What do ATCs think of VFR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: suffolk uk
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do ATCs think of VFR
Hello from across the great divide!
I have never visited this bit of pprune as a simple helicopter pilot but I want to know how the wind blows on your side.
Recently I was sharing sight seeing duties along the Thames (H4) with a colleague; me in a twin he in a single. Due [apparent] weight of traffic the single was held at Isle of Dogs for 10 minutes then told there was no prospect of routeing west for the foreseeable future. He was obliged, very reluctantly, to return to base with 4 pax who had probably been waiting for 6 months for one of the greatest experiences of their lives.
At the same time, as a twin, I was permitted to route to Vauxhall Bridge off H4 then fly back Eastbound along H4. There were some rather unprofessional exchanges between the controller myself and my colleague. I pointing out that my colleages disgruntlement was understandable. The controller made the following point which I find totally unacceptable and which I seek your comments upon;
"VFR traffic pays no ATC charges therefore has the lowest priority in controlled airspace".
I would make the following points: 1) we were flying on "special flight numbers" therefore had the lowest priority anyway so what's his point, 2) the only reason for controlled airspace is to prevent IFR traffic from bumping into one another, VFR, by definition, provides its own separation and needs no control hence should never pay for ATC services.
I should point out that we could have been under the control of Thames Radar, Heathrow Special, City Radar or City Tower at the time and I ain't saying which!
Any comments?
Uncle Ian
I have never visited this bit of pprune as a simple helicopter pilot but I want to know how the wind blows on your side.
Recently I was sharing sight seeing duties along the Thames (H4) with a colleague; me in a twin he in a single. Due [apparent] weight of traffic the single was held at Isle of Dogs for 10 minutes then told there was no prospect of routeing west for the foreseeable future. He was obliged, very reluctantly, to return to base with 4 pax who had probably been waiting for 6 months for one of the greatest experiences of their lives.
At the same time, as a twin, I was permitted to route to Vauxhall Bridge off H4 then fly back Eastbound along H4. There were some rather unprofessional exchanges between the controller myself and my colleague. I pointing out that my colleages disgruntlement was understandable. The controller made the following point which I find totally unacceptable and which I seek your comments upon;
"VFR traffic pays no ATC charges therefore has the lowest priority in controlled airspace".
I would make the following points: 1) we were flying on "special flight numbers" therefore had the lowest priority anyway so what's his point, 2) the only reason for controlled airspace is to prevent IFR traffic from bumping into one another, VFR, by definition, provides its own separation and needs no control hence should never pay for ATC services.
I should point out that we could have been under the control of Thames Radar, Heathrow Special, City Radar or City Tower at the time and I ain't saying which!
Any comments?
Uncle Ian
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the ATCO (or airpace) was busy, it may not have been possible for all of you to transit at that time, it's hard to tell without knowing the full facts. So if you've come on here to ask us to condemn our fellow ATCO, you'll be leaving empty handed my friend.
Your query seemed reasonable up until you admitted to "some rather unprofessional exchanges between the controller, myself and my colleague." This is the point at which I was no longer interested in your question. Since you have admitted to being unprofessional on the R/T, I can only conclude that you don't care for the rules as long as they apply to anyone but you.
P.S. The ATCO in question may have made an error of judgement getting involved in a spat with you on the R/T, but he was right in what he said. We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.
Your query seemed reasonable up until you admitted to "some rather unprofessional exchanges between the controller, myself and my colleague." This is the point at which I was no longer interested in your question. Since you have admitted to being unprofessional on the R/T, I can only conclude that you don't care for the rules as long as they apply to anyone but you.
P.S. The ATCO in question may have made an error of judgement getting involved in a spat with you on the R/T, but he was right in what he said. We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Standard Noise, I too listened to your reasonable argument right until I read your last two sentences. You are not paid to differentiate between commercial and 'private' traffic. You are paid to manage the airspace in the most safe and efficient manner; nothing more. Every aircraft has the right to transit airspace as long as the previous criteria can be met. I believe this is called service provision and the principles of access are entombed in a plethora of legal documents including the NATS License. It is attitudes like the one you portray that undermine the credibility of controllers across aviation.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South East
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right".
Is that correct, so private pilots are not entitled to a service, even though they may be subject to route charges and contribute to airfield movements at NATS airfields thus helping pay our wages? So an aircraft wanting to transit class D airspace is not to do so unless they pay. Fair enough if it was too busy to transit class A but you cannot deny non commercial traffic a service surley regardless of airspace classification and based on the fact it is a non commercial movement!
Is that correct, so private pilots are not entitled to a service, even though they may be subject to route charges and contribute to airfield movements at NATS airfields thus helping pay our wages? So an aircraft wanting to transit class D airspace is not to do so unless they pay. Fair enough if it was too busy to transit class A but you cannot deny non commercial traffic a service surley regardless of airspace classification and based on the fact it is a non commercial movement!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controller was 100% correct. (Between you and me, sight-seeing flights are a menace!)
Seriously.. if you were planning to remain in the City Zone, which is Class D Airspace, then whilst you would have been responsible for your own separation from other VFR flights ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights. This is usually achieved by passing traffic information. ATC instructions to VFR traffic in Class D airspace are mandatory so you're a) not operating all on your lonesome and b) someone is probably working very hard to provide you with a service for which you pay nothing.
Try spending a couple of hours at Thames Radar on a busy day......
Seriously.. if you were planning to remain in the City Zone, which is Class D Airspace, then whilst you would have been responsible for your own separation from other VFR flights ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights. This is usually achieved by passing traffic information. ATC instructions to VFR traffic in Class D airspace are mandatory so you're a) not operating all on your lonesome and b) someone is probably working very hard to provide you with a service for which you pay nothing.
Try spending a couple of hours at Thames Radar on a busy day......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some people are getting their knickers in a twist. The flow of traffic in Civil ATC is based, among other things, on priorities. Eg scheduled flights have priority over non-scheduled. Usually ATC pays little heed to these priorities and deals with flights on a first come-first served basis. If they applied the rules to the letter no non-scheduled flight would get near London during the day! If it's busy - for any reason - then ATC is fully within its rights to refuse clearance and the holding of "special flight numbers" means nothing unless the authority states a category. (Incidentally, Special Flights are NOT always the lowest priority. Often they're of a very high priority indeed).
Guest
Posts: n/a
HD talks about pragmatism and he is entirely correct. This is far removed from SN's original statement. From the Transport Act 2000:
Section 66 allows the Secretary of State to give the CAA duties and powers in connection with air navigation- essentially those functions currently carried out by the Director of Airspace Policy and which are to be transferred to the CAA. Directions will require the CAA among other things to develop and implement a policy for the use of airspace which meets, so far as practicable, the needs of all users; to promote and facilitate the continued operation of an integrated air traffic service provision; to establish a consultative forum inter alia for the reconciliation of civil and military interests in airspace use; and to meet relevant objectives, for example in relation to the environment.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should point out that we could have been under the control of Thames Radar, Heathrow Special, City Radar or City Tower at the time and I ain't saying which!
"We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right".
["Between you and me, sight-seeing flights are a menace!"
StandupfortheUlstermen
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Peoples' Democratic Republic of Wurzelsetshire
Age: 53
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"so far as is practicable"
And if in this case it was not "practicable" to allow chummy transit due to volume of traffic, then the ATCO made THE RIGHT DECISION!
Blimey, knew we'd get there in the end.
And if in this case it was not "practicable" to allow chummy transit due to volume of traffic, then the ATCO made THE RIGHT DECISION!
Blimey, knew we'd get there in the end.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Standard Noise
P.S. The ATCO in question may have made an error of judgement getting involved in a spat with you on the R/T, but he was right in what he said. We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.
The applicable one here I believe is;
NORMAL FLIGHTS- Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.
Did the heli's file a flight plan (abreviated?). Is operating on the heli lanes a normal route?
I agree that operating special VFR is not a right and is given by ATC on the basis of traffic. However, would you prefer people to file IFR and operate within the IFR requirements for below 3000ft clear of cloud in sight of the surface? Imagine what that would do to your flexibility given that the flights would then get slot times from Eurocontrol and you would be required not to delay them further enroute without affecting your declared capacity with the flow people!
Controllers with your attitude make me wonder why I never bill ATC for all those practice PARS, SRAs, QGHs and other assorted exercises over the years. Not to mention the unnecessary delays when you simply forget about us or make a mistake!
Only allow paying customers into airspace is a great idea. Please provide the method you obtain the information that the payment has been made. Many large commercial operators owe Eurocontrol £10000's in user fees.
--------------
Good afternoon XYX radar GABCD request zone transit, I had corn flakes for breakfast and I am a CPL holder licence number 123456 valid until 12/12/12 class rating valid until 11/11/11, instrument rating valid until 11/11/11 the aircraft C of A is valid until 10/10/10 and this flight is operating on a commercial basis and the CAA have approved the operation with the reference number 1234567890.
GABCD, XYZ radar good afternoon. Remain outside controlled airspace while we validate your information with the CAA. Please have your VISA or MASTER Card number ready. The clearance your requested will cost £......break break BCA123 turn right heading 230 to establish report established. Localiser only approach today costing £123.
--------
To answer the origional question.....not very much....based on my experience of;
Flight from A to B transiting controlled airspace class D (same aircraft and pilot in all cases).
First IFR using callsign like ABC123............best possible service, could not be more helpful.
Second IFR using callsign G-ABCD.............pretty good service.Bit of doubt initially but no problem.
Third, VFR same pilot, same aircraft, same route, same level..............crap service, did not want to know.
Answer - we always file IFR regardless of the weather and the ATC unit looses the flexibility that goes with handling a VFR transit.
Don't file VFR in the UK unless you have to. Which is the opposite of the rest of Europe!
Regards,
DFC
Last edited by DFC; 3rd Aug 2006 at 13:56.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before you ask - it wasn't me!! BUT - I was working that day and heard the exchanges. (and if you are who I think you are, I spoke to yr ops after it happened as I was passing the desk)
From a purely personal point of view, the number of transits on the river has to be regulated. We have seen 9 or 10 at a time on the river between the IOD and Vauxhall Bridge all flying on the river at the same height and I lose count at the number of times I have to repeat myself because the pilot is not listening - couple that with the IFR traffic in and out of LCY, and it sometimes gets too busy to give the appropriate amount of traffic information. We now get operators with helicopters from Elstree/Biggin/Stapleford/Manston/Southend/Redhill and Booker to name a few. Often they phone up to activate the NSF and declare 8 - 10 trips. They are always told "subject traffic" which is just that. Some airfields send helicopters and fixed wing, some classic aircraft too.
A twin helicopter has the advantage of coming off the river in EGR 160 south of the river (used to be the Specified Area) and at least deconflicting with the IFR outbound (one or more have had a TCAS Descent on departure towards Canary Wharf).
Yes, it is sad that your pax missed out. Maybe there was one of the 2 medevac or 3 police helicopters in the way (or Battersea traffic). We almost always have survey flights in the London area too. We will always try to get you in but you are Cat Z.
So - London Mil, it is not always practicable to have traffic in the airspace when they want to. Every ATCO on the sector has differing ideas on how they handle such traffic, but I can assure you that when able ALL 20 people on the sector do as much as they can.
Uncle Ian, I do not understand why you won't say what sector was working you - I think it was LCY radar but it is irrelevant really. PM me if you want any more information.
BUT - I was working that day and heard the exchanges. (and if you are who I think you are, I spoke to yr ops after it happened as I was passing the desk)From a purely personal point of view, the number of transits on the river has to be regulated. We have seen 9 or 10 at a time on the river between the IOD and Vauxhall Bridge all flying on the river at the same height and I lose count at the number of times I have to repeat myself because the pilot is not listening - couple that with the IFR traffic in and out of LCY, and it sometimes gets too busy to give the appropriate amount of traffic information. We now get operators with helicopters from Elstree/Biggin/Stapleford/Manston/Southend/Redhill and Booker to name a few. Often they phone up to activate the NSF and declare 8 - 10 trips. They are always told "subject traffic" which is just that. Some airfields send helicopters and fixed wing, some classic aircraft too.
A twin helicopter has the advantage of coming off the river in EGR 160 south of the river (used to be the Specified Area) and at least deconflicting with the IFR outbound (one or more have had a TCAS Descent on departure towards Canary Wharf).
Yes, it is sad that your pax missed out. Maybe there was one of the 2 medevac or 3 police helicopters in the way (or Battersea traffic). We almost always have survey flights in the London area too. We will always try to get you in but you are Cat Z.
So - London Mil, it is not always practicable to have traffic in the airspace when they want to. Every ATCO on the sector has differing ideas on how they handle such traffic, but I can assure you that when able ALL 20 people on the sector do as much as they can.
Uncle Ian, I do not understand why you won't say what sector was working you - I think it was LCY radar but it is irrelevant really. PM me if you want any more information.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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;
BUT, it's often easier to fit IFR in, as they will fly a heading or level, regardless of WX (except for CB's etc);
Don't know the airspace, don't know the traffic situation - therefore can't comment;
A 'phone call afterwards is a better way of finding out 'Why ??' than an R/T discussion - both sides have usually calmed down a bit !
Payment does not have - and hopefully never will have - anything to do with it;
BUT, it's often easier to fit IFR in, as they will fly a heading or level, regardless of WX (except for CB's etc);
Don't know the airspace, don't know the traffic situation - therefore can't comment;
A 'phone call afterwards is a better way of finding out 'Why ??' than an R/T discussion - both sides have usually calmed down a bit !
Originally Posted by HEATHROW DIRECTOR
The flow of traffic in Civil ATC is based, among other things, on priorities. Eg scheduled flights have priority over non-scheduled.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncle Ian, your comment about VFR not needing any control is sadly way off the mark. You would be surprised how much extra work VFR traffic creates on a sector.
Personally, I think that a NSF is a waste of time: People off other airfields south of Heathrow route H7-H4 rarely phone up to activate or quote an NSF. Maybe we should give all of the helicopters wanting to be on H4 at the same time a slot time +/-5 minutes......
Personally, I think that a NSF is a waste of time: People off other airfields south of Heathrow route H7-H4 rarely phone up to activate or quote an NSF. Maybe we should give all of the helicopters wanting to be on H4 at the same time a slot time +/-5 minutes......
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Sheds... You're probably right in questioning that and I was possibly wrong depending on one's interpretation of the rules. The old MATS2 for Heathrow prioritised traffic in the way I mentioned but that was a local arrangement and may not apply in this case. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused.
Guest
Posts: n/a
AlanM and SN, my vociferous response was to the following:
That statement is fundamentally flawed and implies that a controller is prioritising with a set of criteria outside those which are mandated. Of course, if there is a busy flow of airliners queued 2.5nm behind each other then it will be very difficult/impossible to accomodate a SVFR transit. However, that is wholly different form a controller adopting an attitude of "Well it's only a PPL who hasn't paid for the service so I will not even entertain the idea of affording him passage".
SN, I presume that in the light of day you would retract your original statement? For once, I agree with DFC.
We are paid to ensure the safe, orderly and efficient flow of commercial air traffic who pay for the service. Any services provided to private flyers are a privilige, not a right.
SN, I presume that in the light of day you would retract your original statement? For once, I agree with DFC.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Mil
I was sat near the guy that had the altercation (the words quoted above weren't the ones I was told of) and I don't know exactly what they both said but it was perhaps not as one sided as we would think (the alleged phrase by the ATCO was not delivered out of the blue).
If the chap involved was that bothered, he should have filed a report and then the tapes would have been pulled. However, irrespective of what was/wasn't said and whether it was "out of order" or not, I believe it was too busy to get the aircraft in on it's requested routeing. (If this is the instance I saw it did get in to CAS, just not the exact "pleasure flight" route they wanted)
So to take this forward, we are not talking VFR transits who normally get across the zones, but a pleasure flight going backwards and forwards on the river. I am not saying you should be penalised, but it is harder to do from our perspective than a simple zone transit. It was not the only helicopter (or the only one from your company as you admit) operating at the time.
To give you an example, if you were to route from a Random airfield called Stapleford, in a single (callsign Beta 22 an EC120) and wanted to go to Vauxhall Bridge you need to be given to the tower to get you south of the field to get to the IOD. They then need to separate you from IFR stuff and possibly hold you at the IOD. They then get a gap (you are going against the inbound track on 10) and at the same time radar are trying to get the other 5 east bound. Then when you turn at Vauxhall Bridge, we need to do the same again - so more phone calls and co-ordination, gaps needed etc etc. All of this takes time both on the phone and the RT and can be unworkable if there are IFR jets needing separating/co-ordination.
I was sat near the guy that had the altercation (the words quoted above weren't the ones I was told of) and I don't know exactly what they both said but it was perhaps not as one sided as we would think (the alleged phrase by the ATCO was not delivered out of the blue).
If the chap involved was that bothered, he should have filed a report and then the tapes would have been pulled. However, irrespective of what was/wasn't said and whether it was "out of order" or not, I believe it was too busy to get the aircraft in on it's requested routeing. (If this is the instance I saw it did get in to CAS, just not the exact "pleasure flight" route they wanted)
So to take this forward, we are not talking VFR transits who normally get across the zones, but a pleasure flight going backwards and forwards on the river. I am not saying you should be penalised, but it is harder to do from our perspective than a simple zone transit. It was not the only helicopter (or the only one from your company as you admit) operating at the time.
To give you an example, if you were to route from a Random airfield called Stapleford, in a single (callsign Beta 22 an EC120) and wanted to go to Vauxhall Bridge you need to be given to the tower to get you south of the field to get to the IOD. They then need to separate you from IFR stuff and possibly hold you at the IOD. They then get a gap (you are going against the inbound track on 10) and at the same time radar are trying to get the other 5 east bound. Then when you turn at Vauxhall Bridge, we need to do the same again - so more phone calls and co-ordination, gaps needed etc etc. All of this takes time both on the phone and the RT and can be unworkable if there are IFR jets needing separating/co-ordination.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aln, I fully understand your explaination. What I don't understand is a biased, throw-away comment from SN. I happen to be a professional controller of 20+ years service, albeit in the military, and comments like that really irritate me. We are here to provide a service. We should not differentiate between our customers.