Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: HANTS
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy...I realise we have strayed somewhat from your original post.I hope you don't mind that and I am interested in your input to the wider debate of VFR access.
Though I did indeed imply that access could be denied simply at the whim of the individual ATCO I don't think I have seen this happen without good reason for many years.In fact I cannot personally recall when,if ever,I have refused a transit.Now this of course will be due very often because G/A pilots (in my experience)will listen out,realise how busy the frequency seems and take an alternative route.
If I wanted to uphold the legalities I could instruct a hold at a VRP...outside the zone...to await onward clearance.If this were not forthcoming eventually the chap gets fed up and clears off remaining outside.Again I'll stress that I have never done this and cannot say I have any real intention of doing so.It's inflexible in the real world where I want the crosser close in and visual ready for a quick 'cross behind'.
My real point is how do I as an ATCO judge that the airmanship on which I am depending is not of a standard that may(underlined) compromise the operation and my livelihood?
Though I did indeed imply that access could be denied simply at the whim of the individual ATCO I don't think I have seen this happen without good reason for many years.In fact I cannot personally recall when,if ever,I have refused a transit.Now this of course will be due very often because G/A pilots (in my experience)will listen out,realise how busy the frequency seems and take an alternative route.
If I wanted to uphold the legalities I could instruct a hold at a VRP...outside the zone...to await onward clearance.If this were not forthcoming eventually the chap gets fed up and clears off remaining outside.Again I'll stress that I have never done this and cannot say I have any real intention of doing so.It's inflexible in the real world where I want the crosser close in and visual ready for a quick 'cross behind'.
My real point is how do I as an ATCO judge that the airmanship on which I am depending is not of a standard that may(underlined) compromise the operation and my livelihood?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GAPSTER
compromise the operation
"The operation" should include the expedited transit of and access to VFR traffic.
I can see why people can think that "the operation" is getting IFR traffic out of and into the airways system and that anything else is a dangerous distraction, but that is not how it is supposed to be. Class D is supposed to be about the protection of IFR traffic in a known mixed traffic environment.
If the powers that be believe that Classes A, B or C are justified, then they should put in an ACP and have the question debated openly.
But while we have Class D it should be operated as Class D.
My particular example of the exclusion of VFR traffic when there is no IFR traffic (and there is not going to be any for nearly three hours) merely exposes a situation for scrutiny.
Once that question has been answered there it becomes easier to apply the answers to other situations where there is relatively little IFR traffic, with lots of gaps of extended periods (eg Farnborough) up on through the moderately busy, to the Class D around Gatwick and Heathrow.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Home away from home
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't this bring back an old topic though, who will pay for it?
GA pay no enroute charges, but then again they rarely use the airways system.
NATS was sold off to the free market, and many airports now have in-house ATC or other companies than NATS either already or they are in transition, the old state-monopoly is gone and will probably never return.
If City airport pay NATS for ATC, why would they want to pay a penny more than they need? Why would the airlines want to pay higher charges at City so that more controllers can be made available to handle increased VFR traffic?
I think it was said earlier in the thread that in the US ATC for anything that isn't overflying (if I've understood it correctly) is payed for by the tax payers and only overflights pay en-route charges. This means that the GA community can stand up and ask for more out of ATC, but in the UK, ATC is a private market payed for by the users. Is it realistic to demand the use of airspace and controlling resources when you're not paying for it?
GA pay no enroute charges, but then again they rarely use the airways system.
NATS was sold off to the free market, and many airports now have in-house ATC or other companies than NATS either already or they are in transition, the old state-monopoly is gone and will probably never return.
If City airport pay NATS for ATC, why would they want to pay a penny more than they need? Why would the airlines want to pay higher charges at City so that more controllers can be made available to handle increased VFR traffic?
I think it was said earlier in the thread that in the US ATC for anything that isn't overflying (if I've understood it correctly) is payed for by the tax payers and only overflights pay en-route charges. This means that the GA community can stand up and ask for more out of ATC, but in the UK, ATC is a private market payed for by the users. Is it realistic to demand the use of airspace and controlling resources when you're not paying for it?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that takes us to an argument as old as the hills.
Who wants the airspace? Who wants to be controlled within it? VFR GA certainly doesn't. The airspace is there for the protection of IFR CAT, so IFR CAT should pay for it.
I think that the question of paying for airways routes is a different matter. As my light aircraft isn't quite light enough, I do pay quite hefty Eurocontrol charges. But I consider that just part of the cost equation. Do I want the safety and convenience of IFR? Then I will pay for it.
I actually have some sympathy with the view that any aircraft which wants to fly IFR in the airways structure should pay for the privilege (ooops, that just got me drummed out of AOPA!) It is a service, and we are used to paying for service.
But being given (sometimes grudging) access to airspace which should be treated as open FIR when there is no IFR traffic to protect is a different matter.
That would be like charging pedestrians a Road Fund Licence to cross the road. Their preference would be that there should be no road to cross in the first place!
Who wants the airspace? Who wants to be controlled within it? VFR GA certainly doesn't. The airspace is there for the protection of IFR CAT, so IFR CAT should pay for it.
I think that the question of paying for airways routes is a different matter. As my light aircraft isn't quite light enough, I do pay quite hefty Eurocontrol charges. But I consider that just part of the cost equation. Do I want the safety and convenience of IFR? Then I will pay for it.
I actually have some sympathy with the view that any aircraft which wants to fly IFR in the airways structure should pay for the privilege (ooops, that just got me drummed out of AOPA!) It is a service, and we are used to paying for service.
But being given (sometimes grudging) access to airspace which should be treated as open FIR when there is no IFR traffic to protect is a different matter.
That would be like charging pedestrians a Road Fund Licence to cross the road. Their preference would be that there should be no road to cross in the first place!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
One of the the above is a commercial entity, with schedule
Es to meet and large costs to pay, landing at an airport which also has time demands on its runway. The other is someone flying for p,ensure on a sightseeing trip.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, if that were the criterion, one would have to look very seriously at who travels on EZY to Spain. Only holidays in the sun? Pah!
If NATS starts to evaluate different flights according to, what? the amount of pleasure they give? then they need to do some serious research into the value of each movement.
That brings me back to the charity flight that I started with. That "pleasure flight" bought approximately 1000 potentially life-saving meals to ill and dispossessed people.
How many footballers wives flying from Farnborough to get their hair done in Madrid, where they don't use so much conditioner, does that equate to?
(OK, don't take the hyperbole too seriously, but you get my point
)
If NATS starts to evaluate different flights according to, what? the amount of pleasure they give? then they need to do some serious research into the value of each movement.
That brings me back to the charity flight that I started with. That "pleasure flight" bought approximately 1000 potentially life-saving meals to ill and dispossessed people.
How many footballers wives flying from Farnborough to get their hair done in Madrid, where they don't use so much conditioner, does that equate to?
(OK, don't take the hyperbole too seriously, but you get my point
)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So would the GA community be prepared to pay some sort of fee for ATC Services or are they militant against it? (I don't fly myself so I'm unsure of the general consensus.)
All I seem to hear is "I want to do this and I want it for free." You don't drive on the roads or expect Satellites to be sent into orbit to provide you with mobile phone coverage for free, so why ATC with all the costs involved?
I don't have a problem with VFR, they make the job more challenging and interesting. But there has to be some give and take.
All I seem to hear is "I want to do this and I want it for free." You don't drive on the roads or expect Satellites to be sent into orbit to provide you with mobile phone coverage for free, so why ATC with all the costs involved?
I don't have a problem with VFR, they make the job more challenging and interesting. But there has to be some give and take.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
l cannot speak for GA, but I think I already answered for myself.
If the airspace is there for my benefit I am happy to pay, if the airspace only interferes with what I am trying to do, it would be invidious to have to pay for it.
If the airspace is there for my benefit I am happy to pay, if the airspace only interferes with what I am trying to do, it would be invidious to have to pay for it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ISTR London City CTR went H24 after 9/11 for security reasons. But, hey, what would I remember, I have
Originally Posted by Timothy
been out of Thames a long time now. Those days are long, long past
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
Then it should be properly controlled 24/7, too!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: T.C.
Age: 56
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep it should be properly controlled 24/7. Who is going to pay for it???
This is an old topic, but it more relevant in today's commercial world. The airports pay NATS for the approach service, this cost is very much dependent on how many controllers are required, to provide an extra controller for VFR access at all times will be an expense the airport is not willing to pay for.
Plus, now I have done this, extended a commercial airline downwind to make a gap to ensure a VFR crossing aircraft via the threshold does not come too close to the inbound and therefore does not need to orbit etc.
However if I have a constant stream of inbounds and I extend one I need to extend them all, more track miles more fuel plus a lost "gap", so poor runway utilisation. The airport authority will not stand for this, they demand the standards they pay for. I have read the letters of agreement between the approach function and the airport, they are very specific. Spacing is monitored, complaints made, controllers informed of their errors etc.
So constant VFR access to class D yes, but maybe time to pay up.
This is an old topic, but it more relevant in today's commercial world. The airports pay NATS for the approach service, this cost is very much dependent on how many controllers are required, to provide an extra controller for VFR access at all times will be an expense the airport is not willing to pay for.
Plus, now I have done this, extended a commercial airline downwind to make a gap to ensure a VFR crossing aircraft via the threshold does not come too close to the inbound and therefore does not need to orbit etc.
However if I have a constant stream of inbounds and I extend one I need to extend them all, more track miles more fuel plus a lost "gap", so poor runway utilisation. The airport authority will not stand for this, they demand the standards they pay for. I have read the letters of agreement between the approach function and the airport, they are very specific. Spacing is monitored, complaints made, controllers informed of their errors etc.
So constant VFR access to class D yes, but maybe time to pay up.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the days when I used to attend what was then called NATMAC the GA representatives used to argue, while keeping a straight face, that any kind of regulated airspace was a ''privilege''. They kept saying that ATC should therefore accommodate all requests. I suspect there is a snow ball's chance in hell of getting agreement for GA to pay for ATC services.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one starts with the premise that the air and the sea belong to everybody , equally, one then has Governments "defending" the air/sea surrounding their "territory"....then we move forward , to a decision that, not only will we have a set of "traffic rules" to ensure safe passage,but we'll decide to regulate who is, or isn't allowed access to what is already their right to use.
GA is already hidebound by legislation and costs it makes a substantial contribution via fuel duty and keeping the Belgrano in coffee.
Perhaps you'd all be happy if tollbooths got set up on the most congested roads? Don't want to pay?...divert round the "B" and unclassified roads , then.
The HGV's pay far more than you do, so they get priority!
Yea! that would go down a bundle!
GA is already hidebound by legislation and costs it makes a substantial contribution via fuel duty and keeping the Belgrano in coffee.
Perhaps you'd all be happy if tollbooths got set up on the most congested roads? Don't want to pay?...divert round the "B" and unclassified roads , then.
The HGV's pay far more than you do, so they get priority!
Yea! that would go down a bundle!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
Nimmer,
The answer lies in the rest of your post. The airlines using the airport demand regulated airspace to protect their traffic from VFR users. The airport subsequently requests the controlled airspace, which unfortunately, in general, inconveniences VFR transits merely wanting to fly through, as it was previously allowed to do. Now you want VFR users to also pay more to be inconvenienced? If there was no more VFR traffic allowed to cross, it wouldn't get any cheaper to man the ATC position.
If I'm required to pay to fly through Class D airspace, I'd expect no priority to be given to IFR traffic because my operating costs have arbitrarily been increased and therefore profit margin has been reduced.
Yep it should be properly controlled 24/7. Who is going to pay for it???
If I'm required to pay to fly through Class D airspace, I'd expect no priority to be given to IFR traffic because my operating costs have arbitrarily been increased and therefore profit margin has been reduced.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
All I seem to hear is "I want to do this and I want it for free." You don't drive on the roads or expect Satellites to be sent into orbit to provide you with mobile phone coverage for free, so why ATC with all the costs involved?
I don't have a problem with VFR, they make the job more challenging and interesting. But there has to be some give and take.
I don't have a problem with VFR, they make the job more challenging and interesting. But there has to be some give and take.
The air wasn't paid for by anyone, it is a naturally occurring thing, so the comparison isn't a valid one.
The "give" is seldom given to VFR traffic in Class D.
I have only formally objected to proposals for imposition of more Class D once in the past (and I use the word imposition deliberately; thankfully the Coventry airspace grab was rejected), but judging by the attitudes shown by some ATCOs here, I really do think I will make a point of doing so on all occasions in future.
I think we are finally getting at the nub of the problem here. IATA are calling all the shots these days. The airlines pay my wages and are demanding reduced charges left right and center. It sounds like in order to keep the class D in busy UK airspace aceessible to GA (as is their right), more staff are needed by ATC. The airlines just aren't going to pay for that. This is the issue IMHO
Last edited by Una Due Tfc; 24th Sep 2014 at 13:46.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
Yes and CAS was set up to stop aircraft hitting each other. That's not going to go away. So what is to be done about it? You can't expect to just blindly fly through large aircraft descending on final and expect there to be no eventual consequences.
I suppose that answers my question about militancy in the GA Community. Wholly rejecting future Class D proposals because of the attitudes of a few controllers on a forum. Although maybe I shouldn't tar all the GA folks with the same brush just because of one statement on a forum.
It must be frustrating when you are refused a transit due to 1 pending IFR departure but that is an individual unit and controller problem.
The roads are paid for out of tax payers' contributions and had to be built in the first place
I have only formally objected to proposals for imposition of more Class D once in the past (and I use the word imposition deliberately; thankfully the Coventry airspace grab was rejected), but judging by the attitudes shown by some ATCOs here, I really do think I will make a point of doing so on all occasions in future.
It must be frustrating when you are refused a transit due to 1 pending IFR departure but that is an individual unit and controller problem.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 430 Likes
on
227 Posts
I think we are finally getting at the nub of the problem here. IATA are calling all the shots these days. The airlines pay my wages and are demanding reduced charges left right and center. It sounds like in order to keep the class D in busy UK airspace aceessible to GA (as is their right), more staff are needed by ATC. The airlines just aren't going to pay for that. This is the issue IMHO
I make no comment on the individual case of the OP, who has apologised after admitting he was in the wrong. However, it has brought out some disturbing and disappointing responses.
Sadly, the tone of this thread from some ATC contributors is "Well it's now my airspace and you don't deserve access unless you are prepared to pay".
GA obviously does have a right of access to Class D airspace under VFR (that's why it's only Class D) but it seems some would prefer it just went away altogether. Protracted holding of VFR traffic, or a mandatory major re-route such as the one quoted, i.e. all the way around the LHR and LCY CTRs when the airspace is deemed closed because the airport has no IFR traffic and ATC won't man the position will one day cause some one to run seriously short of fuel, or worse. ATC need to bear in mind that VFR traffic isn't necessarily carrying IFR fuel reserves. Some of us need to land off airport in Class D airspace. In the case of a planned landing inside City CTR, for example on a revenue flight, this would obviously cause a major problem.
It appears that ATC either don't understand these issues, or simply don't care. If this is the case, then there will quite understandably be major objections to any further airspace grab proposals.
If ATC has no sympathy for GA, then why should GA have sympathy for ATC?
------------------------------------
Now, I'm deliberately playing the devils advocate here, but it's a point well worth making, especially as it's increasingly difficult to make a profit in GA.