What do ATCs think of VFR

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by AlanM

Before you ask - it wasn't me!!

Wasn't me either Doesn't bother me (85 days to go.....you'll miss me) , I love VFR traffic, I am one very often. But what the Keeper of the Zone has to remember is the the number of traffic calls (ie. 'workload' ) is related to the number of VFR aircraft he lets in by x(x-1) where x = number of aircraft.......(eg 6 aircraft means theoretically 30 calls).....so he needs to keep an eye on how many he lets in............(nb. 'Duty of Care Beast' which bites HARD).

[Married a Canadian]

Ahh I miss Thames!!

I am with Talkdownman on this one...most controllers are not averse to VFR traffic and yes separation can be made easier when one is VFR.
However the problem is if the IFR guy is not happy with the separation...then we have to sort it out..and in a zone as small as the city one there was no where to go....
The two scenarios are the departures trying to look out for a wee helicopter on climbout...whilst following the SID and the climb gradient...whilst having their TCAS go off etc etc etc....or when inbound on 10 trying to spot the guy on the river whilst slamming the aircraft down on the wonderfully shallow glide slope at City.
So even though Mr VFR says he is happy to take his separation from that...Mr IFR can say he is not happy and then the workload really increases.

And that is where I think the Thames guys protect themselves..from the one time someone who is IFR says..thanks but no thanks.

THEN it will come down to categories of flight and which takes priority....and who you will affect if the IFR takes avoiding action (ie Heathrow approach). The snowball affect has greater implications than just some unlucky punter not getting to fly down the Thames.

As a last resort you can watch the credits of Eastenders on large screen whilst hanging from the ceiling.....Same view really!

[Scott Voigt]

I think that it might be better to differentiate between VFR and IFR... Nothing to do with commercial or GA. IFR in controlled airspace do take precident with ATC, VFR is on a workload permitting basis only...

regards

Scott

[Standard Noise]

OK, I'll admit that using the word 'commercial' was wrong. There, I said it, I'm not perfect. What annoyed me about chummy's first post was the way he admitted to engaging in unprofessional exchanges on the R/T but still expected to get exactly what he wanted. If his clearance through CAS (or a particular part of it) was refused on the grounds that the ATCOs (and therefore the airspace) were busy, then tying up the ATCO on the frequency with 'unprofessional' and therefore, presumably unnecessary exchanges on the R/T, he was only making it even more busy. If a pilot wants to hog the frequency with whinges whilst I or any other ATCO is busy, explain exactly why they should then be given clearance through CAS?
One of the conditions for Bristol to be given it's new airspace (thankfully later this month, at last) is that we make it accessible to ALL airspace users. Now while that is not much change in the status quo, it is a much larger area of CAS to deal with and the other users will not necessarily be asked to change their routings, rather that their traditional routings will now be in CAS.

That said, I work at a unit which is under contract to the airport it is based at, and that airports priority is to keep and improve service to it's commercial operators or rather, the airlines that carry the pax that pay the money etc etc. Now, while we do have training organisations on the airfield (one of which is well regarded and widely known in the industry), they are feeling the squeeze as our priority is to the airlines. You guys up in the big smoke and at MIL units might operate differently from that, but that ain't my problem.
The views I air on these forums are not the views of the organisation I work for, but are the views of many of my fellow ATCOs here at Bristol.

So if you feel annoyed by my posts, don't read them.

[London Mil]

SN, we all face similar pressures. At the unit where I work, we have the constant conundrum of whether to provide services to military aircraft (after all I am military) or the CAT that has chosen to go off-route (a good example is the NCL traffic which chooses to fly UL602 DCT as opposed to UY70 - UM150 - P18). The problem is that the CAA expect us to be equitable in the provision of service and we end-up working on the 'first come, first served' principle. Taking the "commercial has priority" to the extreme, you could find that Ryanair/Easyjet/BA etc would be trying to feed ATS units 'backhanders' for preferential treatment in the pattern.

Finally, I think there is a difference between defining airfield/airport utilisation/prioritisation protocols and managing airspace effectively. Bristol/Cardiff will be interesting.

[AlanM]

MaC - Thames misses you as well.

Sat here right now and MS/HBAH have just asked how you were!

[uncle ian]

Ouch!

Hello again,

First some facts then some opinions:

Facts:

I'm an ATPL/H with 35 years experience in rotary both military and civilian.

Sightseeing tours are no less commercial than scheduled services.....and are subject to the same degree of regulation by the CAA.

Passengers pay around £140 for the priviledge of seeing our Capital city from the best vantage point aqvailable.

The "discussion" with me about refusal to authorise entry for my colleage that day was instigated by the controller, not myself; incedentally I find "chummy" particularly patronising and offensive, Standard Noise".

and Opinions:

I honestly believe Heathrow Special and Thames are superb in the lenghts they go to to accomodate our needs. I personally fly hundreds of hours each year doing aerial camera work (including at T5), trips into and out of Battersea and, just once this year, sightseeing. I know I'm a pain in the a**e lots of the time and I do appreciate the efforts of AlanM and his colleagues. I have said so in Rotorheads in the past and I am not on a witch hunt.

I don't want to say which of the agencies I was working when this happened because this is not a witch hunt, I would have made a formal complaint had it been.

I have waited a month before raising the issue so that there was no heat left in it but, clearly, I didn't wait long enough.

My question, "What do ATC think of VFR" has been very clearly answered and I find the answers depressing and encouraging in equal measure.

I'm surprised at the volume and strength of the responses.

I agree with AlanM that some form of regulating the numbers of sightseeing tours on Sunday would be sensible but have no useful suggestions.

Incedentally, I'll be flying the camera for BBC'c coverage of the London Triathlon on Sunday (on a unique W and EW number). I know it'll cause problems for whoever's working City tower and radar as it did last year but please be kind and remember its not me that suffers if you're not but several million licence fee payers (of which, no doubt, you are one)

Uncle Ian

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

At the unit where I work, we have the constant conundrum of whether to provide services to military aircraft (after all I am military) or the CAT that has chosen to go off-route (a good example is the NCL traffic which chooses to fly UL602 DCT as opposed to UY70 - UM150 - P18).

Huh? Have you done away with your Priority List then? The one which clearly states which aircraft you work in order of Priority as laid down by HQ 3 Gp?

Bd

[AlanM]

Uncle Ian,

I and my colleagues have absolutely no problem with yr organisation (I just worked yr colleagues in the 2 ship and the one over the Gherkin)

The title of the thread is a bit misleading though - it is more a NSF question than a straight VFR issue.

You are not a pain in the ar$e and we know the job you do, the pressures involved and the need to get you in and out. It is almost impossible to regulate the flow so you are always told subject traffic.

It is sad that you are quite irate about this - come over to West Drayton and see the problems that are faced. Might even buy you a Latte....!

I am sure TDM will give you every help he can this weekend....!!

[Fidgell]

I wont get into some of the petty them and us arguments going on in here, but the long and short of it is that when sat in front of the radar Im paid to defend life and protect against loss of it... same as the pilots. If my colleagues or myself are concerned that worlkload is such that we cannot safely accomodate the needs of VFR traffic in regulated airspace then, sorry uncle but aint happening this time. Would you allow that extra couple of heavy passengers on your aircraft just because they paid even though it puts you dangerously overweight???? Money, attitudes, etc has NOTHING to do with it. I do not question a pilots actions on safety..... please do not question mine!

You say youre disheartened by attitudes and had an "unprofessional" exchange over the RT? Well, maybe this exchange may influence the controllers decision to accept your flight next time if its in the balance over if its safe for you to transit this busy section of airspace. God forbid the thames corridor becomes another grand canyon!

[Married a Canadian]

Uncle Ian.

I agree with Alan...more of a NSF issue than a VFR issue...although as I mentioned we can't regulate if an IFR aircraft won't accept the separation.

Suggestions...for all the pleasure flight operators...Well two obvious ones ....schedule more of the pleasure flights on a Sat afternoon and a Sunday morning when City airport is closed. I know that won't work all the time as customers may not be able to make those times...but at least you can then offer a guaranteed flight down the river. Any Thames guy that turned you down with city closed would be being more than a little unfair I think. Even with other pleasure aircraft in the zone we have the North south of the river...traffic information...and normally pilots who know the routes so although RT maybe high you are not in the way of city traffic.

Outside of those times maybe check the city departure/arrival schedule...and arrange pleasure flights when they are not at peak.

I suppose it then comes down to the CAA after that and whether or not they would raise the priority for a pleasure flight...given that they are indeed as you say carrying fare paying passengers.

The city zone I would go as far to say though is unique and the probably one that a safety regulator would not want to tamper with. Right underneath the Heathrow arrival/departure routes, City traffic inbound/outbound underneath...and the centre of the capital city with parliament and the palaces and the financial hub smack in the middle of it all.

If an incident ever did occur here then a controller/pilot sure would have to have their back covered. And the first cover we have on Thames is being able to limit the traffic...and to do that we use the list straight out of the MATS 1 with flight priorities.

This will happen again in the future (hopefully without any RT banter)...it is unavoidable in such a complex bit of airspace....but I would say 99% of the time on Thames from my time there it was never down a VFR issue. Always the saturation point of the frequency and the number of planes in and out of city. It will take lots of discussion with the regulator and the CAA to change the flight categories here.

Uncle Ian..hope you get good service in the future..sorry I am no longer there to throw my haphazard RT into the mix. Helicopters over here are less frequent and when they do come along are called all sorts of rude things that an ex Aberdeen guy like myself finds amusingly offensive!!

[London Mil]

BD, the priority list has changed and it does not differentiate between CAT and military. The list is based around airspace and in simple terms Upper Air and CAS taking priority (after emergencies etc).

I guess you hadn't heard that 3 Gp ceased to exist at 2359 hrs on 31 Mar 06.

[A Nonny Mouse]

Just a quick point for those who think that all we need to do to keep VFR appart from each other and from IFR is pass traffic info.
Unfortunately in these modern new fangled times with TCAS (especially since überlingen) this is no longer the case.

I have personally had to fill in several reports in situations where both aircraft had been passed traffic on each other - were visual (glorious CAVOK weather) and still the IFR aircraft "TCAS Descends" causing problems to all.

We can no longer get away with reduced separation (visually) or passing traffic both ways. We are being pushed down the route where we have to separate VFR from IFR aircraft regardless.

Very sad

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by London Mil

BD, the priority list has changed and it does not differentiate between CAT and military. The list is based around airspace and in simple terms Upper Air and CAS taking priority (after emergencies etc).

Hhhmm, thats not quite how it reads. Type of service etc. counts.

I guess you hadn't heard that 3 Gp ceased to exist at 2359 hrs on 31 Mar 06.

I was gonna say HQ MATO

BD

[London Mil]

Wll, if that's the case, I suppose I'll start giving an RCS in Class G

[chevvron]

Course if Heathrow and City Zones were the same airspace classification, wouldn't it partially solve the problems? Earlier on in the discussion it was implied that the change from class D to class A may have had an impact on the controller's actions.

[Married a Canadian]

Chevvron

They would either have to make the city zone class A or the Heathrow zone Class D and I don't see either happening.

The problem I think here for the controller was not so much airspace classification but aircraft type. Being a single engine helicopter the pilot was going to have to remain on the river (which is H4). If he had been a twin he could have come off route and remained out of the way of the city departures.

[FinalVectors]

Originally Posted by Jets R4 Kids

IFR does NOT have priority over VFR - our job is to shift the traffic;
Payment does not have - and hopefully never will have - anything to do with it;

Thats all very true. I allways try to give same service to VFR as IFR traffic.
It been written here..they dont pay. Well I look upon that different; maybe they dont pay my company so much..which I really dont care about as long as I get my salary....BUT they pay mostly from their own pocket the same way or probably even more that the passengers in the airliners..So in that aspect I think the maybe even deserve even better service

But ofcourse its not allways possible to give the same service since we have to give priority according to what the "bible" (4444) says... "Safe, ordely and efficient". And a slow mover kind of fk up that orderly and efficient part most of the time

But anyway..what I dont like..is collegues who as fast as they hear a VFR calling (even when they have little to do) tell him to "fk off". We are paid to give service to all aircrafts however they fly or whichever size

[Standard Noise]

Originally Posted by London Mil

The problem is that the CAA expect us to be equitable in the provision of service and we end-up working on the 'first come, first served' principle. Taking the "commercial has priority" to the extreme, you could find that Ryanair/Easyjet/BA etc would be trying to feed ATS units 'backhanders' for preferential treatment in the pattern.
Finally, I think there is a difference between defining airfield/airport utilisation/prioritisation protocols and managing airspace effectively. Bristol/Cardiff will be interesting.

Just to answer these points:-
1 - The CAA can expect what it wants, but there ain't anyone from the CAA who's going to tell me who I do or don't have to let through our CTZ. That decision is based on operational capacity. Being equitable is all very well, but it's not our main priority at an airfield.
2 - No airline has enough money to entice me into their 'pocket' and I think I can safely speak for my colleagues at Bristol when I say they feel the same. Much as some airlines might like your idea, not at Bristol I'm afraid.
3 - I wasn't thinking about 'airfield/airport utilisation/prioritisation protocols'. I was talking about managing our current (and future) airspace effectively. For a unit with such a small chunk of CAS, our LARS stats bear out that we let a hell of a lot of people transit it and that's not because of the NATS licence or some other bit of paper the CAA insist NATS follows, we've been doing that at Bristol for years and it won't change. However, as I said, we will give priority to commercial IFR traffic on the basis that that is what pays the money to our customer (BIA). I don't think that our new airspace will change what we do, although we will certainly be showing a large increase in CAS transits when the LARS stats are calculated. In some ways it will make our lives easier because we will be able to control the traffic and vector around it more easily, whereas before we could only request it to do certain things since most of it was remaining outside CAS anyway.

So, London Mil, here's a question (with no edge to it and asked in the spirit of friendship). When was the last time you visited a busy regional on a liason visit? Fancy it? If so drop me a PM and we can arrange something here at Briss. Then you can watch what we do, how we do it, and understand a little better why we do it the way we do.

Uncle Ian - patronising indeed? Well, I've been called a lot of things but that's a new one. I'm an Ulsterman, a bit loud at times maybe brash sometimes but I just happen to speak as I find and tell it as I see it, if that makes me sound patronising then you are entitled to that opinion, not that I am likely to change. But let me say this, we have sightseeing trips here at Briss, we also have an awful lot of other things (Bristol International Balloon Fiesta next weekend for example) and we always try to accomodate, however that doesn't mean that everyone gets what they want, fact of life I'm afraid. What won't do it for me is some bloke in a puddle jumper or egg whisk arguing the toss over CAS transit clearances, regardless of whether the noddys in the back are paying for the trip or not. Transit is based (certainly at Bristol) on one thing, operational capacity. Arguing or engaging in "unprofessional exchanges" on the R/T isn't going to make that change. You say you have been flying for 35 years. In that case sir, you should have known better than to let your mouth run away from you.

[London Mil]

Edited because I m rapidly losing the will to live.

SN, I suspect you and I are not going to contribute much more to this thread.