What type of service do you require? (UK)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
once the pros and cons have been examined.
The pro is that commercial traffic is separated from G/A traffic and the PPL chappie can enjoy his trip rather than having to have eyes on his backside, whilst he looks out for an airliner doing two and a half times his speed. That is providing he calls up the appropriate ATS unit who have passed traffic information.
It is a no brainer really. CAS is there to help us all and G/A pilots don't like CAS since they have to use the radio and speak to ATC. When I instructed at PPL level, I always told my PPL students that ATCOs are your servants (i.e paid to help you). Make full use of them, treat them nicely and they won't bite!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just moved flying clubs from the South-East of England to rural Shropshire. The greatest pleasure in flying at the new location is the fact that I dont have to speak to ATC as there isnt any. I find that it just as safe, if not safer with less hassle.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly regularly in the South, in Class G and free from any commercial traffic - VFR/VMC on a see-and-be-seen basis - and I don't want (or need) any ATS Traffic or Control Service to do so. If I need to talk to ATS for information, I can easily do so - but that is my choice and I want it to remain so.
The picture you paint, Mister Geezer, is an idealised one and I am afraid it is not sympathetic to the needs of much of GA. It may be a "no brainer" to you but I can assure you that there is a significant number of us who would competently disagree with your over-simplification.
JD
The picture you paint, Mister Geezer, is an idealised one and I am afraid it is not sympathetic to the needs of much of GA. It may be a "no brainer" to you but I can assure you that there is a significant number of us who would competently disagree with your over-simplification.
JD
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver.. You are a professional pilot whilst many of the GA types are not. I've got enough grey hairs from dealing with them during a lifetime in ATC.
Mister Geezer is talking a whole lot of sense.
Mister Geezer is talking a whole lot of sense.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I well understand what you mean HD but, bearing in mind your comment about some "GA types", do you really think they would be the ones to benefit from extended CAS - or, alternatively, what about the rest of us - having all those extra, verbose calls would hardly oil the processes for an already understaffed ATC fraternity, would it? Everybody's service would suffer and it would very soon become counter-productive.
Besides, there are far too many constraints on our life already in every imaginable aspect of living - mostly imposed on us by others "for our own good". Why should we accept more "control" on ourselves, just to try and satisfy a minority of theorists ... ?
No, I'm afraid Mister Geezer has it wrong - significant extensions of CAS may be OK in theory but would never work for the overall benefit of GA in practice.
JD
P.S. apologies for prolonging the thread creep ...
Besides, there are far too many constraints on our life already in every imaginable aspect of living - mostly imposed on us by others "for our own good". Why should we accept more "control" on ourselves, just to try and satisfy a minority of theorists ... ?
No, I'm afraid Mister Geezer has it wrong - significant extensions of CAS may be OK in theory but would never work for the overall benefit of GA in practice.
JD
P.S. apologies for prolonging the thread creep ...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly regularly in the South, in Class G and free from any commercial traffic - VFR/VMC on a see-and-be-seen basis - and I don't want (or need) any ATS Traffic or Control Service to do so.
I am not suggesting that the whole of the SE of the UK suddenly changes to a large area of CAS. It would be a nightmare and the cost involved would be to the detriment of all of us and it would achieve little. It would make light aircraft flying a ball ache for us and for ATC too.
The case for more CAS lies in the regions. Norwich has been mentioned and that is a classic example. Others could include Inverness and don't forget the outbounds from Newcastle and Durham Tees that file direct to Otringham and blast straight through the Vale of York AIAA! The majority of operators from NT or NV do seem to resort to using P18 which is the safest option however some don't and those that don't are generally foreign operators, many of which won't have a clue what a AIAA actually is!
The chances of getting more CAS in that part of the world is remote since the military will object. However the problem could be easily solved with outbound flight plans from NT and NV being met with a REJ message when attempting to file direct to OTR, thus forcing them to use CAS.I started off my airline flying being a regular user of Class G airspace on the east coast so perhaps I am more aware of the need for more CAS than others might be. It is a few years ago since I flew in that part of the world but I do remember the close calls and the RA I had with two Tornados too!
However I have not lost touch with my G/A roots and I am only too aware that light aircraft flying should be as straight forward and as fun as possible, which is why I still get involved with it.There is no point ruining Joe Bloggs day trip to Le Touquet for lunch. However the line has to be drawn when someone can fly through the ILS localiser at Norwich (for example) without needing to talk to them. It might not be so bad if there are just a few movements a day but there are 19 IFR inbound flight plans to Norwich today.
Last edited by Mister Geezer; 7th Aug 2009 at 11:42.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there's a lot more in that last post, Mister Geezer, that I can agree with - I read it quite differently from where I thought you were coming from in your earlier posts on this thread.
However, you mention Norwich ... there are two other threads running already on that topic and I have made my views known there - but suffice it to say that I do not consider the airspace "grab" that Norwich Airport (NIA indeed!) are progressing is either necessary or appropriate. It is precisely that kind of proposal that angers many in GA (like being called "stakeholders") and generates the almost instinctive knee-jerk resistance to expanding CAS that currently exists outside commercial operators.
As HD has pointed out, we perhaps tend to view these matters from a rather different standpoint than many GA PPLs. However, the problem remains the same - coordinating GA and commercial traffic for their mutual benefit, without the imposition of unnecessary constraints or procedures on the otherwise free and unrestricted use of the "Open FIR" by GA.
JD
However, you mention Norwich ... there are two other threads running already on that topic and I have made my views known there - but suffice it to say that I do not consider the airspace "grab" that Norwich Airport (NIA indeed!) are progressing is either necessary or appropriate. It is precisely that kind of proposal that angers many in GA (like being called "stakeholders") and generates the almost instinctive knee-jerk resistance to expanding CAS that currently exists outside commercial operators.
As HD has pointed out, we perhaps tend to view these matters from a rather different standpoint than many GA PPLs. However, the problem remains the same - coordinating GA and commercial traffic for their mutual benefit, without the imposition of unnecessary constraints or procedures on the otherwise free and unrestricted use of the "Open FIR" by GA.
JD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have recently retired after thirty years in ATC and I have been flying for a similar amount of time. I fly VFR in CAVOK conditions and I plan my route and met carefully to avoid CAS, however if I need access to CAS I call up the appropriate unit and request that. I am not intimidated by ATC and consider it to be a neccesary service for commercial air transport at large airports. I would say however that I would be very much against any further establishment of CAS due to the fact that in the last few years the atc service has become less "friendly" to GA and its pilots. In the case of NATS I think that it is because the atco training course does not include any GA flying experience whereas at one time it was included to PPL standard, many younger atcos freely admit to having no interest in aviation and aeroplanes and therefore cannot empathise with pilots particularly of the GA variety and the result that any request for access to CAS or radar service is met with a blanket "Remain outside CAS" irrespective of traffic, workload, too difficult or "cant be a***d!!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many parts of the UK that would benefit from having class E controlled airspace established.
There would be far fewer objections to proposals for class E airspace at Norwich and in several other places.
Having a "procedural" service inbound to somewhere like Oxford is meaningless because while in IMC holding at the beacon you can be taken out by an aircraft that quite legally is flying IFR enroute at the same level as you and not talking to anyone or operating any form of transponder.
There can't be an instrument approach procedure published unless there is ATC. What is the point in the CAA having that requirement alone. Having ATC with no radar service in class G airspace is no better than FIS.
For somenone who operates VFR safely like DC10RealMan (which would include more than half the PPL operators out there), having every bit of class G replaced by class E would have little or no real effect.
Therefore having class E established at places like Farnborough, Oxford and Norwich as well as some others would vastly improve safety for the IFR operators - PPL, GA, CAT, Military while retaining the ability of the VFR pilot to fly as and when they please (in VMC) with no restriction.
------------
Mister Geezer,
Your points about not having the time to read the AIP do not make much ground. For the Airline operator, their part C (Route Manual) will have an explanation of the various services available. Many non-UK airlines received the CD and other information about the changes and they provided this information where relevant to their crews.
Therefore I have no sympathy for people who do not know about Flight Information Service in the UK. However, those that do not fully understand the FIS are a separate issue and it is clear that many UK operators and pilots did not understand fully the old system or the new system so it is not an issue limited to Foreign operators.
Don't forget that there are many Foreign operators who are members of the UK Flight Safety Committee. Through that and other forums the foreign operator is often better briefed on things like ATSOCAS than the average UK GA pilot.
Regards,
DFC
There would be far fewer objections to proposals for class E airspace at Norwich and in several other places.
Having a "procedural" service inbound to somewhere like Oxford is meaningless because while in IMC holding at the beacon you can be taken out by an aircraft that quite legally is flying IFR enroute at the same level as you and not talking to anyone or operating any form of transponder.
There can't be an instrument approach procedure published unless there is ATC. What is the point in the CAA having that requirement alone. Having ATC with no radar service in class G airspace is no better than FIS.
For somenone who operates VFR safely like DC10RealMan (which would include more than half the PPL operators out there), having every bit of class G replaced by class E would have little or no real effect.
Therefore having class E established at places like Farnborough, Oxford and Norwich as well as some others would vastly improve safety for the IFR operators - PPL, GA, CAT, Military while retaining the ability of the VFR pilot to fly as and when they please (in VMC) with no restriction.
------------
Mister Geezer,
Your points about not having the time to read the AIP do not make much ground. For the Airline operator, their part C (Route Manual) will have an explanation of the various services available. Many non-UK airlines received the CD and other information about the changes and they provided this information where relevant to their crews.
Therefore I have no sympathy for people who do not know about Flight Information Service in the UK. However, those that do not fully understand the FIS are a separate issue and it is clear that many UK operators and pilots did not understand fully the old system or the new system so it is not an issue limited to Foreign operators.
Don't forget that there are many Foreign operators who are members of the UK Flight Safety Committee. Through that and other forums the foreign operator is often better briefed on things like ATSOCAS than the average UK GA pilot.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On a radial
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also providing lots of ATSOCAS daily, on asking an offshore heli mid morning i got "An offshore Bacon service please" .... with that sound of a pilot with his mouthfull being caught off guard 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Samsonite Avenue
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your points about not having the time to read the AIP do not make much ground. For the Airline operator, their part C (Route Manual) will have an explanation of the various services available. Many non-UK airlines received the CD and other information about the changes and they provided this information where relevant to their crews.
The quality of Part C manuals do vary quite significantly and a Part C means nothing outside the realm of EU OPS anyway. Some states outside this area do not even have a requirement to publish a route manual of any kind. The responsibility then falls on the crew concerned to self brief, in a limited time frame, prior to departure.
In an ideal world, a Part C should have all the details that the crew need. However the onus should be on the CAA to ensure that this information is easy to access and not on the operator, some of whom will have no idea of what this discussion is about anyway!
Don't forget that there are many Foreign operators who are members of the UK Flight Safety Committee. Through that and other forums the foreign operator is often better briefed on things like ATSOCAS than the average UK GA pilot.
I am afraid to say that it is (and always has been) a piecemeal effort when it comes to ATSOCAS education and awareness from the CAA. They could make it far easier.
Last edited by Mister Geezer; 8th Aug 2009 at 17:16.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard a few daft responses to this question, most of them cause a bit of a chuckle. The most disappointing so far has been the reply from a british pilot flying for a british airline who wanted to route direct through class G despite being flight planned on a class A airway,his disinterested reply was "Oh I don't know, I'll read back whatever you tell me"
He got a radar control service and no direct route.
He got a radar control service and no direct route.
