What do ATCs think of VFR
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: TUOP
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helpful and professional is the way I would describe most UK controllers. VFR or IFR.
I am still very curious, however, about the differences in culture/procedures/regulations that allows SOCAL approach/LA tower to thread so much VFR traffic through their class B without a problem, but gives rise to such a vitriolic exchange here.
Do they have different spacing requirements or just are just more comfortable accepting some risk?
I am still very curious, however, about the differences in culture/procedures/regulations that allows SOCAL approach/LA tower to thread so much VFR traffic through their class B without a problem, but gives rise to such a vitriolic exchange here.
Do they have different spacing requirements or just are just more comfortable accepting some risk?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying VFR through a zone (say, Class D airspace) and not expecting to increase the ATCO's workload by not requiring separation from IFR traffic is naive. We all know that ATC will keep a close eye on that VFR spot in the middle of its IFR traffic and will actually provide separation regardless. Whenever I fly VFR , I never expect some sort of "right of way" through controlled airspace. Whenever I request VFR transit, I make sure I have listened out enough to have the mental "big picture" and I usually end my request with "...traffic permitting" - OK, it's not standard R/T! Also, except when crossing controlled airspace (obviously under radar control), I usually ask for Flight Information Service only so as to limit the extra ATC worlkoad.
Visits to ATC units should be mandatory for CPL holders. It allows to appreciate what mixing VFR with IFR traffic means for a fairly busy radar unit.
However, those who say that the level of priority should be fee-based are wrong in flight safety terms. With an increasing number of commercial flights routing, at least partly, through uncontrolled Class G airspace (Coventry and Doncaster spring to mind), having uncommunicado VFR traffic mixing it up with the big jets/turboprops would be a bad idea. After all, if VFR traffic had to pay for any type of ATC service (even Flight Information Service), most light aircraft pilots would probably not bother to talk to any other station than their departure/destination airfield. Does anybody believe that flight safety would be enhanced?
Cheers
Visits to ATC units should be mandatory for CPL holders. It allows to appreciate what mixing VFR with IFR traffic means for a fairly busy radar unit.
However, those who say that the level of priority should be fee-based are wrong in flight safety terms. With an increasing number of commercial flights routing, at least partly, through uncontrolled Class G airspace (Coventry and Doncaster spring to mind), having uncommunicado VFR traffic mixing it up with the big jets/turboprops would be a bad idea. After all, if VFR traffic had to pay for any type of ATC service (even Flight Information Service), most light aircraft pilots would probably not bother to talk to any other station than their departure/destination airfield. Does anybody believe that flight safety would be enhanced?
Cheers
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gonzo
dunnarunna,
You'll hear those words in every single ATC ops room in the world, I'll wager. Don't take it too personally!
You'll hear those words in every single ATC ops room in the world, I'll wager. Don't take it too personally!
The sooner all CTR's (including Heathrow) become class C the better; then make MATZs class C also and give every civil airport with a notified iap a class C CTR of similar dimensions to a MATZ.
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
every civil airport with a notified iap
Some military a/d s don't get much traffic apart from training either; I just want to see a level playing field for everyone with an approved and notified iap.
Check your pms
Check your pms
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard Noise,
Thanks for the info. You will be glad to know that the next time I am down your way, we will be IFR. Even if it is CAVOK, we will be IFR.
Imagine if every IMC holder or IR holder flying a "puddle jumper" on a sunny Sunday morning transit of your airspace filed IFR for the transit portion of the flight? You might find that a) Your job just got a lot more difficult and b) you were responsible for an ever growing portion of the NATS delays or lack of capacity to use an alternative term.
As for airlines giving backhanders?..........I think it was called UKATTS.......when the standbys were full, only the usefull controllers got a ride i.e. StandardNoise would not get a jump seat unless we operated inot Bristol.
Low cost actually removed the ability of airlines to make a difference with the old ID90s.
and of course the new security situation removed the discretionary jump seat option.
Regards,
DFC
Thanks for the info. You will be glad to know that the next time I am down your way, we will be IFR. Even if it is CAVOK, we will be IFR.
Imagine if every IMC holder or IR holder flying a "puddle jumper" on a sunny Sunday morning transit of your airspace filed IFR for the transit portion of the flight? You might find that a) Your job just got a lot more difficult and b) you were responsible for an ever growing portion of the NATS delays or lack of capacity to use an alternative term.
As for airlines giving backhanders?..........I think it was called UKATTS.......when the standbys were full, only the usefull controllers got a ride i.e. StandardNoise would not get a jump seat unless we operated inot Bristol.
Low cost actually removed the ability of airlines to make a difference with the old ID90s.
and of course the new security situation removed the discretionary jump seat option.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
If you file IFR your priority does not improve. (well not for the airfields under the LTMA)
Therefore you are less likely to get a transit as you will of course need separating from the IFR traffic. Therefore, it is easier to refuse your transit for our zones. (the only way to do it would be for us stop stop LHR/LCY)
Guess what - we are working for (by contract) the airport authority at the airport who's zone we are the controlling authority. Guess what they want us to do!?! Go on file OCK-CHT at 2300ft and see what happens.........
Standard Noise must be wetting himself reading this (oh and we won't get a copy of a FPL if you file to go through the Heathrow zone either!)
If you file IFR your priority does not improve. (well not for the airfields under the LTMA)
Therefore you are less likely to get a transit as you will of course need separating from the IFR traffic. Therefore, it is easier to refuse your transit for our zones. (the only way to do it would be for us stop stop LHR/LCY)
Guess what - we are working for (by contract) the airport authority at the airport who's zone we are the controlling authority. Guess what they want us to do!?! Go on file OCK-CHT at 2300ft and see what happens.........
Standard Noise must be wetting himself reading this (oh and we won't get a copy of a FPL if you file to go through the Heathrow zone either!)
Last edited by AlanM; 6th Aug 2006 at 21:40.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sarajevo
Age: 42
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Opinion on VFR flights
Well my dear friend I will be honest with you concerning your problem with understanding ATC!!! You Said that VFR flights are not separated by ATCO, well you are not right!!! According to the airspace classification VFR flights are separated in class B airspace from IFR and from other VFR flights and in class C only from other VFR flights. In class A VFR is not even allowed to fly. In D class for example VFR must be provided with traffic information, so if I have one IFR and 5 VFR flights in CTR, imagine how many traffic information must I provide!!! And last but not the least VFR operations may be suspended by ATCO when deemed neccessary!!! No hard feelings, but that is life!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by chevvron
The sooner all CTR's (including Heathrow) become class C the better; then make MATZs class C also and give every civil airport with a notified iap a class C CTR of similar dimensions to a MATZ.
NS
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by T9-ATCO
VFR flights are separated in class B airspace from IFR and from other VFR flights and in class C only from other VFR flights
"IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights."
NS
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by AlanM
North South - you are in trouble now mate.... you missed Farnborough! 
NS
You also missed Biggin, Norwich and Exeter. Anyway I was talking tongue in cheek 'cos the military would love to make all MATZ regulated airspace.
By the way, the only people who call Farnborough an aerodrome are the local NIMBY's, hence the road signs, the correct title being of course 'TAG London/Farnborough/Samuel Cody/Frank Whittle AirPORT'!.
By the way, the only people who call Farnborough an aerodrome are the local NIMBY's, hence the road signs, the correct title being of course 'TAG London/Farnborough/Samuel Cody/Frank Whittle AirPORT'!.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by chevvron
the military would love to make all MATZ regulated airspace
NS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and finally
My job for the Beeb yesterday, the Triathlon, went without a hitch, thanks very much. I'm sure that had nothing to do with this thread; it was what normally happens.
AlanM, I'm not at all cross; I was astounded to be engaged in a conversation by an ATCO about another aircraft (albeit with my Company callsign) which confirmed what I and many colleagues have experienced over the years. That is that SOME, not all, ATCOs have a bias against VFR. My original question was, indeed, about VFR and not NSF and used that incident to illustrate my point. I could equally have quoted the differences in treatment of VFR between neighbours East Anglia and Luton........any guesses from you guys which we like and which we loath, or the dreadful disdain of many (NOT ALL) military controllers for us?
In your responses and your arguements among yourselves you could not have shown better that my question was justified.
I am delighted that most of you recognise that those responses typified by Standard Noise (pm me SN and I'll tell you what patronising means) need to be challenged.
Thank you for the offer to visit you at work, I'll try to take you up on it (although I don't drink Latte!). Believe it or not I think I have a very good idea of your workload, I try to keep a mental picture of traffic around me based on listening out and being advised by ATC. What you understand but some of your colleages fail to realise is that our job frequently involves more that simply getting from A to B so if we fail to respond first time every time its because some film director (or sight seeing customer) is blocking you out; or if we don't spot the traffic one mile away its because we are now pionting away from it.
None of us has an easy job and its good to know that most of us, on both sides of the great divide, do our best to make the other guy's life easier.
Uncle Ian
AlanM, I'm not at all cross; I was astounded to be engaged in a conversation by an ATCO about another aircraft (albeit with my Company callsign) which confirmed what I and many colleagues have experienced over the years. That is that SOME, not all, ATCOs have a bias against VFR. My original question was, indeed, about VFR and not NSF and used that incident to illustrate my point. I could equally have quoted the differences in treatment of VFR between neighbours East Anglia and Luton........any guesses from you guys which we like and which we loath, or the dreadful disdain of many (NOT ALL) military controllers for us?
In your responses and your arguements among yourselves you could not have shown better that my question was justified.
I am delighted that most of you recognise that those responses typified by Standard Noise (pm me SN and I'll tell you what patronising means) need to be challenged.
Thank you for the offer to visit you at work, I'll try to take you up on it (although I don't drink Latte!). Believe it or not I think I have a very good idea of your workload, I try to keep a mental picture of traffic around me based on listening out and being advised by ATC. What you understand but some of your colleages fail to realise is that our job frequently involves more that simply getting from A to B so if we fail to respond first time every time its because some film director (or sight seeing customer) is blocking you out; or if we don't spot the traffic one mile away its because we are now pionting away from it.
None of us has an easy job and its good to know that most of us, on both sides of the great divide, do our best to make the other guy's life easier.
Uncle Ian