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
Thames/Heathrow - G-LIZZ: It weren't me, honest!
I am the pilot of G-LIZZ and it has been drawn to my attention that someone pretending to be me has posted on this forum.
I want to make it quite clear that it wasn't me, and I have always said and will continue to say that in my 45 years and thousands of hours of aviation all over the world, Thames/Heathrow Radar are the best and most accommodating unit I have dealt with.
Whoever pretended to be me (I don't know who, because the thread has, quite rightly, been deleted) should be ashamed of themselves.
Timothy Nathan
G-LIZZ
07785 503543
I want to make it quite clear that it wasn't me, and I have always said and will continue to say that in my 45 years and thousands of hours of aviation all over the world, Thames/Heathrow Radar are the best and most accommodating unit I have dealt with.
Whoever pretended to be me (I don't know who, because the thread has, quite rightly, been deleted) should be ashamed of themselves.
Timothy Nathan
G-LIZZ
07785 503543
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Timothy
It weren't me, honest!
Originally Posted by Timothy
Thames/Heathrow Radar are the best and most accommodating unit I have dealt with
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 will remember that I used to offer famil flights to Thames/Heathrow controllers, showing them the VRPs so they knew what they looked like from the air.
I'd still be very happy to do that, incidentally, if any of them want to get in touch. I know that they are not allowed to post on here, but my mobile number is above.
There have been feathers ruffled for reasons outside both my and their control, but my preference would be to smooth them again.
You will remember that I used to offer famil flights to Thames/Heathrow controllers, showing them the VRPs so they knew what they looked like from the air.
I'd still be very happy to do that, incidentally, if any of them want to get in touch. I know that they are not allowed to post on here, but my mobile number is above.
There have been feathers ruffled for reasons outside both my and their control, but my preference would be to smooth them again.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timothy, perhaps an acknowledgement that you contributed in some significant way to the feather ruffling wouldn't go amiss? Your public salvo which appeared on two other fora (faceB and EuroGA) where you accused the controller of 'getting his own back' and being 'unprofessional', together with an indication that you had formally complained to the CAA wasn't a great start.
I vaguely recollect that you hold/held a professional pilot licence.
I vaguely recollect that you hold/held a professional pilot licence.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Timothy
I'd still be very happy to do that, incidentally, if any of them want to get in touch
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I publicly acknowledge that I contributed to the feather ruffling, and I am very sorry for the effect that it had on the individual controller.
I, too, was under a lot of pressure, as a very high worth individual had paid a very worthwhile charity for the homeless a very great deal of money for the experience, and I had told him, quite rightly, that the time to do it is early on Sunday when the Class D is only notional, as City Airport is closed.
I would imagine that the homeless charity will suffer a substantial loss of income as a result of what happened.
The issue of whether Class D airspace should be closed to any VFR traffic when the airport that it serves is closed is a matter which I am discussing at a senior level with NATS and most certainly will discuss with CAA/SARG, starting tomorrow at the FASVIG meeting. It comes down to questions about how Class D is managed compared to the ICAO definition, and questions of what should happen when there are not enough resources to manage airspace.
That informs the vociferous debate about Farnborough Class D, because TAG's whole premise is that they will always permit access (not just transits, any legitimate activity). If CAA/DfT say that it is acceptable to refuse access to Class D because of shortness of staff, even when there are no IFR arrivals or departures, then it will redouble GA's efforts to resist Controlled Airspace.
So the floor is rather covered with cans of worms, but, no doubt, all will be resolved in the usual, friendly, constructive and professional way.
I, too, was under a lot of pressure, as a very high worth individual had paid a very worthwhile charity for the homeless a very great deal of money for the experience, and I had told him, quite rightly, that the time to do it is early on Sunday when the Class D is only notional, as City Airport is closed.
I would imagine that the homeless charity will suffer a substantial loss of income as a result of what happened.
The issue of whether Class D airspace should be closed to any VFR traffic when the airport that it serves is closed is a matter which I am discussing at a senior level with NATS and most certainly will discuss with CAA/SARG, starting tomorrow at the FASVIG meeting. It comes down to questions about how Class D is managed compared to the ICAO definition, and questions of what should happen when there are not enough resources to manage airspace.
That informs the vociferous debate about Farnborough Class D, because TAG's whole premise is that they will always permit access (not just transits, any legitimate activity). If CAA/DfT say that it is acceptable to refuse access to Class D because of shortness of staff, even when there are no IFR arrivals or departures, then it will redouble GA's efforts to resist Controlled Airspace.
So the floor is rather covered with cans of worms, but, no doubt, all will be resolved in the usual, friendly, constructive and professional way.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that the homeless charity will suffer a substantial loss of income as a result of what happened.
.......maybe its just your perception of people
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very narrow view of how these things work.
What is needed is positive enthusiasm from people who have had the experience. That is what encourages others to bid large amounts of money.
If someone says "it was fantastic" then others will follow.
If they say "it was OK, but we didn't see as much as we hoped" then not so much.
This particular guy has paid his money, and was very nice about it. It's the next guy I am concerned about.
What is needed is positive enthusiasm from people who have had the experience. That is what encourages others to bid large amounts of money.
If someone says "it was fantastic" then others will follow.
If they say "it was OK, but we didn't see as much as we hoped" then not so much.
This particular guy has paid his money, and was very nice about it. It's the next guy I am concerned about.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But it doesn't change the fact that airspace is being denied not due to traffic factors but because an organisation which has control over it doesn't want to spend the cash to proved the resource to allow it to be used.
If it does want to spend the cash revert the space to uncontrolled at the times its not used. Maybe not the whole of the airspace as I presume some of it will be used when required.
But to refuse access because that area has been allocated to another controller and they would be overloaded with VFR traffic in it isn't really playing the game with the access if safe principle of class D.
It is more than safe VFR traffic being there and it won't compromise IFR traffic. So apart from it costs money what's the reason to exclude the VFR traffic? .
If it does want to spend the cash revert the space to uncontrolled at the times its not used. Maybe not the whole of the airspace as I presume some of it will be used when required.
But to refuse access because that area has been allocated to another controller and they would be overloaded with VFR traffic in it isn't really playing the game with the access if safe principle of class D.
It is more than safe VFR traffic being there and it won't compromise IFR traffic. So apart from it costs money what's the reason to exclude the VFR traffic? .
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A guess at the reason
This is just a guess at the reason - I don't know if it has any validity/merit...
The City CTR contains a huge number of buildings/areas of national importance...
The City of London
Houses of Parliament
Canary Wharf
Buckingham Palace is a stone's throw away
And many, many, many more.
Also a large proportion of the zone is very built up, not just R160.
If the airspace was completely unregulated (/unmonitored) in a free-for-all then I suspect various security agencies would be somewhat twitchy.
Not that I'm saying that a simple prior phone call would prevent a "nutter" from causing mayhem, but it may mean that the total number of flights, and the associated risks of collision, particularly in the vicinity of these important areas is, in some way, mitigated by regulating traffic.
If that means a sight-seeing tour, or other non-standard flights, are delayed to a more appropriate time then that seems a reasonable response. We are not talking about open countryside here where the risk to people on the ground is minimal.
There may be some merit in de-classifying a portion of the zone (let's say, for example, the area to the east of a north-south line through City Airport) outside the airport operating hours however, this also creates the potential for problems at changeover times from regulated to non-regulated airspace (or vice versa). Sometimes published operating hours are extended (albeit these are covered by NOTAM...but often only issued very close to the published closing time) leading to a possibility of confusion as to whether the zone is regulated/non-regulated.
Where to draw any particular line in the zone would inevitably open a can of worms. This combined with confusion regarding opening/closing times, in my opinion is a recipe for confusion. So, again in my mind, the current arrangements seem preferable.
Although ATC is not a policing force it is there to provide a safe service to aircraft (how far does duty of care extend?). When it is not possible to maintain that level of safety then some form of regulation is surely necessary. At the moment, as I understand it, non-standard flight applications are to be submitted in advance of the planned sortie. Somebody, somewhere assesses each flight against all other known flights in the area at the time and makes a judgement call on whether the number, and complexity, of flights is acceptable in terms of ATC's ability to provide their service. Does ATC have a responsibility to separate VFR flights within Class D? Clearly no. That is the pilots responsibility, but ATC do have a duty to pass pertinent traffic information. When traffic is so dense that pertinent traffic cannot be passed then ATC would have failed to provide the necessary service.
The status quo, in my opinion, is the most sensible option. With airspace users on non-standard flights notifying the powers that be of their intentions before taking to the skies. If the powers that be suggest altering flight times to avoid congestion then that is most likely to mean that the operator can get on with his/her flight in relative peace and quiet...something both parties would eminently prefer.
Again these are just my thoughts, I am open to better understanding and more appreciation of other peoples thoughts.
The City CTR contains a huge number of buildings/areas of national importance...
The City of London
Houses of Parliament
Canary Wharf
Buckingham Palace is a stone's throw away
And many, many, many more.
Also a large proportion of the zone is very built up, not just R160.
If the airspace was completely unregulated (/unmonitored) in a free-for-all then I suspect various security agencies would be somewhat twitchy.
Not that I'm saying that a simple prior phone call would prevent a "nutter" from causing mayhem, but it may mean that the total number of flights, and the associated risks of collision, particularly in the vicinity of these important areas is, in some way, mitigated by regulating traffic.
If that means a sight-seeing tour, or other non-standard flights, are delayed to a more appropriate time then that seems a reasonable response. We are not talking about open countryside here where the risk to people on the ground is minimal.
There may be some merit in de-classifying a portion of the zone (let's say, for example, the area to the east of a north-south line through City Airport) outside the airport operating hours however, this also creates the potential for problems at changeover times from regulated to non-regulated airspace (or vice versa). Sometimes published operating hours are extended (albeit these are covered by NOTAM...but often only issued very close to the published closing time) leading to a possibility of confusion as to whether the zone is regulated/non-regulated.
Where to draw any particular line in the zone would inevitably open a can of worms. This combined with confusion regarding opening/closing times, in my opinion is a recipe for confusion. So, again in my mind, the current arrangements seem preferable.
Although ATC is not a policing force it is there to provide a safe service to aircraft (how far does duty of care extend?). When it is not possible to maintain that level of safety then some form of regulation is surely necessary. At the moment, as I understand it, non-standard flight applications are to be submitted in advance of the planned sortie. Somebody, somewhere assesses each flight against all other known flights in the area at the time and makes a judgement call on whether the number, and complexity, of flights is acceptable in terms of ATC's ability to provide their service. Does ATC have a responsibility to separate VFR flights within Class D? Clearly no. That is the pilots responsibility, but ATC do have a duty to pass pertinent traffic information. When traffic is so dense that pertinent traffic cannot be passed then ATC would have failed to provide the necessary service.
The status quo, in my opinion, is the most sensible option. With airspace users on non-standard flights notifying the powers that be of their intentions before taking to the skies. If the powers that be suggest altering flight times to avoid congestion then that is most likely to mean that the operator can get on with his/her flight in relative peace and quiet...something both parties would eminently prefer.
Again these are just my thoughts, I am open to better understanding and more appreciation of other peoples thoughts.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems fair enough to me.
I think the main problem is due to the position not being filled with a bum on the seat as a sector in its own right. The airspace is lumped onto another sectors airspace. This controller has no capacity to deal with the VFR TONC.
So the traffic has to be barred from using empty air.
If there was a bum on seat there wouldn't be a problem with this traffic using the airspace.
Does the controlling authority of a piece of air have the right to close it so that they save costs?
And it not unusual with issues like this to get different views from the managers and then in the pub to find out the real reason for the issue over a pint.
And I am not saying this is the case in this airspace.
"Never going to happen mate, that will completely screw with the weekend late starts and early goes and also the holiday roster"
"eh explain I thought you have a moving cycle with a full watch"
"we do but on the weekend we take it in turns to come in at the start of shift and the others come in time to take over. So not filling that position means another person gets an extra 2 hours in bed and another one gets to bugger off early as well"
"And we double up on holiday over the weekend as well so people can leave Friday and then start work again on Monday so there will be two off at the same time. Instead of the normal only one during the week"
"I thought you had to maximise access to controlled airspace"
"
that, why should 2-3 puddle jumpers screw with 30 ATCO's quality of life just because they want to go flying on a Sunday morning. Its not as if they pay anything for the service. And over 50% of the time nobody wants to fly anyway because the wx is pants so everyone would be sitting bored anyway"
Now I actually sympathise with that point of view there is nothing worse than sitting around in an airport with bugger all to do. But I also see the problem with closing controlled airspace for the same reason.
I think the main problem is due to the position not being filled with a bum on the seat as a sector in its own right. The airspace is lumped onto another sectors airspace. This controller has no capacity to deal with the VFR TONC.
So the traffic has to be barred from using empty air.
If there was a bum on seat there wouldn't be a problem with this traffic using the airspace.
Does the controlling authority of a piece of air have the right to close it so that they save costs?
And it not unusual with issues like this to get different views from the managers and then in the pub to find out the real reason for the issue over a pint.
And I am not saying this is the case in this airspace.
"Never going to happen mate, that will completely screw with the weekend late starts and early goes and also the holiday roster"
"eh explain I thought you have a moving cycle with a full watch"
"we do but on the weekend we take it in turns to come in at the start of shift and the others come in time to take over. So not filling that position means another person gets an extra 2 hours in bed and another one gets to bugger off early as well"
"And we double up on holiday over the weekend as well so people can leave Friday and then start work again on Monday so there will be two off at the same time. Instead of the normal only one during the week"
"I thought you had to maximise access to controlled airspace"
"
that, why should 2-3 puddle jumpers screw with 30 ATCO's quality of life just because they want to go flying on a Sunday morning. Its not as if they pay anything for the service. And over 50% of the time nobody wants to fly anyway because the wx is pants so everyone would be sitting bored anyway"Now I actually sympathise with that point of view there is nothing worse than sitting around in an airport with bugger all to do. But I also see the problem with closing controlled airspace for the same reason.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ,
That is indeed my point. I could see both visually and on TCAS that the Zone was virtually empty. The issue was that the poor controller was trying to do too many tasks not related to the control of the Class D airspace. That is a staffing issue.
Also, I believe that Class D is not supposed to be used for security purposes, only air traffic - is that right?
That is indeed my point. I could see both visually and on TCAS that the Zone was virtually empty. The issue was that the poor controller was trying to do too many tasks not related to the control of the Class D airspace. That is a staffing issue.
Also, I believe that Class D is not supposed to be used for security purposes, only air traffic - is that right?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I believe that Class D is not supposed to be used for security purposes, only air traffic - is that right?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mad_jock I hope that the many ATCOs who bend over backwards to provide a first class service, whether it be to A380s or clockwork mice, read your posting above.
When I was operational, senior management never seemed to understand that to provide required breaks there would always be more ATCOs than seats. So, at the end of a shift there will be those who have been working and have not yet had their meal break. Subject to contingency cover some of those members of staff had the option to leave early if they so wished. Leave was always strictly controlled and it was often difficult to get a couple of weeks of in mid-summer.
Your friend(?) apparently said: "And we double up on holiday over the weekend as well so people can leave Friday and then start work again on Monday so there will be two off at the same time. Instead of the normal only one during the week" Lord knows where he works - Barra? Islay? I've never heard such nonsense. Places I worked were on a 24 hour shift system and weekends were busy.
Of course, when things got hot and controllers worked into their break time it was all forgotten. Heathrow was often understaffed during the years I was there and more than once I broke the rules on breaks to keep traffic moving. The alternative was to have traffic holding until 1 o'clock in the morning. The priority was to provide service to commercial aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers. Therefore, in the event of staff shortage, the first position to be closed was SVFR.
You wanna try over 2 hours on GMC in bad weather? Been there, got the tee-shirt and the grey hairs. I hope it is different now.
I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?
When I was operational, senior management never seemed to understand that to provide required breaks there would always be more ATCOs than seats. So, at the end of a shift there will be those who have been working and have not yet had their meal break. Subject to contingency cover some of those members of staff had the option to leave early if they so wished. Leave was always strictly controlled and it was often difficult to get a couple of weeks of in mid-summer.
Your friend(?) apparently said: "And we double up on holiday over the weekend as well so people can leave Friday and then start work again on Monday so there will be two off at the same time. Instead of the normal only one during the week" Lord knows where he works - Barra? Islay? I've never heard such nonsense. Places I worked were on a 24 hour shift system and weekends were busy.
Of course, when things got hot and controllers worked into their break time it was all forgotten. Heathrow was often understaffed during the years I was there and more than once I broke the rules on breaks to keep traffic moving. The alternative was to have traffic holding until 1 o'clock in the morning. The priority was to provide service to commercial aircraft carrying hundreds of passengers. Therefore, in the event of staff shortage, the first position to be closed was SVFR.
You wanna try over 2 hours on GMC in bad weather? Been there, got the tee-shirt and the grey hairs. I hope it is different now.
I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I am not saying this is the case in this airspace.
Unfortunately not all units work in the same way as Heathrow.
And you have just proved the point with your final question HD.
I wonder how many GA pilots pay for the service they receive?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the "original poster" ,who has ,( thus far) not had the testicular fortitude to explain WHY he placed Timothy in a position to justify HIS post,please see his attitude on infringement reports. (11 May 2014)
What a charming chap.
soaringhigh650
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 550
Monthly reports on more of the same garbage....
--
"Will you stop infringing my Class A dog food!"
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 550
Monthly reports on more of the same garbage....
--
"Will you stop infringing my Class A dog food!"