Unhelpful controllers at Birmingham?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little more to this story.
I happened to mention this topic when I returned to work (and yes I do work at Birmingham) the watch manager on duty was a little surprised to say the least to hear that it had been taken this far. He remembered the episode well as he was the Watch Manager on duty at the time and explained to me what happened as a follow up.
First of all YES comments were made on the R/T that were not appropriate. The watch Manager spoke to the instructor of the aircraft on the telephone later on and apologised for the comments made. He also made it very clear to the ATCO concerned that his actions would not be accepted.
Having done all this where I come from that would be incident closed, so can anyone explain to me why, having accepted we had made a mistake and apologised for it the pilot felt it neccasary to go in to print to a magazine? We now have a situation whereby not only is the ATCO who made one silly comment being put through the mill but all of Birmingham ATCO's are being labeled "unhelpfull controllers at Birmingham".
Maybe I am getting a touch sensitive in my old age but I would not have thought that this is the best way to harmonise relationships between ATC & GA pilots.
Like I have said previously we made a mistake on this occasion and admitted to it. If a pilot has a gripe about ATC talking to unit management will often get results, making comments to magazines/newspapers often does not.
I happened to mention this topic when I returned to work (and yes I do work at Birmingham) the watch manager on duty was a little surprised to say the least to hear that it had been taken this far. He remembered the episode well as he was the Watch Manager on duty at the time and explained to me what happened as a follow up.
First of all YES comments were made on the R/T that were not appropriate. The watch Manager spoke to the instructor of the aircraft on the telephone later on and apologised for the comments made. He also made it very clear to the ATCO concerned that his actions would not be accepted.
Having done all this where I come from that would be incident closed, so can anyone explain to me why, having accepted we had made a mistake and apologised for it the pilot felt it neccasary to go in to print to a magazine? We now have a situation whereby not only is the ATCO who made one silly comment being put through the mill but all of Birmingham ATCO's are being labeled "unhelpfull controllers at Birmingham".
Maybe I am getting a touch sensitive in my old age but I would not have thought that this is the best way to harmonise relationships between ATC & GA pilots.
Like I have said previously we made a mistake on this occasion and admitted to it. If a pilot has a gripe about ATC talking to unit management will often get results, making comments to magazines/newspapers often does not.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THANKS BRUM
Thanks. As an Ops guy for the only base operator at BHX, I give your boys n girls 10/10. The hassle of getting the exodus away at seven in the morning, and not so much as an ASR, Kinda speaks for itself. Still the Eye in the sky gets off, Special VFR, oh and Police 41 at any time, steered in and out, without any hassle by the controllers, and all with humour.
Is it not time, You, (soz), STN' LTN and any other overworked 'provider of ATC services' said just that. We are overworked, contact, Wolverhampton on........................
Oh and still Police 41 is kept out of the way, or my pilots cautioned as to his where abouts, whilst still close to the ILS.
VFR pilots, if EGBB ATC get curt, or steer you clear, you got a DTY or BUZAD arrival about to mow you down. Have you got TCAS.
TRY YOUR COMPLAINT TOWARDS:
LHR
LGW
STN
LTN
EDI
GLA
MAN
and perhaps LBA, MME in 2 hears time..........................
Bored.
Perhaps, I could sue you for my guys extra fuel burn...................
Is it not time, You, (soz), STN' LTN and any other overworked 'provider of ATC services' said just that. We are overworked, contact, Wolverhampton on........................
Oh and still Police 41 is kept out of the way, or my pilots cautioned as to his where abouts, whilst still close to the ILS.
VFR pilots, if EGBB ATC get curt, or steer you clear, you got a DTY or BUZAD arrival about to mow you down. Have you got TCAS.
TRY YOUR COMPLAINT TOWARDS:
LHR
LGW
STN
LTN
EDI
GLA
MAN
and perhaps LBA, MME in 2 hears time..........................
Bored.
Perhaps, I could sue you for my guys extra fuel burn...................
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, you see. That's the problem with ATC and "PR":
If BAW192 is rude or unprofessional we think he is an @rse.
If one person at an ATC Unit is rude or unprofessional then that unit is an @rse.
Simple as that.
(For p1$$ taking purposes only can you give us a clue as to who it was?)
If BAW192 is rude or unprofessional we think he is an @rse.
If one person at an ATC Unit is rude or unprofessional then that unit is an @rse.
Simple as that.
(For p1$$ taking purposes only can you give us a clue as to who it was?)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOM1
Interesting post. I'm pleased to hear that the watch manager brought it up. Apologies for the title of the post, admittedly it was inappropriate and in no way did I intend to label everyone at Birmingham as unhelpful; neither the ATCO concerned.
Personally, I've only ever been treated well by ATC. I was just a bit surprised by the incident and, as you say, I didn't think that it was a positive step either toward improving relationships between ATC and GA. A case possibly of what goes around, comes around?
Interesting post. I'm pleased to hear that the watch manager brought it up. Apologies for the title of the post, admittedly it was inappropriate and in no way did I intend to label everyone at Birmingham as unhelpful; neither the ATCO concerned.
Personally, I've only ever been treated well by ATC. I was just a bit surprised by the incident and, as you say, I didn't think that it was a positive step either toward improving relationships between ATC and GA. A case possibly of what goes around, comes around?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 67
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boredcounter
"Perhaps, I could sue you for my guys extra fuel burn..................."
This sort of provincial selfishness and protectionism for your base operations, if translated across all other bases would be highly detrimental to all, and particularly small outfits like yours
I agree ATC need more resources, but it should not be for ATCOs to make judgements about the relative commercial priority of one type of flight over another. Their primary role is to maintain safety and their secondary role to maximise the efficient use of airspace. Regretably as privatised organisations there may well be unfortunate commercial pressures upon them to favour one type of flight or even one operator over another.
"Perhaps, I could sue you for my guys extra fuel burn..................."
This sort of provincial selfishness and protectionism for your base operations, if translated across all other bases would be highly detrimental to all, and particularly small outfits like yours
I agree ATC need more resources, but it should not be for ATCOs to make judgements about the relative commercial priority of one type of flight over another. Their primary role is to maintain safety and their secondary role to maximise the efficient use of airspace. Regretably as privatised organisations there may well be unfortunate commercial pressures upon them to favour one type of flight or even one operator over another.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very interesting thread for a new PPL (going for IMC) like myself. I have not (yet) had recent experience of flying near the Birmingham zone.
It calls to mind a refresher lesson at Leeds some time ago, when I was told, in the circuit, to turn onto base for a 2 mile final. I turned, with my instructor's agreement, and ATC subsequently curtly informed me that I had made a one mile final "and I told you to make a two mile final." I was chastened, and somewhat nervous subsequently.
However, the point of my post is this: when I came back to flying last year to obtain my PPL, that day had stuck in my mind, and made (makes) me very careful to estimate my position very carefully, and I'm sure it has helped prompt me to keep a cross-reference en-route between instrument estimations of position, and whatever available visual cues there are. To be as alert to positioning and to the whearabouts of nearby controlled airspace as I can be.
In other words, sometimes a sharp word can work beneficially.
(I am not condoning outright rudeness, though.)
It calls to mind a refresher lesson at Leeds some time ago, when I was told, in the circuit, to turn onto base for a 2 mile final. I turned, with my instructor's agreement, and ATC subsequently curtly informed me that I had made a one mile final "and I told you to make a two mile final." I was chastened, and somewhat nervous subsequently.
However, the point of my post is this: when I came back to flying last year to obtain my PPL, that day had stuck in my mind, and made (makes) me very careful to estimate my position very carefully, and I'm sure it has helped prompt me to keep a cross-reference en-route between instrument estimations of position, and whatever available visual cues there are. To be as alert to positioning and to the whearabouts of nearby controlled airspace as I can be.
In other words, sometimes a sharp word can work beneficially.
(I am not condoning outright rudeness, though.)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many moons ago, I was the APC ATCA at Brum and heard the following exchange......
Birmingham Approach this is Gxxxx. I have just overflown your airfield and I'm lost. Can you tell me where I am please?
Roger, Gxx what is your heading?
My heading is 120kts, over
Granted Brum had a LOT less movements, but
it DOES go on
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Birmingham Approach this is Gxxxx. I have just overflown your airfield and I'm lost. Can you tell me where I am please?
Roger, Gxx what is your heading?
My heading is 120kts, over
Granted Brum had a LOT less movements, but
it DOES go onwe aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC subsequently curtly informed me that I had made a one mile final "and I told you to make a two mile final.
That means your accuracy will be within 5NM for at least 95% of the flight. If it's a good enough required standard for the big boys ......
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,611
Received 475 Likes
on
249 Posts
As one pilot who often DOES get to successfully transit the BHX zone, firstly thanks to the controllers who make it possible. We can usually tell when it's busy / fraught for you peeps and do try to make our passing uneventful and efficient and then get out of your hair asap. We don't mind being moved up / down & side to side, it's still usually quicker than going round 
Can I make a suggestion? A while back, EGBB ATC published a semi-permanent NOTAM advising pilots not not to expect a service unless actually directly requiring to enter the airspace. Seems to me that it might be time to republish it a few times, perhaps with an explanation that it is due to controller workload.
Pilots can easily relate to that, those likely to cause the most problems for controllers (i.e. those with less time under their belts) are usually suffering from high workload too.
Don't like any sort of rudeness over the r/t either. It's seldom necessary or appropriate, it leaves the recipient (either way) a potential flight safety risk while he /she ruminates on it. Far better to do it by phone afterwards if one really must.
I am surprised and disappointed that the individual went griping to the press after he had received an apology; very unprofessional IMHO
Can I make a suggestion? A while back, EGBB ATC published a semi-permanent NOTAM advising pilots not not to expect a service unless actually directly requiring to enter the airspace. Seems to me that it might be time to republish it a few times, perhaps with an explanation that it is due to controller workload.
Pilots can easily relate to that, those likely to cause the most problems for controllers (i.e. those with less time under their belts) are usually suffering from high workload too.
Don't like any sort of rudeness over the r/t either. It's seldom necessary or appropriate, it leaves the recipient (either way) a potential flight safety risk while he /she ruminates on it. Far better to do it by phone afterwards if one really must.
I am surprised and disappointed that the individual went griping to the press after he had received an apology; very unprofessional IMHO
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
martinidoc
I dont think Boredcounter was suggesting they get a priority cos they are BHX based. They get no favours, they are treated fairly which is what makes me feel we are doing a good job when I read his comments.
As I can only speak for myself, this is my philosopy to GA's.... If I can accomodate you, I will, BUT only if I can still maintain the high level of service to the IFR in/out guys n girls who pay our wages.
Awareness is also a key, ie JCB2 slips in and out of the zone VFR
all the time without any problem, WHY ? because he is fully aware and apprectative to the traffic situation, uses common sense and possesses a very high standard of Airmanship. I'm not saying no one else does, but you can trust some crews to do what they say they are gonna do more than others!
We welcome views on improving service on our website, and even answer questions from all aviators relative to birmingham. Its there to help ANY aircrews understanding of Brum ATC!
www.egbb.co.uk
As regards to a dressing down on the freq, Ive been there(previous unit), done that, got the t-shirt.....THEN......had the tapes played back to me of my R/T, had the bollocking from my manager, THEN the bollocking from the Unit Manager ! I had my reasons at the time but looking back they dont seem so relevant and I was wrong. We make mistakes then learn from them.
Update for "Cloudhopper"
This morning I had 3 GA's all getting a FIS merrily going about their business, a 4th GA called and was told to "standby" BUT no one else was on Freq!! In fact all freq's were very quiet..... WHY? because I was busy on the fone speaking to London Radar controller, then London Group Supp, Then Tower, Then Director about the MSK CRJ with the Oil Eng Temp warning light that was 50 miles away and returning to Brum, possible Emergency !
Quite Freq doesnt always mean No work or anti GA !!!
BBB
As I can only speak for myself, this is my philosopy to GA's.... If I can accomodate you, I will, BUT only if I can still maintain the high level of service to the IFR in/out guys n girls who pay our wages.
Awareness is also a key, ie JCB2 slips in and out of the zone VFR
all the time without any problem, WHY ? because he is fully aware and apprectative to the traffic situation, uses common sense and possesses a very high standard of Airmanship. I'm not saying no one else does, but you can trust some crews to do what they say they are gonna do more than others!
We welcome views on improving service on our website, and even answer questions from all aviators relative to birmingham. Its there to help ANY aircrews understanding of Brum ATC!
www.egbb.co.uk
As regards to a dressing down on the freq, Ive been there(previous unit), done that, got the t-shirt.....THEN......had the tapes played back to me of my R/T, had the bollocking from my manager, THEN the bollocking from the Unit Manager ! I had my reasons at the time but looking back they dont seem so relevant and I was wrong. We make mistakes then learn from them.
Update for "Cloudhopper"
This morning I had 3 GA's all getting a FIS merrily going about their business, a 4th GA called and was told to "standby" BUT no one else was on Freq!! In fact all freq's were very quiet..... WHY? because I was busy on the fone speaking to London Radar controller, then London Group Supp, Then Tower, Then Director about the MSK CRJ with the Oil Eng Temp warning light that was 50 miles away and returning to Brum, possible Emergency !
Quite Freq doesnt always mean No work or anti GA !!!
BBB
Last edited by Bombay Bad Boy; 2nd Jun 2003 at 00:45.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had a read of the Birmingham web site - which raised a few thoughts. I presume the airspace is class D (I don't fly there and I don't have a map to check it, but it can't be B (below FL250) and it can't be C (none in the UK) , and if it allows VFR transits then it can't be A).
Now, my understanding of class D airspace is that VFR separate themselves from everyone else, and ATC does not provide a separation service of any form to VFR traffic. Also, in class D, ATC only separates IFR from IFR, and advises IFR of VFR, but doesn't separate IFR from VFR (unless avoidance is requested by the IFR traffic). However, VFR do need a clearance to enter class D.
The thoughts thus raised are - what does the clearance do? Why shouldn't a pilot plan a VFR transit of Class D airspace?
Don't flame me, this is a reasonable and valid question Nor is this aimed at EGBB, as it is something which applies to all class D, in every country.
What does ATC do with VFR flights in class D? If ATC doesn't separate them from each other, and doesn't separate IFR traffic from them, then ATC has no reason to ever reject a VFR flight. If it is done on safety grounds, then it seems that ATC is trying to do more than it is supposed to do i.e. take over the VFR pilot's (clearly defined) responsibility.
A couple of quotes found on the Brum web site:
Well, why would ATC need to move a VFR pilot away from a particular area? If it is not to avoid infringement of other airspace, then it can only be for some sort of separation purpose - but in class D, ATC do not (should not?) provide separation to VFR.
Why should a clearance ever be rejected? Again, it seems only for safety reasons, based on separation requirements, which ATC are not supposed to apply to VFR in class D.
And a further comment from this forum
Well doesn't that make the point? A VFR flight, responsible for its own separation from all other traffic is interfering with IFR movements, and ATC who are not responsible for any separation of VFR flights (even with regard to the IFR/VFR combination) doesn't like it! 
I can well understand a controller (having been one myself) looking at a screen and seeing VFR traffic interfering with IFR traffic and feeling decidedly uncomfortable.
However, if it class D, that situation is what the CAA has foreseen, and it is not for ATC to try to provide separation when that is not the aim of class D airspace. If it seems unsafe, then the airspace should be C or B, not D!
From the previous comments in this discussion, I expect this view will raise some hackles - but please discuss amicably.
Now, my understanding of class D airspace is that VFR separate themselves from everyone else, and ATC does not provide a separation service of any form to VFR traffic. Also, in class D, ATC only separates IFR from IFR, and advises IFR of VFR, but doesn't separate IFR from VFR (unless avoidance is requested by the IFR traffic). However, VFR do need a clearance to enter class D.
The thoughts thus raised are - what does the clearance do? Why shouldn't a pilot plan a VFR transit of Class D airspace?
Don't flame me, this is a reasonable and valid question
Nor is this aimed at EGBB, as it is something which applies to all class D, in every country.What does ATC do with VFR flights in class D? If ATC doesn't separate them from each other, and doesn't separate IFR traffic from them, then ATC has no reason to ever reject a VFR flight. If it is done on safety grounds, then it seems that ATC is trying to do more than it is supposed to do i.e. take over the VFR pilot's (clearly defined) responsibility.
A couple of quotes found on the Brum web site:
Be prepared for Radar vectors should ATC decide they need to move you away from a particular area.
Have an alternative route ready just in case Zone transit cannot be approved.
Why should a clearance ever be rejected? Again, it seems only for safety reasons, based on separation requirements, which ATC are not supposed to apply to VFR in class D.
And a further comment from this forum
Any transit through HON is going to interfere with IFR airfield movements
I can well understand a controller (having been one myself) looking at a screen and seeing VFR traffic interfering with IFR traffic and feeling decidedly uncomfortable.
However, if it class D, that situation is what the CAA has foreseen, and it is not for ATC to try to provide separation when that is not the aim of class D airspace. If it seems unsafe, then the airspace should be C or B, not D!From the previous comments in this discussion, I expect this view will raise some hackles - but please discuss amicably.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Having been a radar controller in Class D airspace for 25 years I can tell you that I would never clear a VFR aircraft through it and expect it to stay out of the way of the IFR. Some pilots' idea of separation isn't mine! So, we went in for a bit of 'controlled VFR' and kept them out of the way, either by radar or vertically. As our unit had a very good reputation for allowing VFR traffic through then clearly we didn't upset anyone, or too many!
The rules say 'pass traffic information to the IFR about the VFR'. The IFR can then ask for traffic avoidance. Then what do you do, take the IFR off the ILS to avoid the VFR? No, you make sure the VFR isn't a factor in the first place. A few extra track miles for the VFR but he gets through the CTR. The IFR continues on his merry way down the ILS. Everyone's happy.
It's the real world.
VA
The rules say 'pass traffic information to the IFR about the VFR'. The IFR can then ask for traffic avoidance. Then what do you do, take the IFR off the ILS to avoid the VFR? No, you make sure the VFR isn't a factor in the first place. A few extra track miles for the VFR but he gets through the CTR. The IFR continues on his merry way down the ILS. Everyone's happy.
It's the real world.
VA
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VA
Entirely understand your reaction. However ......
Indeed, but in class D airspace its the pilot's responsibility, not yours, even though that is an idea which can be hard to swallow. Also, what looks horrifying on the radar screen may be perfectly acceptable to a pilot in visual contact with the traffic - passing 1 mile abeam and behind a 737 is visually "well clear" although the radar picture will look awful.
So, arbitrarily making the airspace class C instead of class D! If one chose to be awkward, then the question that follows is "on whose authority?" 
Don't get me wrong, and please don't take offence - I fully understand the best intentions of ATC and the almost manic desire to keep aeroplanes apart- its what the job's all about However, my point is that in class D airspace, as defined by the "powers that be", whether the controller likes it or not, it is not your responsibility do so, for VFR flights. If it were, then it would have been declared class C, or B. As I said, if airspace isn't safe then it should be re-classified, rather than ATC making its own interpretation of the rules, because it seems "right and safe".
There is another thread running on the Private Flying forum related to airspace classification, and "why is it so complicated"? I think it is important for pilots - particularly flying IFR - to realise that in class D airspace, when they are VMC they are not "separated" from VFR flights, since VFR flights are legitimately entitled to be there (if VMC). Also, for the VFR pilots to understand their responsibilities in keeping clear of any other traffic IFR or VFR.
I can understand how hard it is for a controller to see aeroplanes getting close on the radar and desperately wanting to intervene on safety grounds,
- but in class D it is not ATC's responsibility (unless IFR/IFR), and it should be "traffic information" to the flights concerned, and not ATC separation - that's what class D is all about.
Entirely understand your reaction. However ......
Some pilots' idea of separation isn't mine!
Also, what looks horrifying on the radar screen may be perfectly acceptable to a pilot in visual contact with the traffic - passing 1 mile abeam and behind a 737 is visually "well clear" although the radar picture will look awful.
So, we went in for a bit of 'controlled VFR' and kept them out of the way, either by radar or vertically
Don't get me wrong, and please don't take offence - I fully understand the best intentions of ATC and the almost manic desire to keep aeroplanes apart- its what the job's all about
However, my point is that in class D airspace, as defined by the "powers that be", whether the controller likes it or not, it is not your responsibility do so, for VFR flights. If it were, then it would have been declared class C, or B. As I said, if airspace isn't safe then it should be re-classified, rather than ATC making its own interpretation of the rules, because it seems "right and safe".There is another thread running on the Private Flying forum related to airspace classification, and "why is it so complicated"? I think it is important for pilots - particularly flying IFR - to realise that in class D airspace, when they are VMC they are not "separated" from VFR flights, since VFR flights are legitimately entitled to be there (if VMC). Also, for the VFR pilots to understand their responsibilities in keeping clear of any other traffic IFR or VFR.
I can understand how hard it is for a controller to see aeroplanes getting close on the radar and desperately wanting to intervene on safety grounds,
- but in class D it is not ATC's responsibility (unless IFR/IFR), and it should be "traffic information" to the flights concerned, and not ATC separation - that's what class D is all about.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
On whose authority? My licence, my pension.
I can certainly tell what a mile looks like on radar . . . . You need to ask the UK CAA why they don't go for Class C, or Class B below FL245. I am only relating what the majority of UK controllers do inside Class D.
I have had pilots of IFR complain about the proximity of VFR traffic. And as I said, what do you do if the IFR asks for traffic avoidance?
Still, I no longer do radar so the world can sleeply safely in their beds.
VA
I can certainly tell what a mile looks like on radar . . . . You need to ask the UK CAA why they don't go for Class C, or Class B below FL245. I am only relating what the majority of UK controllers do inside Class D.
I have had pilots of IFR complain about the proximity of VFR traffic. And as I said, what do you do if the IFR asks for traffic avoidance?
Still, I no longer do radar so the world can sleeply safely in their beds.
VA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Out on the bike in Northumberland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase 'duty of care' comes to mind-most of us operating in class D know the rules and are quite aware that the good book says we do not separate VFR/IFR .However at the subsequent court of enquiry it will no doubt be the atco who is blamed for the airmiss or worse.The primary purpose for establishing the airspace in the first place will be protecting the instrument approaches and the climbouts and it would seem stange to then reduce the level of protection by in effect allowing VFR traffic to route through with simply traffic info'-without being unkind to my GA friends there are people out there who do not belong in that situation(including the pilot who deliberately went off freq' inside CAS thus causing my trainee to take traffic off the ILS and delay some four or five subsequent arrivals so much for airspace sharing!)
As VA says a little common sense and agreement with the parties concerned should allow everybody to stay happy-I will resrict the level of VFR transits or offer a reroute to enable my IFR traffic to continue 'head down' in the cockpit at the critical time in an approach-often I can sweeten the pill by offering a radar service in return-this seems to work-the last two days have been the busiest of the year so far for transits and we did not refuse anyone, just deviations or level caps mainly
VA-if you miss the tiddlers so much you should come north-its just like old times!
As VA says a little common sense and agreement with the parties concerned should allow everybody to stay happy-I will resrict the level of VFR transits or offer a reroute to enable my IFR traffic to continue 'head down' in the cockpit at the critical time in an approach-often I can sweeten the pill by offering a radar service in return-this seems to work-the last two days have been the busiest of the year so far for transits and we did not refuse anyone, just deviations or level caps mainly
VA-if you miss the tiddlers so much you should come north-its just like old times!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bucks. UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundbound - In Class D airspace the controller also has to pass traffic information to VFR flights on IFR flights and other VFR flights. If he feels that he does not have the spare capacity to do this then I think this a valid reason for declining a zone transit request.
If there was an incident and the controller had not fulfilled this minimum requirement then I think he could be held at least partly accountable.
If there was an incident and the controller had not fulfilled this minimum requirement then I think he could be held at least partly accountable.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brimstone has hit the nail on the head.
Also, it is sometime surprising when reading through the UK AIRPROX Reports that the board finds "incident attributed to late sighting of traffic by one/both pilots", for what ever reason (cockpit workload, dropped handheld GPS and trying to pick it up.......etc).
Also, it is sometime surprising when reading through the UK AIRPROX Reports that the board finds "incident attributed to late sighting of traffic by one/both pilots", for what ever reason (cockpit workload, dropped handheld GPS and trying to pick it up.......etc).
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me for quoting large chunks of MATS Part 1 but I think it would be most enlightening for those unfamiliar with the document and help this debate.
While I accept what GroundBound says about the basic ICAO requirements within Class D airspace , the 'Illustrious Authority' decided to 'amplify' the requirements, a few years ago, with paragraphs below.
After you have read them, I would be interested if to know if you agree with Vintage ATCO's view together with my own and those of most other ATCOs operating in Class D airspace that 'seperating' VFR from IFR traffic is not only necessary to cover one's bottom but actually 'mandated'?
3.1 Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the
effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.
While I accept what GroundBound says about the basic ICAO requirements within Class D airspace , the 'Illustrious Authority' decided to 'amplify' the requirements, a few years ago, with paragraphs below.
After you have read them, I would be interested if to know if you agree with Vintage ATCO's view together with my own and those of most other ATCOs operating in Class D airspace that 'seperating' VFR from IFR traffic is not only necessary to cover one's bottom but actually 'mandated'?
3.1 Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic. This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other. It is accepted that occasionally when workload is high, the traffic information passed on aircraft in Class F and G airspace may be generic rather than specific.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the
effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC_LTN
Thanks for that posting - MATS Part-1 is not a document normally seen outside ATC. I would agree about it emphasising the implied duty of care etc.
The text makes the point about preventing collisions , rather than providing separation, so I am not so sure about it mandating separation of VFR.
To me, this confirms that passing traffic information is the desired way, and that "see and avoid" is what is expected - again this is not talking about "separating" VFR.
OK - these 2 are killer paragraphs, as they allow more or less anything to be done in the name of "safe orderly and expeditious", and management of workload, and are open to lots of possible interpretations.
It does seem to me, though, that the need to "amplify" the requirements for class D airspace to the extent that it effectively becomes class C airspace in practice, suggests that the classification in the first place is wrong.
I have always believed the idea of airspace classification was primarily linked to safety, volume and type of traffic. As such class D would be applicable to areas with lower volume of flights and consequently fewer chances of conflict.
In the specific case of Brum, which triggered this thread, it seems that the traffic volume is greater than what would be appropriate for class D airspace?
Thanks for that posting - MATS Part-1 is not a document normally seen outside ATC. I would agree about it emphasising the implied duty of care etc.
Although in Class D, E, F and G airspace separation standards are not applied, ATC has a responsibility to prevent collisions between known flights and to maintain a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic.
This objective is met by passing sufficient traffic information and instructions to assist pilots to see and avoid each other.
3.2 Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the
effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.
effective management of overall ATC workload.
3.3 For example, routeing instructions may be issued which will reduce or eliminate points of conflict with other flights, such as final approach tracks and circuit areas, with a consequent reduction in the workload associated with passing extensive traffic information. Visual Reference Points (VRPs) may be established to assist in the definition of frequently utilised routes and the avoidance of instrument approach and departure tracks.
It does seem to me, though, that the need to "amplify" the requirements for class D airspace to the extent that it effectively becomes class C airspace in practice, suggests that the classification in the first place is wrong.
I have always believed the idea of airspace classification was primarily linked to safety, volume and type of traffic. As such class D would be applicable to areas with lower volume of flights and consequently fewer chances of conflict.
In the specific case of Brum, which triggered this thread, it seems that the traffic volume is greater than what would be appropriate for class D airspace?