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
I agree that Solent has, for the last few years at any rate, been very good.
The rumours I have heard are recent and about a change in arrangements which may be yet to happen, or even yet to be agreed.
The rumours I have heard are recent and about a change in arrangements which may be yet to happen, or even yet to be agreed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
I didn't say cargo was irrelevant. I said YOUR cargo was irrelevant, as in it doesn't fit in any of the flight priority categories.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Priority Categories (from MATS Part 1)
4.45 Controllers shall give priority to aircraft according to flight priority
category listed below, where category A is the highest priority and Z is
the lowest priority.
Category Type of Flight
A: Aircraft in emergency (e.g. engine fault, fuel shortage, seriously ill passenger). Aircraft which have declared a ‘Police Emergency’. Ambulance/Medical aircraft when the safety of life is involved.
B: Flights operating for search and rescue or other humanitarian
reasons. Post accident flight checks. Other flights, including
Open Skies Flights, authorised by the CAA. Police flights under
normal operational priority.
C: Royal Flights Flights carrying visiting which have been notified by
Heads of State } NOTAM/Temporary Supplement
D: Flights notified by the CAA carrying Heads of Government or very senior government ministers.
E: Flight check aircraft engaged on, or in transit to, time or weather
critical calibration flights. Other flights authorised by the CAA.
NORMAL FLIGHTS:
i) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.
ii) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit.
Z: Training, non-standard and other flights.
From the UK AIP (ENR 1.1.4)
4.1 Non-Standard Flights (NSFs) in Controlled Airspace
4.1.1 A Non-Standard Flight (NSF) in Controlled Airspace is an aerial task that may not necessarily follow published routes or notified procedures; a formation flight of civil aircraft other than for VFR transit of CTA/CTR/TMA; or flights to and from a temporary landing site for multiple short term operations.
4.1.1.1 Applications for NSFs within Controlled Airspace should primarily be made via the NATS Non-Standard Flight Application website (Non-Standard Flight Applications | NATS) with the minimum 21 or 28 days notice (see paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.6). If applicants are unable to utilise this website, applications may be submitted to the units listed below.
..........
4.1.2.1 Those applications which are agreed will be allocated a non-standard flight reference number. This is only an approval in
principle and prior clearance must be obtained from the appropriate ATC Watch Supervisor on the day.....
......
4.1.2.1.4 Operators are to note that in no circumstances can any discussion be entered into on any frequency in the event that permission
is refused or withdrawn
4.45 Controllers shall give priority to aircraft according to flight priority
category listed below, where category A is the highest priority and Z is
the lowest priority.
Category Type of Flight
A: Aircraft in emergency (e.g. engine fault, fuel shortage, seriously ill passenger). Aircraft which have declared a ‘Police Emergency’. Ambulance/Medical aircraft when the safety of life is involved.
B: Flights operating for search and rescue or other humanitarian
reasons. Post accident flight checks. Other flights, including
Open Skies Flights, authorised by the CAA. Police flights under
normal operational priority.
C: Royal Flights Flights carrying visiting which have been notified by
Heads of State } NOTAM/Temporary Supplement
D: Flights notified by the CAA carrying Heads of Government or very senior government ministers.
E: Flight check aircraft engaged on, or in transit to, time or weather
critical calibration flights. Other flights authorised by the CAA.
NORMAL FLIGHTS:
i) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.
ii) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit.
Z: Training, non-standard and other flights.
From the UK AIP (ENR 1.1.4)
4.1 Non-Standard Flights (NSFs) in Controlled Airspace
4.1.1 A Non-Standard Flight (NSF) in Controlled Airspace is an aerial task that may not necessarily follow published routes or notified procedures; a formation flight of civil aircraft other than for VFR transit of CTA/CTR/TMA; or flights to and from a temporary landing site for multiple short term operations.
4.1.1.1 Applications for NSFs within Controlled Airspace should primarily be made via the NATS Non-Standard Flight Application website (Non-Standard Flight Applications | NATS) with the minimum 21 or 28 days notice (see paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.1.6). If applicants are unable to utilise this website, applications may be submitted to the units listed below.
..........
4.1.2.1 Those applications which are agreed will be allocated a non-standard flight reference number. This is only an approval in
principle and prior clearance must be obtained from the appropriate ATC Watch Supervisor on the day.....
......
4.1.2.1.4 Operators are to note that in no circumstances can any discussion be entered into on any frequency in the event that permission
is refused or withdrawn
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 LookingForAJob
Originally Posted by dash6
"City" Zone was free airspace not many years ago. It did'nt pose a threat then. Why not publish hours of use,and allow access outside those hours?
Good Egg was making the point that even when City Airport is closed, Class D is required to keep London safe.
dash6 said that historically the airspace was Class G while City Airport is closed and London survived.
It is not to either of their points that Class D was created to protect IFR traffic. That was not relevant at the time, on a Sunday morning, when City was closed.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should be managed to the benefit of ALL parties.
If the controller feels that they have reached a limit then access is denied. I only ever denied access to my CAT D airspace when I was too preoccupied with other tasks.
As far as not separating IFR/VFR. I was ALWAYS of the opinion that regular heads up and a little bit of judicious holding of VFR traffic ( the airmanship of which I had no idea) was preferable to letting it ramble freely in the zone whilst TCAS TA's or worse RA's were reported to me. TCAS doesn't know you DON'T require to separate.
By all means allow access.....but if you can't ...then don't.
If the controller feels that they have reached a limit then access is denied. I only ever denied access to my CAT D airspace when I was too preoccupied with other tasks.
As far as not separating IFR/VFR. I was ALWAYS of the opinion that regular heads up and a little bit of judicious holding of VFR traffic ( the airmanship of which I had no idea) was preferable to letting it ramble freely in the zone whilst TCAS TA's or worse RA's were reported to me. TCAS doesn't know you DON'T require to separate.
By all means allow access.....but if you can't ...then don't.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comment was about separating VFR/VFR.
And my comments have been about not allowing access because the controller is doing other tasks not related to the Class D airspace; thus it is a staffing issue, not a controller issue.
And my comments have been about not allowing access because the controller is doing other tasks not related to the Class D airspace; thus it is a staffing issue, not a controller issue.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mea culpa .
It is a staffing issue.....but ULTIMATELY it will fall to the question of whose budget will pay for that staffing. There is NO other question for NATS management.
The controller on the day IS THE STAFF.
The operating authority will do everything in its power to save cash. Budgets have been geared towards the retention of contracts. Within NSL we have ALREADY lost Gatwick and Birmingham so cost is king. There has been a general reduction in the level of service provided e.g. Radar being provided by the Tower controller .Support staff pared to the bone . Engineering staff reduced to an on call level. Before I retired last year the ENTIRE staff were being called upon to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources.
I am certain that it has not improved in the intervening 12 months.
Good luck getting your client into the zone for a look see.
The GA community is already aware of one Zone/Area where agreements have been made to bandbox APP and TWR to the detriment of Zone access, and we are acutely aware of the threat to GA in the South East if the Farnborough airspace comes into being and then access is limited by anything other than physical airspace and IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation.
The controller on the day IS THE STAFF.
The operating authority will do everything in its power to save cash. Budgets have been geared towards the retention of contracts. Within NSL we have ALREADY lost Gatwick and Birmingham so cost is king. There has been a general reduction in the level of service provided e.g. Radar being provided by the Tower controller .Support staff pared to the bone . Engineering staff reduced to an on call level. Before I retired last year the ENTIRE staff were being called upon to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources.
I am certain that it has not improved in the intervening 12 months.
Good luck getting your client into the zone for a look see.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 45
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are being rather naive expecting one controller to only be dedicated to a relatively small bit of airspace. You have to remember that it is also the function of Thames Radar to control the aircraft inbound and outbound from both Biggin Hill and Southend.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast and Suffolk
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are being rather naive expecting one controller to only be dedicated to a relatively small bit of airspace. You have to remember that it is also the function of Thames Radar to control the aircraft inbound and outbound from both Biggin Hill and Southend.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are now at the nub of the question.
NATS want to reduce staff to the point where Class D access is compromised.
ICAO, SARG, DfT, Licences, Agreements, and particularly ACPs say that Class D should be accessible to VFR flights.
It is therefore a matter of policy.
That is what I am lobbying about.
(And, Eastern Guy, sorry if I have used too many double negatives, but if you read what I have written, I am completely accepting that Class D should be about IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation (though even that exceeds my understanding of ICAO) but the issue on the day in question was only VFR/VFR separation, and that is not required in Class D.)
TDM, no, Thames only provides ATSOCAS to its own IFR traffic and to traffic about to enter the Zone.
NATS want to reduce staff to the point where Class D access is compromised.
ICAO, SARG, DfT, Licences, Agreements, and particularly ACPs say that Class D should be accessible to VFR flights.
It is therefore a matter of policy.
That is what I am lobbying about.
(And, Eastern Guy, sorry if I have used too many double negatives, but if you read what I have written, I am completely accepting that Class D should be about IFR/IFR and IFR/VFR separation (though even that exceeds my understanding of ICAO) but the issue on the day in question was only VFR/VFR separation, and that is not required in Class D.)
TDM, no, Thames only provides ATSOCAS to its own IFR traffic and to traffic about to enter the Zone.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the UK IAIP Thames Radar should be open 0600L-2230L. Its hours are not inextricably linked to London City opening hours. Thames has other responsibilities such as providing Biggin APS, and covering (cross-coupling) the 'SVFR' desk for Heathrow at breakfast-time and cocoa-time. Otherwise in 1987 it would have been christened as only 'City' Radar instead. (Now that would have stopped people calling for LARS at Lechlade…)
What is the SVFR position going to be known as as from today? 'Heathrow VFR'? 'Heathrow Not-So-Special'?
What is the SVFR position going to be known as as from today? 'Heathrow VFR'? 'Heathrow Not-So-Special'?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TDM,
To be fair, Thames/Heathrow normally provide a superb service to Heathrow SVFR, City VFR/SVFR and to IFR inbounds and outbounds. Really superb. That is what I said in the first post.
As I understand things, they are going through a difficult patch at the moment with SERA and LHR Class D retraining.
However, they do have a duty to maintain the service they are contracted to provide, and (and this is the important bit) we in the GA community must resist any de facto slipping of Class D VFR provision.
I have raised two other places where there are concerns, Farnborough and Solent. This is as much about precedent as anything else.
To be fair, Thames/Heathrow normally provide a superb service to Heathrow SVFR, City VFR/SVFR and to IFR inbounds and outbounds. Really superb. That is what I said in the first post.
As I understand things, they are going through a difficult patch at the moment with SERA and LHR Class D retraining.
However, they do have a duty to maintain the service they are contracted to provide, and (and this is the important bit) we in the GA community must resist any de facto slipping of Class D VFR provision.
I have raised two other places where there are concerns, Farnborough and Solent. This is as much about precedent as anything else.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that on the occasion in question Thames/City/SVFR was 'band-boxed' (for whatever reason) onto 132.7 and the operative consequently did not have sufficient capacity to provide service as obliged to do so under contract? If so, there are staffing issues and/or supervisory issues which Nats should address promptly. Or do some ATCOs still have an aversion to 'tiddlers'...
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have absolutely no reason to suspect that Thames/Heathrow controllers have any aversion to "Tiddlers" as you call them. We normally get a superb service.
There is one posting above, from Heathrow Director which includes the expressions "clockwork mice" and "I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?" which does show an attitude which some in the GA community think is widespread in NATS, but my experience is quite the opposite.
Indeed, I am an IR instructor based at Biggin Hill and I have to take IR students into the airways system.
You can imagine how popular is a PA28 or Cirrus going from Biggin Hill to Gloucester or Cranfield IFR! But I need to do it to cover the syllabus.
I have never had the slightest hint from the TC controllers that they are inconvenienced by our presence, though, having played on the simulator at TC, I know just what a pain it is for them.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for the TC and TA controllers.
There is one posting above, from Heathrow Director which includes the expressions "clockwork mice" and "I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?" which does show an attitude which some in the GA community think is widespread in NATS, but my experience is quite the opposite.
Indeed, I am an IR instructor based at Biggin Hill and I have to take IR students into the airways system.
You can imagine how popular is a PA28 or Cirrus going from Biggin Hill to Gloucester or Cranfield IFR! But I need to do it to cover the syllabus.
I have never had the slightest hint from the TC controllers that they are inconvenienced by our presence, though, having played on the simulator at TC, I know just what a pain it is for them.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for the TC and TA controllers.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Timothy
"Tiddlers" as you call them
As you know, I am very pro-GA, I have to be with my qualifications, but GA has not, in the past, endeared itself to Thames ATCOs by saturating 132.7 with inappropriate, protracted and persistent ATSOCA requests.