London SVFR - all OK?
Thread Starter
And really finally....
Beady:
Afraid you're wrong there. I think you'll find that monitoring a nuclear facility requires some "specialised training".
Thanks - but I wasn't about to lobby. I am simply stating facts - there is a move by NATS to reclassify the Class A downwards.
And there we go. Different planets. Out here, in the real world, the MoD is paid for by the taxpayer. Everything the MoD buys has its roots in the taxpayers' pockets.
Those other industries don't have staff who require very specialised training and who must remain current and who have mandated breaks and rest days.
Why would NATS have any interest in lobbying DAP to change the airspace? If it disadvantages you then crack on with lobbying for change yourself.
However this isn't money supplied by the taxpayer to run a service, the MoD are purchasing something they need and which they could supply for themselves but its cheaper to buy it from NATS.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there we go. Different planets. Out here, in the real world, the MoD is paid for by the taxpayer. Everything the MoD buys has its roots in the taxpayers' pockets.
BD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything the MoD buys has its roots in the taxpayers' pockets.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: land of make believe
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great argument developing here gents. If it gets any more convoluted it's in danger of disappearing up its own bottom.
However, I suggest the arguments about NATS' responsibilities to the SVFR community and how this may or not fit into the brave new era of part-privatisation are irrelevant.
CAP493 (MATS Pt 1 to you and I) - CAA SRG document and therefore not the doctrine of NATS regardless of how it is funded, states (Section 1, Chapter 2, Page 5, Paragraph 8.1, line 4, and commencing 9 words from the left-hand side):
"Special VFR flights are not to hinder normal IFR flights"
So, if available human resources cannot support the full Thames Radar/SVFR manpower requirement (for whatever reason - and I suggest unusual levels of sickness is a perfectly valid reason), then SVFR will be the one to go - not because of who is paying for the service - but because the CAA says so.
However, I suggest the arguments about NATS' responsibilities to the SVFR community and how this may or not fit into the brave new era of part-privatisation are irrelevant.
CAP493 (MATS Pt 1 to you and I) - CAA SRG document and therefore not the doctrine of NATS regardless of how it is funded, states (Section 1, Chapter 2, Page 5, Paragraph 8.1, line 4, and commencing 9 words from the left-hand side):
"Special VFR flights are not to hinder normal IFR flights"
So, if available human resources cannot support the full Thames Radar/SVFR manpower requirement (for whatever reason - and I suggest unusual levels of sickness is a perfectly valid reason), then SVFR will be the one to go - not because of who is paying for the service - but because the CAA says so.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if available human resources cannot support the full Thames Radar/SVFR manpower requirement (for whatever reason - and I suggest unusual levels of sickness is a perfectly valid reason), then SVFR will be the one to go - not because of who is paying for the service - but because the CAA says so.
Must remember the old SVFR shall not hinder IFR..........R22 ahead as we approach the Bagshott.........we are faster and thus by asking for IFR, the R22 has to get out of our way. Love it.
The thing that is overlooked when saying Thames is contracted to etc etc. Heathrow Approach ATC is required to provide the service in the CTR. SVFR is simply a split in the sector.........just like final etc. The dedicated frequency removed R/T from the other busy frequencies. If there is not enough people to do the split then what remains still has the responsibility for providing all services within the CTR.
The thing that limits SVFR i.e. it is at the discretion of ATC is no different if there are suficient ATCOs or not.
Don't want to be limited by SVFR then go IFR. End of. Can't go IFR then bad luck because class A is for IFR and there lies the issue.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK DFC so where will all these IFR flights go? There is no procedure for IFR flights to land at Battersea. The IFR helicopters flying on the helicopter routes would not be separated from other IFR operations at Heathrow. Therefore the routes would not be available for use. Standard separation would have to be applied between light aircraft under IFR and the airliners. This would severely limit capacity at Heathrow. How long would this situation be allowed to continue? Light helicopters would be charged for that portion of their flights operated under IFR. Would that be financially viable for the operators? The London CTR is not big enough to support the sort of IFR operation that you are suggesting, and even the low level IFR traffic would be subject to far greater delay than SVFR traffic is subject to. If it is not safe to alllow it into the zone, due to capacity constriants or controller workload where would the traffic hold? There would be a huge environmental impact. Then of course there is the question of pilot qualification. I could go on....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst I have come this thread rather late - and must admit that I have trouble following some of the arguments - it surprises me that little has been said about the NATS licence.
The licence specifies the services that NATS must provide with, as I recall, some services given greater priority than others. The licence terms change over time - and I haven't been involved in stuff like this of late so I don't know what it currently says - but I wonder whether the service to SFR traffic features at all. Perhaps the licence, which is set by government, will give an indication of NATS' obligation to build in contingency for sickness etc. After all, as has been pointed out, government is a major shareholder!
As for Jim's rather simplistic approach of 'if you need more resources then get them' doesn't seem to work in ATC. It takes a significant period of time to train a controller and every one that gets through the training can probably be put to better use than handling SVFR two or three times over. Throwing money at the problem and putting more trainees through the system doesn't work for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the perennially high attrition rate in NATS ATC training could be reduced in some way - but I guess that's another can of worms.........
The licence specifies the services that NATS must provide with, as I recall, some services given greater priority than others. The licence terms change over time - and I haven't been involved in stuff like this of late so I don't know what it currently says - but I wonder whether the service to SFR traffic features at all. Perhaps the licence, which is set by government, will give an indication of NATS' obligation to build in contingency for sickness etc. After all, as has been pointed out, government is a major shareholder!
As for Jim's rather simplistic approach of 'if you need more resources then get them' doesn't seem to work in ATC. It takes a significant period of time to train a controller and every one that gets through the training can probably be put to better use than handling SVFR two or three times over. Throwing money at the problem and putting more trainees through the system doesn't work for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the perennially high attrition rate in NATS ATC training could be reduced in some way - but I guess that's another can of worms.........
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO2,
All traffic in class A are separated.
Even if it was a class E (the lowest level of controlled airspace) control zone, Special VFR flights would be separated from IFR flights.
Thus in this case to meet the requirement that all traffic in Class A is separated, the heli lanes and levels must be deemed separated from the IFR flights.
If that is the case then an IFR flight along the heli lane at the same level would be just as much separated as a SVFR flight.
Remember also that SVFR flights are separated from other SVFR flights also so no difference there also.
As for an IFR procedure at Battersea, none is required since in order to fly the heli lanes IFR the flight would have to be visual i.e. clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. Thus a visual approach would be a viable option.
Note that by being IFR below 3000ft but clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, one can effectively remove the visibility requirement for SVFR (or at least reduce it). Not saying that it would be safe in all cases but those are the rules.
If your next question is what does the IFR flight operating visually do if it can no longer operate visually then the answer is just the same as the SVFR flight......but being IFR equipped and with an IFR rated pilot, the options are better.
The point I was making is that in black and white there is VFR and there is IFR. Pick one to fly by. However to be less restrictive, the CAA has permitted the grey to enter the equation this thing called Special VFR but it is totally at the discretion of ATC.
It is the classification of Heathrow Zone as A ( and Jersey zone also) that really makes SVFR necessary even when it is CAVOK. The airspace category is where the complaint lies. Not with ATC and not with NATS since any ATC provider would act in the same way.
Regards,
DFC
All traffic in class A are separated.
Even if it was a class E (the lowest level of controlled airspace) control zone, Special VFR flights would be separated from IFR flights.
Thus in this case to meet the requirement that all traffic in Class A is separated, the heli lanes and levels must be deemed separated from the IFR flights.
If that is the case then an IFR flight along the heli lane at the same level would be just as much separated as a SVFR flight.
Remember also that SVFR flights are separated from other SVFR flights also so no difference there also.
As for an IFR procedure at Battersea, none is required since in order to fly the heli lanes IFR the flight would have to be visual i.e. clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. Thus a visual approach would be a viable option.
Note that by being IFR below 3000ft but clear of cloud and in sight of the surface, one can effectively remove the visibility requirement for SVFR (or at least reduce it). Not saying that it would be safe in all cases but those are the rules.
If your next question is what does the IFR flight operating visually do if it can no longer operate visually then the answer is just the same as the SVFR flight......but being IFR equipped and with an IFR rated pilot, the options are better.
The point I was making is that in black and white there is VFR and there is IFR. Pick one to fly by. However to be less restrictive, the CAA has permitted the grey to enter the equation this thing called Special VFR but it is totally at the discretion of ATC.
It is the classification of Heathrow Zone as A ( and Jersey zone also) that really makes SVFR necessary even when it is CAVOK. The airspace category is where the complaint lies. Not with ATC and not with NATS since any ATC provider would act in the same way.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that the CAA are trying to dispense with deemed separations, and I do not think that they would countenance IFR routes in a CTR that are not separated by 1000ft or 3nm from the ILS traffic, whatever the current situation. Also geographical separations, and reduced separation between opposite direction helicopters on the routes could not be used between IFR helicopters. There are plans as we know to change the category of airspace in the London CTR to Class C, allowing VFR flight, but even then these aircraft would require an ATC clearance and therefore a dedicated Controller to provide the service so there would still be rare occasions when the service was unavailable due staff shortages.
JimBall, I have given you all the information you require to answer my question and you still miss the point. OK I will pose it again. You have two Controllers available for a Thames Radar and SVFR operation that requires four positions - SVFR, City Radar, Thames Radar, Thames Co-ordinator. These Controllers require legally agreed breaks. (Usually five Controllers are provided). Do you provide the Thames Radar Approach service that is supplied to London City and Biggin Hill under contract, or do you close Thames Radar and provide a SVFR service to a light helicopter that wants to carry out a category Z photography detail in the London CTR? That is the question - pure and simple. There is no poiint bleating on about resources, because as I has said the resources are available. When there is unforeseen sickness something has to give. Try and be objective for once - using your commercial viewpoint which position would you close, Thames or SVFR? Is it better to inconvenience thousands of fare paying passengers or just one helicopter operation?
JimBall, I have given you all the information you require to answer my question and you still miss the point. OK I will pose it again. You have two Controllers available for a Thames Radar and SVFR operation that requires four positions - SVFR, City Radar, Thames Radar, Thames Co-ordinator. These Controllers require legally agreed breaks. (Usually five Controllers are provided). Do you provide the Thames Radar Approach service that is supplied to London City and Biggin Hill under contract, or do you close Thames Radar and provide a SVFR service to a light helicopter that wants to carry out a category Z photography detail in the London CTR? That is the question - pure and simple. There is no poiint bleating on about resources, because as I has said the resources are available. When there is unforeseen sickness something has to give. Try and be objective for once - using your commercial viewpoint which position would you close, Thames or SVFR? Is it better to inconvenience thousands of fare paying passengers or just one helicopter operation?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Up, up and away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO 2
Firstly, if its only one helicopter, I'm sure one of the approach controllers can handle a single SVFR clearance! If not, then perhaps its more than the odd heli being inconvienienced?
Secondly, perhaps the heli operators could ask for a scheme similar to the Solent zone, where the controllers have suddenly got a lot more helpful since they have had to give written explanations for any denial of a clearance to enter controlled airspace.
Firstly, if its only one helicopter, I'm sure one of the approach controllers can handle a single SVFR clearance! If not, then perhaps its more than the odd heli being inconvienienced?
Secondly, perhaps the heli operators could ask for a scheme similar to the Solent zone, where the controllers have suddenly got a lot more helpful since they have had to give written explanations for any denial of a clearance to enter controlled airspace.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cdb,
If you are operating a normal flight IFR or VFR and are refused your routing request under IFR or VFR then you can report the matter and it will be looked at.
If you can not fly VFR or IFR then you rely on the goodwill of the ATCO on the day to let you fly Special VFR.
In the case of SVFR there is nothing stopping an individual ATCO deciding that for them SVFR is dangerous and thus they will no longer approve it (ever). They have the ANO and the AIP and MATS to back them up because it is totally at ATC's discretion........unlike VFR or IFR.
Extreme but legal and backed up by the rules.
Regards,
DFC
If you are operating a normal flight IFR or VFR and are refused your routing request under IFR or VFR then you can report the matter and it will be looked at.
If you can not fly VFR or IFR then you rely on the goodwill of the ATCO on the day to let you fly Special VFR.
In the case of SVFR there is nothing stopping an individual ATCO deciding that for them SVFR is dangerous and thus they will no longer approve it (ever). They have the ANO and the AIP and MATS to back them up because it is totally at ATC's discretion........unlike VFR or IFR.
Extreme but legal and backed up by the rules.
Regards,
DFC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
How does a non instrument rated pilot enter class A airspace under IFR?
What is the requirement for submission of written flight plans for an aircraft operating IFR in class A airspace?
What is the minimum equipment list for an aircraft operating IFR in Class A airspace?
What is the requirement for submission of written flight plans for an aircraft operating IFR in class A airspace?
What is the minimum equipment list for an aircraft operating IFR in Class A airspace?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cdb,
A good idea in theory, but SRG have determined that daytime SVFR in the London CTR requires a separate validation. Only one of the Heathrow Approach guys holds that validation.
A good idea in theory, but SRG have determined that daytime SVFR in the London CTR requires a separate validation. Only one of the Heathrow Approach guys holds that validation.