Keep clear of controlled airspace!

[woodcoc2000]

I fly around in piston twins every day on a mix of vfr, ifr both on and off airways. I have never, ever been refused a zone transit and this includes birmingham which i have gone through on a number of occasions at 4000ft vfr and once on an off airways clearance. Looking at it from ATC point of view, if the fella on the other end of the radio doesnt sound like he knows what he is doing then why ask for trouble by letting them in your zone?? on the other hand if they sound like they know what they are doing and know exactly where they are going then yeah maybe let them through.

Just a guess here (am not ATC) but i also think the requested level of transit is important. Lots of aircraft are in CTR's being vectored downwind towards final at 2500ft or below so why not request a level that wont conflict?? Would also think you are more likely to be welcomed through if your requested track is perpendicular to the track of the aircraft coming into/departing the airport in question. hear some pilots requesting things that you just know will never go down well and they dont..

It may be things things that earn me zone transits or it just might be my sweet voice; i dunno which..

[Cows getting bigger]

mr.777,

To "protect your licences"? Silly old me, I thought it was being used in the interest of flight safety.

Personally I don't particularly mind being told to "remain outside" when in context, but it does get rather irritating to be told such things when,

a. I am nowhere near CAS, nor will I ever get close to CAS
b. I'm told to remain outside before I've even had a chance to tell ATC who, where, what, etc.

Unfortunately, the phrase is rapidly closing on that other pointless ar$e covering "terrain separation" one.

[mr.777]

If you call up, I could have another 8 a/c on frequency at that time, trying to provide separation between them whilst at the same time trying to sequence them, not to mention all other manner of things going on such as co-ordinating releases with TMA. How do i know where you are??? I might not have time to look at the radar, if I haven't positively identified you then you could be anywhere for all I know....hence the use of the phrase. This is largely where the problem lies because, much like the "Sunday driver" you guys often think you are the only a/c in the sky. Just because the RT doesn't sound busy doesn't mean we aren't doing other things. This is where Unit visits are helpful....GA pilots are generally astounded when they come down and see what we ACTUALLY do rather than what you PERCEIVE us to be doing.
I am really sorry that it's such a bind for you guys to have to acknowledge such a basic instruction...oh, and protecting your licence and "the interests of safety" are to all intents and purposes the same thing because one generally follows the other.

[Roffa]

There is the point though that a C152 (not on a training flight) on a x-country has exactly the same flight priority as a 747 into the 'major airport inside CAS' and the CAS is there not to keep the C152 out but to ensure a known traffic environment within.

Unfortunately however our paymasters have, over time, conditioned us (ATC) to see ourselves as guardians of the CTR/CTA and thou shalt not enter if you don't have turbofans and an ATPL.

Sad really 'commercial' ATC, or at least ATC the way NATS has evolved, he who pays the most calls the tune. It's not what it's all meant to be about imo. If we hadn't gone down the route of ignoring the lighter end of GA for so long we may not have ended up suffering the infringement problem we now have.

Past indifference is now coming back to haunt us, with a vengeance.

[ProM]

protecting your licence and "the interests of safety" are to all intents and purposes the same thing because one generally follows the other.

Is that true in this case? from all that has been said on here so far the people who are told to ROCAS can be split into 2 categories
1) Those that know where CAS is, had no intention of going inside and wouldn't have whether or not they had been told not to
2) Numpties who are just as likely to stray inside where or not they are told .

If that is the case then saying ROCAS does not help safety, it just helps protect the ATCOs license.

I understand why an ATCO would do that, I completely understand. But lets not confuse that with improving the underlying safety problem. It may be that the ATCO can at that time do little more, but that does not mean the problem does not exist

[GunkyTom]

Roffa

Re priorities, I think you have taken too simplistic a view.Yes, if the c152 is IFR and therefore willing to accept hdg/level restrictions then it shouldn't pose too much of a problem, however most light transits,particularly on a x country, are svfr/vfr in my experience and therefore could hinder the scheduled IFR traffic. Usually the part 2 will detail priorities for your type of airspace and regular users.Any airfields I have worked in prioritise IFR over S/VFR every time

[mr.777]

MATS 1 "SVFR shall not hinder IFR"....end of.

[WorkingHard]

Roffa thank you for the reminder of what ATC is/should be about. Perhaps all of us who can should file IFR and see what happens then. Will ATC still refuse a transit based on the biggest payer having priority. Before anyone jumps on me about CAT having high cost less manoeuvrability etc of course I recognise this and do not wish to interfere with such, but surely a non conflicting level or route etc can be offered and if the pilot can accept then OK. Many of you seem (I did say seem) to be no better than some of the GA pilots about whom you complain. Please also remember what has been said about NOT all GA is the weekend puddle jumper flyer, GA could just as easily be a Cessna single or a King Air or B737.

[mr.777]

I think you're missing the point here. Regardless of your views on the "ROCAS" debate, the majority of controllers will go out of their way to assist GA traffic with zone transits etc.
Yes, we realise that the odd numpty out there will occasionally cause a commotion, and we try not tar all GA pilots with the same brush. In fact, I am sure there some PPL pilots who are more clued up than their ATPL counterparts.
What I object to is being told that I'm not doing enough for you just because you didnt get to fly through the EG** overhead last Saturday afternoon for a spot of sightseeing because I was "balls out" working IFR traffic. Where we can, we will galdly accomodate zone transits etc....but there are occasions when it is simply not practical.to do so. Until NATS/CAA change their policy to reverse this situation, then there's not a lot we can do.
As for a B737 low level VFR transit....I'd like to see that

[Roffa]

GunkyTom, SVFR is a unique case as it's a specific dispensation from the IFR.

Otherwise, there's no difference in flight priority between IFR and VFR. You or your unit may (try to) impose one, but simplistically or not there actually isn't.

That we do impose one ourselves is just a result of us endlessly being fed the line that we're here solely to service the needs of the airlines at the expense of everyone else that might want to avail themselves of our services.

I think that's why we rebranded from National Air Traffic Services to just NATS. Any thoughts these days that we really are, if we ever were, the former i.e. National is just a poor joke.

mr777, you need to visit Lasham sometime.

[mr.777]

I know Lasham well and have worked quite a few positioning flights in/out of there, but thye have always filed IFR low level (3000ft). I was referring to low level ,as in 1500ft or below, transiting through my overhead.
As for your point regarding NATS vs National Air Traffic Services, I don't disagree with you, but if I'm told to prioritise IFR over S/VFR then that's what I do, that's what I get paid to do., and if I don't do it then in it's in the office I go.
As they say in Fareham, "don't hate the player, hate the game".

[coolbeans]

RING RING

"Biggin Approach?"

"Its thames, do you have someone in the Gatwick/Heathrow/City/TMA?"

looks at huge pile of departures, inbound and local strips all on a BS

"probably......."

This happens about twice a week to me and its the reason that I say ROCAS to about 90% of the aircraft I work

Theres always that last 10% though

[mr.777]

Coolbeans...

Thank you for making my point for me.

[coolbeans]

Wish I could say I meant to, I posted that when this thread was one page long, F39Cking network

[bookworm]

There is one very necessary use of "ROCAS". When an Approach Control gives a clearance to a fix outside controlled airspace, it may not be apparent to the aircraft that the unit is not the controlling authority for any intervening or nearby controlled airspace. Without the "ROCAS" limitation, the aircraft may, quite legitimately, enter controlled airspace enroute.

[GunkyTom]

Roffa,


SVFR is a unique case as it's a specific dispensation from the IFR

I can only talk from the perspective of airspace I am familiar with and all of our VFR transit traffic will at some stage have to accept SVFR because of Cat A airspace, therefore, it will not hinder IFR (as per MATS pt 1). So re. VFR having the same priority, technically yes, until it gets in the way

[BDiONU]

Originally Posted by ProM

The technology to replace ATCOs by computers exists. No-one has put it all together because it is not economic (yet), but it is technologically possible IMHO.

Given the difficulties in writing (and testing) the code and more especially the requirements (iFACTS is an excellent example and NAS after x many years still has holes exposed) I can't see it happening in this century.

BD

[Jumbo Driver]

Remain outside controlled airspace (ROCAS)

In my opinion, saying "ROCAS" is simply cluttering the R/T and unnecessary in almost every case.

If the pilot knows what he is doing, then the request (and it is technically only a request to an aircraft OCAS) is not required. It can also be very irritating, especially if there is no stated or implied request for CAS entry.

On the other hand, if the pilot is a "numpty", then do you really think that saying "ROCAS" is going to make any difference?


JD

[criss]

Sure, you may also think that not saying "cleared for take-off" is enogh to ensure the a/c won't move...

[Sir Vaylance Radar]

The same people who get into CAS without a clearance now would surely do the same whether ATC was done by humans or robots ?

to Jumbo Driver - you say :
"On the other hand, if the pilot is a "numpty", then do you really think that saying "ROCAS" is going to make any difference?"

Yes, because a lot of the numpties think that because they have been told to contact another unit, that they have a clearance to enter the new unit's airspace. Saying ROCAS will make the point that they don't.