I/V A/D
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I/V A/D
I was confused yesterday by an exchange that maybe someone can help me avoid next time. You might need a Southern Scotland chart in front of you.
I was VFR F085 over the middle of Spadeadam, tracking towards TLA inbound to Cumbernauld. I was handed over to Scottish (124.5, I think) by Newcastle.
Scottish asked if I wished to proceed VFR or IFR and I nominated to continue V.
They then told me to report descending to avoid controlled airspace. I requested entry into the class D airspace VFR, which seemed to surprise the controller and put him out a bit. As I approached the edge of the 85+ bit of Class A I reported descending to F084 to remain outside.
Eventually I was handed over to another frequency, but still not given a clearance and, with about three miles to run, asked for a clearance to enter controlled airspace. I was cleared to enter in the descent to 6000' and to call Edinburgh Approach.
Can anyone explain what was happening at the ATC end? Why is there an assumption that if I fly VFR I have to fly below Class D airspace? Why as I was under RIS and rapidly approaching the zone boundary was not a clearance offered? Why, having been handed over to an Area sector for zone entry was I handed to Edinburgh as I entered CA? Why did this scenario (which I would have thought would be a regular event for VFR arrivals at Cumbernauld and both big airports) seem to surprise and discombobulate the 124.5 controller?
As ever, I want to understand, I am not criticising.
I was VFR F085 over the middle of Spadeadam, tracking towards TLA inbound to Cumbernauld. I was handed over to Scottish (124.5, I think) by Newcastle.
Scottish asked if I wished to proceed VFR or IFR and I nominated to continue V.
They then told me to report descending to avoid controlled airspace. I requested entry into the class D airspace VFR, which seemed to surprise the controller and put him out a bit. As I approached the edge of the 85+ bit of Class A I reported descending to F084 to remain outside.
Eventually I was handed over to another frequency, but still not given a clearance and, with about three miles to run, asked for a clearance to enter controlled airspace. I was cleared to enter in the descent to 6000' and to call Edinburgh Approach.
Can anyone explain what was happening at the ATC end? Why is there an assumption that if I fly VFR I have to fly below Class D airspace? Why as I was under RIS and rapidly approaching the zone boundary was not a clearance offered? Why, having been handed over to an Area sector for zone entry was I handed to Edinburgh as I entered CA? Why did this scenario (which I would have thought would be a regular event for VFR arrivals at Cumbernauld and both big airports) seem to surprise and discombobulate the 124.5 controller?
As ever, I want to understand, I am not criticising.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have said (I may be wrong) but area controllers are not so up to speed with VFR and Class D airspace, operating mostly outside CAS or in Class A? Most UK class D belongs to airfields.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't got the chart to hand, but hasn't Edinburgh just acquired some new Class D airspace instead of its old Class E.
Perhaps this change caused some confusion, previously VFR did not require a clearance to enter the E.
However, I didn't think the new class D was as high at F085.
AA.
Perhaps this change caused some confusion, previously VFR did not require a clearance to enter the E.
However, I didn't think the new class D was as high at F085.
AA.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The area immediately around Edinburgh is Class E, but the TMA above and around that is D, then there is A above and around that.
It's all a bit confusing and I can imagine if the ATCOs spend 99% of their time vectoring transport aircraft in controlled airspace they don't have to worry too much about the nature of the space.
But I still would have thought that they would be dealing with enough VFR traffic for this issue to come up.
Today I was vectored by Scottish through some Class A VFR. Of course that was fine, and Class A airspace is made of the same gasses as any other, the controller knew where I was and was, I imagine, creating IFR separation anyway, but it did again give the impression that airspace class is not at the forefront of their minds.
I am just seeking to understand. Prune Radar, this is your area; no comment?
It's all a bit confusing and I can imagine if the ATCOs spend 99% of their time vectoring transport aircraft in controlled airspace they don't have to worry too much about the nature of the space.
But I still would have thought that they would be dealing with enough VFR traffic for this issue to come up.
Today I was vectored by Scottish through some Class A VFR. Of course that was fine, and Class A airspace is made of the same gasses as any other, the controller knew where I was and was, I imagine, creating IFR separation anyway, but it did again give the impression that airspace class is not at the forefront of their minds.
I am just seeking to understand. Prune Radar, this is your area; no comment?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be a bit out of date here given that I stopped working at Edinburgh over a year ago and I'm not privy to airspace changes since then, but the issues are there...
All controlled airspace in the Scottish TMA above 6,000 ft belongs to Scottish Control, but in practice arriving IFR aircraft and IFR overflights which may conflict with them are transferred to Edinburgh or Glasgow Radar as appropriate when within 40 miles of PH/PF. For a start, the approach radar units can apply 3 mile lateral separation instead of 5 miles, and it's the approach radar units who have to sequence the arrivals onto final approach.
In general, VFR aircraft are not vectored or given a hard altitude assignment in the UK. That makes them an unknown quantity when mixing with IFR traffic. To have a sequence of inbound IFR traffic descending through a VFR at FL85 would be Hell on Earth when busy. That you'd have to get a clearance from Scottish but be transitting an area where the arriving traffic is controlled by Edinburgh would really makes things messy.
So, keep it simple. If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.
All controlled airspace in the Scottish TMA above 6,000 ft belongs to Scottish Control, but in practice arriving IFR aircraft and IFR overflights which may conflict with them are transferred to Edinburgh or Glasgow Radar as appropriate when within 40 miles of PH/PF. For a start, the approach radar units can apply 3 mile lateral separation instead of 5 miles, and it's the approach radar units who have to sequence the arrivals onto final approach.
In general, VFR aircraft are not vectored or given a hard altitude assignment in the UK. That makes them an unknown quantity when mixing with IFR traffic. To have a sequence of inbound IFR traffic descending through a VFR at FL85 would be Hell on Earth when busy. That you'd have to get a clearance from Scottish but be transitting an area where the arriving traffic is controlled by Edinburgh would really makes things messy.
So, keep it simple. If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.
1. Most small aircraft (probably not in this case though!
would not have to pay Nav charges anyway.
2. If the principle was as you describe (decided by DAP, not local ATS) - then the airspace would be Class A
3. Only the pilot can decide when and where the flight rules change. Having decided to change from IFR to VFR, ATC can not refuse this change. In Class D, there are no airspace reasons for not being VFR. Thus ATC having your attitude will only result in pilots joining IFR and then changing to VFR as soon as they cross the boundary.
4. The CAA would say that since Cumbernauld has no instrument approach published then being VFR from some distance out (MSA+) would be a sound operational procedure.
5. The minimum Safe Altitude enroute South of Edinburgh is about 5000ft allowing for terrain and windspeed. Thus with the airspace bases, the flight will have to either - enter at some stage or reduce the safety margins- Safety first at NATS? - stay the **** out of the way Answers that loud and clear.
Rant over!
On the original point, it must be remembered that under RIS/RAS/FIS in class G it remains the pilot's responsibility not to infringe regulated airspace.
Regards,
DFC
1. Most small aircraft (probably not in this case though!
would not have to pay Nav charges anyway.2. If the principle was as you describe (decided by DAP, not local ATS) - then the airspace would be Class A
3. Only the pilot can decide when and where the flight rules change. Having decided to change from IFR to VFR, ATC can not refuse this change. In Class D, there are no airspace reasons for not being VFR. Thus ATC having your attitude will only result in pilots joining IFR and then changing to VFR as soon as they cross the boundary.
4. The CAA would say that since Cumbernauld has no instrument approach published then being VFR from some distance out (MSA+) would be a sound operational procedure.
5. The minimum Safe Altitude enroute South of Edinburgh is about 5000ft allowing for terrain and windspeed. Thus with the airspace bases, the flight will have to either - enter at some stage or reduce the safety margins- Safety first at NATS? - stay the **** out of the way Answers that loud and clear.
Rant over!
On the original point, it must be remembered that under RIS/RAS/FIS in class G it remains the pilot's responsibility not to infringe regulated airspace.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC. The following are not in the same order as your charges.
1. I don't work for NATS.
2. You can fly at the base of controlled airspace VFR without a clearance, thus 5,500ft. until you reach Class E airspace (or at least it was Class E around Cumbernauld below 6,000 ft when I was there - not sure of airspace changes since). You don't need a clearence to enter Class E if VFR.
3. Minimum safe enroute altitudes are for aircraft flying on instruments. You wouldn't be flying VFR in IMC now, would you? The minimum VFR altitude is 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure because if flying VFR in the UK, you should be able to see any terrain in the way.
4. Of course you should go VFR into Cumbernauld. Easy-peasy to go through Class E at 2,000 ft without bothering anyone and by all means call EGPH App for a Flight Information Service so they can identify you. If you can't get into Caumbernauld VFR, then go IFR and get an approach to cloud break from Edinburgh.
5. My point was that at FL85 you're probably navigating on instruments and that such an altitude is about as inconvenient as can be for Scottish Control and Edinburgh Radar.
Counter-rant over.
1. I don't work for NATS.
2. You can fly at the base of controlled airspace VFR without a clearance, thus 5,500ft. until you reach Class E airspace (or at least it was Class E around Cumbernauld below 6,000 ft when I was there - not sure of airspace changes since). You don't need a clearence to enter Class E if VFR.
3. Minimum safe enroute altitudes are for aircraft flying on instruments. You wouldn't be flying VFR in IMC now, would you? The minimum VFR altitude is 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure because if flying VFR in the UK, you should be able to see any terrain in the way.
4. Of course you should go VFR into Cumbernauld. Easy-peasy to go through Class E at 2,000 ft without bothering anyone and by all means call EGPH App for a Flight Information Service so they can identify you. If you can't get into Caumbernauld VFR, then go IFR and get an approach to cloud break from Edinburgh.
5. My point was that at FL85 you're probably navigating on instruments and that such an altitude is about as inconvenient as can be for Scottish Control and Edinburgh Radar.
Counter-rant over.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmmm....
Wasn't expecting such a forceful rant, but then I have been away from PPRuNe for a while, I forgot what it was like.
If we have to turn the temperature up in the debate (and I wish we could have just stuck to information passing) the whole point about Class D airspace is that VFR is permitted and that controllers have a duty, yes a duty, to provide access to it to all classes of airspace users if traffic permits.
DAP has determined that the Scottish TMA is largely Class D. This is the same DAP who has determined that the London TMA should be Class A. Presumably DAP has a way of calculating this and has concluded that the Scottish TMA can support VFR operations. And I must say that the colleagues that you have left behind you are always very helpful in providing that access, so I guess and hope that your view is a minority one.
Furthermore, you like to quote legal definitions and talk about the 500' rule, but may I draw your attention to the fact that nowhere does VFR require sight of the surface. It is perfectly legal to fly VFR provided that you are separated vertically or laterally from cloud. Navigation may be on instruments or may be by dead reckoning, but it is my responsibility, not yours, unless you put me on a heading.
Finally, your point about paying route charges. I don't want to open old wounds but let me remind you that Eurocontrol, on behalf of NATS, charges me for operating on routes where no service is offered (at night outside controlled airspace.) If there was a fair system of charges being raised for services provided, then I would be perfectly happy to pay for services when I required them, but so long as I am charged in the absence of a service I feel quite comfortable in accepting a service in the absence of a charge.
I do hope that now someone will answer my original query in a helpful and informative way...or are those days past in this forum?
Wasn't expecting such a forceful rant, but then I have been away from PPRuNe for a while, I forgot what it was like.
If we have to turn the temperature up in the debate (and I wish we could have just stuck to information passing) the whole point about Class D airspace is that VFR is permitted and that controllers have a duty, yes a duty, to provide access to it to all classes of airspace users if traffic permits.
DAP has determined that the Scottish TMA is largely Class D. This is the same DAP who has determined that the London TMA should be Class A. Presumably DAP has a way of calculating this and has concluded that the Scottish TMA can support VFR operations. And I must say that the colleagues that you have left behind you are always very helpful in providing that access, so I guess and hope that your view is a minority one.
Furthermore, you like to quote legal definitions and talk about the 500' rule, but may I draw your attention to the fact that nowhere does VFR require sight of the surface. It is perfectly legal to fly VFR provided that you are separated vertically or laterally from cloud. Navigation may be on instruments or may be by dead reckoning, but it is my responsibility, not yours, unless you put me on a heading.
Finally, your point about paying route charges. I don't want to open old wounds but let me remind you that Eurocontrol, on behalf of NATS, charges me for operating on routes where no service is offered (at night outside controlled airspace.) If there was a fair system of charges being raised for services provided, then I would be perfectly happy to pay for services when I required them, but so long as I am charged in the absence of a service I feel quite comfortable in accepting a service in the absence of a charge.
I do hope that now someone will answer my original query in a helpful and informative way...or are those days past in this forum?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The urge to say "language, Timothy" is strong....
Rather than telling us what our duty is, how about you read what I actually said about the logistics of giving you a service? I was just as helpful as everyone else in the Scottish TMA when I worked there, but as you say yourself, Class D is open to VFRs WHEN TRAFFIC PERMITS. I, along with everyone else in PH and PF, bent over backwards to give a clearance to everyone who asked for one and it was only when requested by the tower controller (or having seen that he/she had too much traffic) that I occasionally held VFRs at the control zone boundary.
If you happen to be VFR at FL85, busy IFR traffic simply will not permit your presence. As I said, and you ignored, you need a clearance from Scottish even though the traffic in your way is under Edinburgh's control.
If you want a good service without overloading controllers and causing multiple phonecalls which distract from control duties, do what the majority do. Fly at or below the base of the TMA where the base is 5,500 ft then request a service from Edinburgh through the Class E.
You asked for an explanation and I gave you one.
Rather than telling us what our duty is, how about you read what I actually said about the logistics of giving you a service? I was just as helpful as everyone else in the Scottish TMA when I worked there, but as you say yourself, Class D is open to VFRs WHEN TRAFFIC PERMITS. I, along with everyone else in PH and PF, bent over backwards to give a clearance to everyone who asked for one and it was only when requested by the tower controller (or having seen that he/she had too much traffic) that I occasionally held VFRs at the control zone boundary.
If you happen to be VFR at FL85, busy IFR traffic simply will not permit your presence. As I said, and you ignored, you need a clearance from Scottish even though the traffic in your way is under Edinburgh's control.
If you want a good service without overloading controllers and causing multiple phonecalls which distract from control duties, do what the majority do. Fly at or below the base of the TMA where the base is 5,500 ft then request a service from Edinburgh through the Class E.
You asked for an explanation and I gave you one.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pay the damn route charges
stay the **** out of the way
The urge to say "language, Timothy" is strong....
OK matey, you stay in Canada and I'll stay out of this forum and we'll both be happy.
How sad that this forum has descended to this in the last year or so.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum safe enroute altitudes are for aircraft flying on instruments. You wouldn't be flying VFR in IMC now, would you? The minimum VFR altitude is 500 ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure because if flying VFR in the UK, you should be able to see any terrain in the way
No. The minimum legal distance from persons vessels vehicles or structures is 500ft. The lowest safe level to fly at is decided by the pilot in accordance with certain rules and guidance.
The legal minimum vertical separation from the mountains of Nepal on an IFR flight is 1000ft. (1000 above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is what the ANO says). But you will not get any operators that call that a safe level - try +2000ft and more again to allow for the wind.
Airspace is established for all airspace users - not just the select few you think should be there. If FL85 is a problem then why? - It is a valid VFR cruising level in the semi-circular system used in controlled airspace.
Ever wonder why VFR flights are cruising at FL+500 in controlled airspace and Class D does not require separation from IFR flights. Could it be to make VFR integration easier?
What airspace clas are you operating in Canada. Told any VFR guys to "stay the **** out of the way ". No. Bet you will never again either unless you retrun to the UK.
Look round you at US / Canada. See a slightly different attitude to aircraft operating VFR or GA IFR flights?
As I said earlier. Based on your expression, my action on being in the same situation would be to file IFR until inside the TMA and then change to VFR at top of descent into Cumbernauld.
Regards,
DFC
No. The minimum legal distance from persons vessels vehicles or structures is 500ft. The lowest safe level to fly at is decided by the pilot in accordance with certain rules and guidance.
The legal minimum vertical separation from the mountains of Nepal on an IFR flight is 1000ft. (1000 above everything within 5nm of the aircraft is what the ANO says). But you will not get any operators that call that a safe level - try +2000ft and more again to allow for the wind.
Airspace is established for all airspace users - not just the select few you think should be there. If FL85 is a problem then why? - It is a valid VFR cruising level in the semi-circular system used in controlled airspace.
Ever wonder why VFR flights are cruising at FL+500 in controlled airspace and Class D does not require separation from IFR flights. Could it be to make VFR integration easier?
What airspace clas are you operating in Canada. Told any VFR guys to "stay the **** out of the way ". No. Bet you will never again either unless you retrun to the UK.
Look round you at US / Canada. See a slightly different attitude to aircraft operating VFR or GA IFR flights?
As I said earlier. Based on your expression, my action on being in the same situation would be to file IFR until inside the TMA and then change to VFR at top of descent into Cumbernauld.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy and DFC, you both miss the point entirely. You wanted to know why Scottish took ages giving a clearance, and as I've explained twice now, it's because the emb*ggerence factor is appalling in that particular bit of airspace. The use of 500 ft altitudes is useless as a separation tool against IFR arrivals to Edinburgh and Glasgow because they are descending. Besides, do you really want to be 500 ft beneath a 757? The vortex wake could ruin your day.
In Canada, I work in Class C airspace. We assign hard altitudes and vector VFR traffic. Here as in the UK, I give the best service I can to all airspace users but that doesn't mean I have to like doing so if someone is exercising his "rights" without any consideration of the effect he's causing.
I already told you how to get the best service out of Edinburgh. Rather than banging on about your rights you might be better served trying a flight at the base level of the TMA, where said base level is 5,500 ft, with flight information from Scottish Information until 40 miles from EGPH at which point the latter will be happy to give you a RIS or a FIS. They will be happiest if you descend to 3,000 ft or below by 15 miles south of Edinburgh. If the active at EGPH is 06, 2,000 ft would be better still. If 24 is the active, 3,000 ft should be fine.
Now, if all you wanted was to make a dig at Scottish and/or Edinburgh for taking a while to get you a clearance, go right ahead. If you actually want to get a better service in the future and help ATC to help you, accept the above advice.
As an aside, no, we don't have to provide separation between IFR and VFR traffic in Class D, but we do generally strive to achieve more than the mere passing of traffic information. We have a moral obligation to prevent collisions as well as a legal one, and airline jockeys keep a keen eye on the TCAS display. If all they get is traffic information, they won't necessarily feel comfortable. Far better to provide a mile or two, or a thousand feet, for the sake of all involved.
In Canada, I work in Class C airspace. We assign hard altitudes and vector VFR traffic. Here as in the UK, I give the best service I can to all airspace users but that doesn't mean I have to like doing so if someone is exercising his "rights" without any consideration of the effect he's causing.
I already told you how to get the best service out of Edinburgh. Rather than banging on about your rights you might be better served trying a flight at the base level of the TMA, where said base level is 5,500 ft, with flight information from Scottish Information until 40 miles from EGPH at which point the latter will be happy to give you a RIS or a FIS. They will be happiest if you descend to 3,000 ft or below by 15 miles south of Edinburgh. If the active at EGPH is 06, 2,000 ft would be better still. If 24 is the active, 3,000 ft should be fine.
Now, if all you wanted was to make a dig at Scottish and/or Edinburgh for taking a while to get you a clearance, go right ahead. If you actually want to get a better service in the future and help ATC to help you, accept the above advice.
As an aside, no, we don't have to provide separation between IFR and VFR traffic in Class D, but we do generally strive to achieve more than the mere passing of traffic information. We have a moral obligation to prevent collisions as well as a legal one, and airline jockeys keep a keen eye on the TCAS display. If all they get is traffic information, they won't necessarily feel comfortable. Far better to provide a mile or two, or a thousand feet, for the sake of all involved.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what, if you had said something along the lines of:
I can explain why there was a hold up, it's because it's actually very hard to accommodate VFR traffic in the TMA. We always do our very best but it requires a lot of co-ordination. While we can accommodate you, it is a lot easier for us if you go beneath and, if there is no pressing reason to remain high, such as icing, turbulence, mountain wave or fuel shortage, I would suggest that it is easier for all of us if you could descend.
My response would be "fair enough, I will descend below the TMA in future unless circumstances dictate that it is more prudent to ask for a clearance."
But can you not see that by saying "pay the damn route charges" and "stay the **** out of the way" you are bound to get me saying "Hey! I have a right to be there without paying charges?
I can explain why there was a hold up, it's because it's actually very hard to accommodate VFR traffic in the TMA. We always do our very best but it requires a lot of co-ordination. While we can accommodate you, it is a lot easier for us if you go beneath and, if there is no pressing reason to remain high, such as icing, turbulence, mountain wave or fuel shortage, I would suggest that it is easier for all of us if you could descend.
My response would be "fair enough, I will descend below the TMA in future unless circumstances dictate that it is more prudent to ask for a clearance."
But can you not see that by saying "pay the damn route charges" and "stay the **** out of the way" you are bound to get me saying "Hey! I have a right to be there without paying charges?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Three steps from reality
Age: 52
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, if you're so damn sensitive that you can't take advice which is designed to help you, what'll you be like if you get an avoiding action turn from a grumpy controller?
ATCO with grumpy voice - "Avoiding action, turn right immediately heading 360."
Timothy - "Not until you say please."
ATCO with grumpy voice - "Avoiding action, turn right immediately heading 360."
Timothy - "Not until you say please."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lock n' Load,
Rather than banging on about your rights you might be better served trying a flight at the base level of the TMA, where said base level is 5,500 ft, with flight information from Scottish Information until 40 miles from EGPH
If that suggestion was Made to every other operator in the TMA their response will be the same as mine -
Although I know one operator who would say something along the lines of - "Yea that is a great idea as long as we don't get any more STMA flow restrictions.
That is where the UK system falls down - they have to cope with a European wide flow management system which excludes VFR flights because as everyone knows, VFR flights do not require ATC separation outside class C and thus have no need for ATC slots. If the TMA allows random VFR flights (Class D and no established VFR routes) then the ATS unit can expect VFR flights to call for random routings. The reason why they call up for clearances on routes at 90 degrees to the Busy IFR streams is the big chunk of Class A to the south blocking arrivals from that direction.
What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR. (Note - one does not need an IR or IMC to be IFR in UK class G!!
Regards,
DFC
Rather than banging on about your rights you might be better served trying a flight at the base level of the TMA, where said base level is 5,500 ft, with flight information from Scottish Information until 40 miles from EGPH
If that suggestion was Made to every other operator in the TMA their response will be the same as mine -
Although I know one operator who would say something along the lines of - "Yea that is a great idea as long as we don't get any more STMA flow restrictions.
That is where the UK system falls down - they have to cope with a European wide flow management system which excludes VFR flights because as everyone knows, VFR flights do not require ATC separation outside class C and thus have no need for ATC slots. If the TMA allows random VFR flights (Class D and no established VFR routes) then the ATS unit can expect VFR flights to call for random routings. The reason why they call up for clearances on routes at 90 degrees to the Busy IFR streams is the big chunk of Class A to the south blocking arrivals from that direction.
What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR. (Note - one does not need an IR or IMC to be IFR in UK class G!!
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
What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy,
Here is a possible but plausible explanation from a Scottish viewpoint.
TAY sector (124.5) would have had to coordinate your flight with the TLA sector( the adjacent TMA sector) because you were at FL85. For traffic reasons or route (your intended track passes close to the TWEED hold - and blocks 2 levels) it was not offered by TAY or declined by TLA. By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights and flights planned for the sector, particularly during peak demand. If you pitch up at a busy time, you can be just unlucky and not slotted into the teens of EGPH arrivals in some hours. The controllers involved unfortunately can't always explain their actions so I hope this may help your understanding of how it 'may ' have panned out on your recent flight.
Here is a possible but plausible explanation from a Scottish viewpoint.
TAY sector (124.5) would have had to coordinate your flight with the TLA sector( the adjacent TMA sector) because you were at FL85. For traffic reasons or route (your intended track passes close to the TWEED hold - and blocks 2 levels) it was not offered by TAY or declined by TLA. By staying VFR, priority will be given to IFR flights and flights planned for the sector, particularly during peak demand. If you pitch up at a busy time, you can be just unlucky and not slotted into the teens of EGPH arrivals in some hours. The controllers involved unfortunately can't always explain their actions so I hope this may help your understanding of how it 'may ' have panned out on your recent flight.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little late in to this debate but will add my tuppence worth nevertheless.
First comment I would make is that some of the ATCO posters need to read the blurb which accompanies this Forum. It's supposed to be a place where pilots can ask questions without fear and get answers in a professional manner. As ATCOs we are only guests on a professional pilots website, the main thrust of the site is aimed at, and catering for, pilots. Least we can do then is act courteously and show a professional approach to helping increase the understanding about ATC issues amongst our airborne colleagues.
Whilst now apparently Canada's gain and our loss, I wonder if Lock and Load actually ever knew what the S in NATS stood for ??
Telling customers (whether paying or not) to f**k off shows they really grasped that aspect of the job ... NOT !!
Starting from the top then, the first thing I'd want to know for clarification is when the request for continued flight in VFR took place. Was it a case of ATC asking as the aircraft approached the airspace boundary, or did Timothy make a positive clearance request at least 10 minutes flying time before the boundary ?? It would also be nice to know if Scottish were prenoted the aircraft from Newcastle or if it was just freecalled and then the CAS airspace issue having to be dealt with more or less straight away with no lead in time for any prior co-ordination to take place.
nats (the poster, not the organisation) offers the most likely scenario if everything was rushed and a bit last minute. Talla sector is one of the prime UK sectors where demand exceeds capacity, resulting in Regulation and holding on a consistent basis. There is a little spare capacity built in to the declared Target Sector Flow rate, but this is to allow for the controllers to handle emergency situations and the like. If the sector was operating to capacity when Timothy's flight took place, then any entry by a VFR aircraft which is over and above those which have 'slots' is likely to be declined, particularly if such traffic wishes to route through airspace where holding (and descents in the hold) are taking place. It is also likely that any adjacent sector which might try and co-ordinate such a flight will realise how busy it is and just keep the aircraft clear of the airspace, rather than being told (politely I am sure
) by the CAS sector to avoid their airspace.
The Scottish TMA is delegated to Edinburgh ATC in the airspace around TLA at and below 6000' (still belongs to Scottish as the controlling authority of course !!) and therefore the normal course of events would be for Tay sector (having ascertained entry above 6000' was not going to be forthcoming) to co-ordinate a clearance direct with Edinburgh for that airspace. Of course, the rub here is that if Talla sector is busy feeding traffic in to Edinburgh, then Edinburgh are also like to be busy and may take a little time to co-ordinate. The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area. Again, an important factor is the lead in time to the aircraft reaching the boundary. 10 minutes or more (as per the AIP) is going to give a much smoother process than if it is all co-ordinated with only a few minutes to run, the latter placing an increased workload on a ATCU already (potentially) working at capacity.
Now to some specifics:
Lock&Load
You are right in general, but there is actually nothing to stop ATC giving a hard altitude to a VFR aircraft since it must comply with ATC instructions to enter Class D. The pilot is the one who can then decide whether that clearance can be complied with or not. In which case the reply might be to remain clear 
As you know, an alternative is to give a 'not above' clearance. Both would work in the circumstances mentioned (provided the capacity to take an 'extra' aircraft existed). If there were a lot fo aircraft descending to min stack level, then the VFR traffic could be cleared 'not above 6000', alternatively give it a clearance at FL80 and treat it as a 'pseudo' IFR aircraft. Plenty ways to skin the cat safely.
No it wouldn't. Scottish would have to comply with the silent co-ordination (which includes transferring the traffic free of confliction) so they would either keep arrivals till they are out of the way, co-ordinate lower levels for one of the aircraft, or identify the VFR to Edinburgh and make arrivals subject to it.
Got to be the ATC Darwin Award winner this year. ATCOs have no influence on charging regimes, nor should they get involved in them. Did you tell military aircraft operating in your airspace to '***' off since they are not paying charges. And how about VIP flights and the like. No clearance for them since thay are not paying ... in fact, they can '***' off too. I suspect not. And how about VFR flights in to Edinburgh ?? Where does their navigation charge go then ??
DFC
Slots are not connected with separation. They provide none. They are concerned with regulating the traffic within a sector or aerodrome to a level which has been deemed to be capable of being safely managed. Perhaps the answer is for airspace which operates at capacity and permits VFR flights to also require the filing of flight plans by such traffic (include it in the AIP). And then get Brussels to issue them slots too - or maybe PPR would be another way to 'regulate' the flow ? In either case, I suspect any degradation of capacity which impacts the commercial operators would result in lots of political fallout !!
Presumably your flight plan will detail you will change flight rules at the boundary ?? If not, then you need to file a plan anyway and will be given a slot if they are in force
First comment I would make is that some of the ATCO posters need to read the blurb which accompanies this Forum. It's supposed to be a place where pilots can ask questions without fear and get answers in a professional manner. As ATCOs we are only guests on a professional pilots website, the main thrust of the site is aimed at, and catering for, pilots. Least we can do then is act courteously and show a professional approach to helping increase the understanding about ATC issues amongst our airborne colleagues.
Whilst now apparently Canada's gain and our loss, I wonder if Lock and Load actually ever knew what the S in NATS stood for ??
Telling customers (whether paying or not) to f**k off shows they really grasped that aspect of the job ... NOT !!Starting from the top then, the first thing I'd want to know for clarification is when the request for continued flight in VFR took place. Was it a case of ATC asking as the aircraft approached the airspace boundary, or did Timothy make a positive clearance request at least 10 minutes flying time before the boundary ?? It would also be nice to know if Scottish were prenoted the aircraft from Newcastle or if it was just freecalled and then the CAS airspace issue having to be dealt with more or less straight away with no lead in time for any prior co-ordination to take place.
nats (the poster, not the organisation) offers the most likely scenario if everything was rushed and a bit last minute. Talla sector is one of the prime UK sectors where demand exceeds capacity, resulting in Regulation and holding on a consistent basis. There is a little spare capacity built in to the declared Target Sector Flow rate, but this is to allow for the controllers to handle emergency situations and the like. If the sector was operating to capacity when Timothy's flight took place, then any entry by a VFR aircraft which is over and above those which have 'slots' is likely to be declined, particularly if such traffic wishes to route through airspace where holding (and descents in the hold) are taking place. It is also likely that any adjacent sector which might try and co-ordinate such a flight will realise how busy it is and just keep the aircraft clear of the airspace, rather than being told (politely I am sure
) by the CAS sector to avoid their airspace.The Scottish TMA is delegated to Edinburgh ATC in the airspace around TLA at and below 6000' (still belongs to Scottish as the controlling authority of course !!) and therefore the normal course of events would be for Tay sector (having ascertained entry above 6000' was not going to be forthcoming) to co-ordinate a clearance direct with Edinburgh for that airspace. Of course, the rub here is that if Talla sector is busy feeding traffic in to Edinburgh, then Edinburgh are also like to be busy and may take a little time to co-ordinate. The priority will be to ensure the safe and efficient flow of IFR traffic in that area. Again, an important factor is the lead in time to the aircraft reaching the boundary. 10 minutes or more (as per the AIP) is going to give a much smoother process than if it is all co-ordinated with only a few minutes to run, the latter placing an increased workload on a ATCU already (potentially) working at capacity.
Now to some specifics:
Lock&Load
In general, VFR aircraft are not vectored or given a hard altitude assignment in the UK. That makes them an unknown quantity when mixing with IFR traffic. To have a sequence of inbound IFR traffic descending through a VFR at FL85 would be Hell on Earth when busy.
As you know, an alternative is to give a 'not above' clearance. Both would work in the circumstances mentioned (provided the capacity to take an 'extra' aircraft existed). If there were a lot fo aircraft descending to min stack level, then the VFR traffic could be cleared 'not above 6000', alternatively give it a clearance at FL80 and treat it as a 'pseudo' IFR aircraft. Plenty ways to skin the cat safely.
That you'd have to get a clearance from Scottish but be transitting an area where the arriving traffic is controlled by Edinburgh would really makes things messy.
So, keep it simple. If you want the protection of controlled airspace and you're flying at FL85 (no doubt using GPS), pay the damn route charges and file IFR. If you don't want to, or can't file IFR, stay the **** out of the way of the people who are paying for a service.
DFC
That is where the UK system falls down - they have to cope with a European wide flow management system which excludes VFR flights because as everyone knows, VFR flights do not require ATC separation outside class C and thus have no need for ATC slots.
What I hope most pilots get from this is - always be IFR until the TMA boundary and only then go VFR. (Note - one does not need an IR or IMC to be IFR in UK class G!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I speak as a controller who has worked Class D for a good number of years. I have rarely had any problems arranging for a VFR to miss an IFR - not separated, just miss - and to avoid AIRPROXs by telling pilots about each other. Yes sometimes it's busy and it can be hard work but if the airspace can accommodate it I can fit in a few VFR flights.
The secret is not to consider FL85 to block two IFR levels but to apply the rules. Separate IFR flights and pass traffic on VFRs alongside clearances that put a bit of space between a VFR and IFR aircraft.
The problems usually arise when a pilot doesn't understand what airspace he's in or what service he gets there - not something that Timothy can be accused of! And, of course, with controllers who don't want to work with the rules.
My rant over - just to point out that not all controllers make life hard work!
The secret is not to consider FL85 to block two IFR levels but to apply the rules. Separate IFR flights and pass traffic on VFRs alongside clearances that put a bit of space between a VFR and IFR aircraft.
The problems usually arise when a pilot doesn't understand what airspace he's in or what service he gets there - not something that Timothy can be accused of! And, of course, with controllers who don't want to work with the rules.
My rant over - just to point out that not all controllers make life hard work!
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nats, 10W and Spitoon, thank you for restoring my confidence a bit.
For the record it was a handover from Newcastle, approximately in the middle of (but above) the Spadeadam range. I don't have the charts in front of me, but I was doing about 160kts and it was a goodly number of minutes before encountering CA, probably at least 10.
What prompted me to raise this was not so much the delay in granting a clearance, it was an apparent lack of awareness (as it turns out in both directions) of the controllers of the airspace they were operating.
I re-emphasise that I am not criticising, just musing.
But on the Northbound trip it seemed that the controller was, well, unaware that a VFR flight could enter the airspace and on the Southbound I was vectored/cleared through Class A VFR.
On the other hand, I am well aware that controllers are normally validated on relatively small bits of sky, so it would be arrogant of me to assume that they don't know everything that there is to know about that area.
Which is what confused me.
One final bit of emphasis. The controllers were as helpful as they could possibly be, as indeed always are the FISOs and the Edinburgh Zone guys, so I am absolutely not complaining.
For the record it was a handover from Newcastle, approximately in the middle of (but above
) the Spadeadam range. I don't have the charts in front of me, but I was doing about 160kts and it was a goodly number of minutes before encountering CA, probably at least 10.What prompted me to raise this was not so much the delay in granting a clearance, it was an apparent lack of awareness (as it turns out in both directions) of the controllers of the airspace they were operating.
I re-emphasise that I am not criticising, just musing.
But on the Northbound trip it seemed that the controller was, well, unaware that a VFR flight could enter the airspace and on the Southbound I was vectored/cleared through Class A VFR.
On the other hand, I am well aware that controllers are normally validated on relatively small bits of sky, so it would be arrogant of me to assume that they don't know everything that there is to know about that area.
Which is what confused me.
One final bit of emphasis. The controllers were as helpful as they could possibly be, as indeed always are the FISOs and the Edinburgh Zone guys, so I am absolutely not complaining.