Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TDM,
You have been out of Thames a long time now. Those days are long, long past. I wonder if anyone on Thames/Heathrow now even remembers them?
You have been out of Thames a long time now. Those days are long, long past. I wonder if anyone on Thames/Heathrow now even remembers them?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I don't dispute that. In fact, for your information, it has been seven years, but I still fly regularly in the area, training and corporate. I am pleased to hear that Nats has grasped the 'Tinpot Radar' (not my words - a Nats Heathrow GM's words) nettle and finally got a grip on the many vagaries of the sector. GA and Nats at those units you mention must meet amicably in the middle without prejudice and aversions. Any posturing, on either side, will not help. CAA has a head of GA. Perhaps Nats needs a 'Head of GA' to resolve this. For all I know maybe it already has one, for, as you have reminded us, I've been out a long time now...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I grew up in ATC with quite a few people who refused to work 'non-revenue traffic'....those days (in TC at least) are long gone.Most,if not virtually all of us,see providing services through class D airspace as part of the job with the requisite responsibilities to the traffic requesting it...they will occasionally suffer small delays to allow IFR traffic precedence but I have never had any complaint due to this.I'm afraid you will have to read between the lines as to why the problems manifested here are existing these days.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually don't think that "reading between the lines" will do. It shouldn't be necessary.
NATS is contracted by DfT to provide a service. That is why SARG, and, if necessary, DfT, must decide what is acceptable when VFR pop-up traffic requests access in the total absence of IFR traffic.
NATS is contracted by DfT to provide a service. That is why SARG, and, if necessary, DfT, must decide what is acceptable when VFR pop-up traffic requests access in the total absence of IFR traffic.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Romsey
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a lurker on this forum and a very occasional poster, I thought I must pop up and comment because I believe I was flying and heard Timothy's exchange with Heathrow last Sunday. I recall the Heathrow SVFR controller explain politely that he was unable to accept you for the pleasure-flight because he was expecting other pleasure flights and you hadn't booked in prior to getting airborne. The controller then offered you a direct transit through the zone from south to north which you accepted and then threatened to complain about him to DAP as well as telling him he didn't have any traffic to justify not letting him do what you wanted!
I would have to say in 25 years of commercial flying on and around
the heliroutes, I have never heard such an arrogant and un-justified outburst at a Heathrow controller. The controller later had to extract you out of a Restricted Area which you tried to tell him only applied to helicopters despite you flying some plank. When you finally left the zone to the north, after having passed me, you immediately asked to come back in southbound. I thought to myself, I would be surprised if they let you back in and the controller told you to stay outside and offered you a number to call the Supervisor. You again snapped back that you didn't want the number and would just complain directly to the CAA. You could could almost hear everyone else on the frequency saying out loud what the controller involved must have been thinking. The controller was busy by this time with some Biggin traffic and numerous transits and pleasure flights. I heard no evidence of you being refused access, just you being told you could not buck the system by not bothering to activate an NSF like the rest of us had.
You say you have never had a bad service in 20 years yet the one time you are told you are bucking the system and behaving like a knob you post all over a number of forums and try and grass up the people who have been servicing your trips around the City for years. I hope they have your card well and truly marked.
You indicate you have spoken to NATS and the CAA about this. What have they told about your one refusal in 20 years other than you behaved like a petulant child?
Finally, I recognised your name as a long term AOPA member, like me, but also thought that soaringhigh (James somebody) was an AOPA do-gooder. Are you one and the same or at least working in cahoots to stir some sh**? I would prefer AOPA fought its battles via official means rather than talking rubbish on here.
I would have to say in 25 years of commercial flying on and around
the heliroutes, I have never heard such an arrogant and un-justified outburst at a Heathrow controller. The controller later had to extract you out of a Restricted Area which you tried to tell him only applied to helicopters despite you flying some plank. When you finally left the zone to the north, after having passed me, you immediately asked to come back in southbound. I thought to myself, I would be surprised if they let you back in and the controller told you to stay outside and offered you a number to call the Supervisor. You again snapped back that you didn't want the number and would just complain directly to the CAA. You could could almost hear everyone else on the frequency saying out loud what the controller involved must have been thinking. The controller was busy by this time with some Biggin traffic and numerous transits and pleasure flights. I heard no evidence of you being refused access, just you being told you could not buck the system by not bothering to activate an NSF like the rest of us had.
You say you have never had a bad service in 20 years yet the one time you are told you are bucking the system and behaving like a knob you post all over a number of forums and try and grass up the people who have been servicing your trips around the City for years. I hope they have your card well and truly marked.
You indicate you have spoken to NATS and the CAA about this. What have they told about your one refusal in 20 years other than you behaved like a petulant child?
Finally, I recognised your name as a long term AOPA member, like me, but also thought that soaringhigh (James somebody) was an AOPA do-gooder. Are you one and the same or at least working in cahoots to stir some sh**? I would prefer AOPA fought its battles via official means rather than talking rubbish on here.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of that l accept and I have apologised.
But I have no idea who SoaringHigh is. I may know him or her by another name, but if so I don't know that I do.
But none of that changes any of the points about access to Class D airspace.
But I have no idea who SoaringHigh is. I may know him or her by another name, but if so I don't know that I do.
But none of that changes any of the points about access to Class D airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
132.7….Good heavens, I think that was the old 'London Airways' frequency for Upper Amber 34, (BPK-POL), back in the early 1970s. No tiddlers using it then.
I remember 'potting' OO-SGA and HB-IGA on it from EGNX one Sunday afternoon.
I remember 'potting' OO-SGA and HB-IGA on it from EGNX one Sunday afternoon.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrying on...I used to do that Sector (25) at Preston Radar (Lindholme JATCRU) on 132.7...so I should be able to remember or not whether BPK-POL was UA34 or not. Al Zheimers tells me it was UA39…UA34 was over on the west side WAL-HON-MID way….I'll ask my nurse to help me up in the loft...
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: That France
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, not yet, but I have been led to expect one from NATS. I haven't engaged with CAA or DfT yet, I am waiting to hear what NATS has to say.
There is no real urgency. Personally, I now have an NSF number, so I should not get a repeat experience at LC, and it will be a while until Farnborough make their next move - which is the one that is really critical when it comes to NATS delivering access to VFR traffic.
There is no real urgency. Personally, I now have an NSF number, so I should not get a repeat experience at LC, and it will be a while until Farnborough make their next move - which is the one that is really critical when it comes to NATS delivering access to VFR traffic.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I keep saying mea culpa. I am sorry, I have learnt a lesson and I am unlikely to do it again.
But bear in mind that my point is that, from what I understand, the controller was under instructions from management not to let any pop-up VFR traffic in. That will be clearer when the letter from NATS management arrives.
But bear in mind that my point is that, from what I understand, the controller was under instructions from management not to let any pop-up VFR traffic in. That will be clearer when the letter from NATS management arrives.
So in essence, a vfr was refused entry to class D because the controller responsible was swamped with his/her workload in combined sector, and to guarantee safety of aircraft already in their area of responsibiliy (well done that controller, it takes guts to stand up and say you are at your limit). Then said pilot went on a rant on freq and made a bit of a fool of themselves? Just so we're clear?
I've had pilots make serious and very dangerous errors under my control, I would never, ever in a million years give them a lecture over a frequency. Incredibly unprofessional
I've had pilots make serious and very dangerous errors under my control, I would never, ever in a million years give them a lecture over a frequency. Incredibly unprofessional
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um...
I keep saying mea culpa. I am sorry, I have learnt a lesson and I am unlikely to do it again.
But bear in mind that my point is that, from what I understand, the controller was under instructions from management not to let any pop-up VFR traffic in. That will be clearer when the letter from NATS management arrives.
Your move
I keep saying mea culpa. I am sorry, I have learnt a lesson and I am unlikely to do it again.
But bear in mind that my point is that, from what I understand, the controller was under instructions from management not to let any pop-up VFR traffic in. That will be clearer when the letter from NATS management arrives.
Your move