing below a B747 at FL90 which you have traffic info on?.....Atleast if you expect it, you can avoid it!
Spitoon,
You have put the point that I have been trying to make perfectly. I hope you are paid as much as an Area ATCO because you are providing a service!!
Regards,
DFC
Good points. I was aware that slots don't provide separation but my most recent involvement in an ATC's loss of separation was on an overloaded sector so there is a link between flow management and the ability of ATC to provide the services they they are required to provide in various airspaces.
I had of course assumed that the pilot had filed a flight plan before departure because otherwise, I would agree that it is unfair for a pilot on a pre-planned route (whatever flight rules) to file 10 minutes before the boundary when us long tube fliers have to file 4+ hours in advance to gain a delayed entry to the same airspace. But that is something that needs looking at by the CAA or at European level and not by the individual ATCO. If the rules need changing then that is where the efforts need to be placed.
You said: The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area and nats said By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights
Asuming the flight had filed a VFR flight plan before departure i.e. was operating normally in accordance with a filed flight plan........where does it say that IFR flights have priority in class D TMAs?
No one wants to get in anyone's way. But not operating on the long established (and sill used by the CFMU) rule of first come first served is operating outwith the rules I believe.
Of course the VFR flight (with a flight plan) could choose to hold awaiting safe clearance. How long would you hold the VFR flight for before you end up with the VFR flight stating PAN, divert me, I am low on fuel?
Don't forget that there is no requirement for a VFR flight to carry diversion fuel - simply destination fuel plus final reserve. It would be a good idea to carry a bit extra to allow for delay in gaining access to the TMA (20 minutes?) but that is it really. One good reason for filing VFR and compying with the more onerous weather requirements is the fact that the fuel load can be reduced!
Don't forget the TMA is established for traffic into and out of the TMA airfields and by NATs' own definition, Cumbernauld is a STMA airfield.
-------
Can'tremember who made the comment about wake turb but it is a wasted comment when one could fly at or just below the base of CAS and be only 500ft below a B747 that you are not aware of. What is the difference then flying at FL85 and passing below a B747 at FL90 which you have traffic info on?.....Atleast if you expect it, you can avoid it!
Spitoon,
You have put the point that I have been trying to make perfectly. I hope you are paid as much as an Area ATCO because you are providing a service!!
Regards,
DFC
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC,
You raise an interesting point about notice.
Of course, 99% of the Class D that affects the average VFR pilot is zones, not TMA, and the norm there is to ask for crossing clearance at short notice. Actually, most zone controllers (I am talking mainly London TC here, so the Thames, Luton, Essex, Gatwick crowd) do not really seem to want to hear from you as much as 10 minutes before, they seem to mostly take a tactical decision as you get close in.
But the Scottish TMA is a different matter, being under Area Control (I think). I wonder if the suggestion is that if I want entry to the TMA I should file VFR, rather than just arriving on hand over?
My suspicion is that a VFR FPL that mentioned going via TLA to Cumbernauld would be ignored by ScATCC, because the level would be VFR and the assumption would be as that made by the 124.5 controller at the head of this thread that the flight would be beneath controlled airspace.
I guess that the FPL could specify F085, but that subverts the whole point about VFR which is that you cannot be sure, several hours before, what levels are going to be available VFR.
So 10W and nats type guys...would a VFR FPL make any difference?
You raise an interesting point about notice.
Of course, 99% of the Class D that affects the average VFR pilot is zones, not TMA, and the norm there is to ask for crossing clearance at short notice. Actually, most zone controllers (I am talking mainly London TC here, so the Thames, Luton, Essex, Gatwick crowd) do not really seem to want to hear from you as much as 10 minutes before, they seem to mostly take a tactical decision as you get close in.
But the Scottish TMA is a different matter, being under Area Control (I think). I wonder if the suggestion is that if I want entry to the TMA I should file VFR, rather than just arriving on hand over?
My suspicion is that a VFR FPL that mentioned going via TLA to Cumbernauld would be ignored by ScATCC, because the level would be VFR and the assumption would be as that made by the 124.5 controller at the head of this thread that the flight would be beneath controlled airspace.
I guess that the FPL could specify F085, but that subverts the whole point about VFR which is that you cannot be sure, several hours before, what levels are going to be available VFR.
So 10W and nats type guys...would a VFR FPL make any difference?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy:
My understanding is that ScATCC would never see your VFR flightplan as only the departure and destination fields receive VFR plans (plus the FIRs for cross-border flights -- but I don't think London to Scottish counts for this purpose).
AA.
My understanding is that ScATCC would never see your VFR flightplan as only the departure and destination fields receive VFR plans (plus the FIRs for cross-border flights -- but I don't think London to Scottish counts for this purpose).
AA.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nats,
I never check my PMs (don't even know how to!). If you have something to say that will add to the debate or be of use to pilots in the future then post it here. If not then surely it would be a waste of time looking at said PM would it not?
Timothy,
If you file a VFR plan you can specify a level i.e. placing VFR in the level field is not mandatory. However, I believe that what alphaalpha says is correct - the VFR fligh plans are ignored at the ACC - even if they plan via that ACCs CAS.
There in lies the reason why even if every VFR flight planning to fly within the STMA files a full flight plan 4+ hours in advance (as the IFR ones do), the ACC will not be aware of or make any allowance for the VFR flights that will no doubt cause a loading on the sectors.
Overall, the system at National level does not suit the pilot and also does not suit ATC. Makes one wonder why since both parts of the system find the situation less than ideal nothing is done.
The AOPA/GSACO/CHIRP fill in a form if denied class D access acheived nothing mainly because even when denied access full stop, few pilots ever put pen to paper.
Spoke to someone today that told me the reason why ATC (at an ACC) will try to separate VFR flights from IFR flights eg in the STMA and suchlike places is that the separation is monitored by a computer that does not make any allowance for VFR/IFR. Thus if ATC place you 2nm to one side of another flight at the same level, the system reports a loss of separation even if the two are VFR. This means an investigation even if it is a short one. So ATCOs do not want the situation. Perhaps ATCOs can confirm this separation monitor?
Regards,
DFC
I never check my PMs (don't even know how to!). If you have something to say that will add to the debate or be of use to pilots in the future then post it here. If not then surely it would be a waste of time looking at said PM would it not?
Timothy,
If you file a VFR plan you can specify a level i.e. placing VFR in the level field is not mandatory. However, I believe that what alphaalpha says is correct - the VFR fligh plans are ignored at the ACC - even if they plan via that ACCs CAS.
There in lies the reason why even if every VFR flight planning to fly within the STMA files a full flight plan 4+ hours in advance (as the IFR ones do), the ACC will not be aware of or make any allowance for the VFR flights that will no doubt cause a loading on the sectors.
Overall, the system at National level does not suit the pilot and also does not suit ATC. Makes one wonder why since both parts of the system find the situation less than ideal nothing is done.
The AOPA/GSACO/CHIRP fill in a form if denied class D access acheived nothing mainly because even when denied access full stop, few pilots ever put pen to paper.
Spoke to someone today that told me the reason why ATC (at an ACC) will try to separate VFR flights from IFR flights eg in the STMA and suchlike places is that the separation is monitored by a computer that does not make any allowance for VFR/IFR. Thus if ATC place you 2nm to one side of another flight at the same level, the system reports a loss of separation even if the two are VFR. This means an investigation even if it is a short one. So ATCOs do not want the situation. Perhaps ATCOs can confirm this separation monitor?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some clarifications:
1. Under a RIS the pilot is wholly responsible for requesting a controlled airspace joining clearance. (This applies equally to IFR and VFR traffic).
2. All STMA controllers are aware that traffic can enter the TMA VFR - indeed it is a popular oral board question! However, it is an uncommon occurence, something that the more recently valid controllers might not have experienced for real.
3. Although VFR traffic cannot be refused a joining clearance per se, it can be instructed to remain clear of controlled airspace until a convenient time.
4. The southern boundary of Edinburgh's local area (the bit of the TMA delegated to them by Scottish) is about 10nm north of TLA, so traffic joining via TLA in the STMA therefore requires a clearance from Talla Sector.
5. Scottish does not receive VFR flight plans.
6. I can't speak for this specific occurence, but Scottish will always provide the best service possible, dependent on workload, and that certainly includes VFR joiners inbound to Cumbernauld.
There seem to be a lot of NATS bashers out there, but the truth is that 99% of our controllers are committed to provide the best service possible to all our customers, whether VFR, IFR, commercial or GA. It is pressure of work and the over-riding priority to manage traffic safely at all times that will determine how accomodating we can be.
1. Under a RIS the pilot is wholly responsible for requesting a controlled airspace joining clearance. (This applies equally to IFR and VFR traffic).
2. All STMA controllers are aware that traffic can enter the TMA VFR - indeed it is a popular oral board question! However, it is an uncommon occurence, something that the more recently valid controllers might not have experienced for real.
3. Although VFR traffic cannot be refused a joining clearance per se, it can be instructed to remain clear of controlled airspace until a convenient time.
4. The southern boundary of Edinburgh's local area (the bit of the TMA delegated to them by Scottish) is about 10nm north of TLA, so traffic joining via TLA in the STMA therefore requires a clearance from Talla Sector.
5. Scottish does not receive VFR flight plans.
6. I can't speak for this specific occurence, but Scottish will always provide the best service possible, dependent on workload, and that certainly includes VFR joiners inbound to Cumbernauld.
There seem to be a lot of NATS bashers out there, but the truth is that 99% of our controllers are committed to provide the best service possible to all our customers, whether VFR, IFR, commercial or GA. It is pressure of work and the over-riding priority to manage traffic safely at all times that will determine how accomodating we can be.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North England
Age: 51
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD Fuelled Post
6. I can't speak for this specific occurence, but Scottish will always provide the best service possible, dependent on workload, and that certainly includes VFR joiners inbound to Cumbernauld.
There seem to be a lot of NATS bashers out there, but the truth is that 99% of our controllers are committed to provide the best service possible to all our customers, whether VFR, IFR, commercial or GA
Beers are on me for all ScATCC.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several things to bear in mind. (I might even have been on sector and worked you) (What time was it?)
1 - Tay Sector would want to know if you were IFR/VFR as it may determine whether you would need handing to Edinburgh for a radar letdown or routing via VRPs. As said earlier, Tay would generally try and keep you beneath the Talla sector (ie 6000 or below) as the fast stuff is descending on top of you to MinStack level (usually FL70 or FL80) - this keeps you separated vertically, avoids overloading Talla, and in which case you could then be handed direct to Edinburgh.
2- While it may appear to be a 'handover' from Newcastle, it might well have been with very short notice to Tay. Was it a Scottish 'local' 3626/3627 squawk or an airways squawk?
3-Tay can be incredibly busy over a diverse area, with most concentration around P600 into Aberdeen, the NEW VOR roundabout (crossing airways into/out of Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester/Scandinavia), avoiding of and passing info on the numerous fast jets whizzing around attacking Eastern Airways Jetstreams east of Leuchars - after all that ... it is fair to say that VFR traffic outside CAS and particularly at lower levels is the lowest priority.
4-Controlled Airspace base levels (and boundaries) have been changed (by office types who don't have to remember it all) so many times in recent years, and indeed on many of our maps there are different levels for different times of the day, that it can be tricky to remember all the bases/fillets without having to double check on the meticulously accurate sector maps.
5-Numerous Danger Areas in the area with variable times and levels would probably be checked on our notoriously easy to use Danger Area pages
6-So perhaps any 'hesitation' on the part of the controller might be because they were checking Danger Area activity (to make sure you ain't going into an active area), checking that you are not going into Class A airspace, co-ordinating with the TMA controllers/ then Edinburgh Radar/ and perhaps the FIR controller, and agreeing a course of action ... and then of course separating the other 8 aircraft on frequency ... ?
7-Cumbernauld inbounds are not that frequent. I see perhaps one a month.
8-lack of issuing clearance? Yup, technically you need one for entering the 2 Class D TMA fillets, so controller was possibly just busy and an oversight, as 95% of our traffic doesn't need a joining clearance - but you are quite right to query that.
Hope that answers your Qs ? Anyway, next time fly over to PIK and come and have a look round ...
1 - Tay Sector would want to know if you were IFR/VFR as it may determine whether you would need handing to Edinburgh for a radar letdown or routing via VRPs. As said earlier, Tay would generally try and keep you beneath the Talla sector (ie 6000 or below) as the fast stuff is descending on top of you to MinStack level (usually FL70 or FL80) - this keeps you separated vertically, avoids overloading Talla, and in which case you could then be handed direct to Edinburgh.
2- While it may appear to be a 'handover' from Newcastle, it might well have been with very short notice to Tay. Was it a Scottish 'local' 3626/3627 squawk or an airways squawk?
3-Tay can be incredibly busy over a diverse area, with most concentration around P600 into Aberdeen, the NEW VOR roundabout (crossing airways into/out of Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester/Scandinavia), avoiding of and passing info on the numerous fast jets whizzing around attacking Eastern Airways Jetstreams east of Leuchars - after all that ... it is fair to say that VFR traffic outside CAS and particularly at lower levels is the lowest priority.
4-Controlled Airspace base levels (and boundaries) have been changed (by office types who don't have to remember it all) so many times in recent years, and indeed on many of our maps there are different levels for different times of the day, that it can be tricky to remember all the bases/fillets without having to double check on the meticulously accurate sector maps.
5-Numerous Danger Areas in the area with variable times and levels would probably be checked on our notoriously easy to use Danger Area pages
6-So perhaps any 'hesitation' on the part of the controller might be because they were checking Danger Area activity (to make sure you ain't going into an active area), checking that you are not going into Class A airspace, co-ordinating with the TMA controllers/ then Edinburgh Radar/ and perhaps the FIR controller, and agreeing a course of action ... and then of course separating the other 8 aircraft on frequency ... ?
7-Cumbernauld inbounds are not that frequent. I see perhaps one a month.
8-lack of issuing clearance? Yup, technically you need one for entering the 2 Class D TMA fillets, so controller was possibly just busy and an oversight, as 95% of our traffic doesn't need a joining clearance - but you are quite right to query that.
Hope that answers your Qs ? Anyway, next time fly over to PIK and come and have a look round ...
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys for all that useful information, all of which is read and understood.
The only outstanding question from me is to ask whether Talla Radar's point about NATS bashers was directed at me? I am absolutely not a NATS basher and am a great fan of both Scottish and London, having experienced truly crap ATC elsewhere in the world I am fully aware how good ours is.
Admittedly Lock'n'load got under my skin by telling me to f**k off to someone else's airspace, but equally I am aware that he is no longer a NATS employee...maybe the culture didn't suit him
But if you are going to describe any honest question about a lack of understanding of procedures as "NATS bashing" then isn't the purpose of this forum rather diminished?
Let me ask my questions in the way that they occur to me, rather than finding some form of word-mincing that will be even more misunderstood.
Sorry PH-UKU (no relation to Lock'n'load?), I missed your question. I arrived EGPG at 11.00 on 1 Nov, so I guess first I spoke to ScATCC at about 10.40. I departed PG for Biggin at about 13.00 on 3/11 spoke first to Edinburgh, so I guess first spoke to you at about 13.10.
The only outstanding question from me is to ask whether Talla Radar's point about NATS bashers was directed at me? I am absolutely not a NATS basher and am a great fan of both Scottish and London, having experienced truly crap ATC elsewhere in the world I am fully aware how good ours is.
Admittedly Lock'n'load got under my skin by telling me to f**k off to someone else's airspace, but equally I am aware that he is no longer a NATS employee...maybe the culture didn't suit him
But if you are going to describe any honest question about a lack of understanding of procedures as "NATS bashing" then isn't the purpose of this forum rather diminished?
Let me ask my questions in the way that they occur to me, rather than finding some form of word-mincing that will be even more misunderstood.
Sorry PH-UKU (no relation to Lock'n'load?), I missed your question. I arrived EGPG at 11.00 on 1 Nov, so I guess first I spoke to ScATCC at about 10.40. I departed PG for Biggin at about 13.00 on 3/11 spoke first to Edinburgh, so I guess first spoke to you at about 13.10.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Timothy, my comment about "NATS bashers" was generic and certainly not aimed at any of your comments. PPRuNE is a great way to find out whats really going on out there (well, some of the time!), long may it continue.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
There is a link but slots are wide (15 minutes) and there might be a wide variance on actual times to get to the sector from those planned due to high winds or reroutes so it's not a guarantee that a sector won't be overloaded. It's not impoossible to have all your hours worth of traffic in the first half of the hour bunched together. Overload is also something which is not necessarily linked to a numerical value. A controller might be overloaded when working at less than 50% capacity if a whole bunch of things go wrong. At the end of the day there is a definition of overload which controllers can use to assess whether they think they were overloaded or not. The flow figures, slot busting, etc will be used as supporting evidence in any incident investigation but might not necessarily have been the prime cause.
The IFR traffic is already in CAS, is already working the sector controller who will have to give the ATC clearance to the VFR joiner, and is already forming part of the ATCOs existing capacity. Ergo, they are first come first served and take priority
If it's the peak time of the day, then it could be a couple of hours ... if it's just a holding peak being dealt with then maybe 30 minutes or so. Much easier for the VFR pilot to use airmanship in that case, descend to remain clear of the Class D and enter the Class E where no clearance or communication is required
If the pilot has an emergency due to low fuel then all he has to do is shout and the waves will part. The CAA can deal with any fuel planning issues after the event over a cosy chat with the pilot.
As entry to CAS is never guaranteed without a delay, then that's a calculated judgement on the part of the pilot. Mostly it will work out well but if it doesn't then they should already have briefed themselves on what Plan B is.
At the moment Class E caters well for the VFR traffic inbound to TMA airfields (or overflying) which doesn't want any delay. When it changes to Class D on November 24th (?) then entry for VFR traffic at levels below 6000' should still be achievable for the vast majority of the time, or the new raised bases can be used to fly under CAS VFR with no need for a clearance or communication. Entry above 6000' will still be possible as well, it's just a case of avoiding the peak periods when the airspace is saturated. In the case of airspace around TLA the rough peaks are 0700-0930 local and 1600-1900 local. Of course, bad weather, European and other UK slots, etc, can cause knock on delays to airline rotations and move these peaks around or extend them. But as a rough guide I'd try and avoid these times if you want the best chance of a clearance.
There is a Separation Monitoring Function (SMF) in use at NATS units, however there is capacity for completing the short reporting form to signify that the encounter involved VFR traffic and is thus a non event. The investigation involves the Supervisor viewing the encounter on a replay and asking the ATCO involved for their justification. Takes a couple of minutes at most (unless it's an actual event of course !!). I don't think the 'snitch' would prevent anyone from getting traffic closer than IFR separation just because they run the risk of a tap on the shoulder. As long as any required separation is provided there's no need to fear SMF. And for VFRs the required separation is usually at the pilots discretion
I was aware that slots don't provide separation but my most recent involvement in an ATC's loss of separation was on an overloaded sector so there is a link between flow management and the ability of ATC to provide the services they they are required to provide in various airspaces.
You said: The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area and nats said By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights
Asuming the flight had filed a VFR flight plan before departure i.e. was operating normally in accordance with a filed flight plan........where does it say that IFR flights have priority in class D TMAs?
No one wants to get in anyone's way. But not operating on the long established (and sill used by the CFMU) rule of first come first served is operating outwith the rules I believe.
Asuming the flight had filed a VFR flight plan before departure i.e. was operating normally in accordance with a filed flight plan........where does it say that IFR flights have priority in class D TMAs?
No one wants to get in anyone's way. But not operating on the long established (and sill used by the CFMU) rule of first come first served is operating outwith the rules I believe.
The IFR traffic is already in CAS, is already working the sector controller who will have to give the ATC clearance to the VFR joiner, and is already forming part of the ATCOs existing capacity. Ergo, they are first come first served and take priority
Of course the VFR flight (with a flight plan) could choose to hold awaiting safe clearance. How long would you hold the VFR flight for before you end up with the VFR flight stating PAN, divert me, I am low on fuel?
Don't forget that there is no requirement for a VFR flight to carry diversion fuel - simply destination fuel plus final reserve. It would be a good idea to carry a bit extra to allow for delay in gaining access to the TMA (20 minutes?) but that is it really.
One good reason for filing VFR and compying with the more onerous weather requirements is the fact that the fuel load can be reduced!
Don't forget the TMA is established for traffic into and out of the TMA airfields and by NATs' own definition, Cumbernauld is a STMA airfield.
Spoke to someone today that told me the reason why ATC (at an ACC) will try to separate VFR flights from IFR flights eg in the STMA and suchlike places is that the separation is monitored by a computer that does not make any allowance for VFR/IFR. Thus if ATC place you 2nm to one side of another flight at the same level, the system reports a loss of separation even if the two are VFR. This means an investigation even if it is a short one. So ATCOs do not want the situation. Perhaps ATCOs can confirm this separation monitor?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
The CAA can deal with any fuel planning issues after the event over a cosy chat with the pilot.
The CAA will check that the pilot loaded the legal minimum including suitable contingency (5% or similar). On the basis that no delay means a 20 minute hold, it could be reasonable for the CAA to expect a VFR joiner to have 20 minutes holding fuel however that would be a discussion point because the airspace is class D and no information is published in the AIP or NOTAM to suggest excessive delays to VFR flights are to be expected and ATC is not required to provide anything other than Traffic Information, FIS and Alerting to a VFR in that airspace.
Thus fuel for departure to destination plus contingency plus final reserve plus 20 minutes would more than satisfy the CAA on a VFR flight into Cumbernauld via the TMA. If it looks like the flight will land with less than the final reserve, a PAN is declared, that is why it is the "final" reserve.
Look at France - in general, their airspace from FL115 to FL195 is Class D (except bits of Paris TMA). It was possible some time ago to file VFR and obtain a clearance VFR at FL155. However for a while now, the airspace and controler loading has made it hard to accomodate much in the way of VFR flights at those levels. Do they leave it to the ATCO to decide if a VFR will get a clearance?
No! They publish a NOTAM warning all VFR flights that due to traffic density, VFR flights will not generally be accepted above FL115. Simple, easy, keeps everyone in the picture and they don't end up with flight plans for VFR flights at those levels.
However, being class D, one can ask enroute for a better level and one may even get it but one can not plan on it.
How about a NOTAM including the information you provided i.e. no VFRs during the peaks are 0700-0930 local and 1600-1900 local.
Then pilots can plan a suitable fuel load and choose IFR (get a slot) if their business requires an arrival within those time frames.
We know everyone works hard but why advertisse a service you can't or won't provide?
As for the often stated - Fly below the airspace. It is up to the pilot to decide the minimum height at which the aircraft is safe. The pilot will take into account terrain, obstacles (sometimes), wind and legal requirements. If a pilot decides that the minimum safe level for their flight is 6000ft then ATC can not require the flight to descend below that level unless the pilot is happy.
If there is Class A with a base of 5500 on that portion of the route then the pilot at the planning stage of a VFR flight will decide not to fly on safety grounds. However, if there is Class B,C,D airspace and nothing notified regarding not being allowed to fly in that airspace then the pilot can quite rightly expect a clearance through that airspace.
Regards,
DFC
The CAA can deal with any fuel planning issues after the event over a cosy chat with the pilot.
The CAA will check that the pilot loaded the legal minimum including suitable contingency (5% or similar). On the basis that no delay means a 20 minute hold, it could be reasonable for the CAA to expect a VFR joiner to have 20 minutes holding fuel however that would be a discussion point because the airspace is class D and no information is published in the AIP or NOTAM to suggest excessive delays to VFR flights are to be expected and ATC is not required to provide anything other than Traffic Information, FIS and Alerting to a VFR in that airspace.
Thus fuel for departure to destination plus contingency plus final reserve plus 20 minutes would more than satisfy the CAA on a VFR flight into Cumbernauld via the TMA. If it looks like the flight will land with less than the final reserve, a PAN is declared, that is why it is the "final" reserve.
Look at France - in general, their airspace from FL115 to FL195 is Class D (except bits of Paris TMA). It was possible some time ago to file VFR and obtain a clearance VFR at FL155. However for a while now, the airspace and controler loading has made it hard to accomodate much in the way of VFR flights at those levels. Do they leave it to the ATCO to decide if a VFR will get a clearance?
No! They publish a NOTAM warning all VFR flights that due to traffic density, VFR flights will not generally be accepted above FL115. Simple, easy, keeps everyone in the picture and they don't end up with flight plans for VFR flights at those levels.
However, being class D, one can ask enroute for a better level and one may even get it but one can not plan on it.
How about a NOTAM including the information you provided i.e. no VFRs during the peaks are 0700-0930 local and 1600-1900 local.
Then pilots can plan a suitable fuel load and choose IFR (get a slot) if their business requires an arrival within those time frames.
We know everyone works hard but why advertisse a service you can't or won't provide?
As for the often stated - Fly below the airspace. It is up to the pilot to decide the minimum height at which the aircraft is safe. The pilot will take into account terrain, obstacles (sometimes), wind and legal requirements. If a pilot decides that the minimum safe level for their flight is 6000ft then ATC can not require the flight to descend below that level unless the pilot is happy.
If there is Class A with a base of 5500 on that portion of the route then the pilot at the planning stage of a VFR flight will decide not to fly on safety grounds. However, if there is Class B,C,D airspace and nothing notified regarding not being allowed to fly in that airspace then the pilot can quite rightly expect a clearance through that airspace.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If i may pick up on an earlier point. What may seem like "NATS bashing" is just that and not ATCO bashing. There is a perception that you folks are kept very short on resource to do the job as you would like it to be done. Please don't think that you are not valued by those drivers that have a go at NATS. It is NATS they are criticising.
BTW threads like this one gives a great insight to drivers that just go from A to B all the time.
BTW threads like this one gives a great insight to drivers that just go from A to B all the time.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North West
Age: 43
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My God! I don't know how you poor souls cope up there in the frozen North. What with all that traffic and zillions of puddle jumpers to deal with as well.
If you want a nice restful break, come down to the sunny South and put your feet up!!!!!!
If you want a nice restful break, come down to the sunny South and put your feet up!!!!!!
