ATC Workload?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC Workload?
I've just been doing my customary scan of the CAA Occurrencies booklet that comes with GASIL. I'm a bit disturbed with 200605680 (p11 2nd item).
This seems to be a complaint about a C172 wanting an approach in unexpectedly poor weather.
I got my PPL over 35 years ago, and immediately found that I needed an IMCR if one was to use the a/c to get about the country, and got this asap. By always being cautious about the weather, in my 1400hrs private flying since then, I have only 2 times found myself seeking ATC assistance due to unforecast WX.
Each time I got the impression that ATC were only too pleased to help.
The occasions were
1972. To Exeter in C172, forecast 3/8 SC base 1200', tops 1800'. Went at FL40, but getting nearer saw cloud below becoming OVC. Was informed WX was 900' OVC, well within IMCR limits. Immediately asked for, and obtained SRA.
1993. To Fairoaks, departed Filton in PA30 following telephoned WX enquiry giving 1000' base, good for visual circuit. When I checked in for RIS with Farnborough, asked if they could get Fairoaks weather, they came back with estimated 500'. I immediately requested PAR (no ILS then) into Farnborough, again immediately given, radar vectors thereafter.
In neither of these cases did I have the approach plate - but why would I have needed to look at it - OC(H) was way above published. My impression is that except for booked procedure training, ATC with radar would much rather vector arrivals in rather than clutter up the airspace with procedure approaches!
My concern is that fear of being reported may discourage pilots in unforecast WX from taking the safest option. We already have very many airports in the scheme to give free landing to genuine WX diversions to reduce the stress in such conditions.
Any comments from you ATC guys and gals? (In particular about that occurrence report)
Was my action in the above cases not absolutely right and proper?
MikeJ
This seems to be a complaint about a C172 wanting an approach in unexpectedly poor weather.
I got my PPL over 35 years ago, and immediately found that I needed an IMCR if one was to use the a/c to get about the country, and got this asap. By always being cautious about the weather, in my 1400hrs private flying since then, I have only 2 times found myself seeking ATC assistance due to unforecast WX.
Each time I got the impression that ATC were only too pleased to help.
The occasions were
1972. To Exeter in C172, forecast 3/8 SC base 1200', tops 1800'. Went at FL40, but getting nearer saw cloud below becoming OVC. Was informed WX was 900' OVC, well within IMCR limits. Immediately asked for, and obtained SRA.
1993. To Fairoaks, departed Filton in PA30 following telephoned WX enquiry giving 1000' base, good for visual circuit. When I checked in for RIS with Farnborough, asked if they could get Fairoaks weather, they came back with estimated 500'. I immediately requested PAR (no ILS then) into Farnborough, again immediately given, radar vectors thereafter.
In neither of these cases did I have the approach plate - but why would I have needed to look at it - OC(H) was way above published. My impression is that except for booked procedure training, ATC with radar would much rather vector arrivals in rather than clutter up the airspace with procedure approaches!
My concern is that fear of being reported may discourage pilots in unforecast WX from taking the safest option. We already have very many airports in the scheme to give free landing to genuine WX diversions to reduce the stress in such conditions.
Any comments from you ATC guys and gals? (In particular about that occurrence report)
Was my action in the above cases not absolutely right and proper?
MikeJ
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree wholeheartedly with Scott. It is not the prime responsibility of ATC to "rescue" ill-prepared pilots (although I've done it hundreds of times).
To head off on a long flight without carrying the approach plates for the destination strikes me as irresponsible, particularly so given a) the vagaries of out British weather and b) the inability of the Met organisations to provide accurate forecasts. Before anyone shouts me down... it's just after 0700z on 11th October in central southern England. For at least 4 hours, on and off, we have had thunderstorms and heavy rain... The BBC online weather forecasts says this morning will be "light showers". Metcheck says no rain until 0800z, then increasing amounts during the day. UK.weather.com does at least say "rain" all morning.
When I worked at a small UK airfield a Cessna 310 called at 7am one morning, completely out of the blue. We were fogged out (to his amazement) so he attempted an NDB let-down. I asked the local RAF radar unit to monitor the procedure and it horrified them so much they offered a diversion into their airfield, which the pilot accepted. They spoke with the pilot later and mentioned various obstacles in the vicinity, to which he had gotten close. The pilot's response was "I thought it was ATC's job to talk us round obstacles". I wonder if he's still alive?
To head off on a long flight without carrying the approach plates for the destination strikes me as irresponsible, particularly so given a) the vagaries of out British weather and b) the inability of the Met organisations to provide accurate forecasts. Before anyone shouts me down... it's just after 0700z on 11th October in central southern England. For at least 4 hours, on and off, we have had thunderstorms and heavy rain... The BBC online weather forecasts says this morning will be "light showers". Metcheck says no rain until 0800z, then increasing amounts during the day. UK.weather.com does at least say "rain" all morning.
When I worked at a small UK airfield a Cessna 310 called at 7am one morning, completely out of the blue. We were fogged out (to his amazement) so he attempted an NDB let-down. I asked the local RAF radar unit to monitor the procedure and it horrified them so much they offered a diversion into their airfield, which the pilot accepted. They spoke with the pilot later and mentioned various obstacles in the vicinity, to which he had gotten close. The pilot's response was "I thought it was ATC's job to talk us round obstacles". I wonder if he's still alive?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike J,
I can't comment on the occurrence report as I haven't read it yet.
As far as your actions,then I think you did the right thing.Often the weather in this part of the world(NE Scotland) can deteriorate much quicker than forecast.If a light aircraft pilot needs assistance in bad weather for an IFR approach,then I will always do my best to help.If they don't have the plate,then it's easy to give out the info.
I have seen too many light a/c crash,with people killed or seriously injured as a result of press-on-itis VFR in bad weather.That's when you can't help them,as they get below radar and even R/T cover.
As far as vectoring then yes we would rather do that,rather than a full procedure.If it's very quiet then sure,but that isn't the case much anymore,so it's easier to fit you with vectors.
I also have a PPL(lapsed),with Night rating.Only did 1/2 the IMC,but it's a real life saver.
I can't comment on the occurrence report as I haven't read it yet.
As far as your actions,then I think you did the right thing.Often the weather in this part of the world(NE Scotland) can deteriorate much quicker than forecast.If a light aircraft pilot needs assistance in bad weather for an IFR approach,then I will always do my best to help.If they don't have the plate,then it's easy to give out the info.
I have seen too many light a/c crash,with people killed or seriously injured as a result of press-on-itis VFR in bad weather.That's when you can't help them,as they get below radar and even R/T cover.
As far as vectoring then yes we would rather do that,rather than a full procedure.If it's very quiet then sure,but that isn't the case much anymore,so it's easier to fit you with vectors.
I also have a PPL(lapsed),with Night rating.Only did 1/2 the IMC,but it's a real life saver.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: North of Birmingham by a lot
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeJ.
Not seen the occurence report either, but if PPLs pre-flight correctly and obtain best available TAFs etc, then they have fulfilled their legal (and common sense) obligations. If on arrival the Wx is different then thats why we're here. When its busy then sure, it can be a pain in the A@#e for ATC, as one lost or stuck in IMC PPL is very workload intensive. But its a very important part of our job.
As for the worry of being reported, then if the PPL has fulfilled his obligations then he/she has nothing to fear from being reported. Reporting of these occurences can obviously be a positive thing as it may help to highlight the reasons behind the incident and allow others to learn from the, sometimes minor, oversights made by all.
However, PPLs who rely on the TV AM Wx forecast need shooting!!
Regards ADIS
Not seen the occurence report either, but if PPLs pre-flight correctly and obtain best available TAFs etc, then they have fulfilled their legal (and common sense) obligations. If on arrival the Wx is different then thats why we're here. When its busy then sure, it can be a pain in the A@#e for ATC, as one lost or stuck in IMC PPL is very workload intensive. But its a very important part of our job.
As for the worry of being reported, then if the PPL has fulfilled his obligations then he/she has nothing to fear from being reported. Reporting of these occurences can obviously be a positive thing as it may help to highlight the reasons behind the incident and allow others to learn from the, sometimes minor, oversights made by all.
However, PPLs who rely on the TV AM Wx forecast need shooting!!
Regards ADIS
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did PPL flying I often backed up the met office forecast,with a look at the TV.Usually BBC Scotland as they were pretty good.It was noticeable that you could often get 2 very different forecasts,but they came from the same source.I would take the worst case one.
My IMC flying instructor used to say that IMC rated pilots should practise on Flight Sim on the computer.It keeps you current at little cost and is very realistic.Also if you get it wrong,you live!
Real IMC conditions for an inexperienced pilot is very frightening,and dangerous.Look at JFK jnr
My IMC flying instructor used to say that IMC rated pilots should practise on Flight Sim on the computer.It keeps you current at little cost and is very realistic.Also if you get it wrong,you live!
Real IMC conditions for an inexperienced pilot is very frightening,and dangerous.Look at JFK jnr
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC workload
I think was on duty at the time, and if it's the incident I remember, I can probably give a bit of clarification.
The pilot in question informed us that he could accept an IFR approach, even though he did not have the appropriate plates, but as he'd only recently obtained the qualification he'd rather not. He would prefer to descend visually through a gap in the clouds he could see.
Fine, apart from the fact that that gap was over our holding fix, and directly on the climb-out for the runway in use at the time. There were several IFR departures, and numerous other bits of traffic and co-ordination, which as usual, all seemed to need doing simultaneously.
It was probably the fact that the pilot in question seemed completely oblivious to the fact that there were other aircraft around, affecting what he would like to do, and his persistant badgering as to when he could do it, which increased the workload, and led to the report being filed.
The other factors (poor planning, etc), only served to reinforce this.
The pilot in question informed us that he could accept an IFR approach, even though he did not have the appropriate plates, but as he'd only recently obtained the qualification he'd rather not. He would prefer to descend visually through a gap in the clouds he could see.
Fine, apart from the fact that that gap was over our holding fix, and directly on the climb-out for the runway in use at the time. There were several IFR departures, and numerous other bits of traffic and co-ordination, which as usual, all seemed to need doing simultaneously.
It was probably the fact that the pilot in question seemed completely oblivious to the fact that there were other aircraft around, affecting what he would like to do, and his persistant badgering as to when he could do it, which increased the workload, and led to the report being filed.
The other factors (poor planning, etc), only served to reinforce this.
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeJ - one of the first bits of advice I got when I started flying was, never let the aircraft get somewhere that your brain didn't get to five minutes earlier.
I applaud the fact that you immediately went for the IMC rating, the reason for doing it is correct - however if you run the slightest possibility of entering IMC then why not have the relevant info available? So no, your action was not correct.
I applaud the fact that you immediately went for the IMC rating, the reason for doing it is correct - however if you run the slightest possibility of entering IMC then why not have the relevant info available? So no, your action was not correct.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was called away just as the replies were coming in, sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks to all, particularly to Toadpool who gave me the info I was looking for, and the sensible comments by 'throw a dyce'.
Of course in 35 years of IMCR renewal tests, each requiring two different instr. approaches and a poor weather visual circuit, I have done every approach in the book, most many, many times. The last test was a few weeks ago. And also of course, I know that one should always have the plates, but asked that if for whatever red faced reason one hasn't, is it wrong to ask for SRA or vectors for ILS?
My query arose because the brief CAA occurrance report, starting "C172 caused increased workload to ATC.", led me to think that this might have arisen because ATC had to stir themselves to give an RSA or vectors for ILS, because the pilot couldn't do an own nav. approach for lack of plate(s).
I'm pleased to know from Toadpool that this was not the case, but arose because the pilot did not want to do a radar directed instrument approach, wishing to find his way visually in poor weather in their busy Class D zone.
I quoted the only two cases I had not had the plates, but in all the many others when I have had them, I have never once been expected to do an own nav procedure at an airport with approach radar, other than for booked renewal tests. For real, EVERY time vectors for ILS, SRA, or PAR (no longer available anywhere I go) have been given without query. Whether or not I had the plates is actually never known by ATC since I have always followed their directions accurately, as I also did on the two occasions I quoted when without the plates.
I had come to think that such service from ATC is entirely normal, and vectored approaches generally preferred by ATC rather than cluttering up the airspace whilst the a/c does a full 'own nav' procedure. This was confirmed by 'throw a dyce'.
Following the comments, I shall continue to ask, and doubtless receive, this service from ATC with approach radar, without guilt of feeling that I'm making unreasonable demands. (I'll have the plates just in case they don't, though)
MikeJ
Of course in 35 years of IMCR renewal tests, each requiring two different instr. approaches and a poor weather visual circuit, I have done every approach in the book, most many, many times. The last test was a few weeks ago. And also of course, I know that one should always have the plates, but asked that if for whatever red faced reason one hasn't, is it wrong to ask for SRA or vectors for ILS?
My query arose because the brief CAA occurrance report, starting "C172 caused increased workload to ATC.", led me to think that this might have arisen because ATC had to stir themselves to give an RSA or vectors for ILS, because the pilot couldn't do an own nav. approach for lack of plate(s).
I'm pleased to know from Toadpool that this was not the case, but arose because the pilot did not want to do a radar directed instrument approach, wishing to find his way visually in poor weather in their busy Class D zone.
I quoted the only two cases I had not had the plates, but in all the many others when I have had them, I have never once been expected to do an own nav procedure at an airport with approach radar, other than for booked renewal tests. For real, EVERY time vectors for ILS, SRA, or PAR (no longer available anywhere I go) have been given without query. Whether or not I had the plates is actually never known by ATC since I have always followed their directions accurately, as I also did on the two occasions I quoted when without the plates.
I had come to think that such service from ATC is entirely normal, and vectored approaches generally preferred by ATC rather than cluttering up the airspace whilst the a/c does a full 'own nav' procedure. This was confirmed by 'throw a dyce'.
Following the comments, I shall continue to ask, and doubtless receive, this service from ATC with approach radar, without guilt of feeling that I'm making unreasonable demands. (I'll have the plates just in case they don't, though)
MikeJ
