Unhelpful controllers at Birmingham?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unhelpful controllers at Birmingham?
I was reading the June edition of Flyer and came across a shocking letter from a CPL student concerning an incident he had with Birmingham ATC during 170A test.
The student describes a planned route that would take him through Birmingham ATC. On contact with ATC he was told to remain clear of controlled airspace. Anticipating this the pilot carries out plan B, which would presumably take him around the CTZ. However, a few minutes later the pilot says that another controller from Birmingham contacted him and "gave him a dressing down". The controller went on to say such things as "to plan a route through our controlled airspace in this day and age is wholly inappropriate" and "never being able to get a clearance" and "shouldn't even be trying", in a tone that was described as aggressive.
Would ATCOs, particularly any from Birmingham, care to comment?
The student describes a planned route that would take him through Birmingham ATC. On contact with ATC he was told to remain clear of controlled airspace. Anticipating this the pilot carries out plan B, which would presumably take him around the CTZ. However, a few minutes later the pilot says that another controller from Birmingham contacted him and "gave him a dressing down". The controller went on to say such things as "to plan a route through our controlled airspace in this day and age is wholly inappropriate" and "never being able to get a clearance" and "shouldn't even be trying", in a tone that was described as aggressive.
Would ATCOs, particularly any from Birmingham, care to comment?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Out on the bike in Northumberland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while I do not try to fly through brum's airspace I do spend a fair amount of time on the phone co-ordinating zone transits and It is rare to be told that the transit is not going to be possible, like our own situation normally with some flexiblity on behalf of the pilot and controller something can be worked out-mind you in todays airspace sharing environment an attitude such as the controller quoted is likely to be frowned upon-the hoops we are going through to gain extra airspace to accomodate a large increase in ATM's has to be seen to be believed!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NATS U.K.
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you would like a response from Birmingham, here are one individual's thoughts on the situation. Firstly I do not condone rudeness on the R/T - it is not good practice in any situation and usually counter-productive in the ATC environment. Having said that, a few points need to be made.
I cannot comment directly on a "shocking story" taken from a magazine with which I am unfamiliar (and cannot access without paying for it), particularly when the sparse details given do not ring true, however the following observations may offer some explanation of the frustration which may have been felt by the controller at the time.
Being instructed to remain outside controlled airspace on first call is standard for all free-calling traffic at Birmingham if the controller cannot deal immediately with the call. This is as a result of a number of infringement incidents where a pilot has considered he has a right to enter the CTA if two-way communication has been initiated. It is not a knee-jerk reaction, rather a defence measure contained in unit instructions.
Birmingham has suffered from a controlled airspace infringement problem for many years, partly as a result of having the Honiley VOR, a major area navigational aid, very inconveniently situated on the main runway final approach at a range of six miles from the airfield. The days of VFR pilots looking out of the window to determine flight path seem to have vanished, replaced by the slavish devotion to needle-following.
Each and every request for zone transit is considered on merit, taking into account traffic density and the impact the planned route may have on Birmingham traffic. The majority of such transits simply wish to travel in the straight line joining A to B, although many will make significant diversion to accommodate the ubiquitous VOR. At the end of the day it's down to track and level versus inbound and outbound traffic.
Birmingham is staffed with the number of ATCOs needed to fulfil our contract with Birmingham International Airport, no more, no fewer. Apart from the final positioning director, there is just one radar controller dealing with all initial calls from arrivals, departures and extraneous traffic as well as carrying out liaison with two en-route centres and adjacent airfields. We manage the Birmingham traffic very nicely, thankyou, this being what pays our salaries. Unfortunately the frequency is often overloaded as a result of calls from the following:-
a) pilots calling for FIS, often for less than two minutes on a short flight, sometimes I suspect just to talk on the "big boys' frequency". Please, if you're that way inclined, go play somewhere else. London FIS on 124.75 for instance.
b) pilots calling for RIS or RAS. Birmingham lies within an area covered by three LARS units, Brize, Shawbury and Cottesmore, all staffed and paid to provide such services. Birmingham is not, has never been, and will never be a LARS unit.
c) pilots calling for zone transit, and here we get back to the original point after my admittedly off-message wanderings. Any transit through HON is going to interfere with IFR airfield movements (430 of them per day at the moment, just in case you think we sit on our backsides doing nothing all day) and possibly the controller involved in this case felt that to plan a transit for training purposes through such a congested area may not have been the brightest idea in the circumstances. If he was as busy as I suspect he may have been (and after 32 years I've seen a few of such sessions) I can understand if he was less than happy at the time.
d) transits which you may consider to be clear of the final approach/departure track may be refused because of environmental reasons involving NPRs. Because of our proximity to large conurbations the airport company are very hot on this, and rightly so.
In summary, I'm sorry you were so shocked by what you read, I'm sorry if the pilot whose experience you report (third-hand with large gaps in the story) was indeed treated rudely. We handle large numbers of transits, and FIS/RIS/RAS requests every day, and have long held a reputation for dealing with the vast majority of such requests to the general satisfaction of our non-paying customers. In return, please try to think beyond the limits of your own cockpit and spare a thought for some very busy guys and gals on the ground. We do our best - try to cut us some slack if we don't always get it spot on.
I cannot comment directly on a "shocking story" taken from a magazine with which I am unfamiliar (and cannot access without paying for it), particularly when the sparse details given do not ring true, however the following observations may offer some explanation of the frustration which may have been felt by the controller at the time.
Being instructed to remain outside controlled airspace on first call is standard for all free-calling traffic at Birmingham if the controller cannot deal immediately with the call. This is as a result of a number of infringement incidents where a pilot has considered he has a right to enter the CTA if two-way communication has been initiated. It is not a knee-jerk reaction, rather a defence measure contained in unit instructions.
Birmingham has suffered from a controlled airspace infringement problem for many years, partly as a result of having the Honiley VOR, a major area navigational aid, very inconveniently situated on the main runway final approach at a range of six miles from the airfield. The days of VFR pilots looking out of the window to determine flight path seem to have vanished, replaced by the slavish devotion to needle-following.
Each and every request for zone transit is considered on merit, taking into account traffic density and the impact the planned route may have on Birmingham traffic. The majority of such transits simply wish to travel in the straight line joining A to B, although many will make significant diversion to accommodate the ubiquitous VOR. At the end of the day it's down to track and level versus inbound and outbound traffic.
Birmingham is staffed with the number of ATCOs needed to fulfil our contract with Birmingham International Airport, no more, no fewer. Apart from the final positioning director, there is just one radar controller dealing with all initial calls from arrivals, departures and extraneous traffic as well as carrying out liaison with two en-route centres and adjacent airfields. We manage the Birmingham traffic very nicely, thankyou, this being what pays our salaries. Unfortunately the frequency is often overloaded as a result of calls from the following:-
a) pilots calling for FIS, often for less than two minutes on a short flight, sometimes I suspect just to talk on the "big boys' frequency". Please, if you're that way inclined, go play somewhere else. London FIS on 124.75 for instance.
b) pilots calling for RIS or RAS. Birmingham lies within an area covered by three LARS units, Brize, Shawbury and Cottesmore, all staffed and paid to provide such services. Birmingham is not, has never been, and will never be a LARS unit.
c) pilots calling for zone transit, and here we get back to the original point after my admittedly off-message wanderings. Any transit through HON is going to interfere with IFR airfield movements (430 of them per day at the moment, just in case you think we sit on our backsides doing nothing all day) and possibly the controller involved in this case felt that to plan a transit for training purposes through such a congested area may not have been the brightest idea in the circumstances. If he was as busy as I suspect he may have been (and after 32 years I've seen a few of such sessions) I can understand if he was less than happy at the time.
d) transits which you may consider to be clear of the final approach/departure track may be refused because of environmental reasons involving NPRs. Because of our proximity to large conurbations the airport company are very hot on this, and rightly so.
In summary, I'm sorry you were so shocked by what you read, I'm sorry if the pilot whose experience you report (third-hand with large gaps in the story) was indeed treated rudely. We handle large numbers of transits, and FIS/RIS/RAS requests every day, and have long held a reputation for dealing with the vast majority of such requests to the general satisfaction of our non-paying customers. In return, please try to think beyond the limits of your own cockpit and spare a thought for some very busy guys and gals on the ground. We do our best - try to cut us some slack if we don't always get it spot on.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Woodville, Derbyshire, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously, none of us know the percentage of truth/elaboration in this "story". Layman's thoughts:
- ATC are very busy - how did they find a spare man to deliver a dressing down
- Is an over the air dressing down ever appropriate, especially delivered to a trainee pilot - why not just sort the immediate problem and leave the aftermath for later?
- oh yes, lastly....... did it really happen? The pilot concerned is noticeably absent!
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK... my view...
Attitudes and helpfulness depends on the individual controller, likewise the 'professionalism' of the airspace use and co-operation depends on the airmanship of the individual pilot...
I haven't flown very much in the UK compared to the US but it seems that zone transits are rarely refused in the US even at major international airports, eg LAX. Is this due to inappropiate staffing levels in the UK?
Presumably this also includes the use of the airspace associated with the airport? If this is so and transits, FIS, etc are regularly being refused due to the high volume if traffic the one controller is dealing with then surely you are understaffed?
Here's an example of unexplainable different controlling at BHX... same day, same controller, about 15 minutes apart., Sunday afternoon, busy frequency, lots of aircraft flying around, visi decreasing in smoggy Midlands weather - legal but rather crappy.
Controller: G-XXXX, you have infringed my airspace, by .25mile at 1500, (think altitude is correct), I told you you MUST REMAIN clear of controlled airspace.
G-XXX: ..apologies, I hadn't realised - confirming leaving controlled zone.
Controller: G-XXXX, roger. Repeat remain clear of my airspace at all times.
The controller was very sharp, and (possibly unintentionally) came across as being rude - it sounded unprofessional. Yes, there was an infringement but as she was working the aircraft, knew his position, altitude and track it seemed a little bit excessive in the rebuke.
Same controller about 15 minutes later, giving us a FIS as we were skirting the zone along the south and west sides, gave numerous traffic reports, offered an alternate routing to assist in avoiding the dense traffic from local fields - "as I have multiple returns and I know the visibilty is poor in places", intially we declined the alternative but then after a few minutes changed our minds - "No problem, FIS until you are out of range, call for frequency change when required", this was followed by several more traffic calls and a "GoodBye" as we changed frequency. Polite, professional and helpful throughout.
Why the difference??? Bad timimg on behalf of the other pilot? Previous problems with the other pilot before we were on frequency? Differences in the radio calls?
Attitudes and helpfulness depends on the individual controller, likewise the 'professionalism' of the airspace use and co-operation depends on the airmanship of the individual pilot...
I haven't flown very much in the UK compared to the US but it seems that zone transits are rarely refused in the US even at major international airports, eg LAX. Is this due to inappropiate staffing levels in the UK?
Birmingham is staffed with the number of ATCOs needed to fulfil our contract with Birmingham International Airport, no more, no fewer.
Here's an example of unexplainable different controlling at BHX... same day, same controller, about 15 minutes apart., Sunday afternoon, busy frequency, lots of aircraft flying around, visi decreasing in smoggy Midlands weather - legal but rather crappy.
Controller: G-XXXX, you have infringed my airspace, by .25mile at 1500, (think altitude is correct), I told you you MUST REMAIN clear of controlled airspace.
G-XXX: ..apologies, I hadn't realised - confirming leaving controlled zone.
Controller: G-XXXX, roger. Repeat remain clear of my airspace at all times.
The controller was very sharp, and (possibly unintentionally) came across as being rude - it sounded unprofessional. Yes, there was an infringement but as she was working the aircraft, knew his position, altitude and track it seemed a little bit excessive in the rebuke.
Same controller about 15 minutes later, giving us a FIS as we were skirting the zone along the south and west sides, gave numerous traffic reports, offered an alternate routing to assist in avoiding the dense traffic from local fields - "as I have multiple returns and I know the visibilty is poor in places", intially we declined the alternative but then after a few minutes changed our minds - "No problem, FIS until you are out of range, call for frequency change when required", this was followed by several more traffic calls and a "GoodBye" as we changed frequency. Polite, professional and helpful throughout.
Why the difference??? Bad timimg on behalf of the other pilot? Previous problems with the other pilot before we were on frequency? Differences in the radio calls?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NATS U.K.
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me clarify a couple of points:-
We are busy, but not understaffed for the job for which we are paid, namely dealing with Birmingham traffic, i.e. inbounds and outbounds. We are not paid for, therefore not staffed for, extraneous traffic outside the CTA. Whilst we endeavour to assist anyone who calls, we must limit that level of service to allow us to deal with our prime task. (We are, incidentally, staffed to open an extra coordination position at the busiest periods if the prime task requires it.)
I can't really comment on differences in attitude toward individual aircraft, but I would note that what seems a piffling degree of infringement assumes higher significance if that infringement takes place very close to a final approach track. Over the past few years we have lost important pieces of the CTA to the G.A. fraternity therefore almost any infringement is important to us.
Good points also from EGCC Rwy24. The original story is rather suspect to say the least. Mind you, there's nothing new in a bit of ATCO bashing - we should be used to it by now.
We are busy, but not understaffed for the job for which we are paid, namely dealing with Birmingham traffic, i.e. inbounds and outbounds. We are not paid for, therefore not staffed for, extraneous traffic outside the CTA. Whilst we endeavour to assist anyone who calls, we must limit that level of service to allow us to deal with our prime task. (We are, incidentally, staffed to open an extra coordination position at the busiest periods if the prime task requires it.)
I can't really comment on differences in attitude toward individual aircraft, but I would note that what seems a piffling degree of infringement assumes higher significance if that infringement takes place very close to a final approach track. Over the past few years we have lost important pieces of the CTA to the G.A. fraternity therefore almost any infringement is important to us.
Good points also from EGCC Rwy24. The original story is rather suspect to say the least. Mind you, there's nothing new in a bit of ATCO bashing - we should be used to it by now.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a great shame that the dedicated LARS units are not taken more advantage of in the Birmingham area. Birminghams traffic levels have risen considerably over the last 8 years without I believe an increase in staffing levels (correct me if i'm wrong here). Whereas in the past they would endeavour to provide a service it is increasingly more difficult for them to do so.
Each week you see in the NATS airport weekly review the number of zone infringers they have to deal with , in a number of cases having to break of traffic and reposition. I can understand how they have got to a stage of feeling rather agrieved at this.
I do work at a LARS unit we have the resources to work the traffic , we get paid the extra money to provide the staffing to provide the service.
As for the issue of zone transits, All ATCOS will attempt to allow zone transits if traffic permits. They don't turn around and say no just for the sake of it, sometimes though when you hear an aircraft telling you they are going to transit through your Zone it can get your back up
The phrase "request "Transit through your Zone or via your overhead is likely to get a much more pleasant response , we after all are only Human 
Each week you see in the NATS airport weekly review the number of zone infringers they have to deal with , in a number of cases having to break of traffic and reposition. I can understand how they have got to a stage of feeling rather agrieved at this.
I do work at a LARS unit we have the resources to work the traffic , we get paid the extra money to provide the staffing to provide the service.
As for the issue of zone transits, All ATCOS will attempt to allow zone transits if traffic permits. They don't turn around and say no just for the sake of it, sometimes though when you hear an aircraft telling you they are going to transit through your Zone it can get your back up
The phrase "request "Transit through your Zone or via your overhead is likely to get a much more pleasant response , we after all are only Human
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever I have spoken to Birmingham (and it's quite often because I go round the west side of their zone when going south), they have always been very helpful and polite. I have asked for a zone transit in the past and got it, but it was a couple of years ago now. Whenever I have asked recently I have been refused (no doubt for good reasons), so I now don't bother asking and plan to go round, which I think lowers the stress for everyone! My opinion of Birmingham ATC is that they are helpful but busy - certainly not impolite.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say the guys at BHX do seem to be very anti GA, I spend a lot of time around the edges of the zone and on occasions when I have called and been asked to Standby (Standard Reply) the frequencies are usually quiet. I appreciate that there are busy times when the GA aircraft cannot be dealt with but when it all seems the service from BHX is still next to nothing. I have on occasion monitored all frequencies and still been on Standby when all is quiet.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Birmingham sounds like a good reason NOT to have private facilities within the full airspace system. A tower I can see, they do indeed only worry about the airfield. But any unit working radar should be concerned with not just the airport that they are serving but ALL aircraft within the system. Now, this is NOT a cut at the controllers that work at Birmingham. This is about the system that they are forced to work with.
I know that someone came on here and told us about what happens at Birmingham from the controllers perspective. It appears to me that if this is a normal occurance then they are indeed understaffed to work with everyone flying within the system. A countries airspace is a national treasure and shouldn't be limited by local or regional dictates. The National Airspace of any country should operate seamlessly for the benefit of all...
As to the pilots retorts that no one should ever sound curt on frequency. You're right, in a perfect world we wouldn't. We wouldn't raise our voices to our spouses, children or pets either. But you know, we all have stressers on us at different times and it does happen. Sometimes the matter of a fact straight prhaseology does sound curt and unfriendly. When you are stressed and busy, you aren't worrying about being friendly. You are worried about keeping the traffic picture and keeping people from coming to a poor demise. This on top of dealing every day with people who also consider themselves professionals yet seem to be unable to talk or fly as such from time to time. It is yet another stressor. Throw in the mix of GA who are doing the best they can ( and normally are doing a splendid job ) but not always understanding what is being required of them due to the lack of education... It is sometimes just a bit more than one can take after a few hours... It takes it toll. We sometimes get a bit tense or snooty. It comes from frustration from time to time...
I could go a bit further with all of this, but you get the point. The majority of pilots out there are doing the right thing. But there are those out there due to either thinking that they know what they need to know and don't get further education or those who just haven't been in the system long enough to really understand all that they need to know, and those who never were given all that they needed to know due to being instructed by another baby instructor whose ink on the teaching certificate is still wet...
later
Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman
I know that someone came on here and told us about what happens at Birmingham from the controllers perspective. It appears to me that if this is a normal occurance then they are indeed understaffed to work with everyone flying within the system. A countries airspace is a national treasure and shouldn't be limited by local or regional dictates. The National Airspace of any country should operate seamlessly for the benefit of all...
As to the pilots retorts that no one should ever sound curt on frequency. You're right, in a perfect world we wouldn't. We wouldn't raise our voices to our spouses, children or pets either. But you know, we all have stressers on us at different times and it does happen. Sometimes the matter of a fact straight prhaseology does sound curt and unfriendly. When you are stressed and busy, you aren't worrying about being friendly. You are worried about keeping the traffic picture and keeping people from coming to a poor demise. This on top of dealing every day with people who also consider themselves professionals yet seem to be unable to talk or fly as such from time to time. It is yet another stressor. Throw in the mix of GA who are doing the best they can ( and normally are doing a splendid job ) but not always understanding what is being required of them due to the lack of education... It is sometimes just a bit more than one can take after a few hours... It takes it toll. We sometimes get a bit tense or snooty. It comes from frustration from time to time...
I could go a bit further with all of this, but you get the point. The majority of pilots out there are doing the right thing. But there are those out there due to either thinking that they know what they need to know and don't get further education or those who just haven't been in the system long enough to really understand all that they need to know, and those who never were given all that they needed to know due to being instructed by another baby instructor whose ink on the teaching certificate is still wet...
later
Scott H. Voigt
NATCA Southwest Region
Safety and Technology Chairman
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manu Forte,
Thank you for your response, however the length of your explanation was unnecessary. The point of the thread was to highlight the inappropriate RT response that a particular pilot received by an ATCO. It was in no way intended to question the service provided by Birmingham ATC. And yes, there is little to go on apart from the letter published in the magazine, however it is ridiculous to even suggest that this was aimed at ATCO bashing, so don't even go there.
EGCC Rwy 24,
Did it really happen? Well for all we know it could be complete rubbish. However, for the moment let's just assume that the letter published in Flyer wasn't made up and that the pilot concerned does other things besides spend all his spare time viewing this forum and therefore hasn't replied.
So back to the original point of the thread-Is this kind of exchange suitable over the radio?
Thank you for your response, however the length of your explanation was unnecessary. The point of the thread was to highlight the inappropriate RT response that a particular pilot received by an ATCO. It was in no way intended to question the service provided by Birmingham ATC. And yes, there is little to go on apart from the letter published in the magazine, however it is ridiculous to even suggest that this was aimed at ATCO bashing, so don't even go there.
EGCC Rwy 24,
Did it really happen? Well for all we know it could be complete rubbish. However, for the moment let's just assume that the letter published in Flyer wasn't made up and that the pilot concerned does other things besides spend all his spare time viewing this forum and therefore hasn't replied.
So back to the original point of the thread-Is this kind of exchange suitable over the radio?
I found the length of Manu Forte's post extremely helpful. It helps us to plan to maximise the probability of a transit clearance and tells us what makes life difficult for the controllers.
I haven't been through Birmingham in the last year or so, but last time I did I got a helpful, courteous and professional service, with the routing I'd requested, just as happens almost every time at Essex, Luton, Gatwick, Thames and the rest.
I haven't been through Birmingham in the last year or so, but last time I did I got a helpful, courteous and professional service, with the routing I'd requested, just as happens almost every time at Essex, Luton, Gatwick, Thames and the rest.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No. 2, you posted the original post - 'shocking letter' - and asked for a repsonse from a Birmingham ATCO. You got one, a comprehensive one, and a follow up (good reply, Manu Forte 
) Now what is your problem?
Was it an appropriate response? No, of course it wasn't. Neither are some I get from pilots but it's all in a days work. It's all a bit third and forth hand so maybe it didn't all happened the way it was reported.
Fair enough to raise but I just don't see the point of your latest reply.
) Now what is your problem?Was it an appropriate response? No, of course it wasn't. Neither are some I get from pilots but it's all in a days work. It's all a bit third and forth hand so maybe it didn't all happened the way it was reported.
Fair enough to raise but I just don't see the point of your latest reply.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: england
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well
i have to say i have just completed some work experience at birmingham airport and spent a day with the atco's.
some of the light aeroplanes that fly through the controlled airspace can cause problems or disruption to the positionig of commercial aeroplanes and it really does anoy the atco's. they told me that they aim to provide an outstanding service to commercial aeroplanes and light aeroplanes alike but if a light aeroplane is disrupting the path of a commercial aeroplane then that aircraft will have to move because there are paying customers on the other aircraft and it is not a leisure flight. and i saw for myself the actions taken by the pilot of a light aircraft whilst trying to land on runway 33
believe they do work hard up there
i have to say i have just completed some work experience at birmingham airport and spent a day with the atco's.
some of the light aeroplanes that fly through the controlled airspace can cause problems or disruption to the positionig of commercial aeroplanes and it really does anoy the atco's. they told me that they aim to provide an outstanding service to commercial aeroplanes and light aeroplanes alike but if a light aeroplane is disrupting the path of a commercial aeroplane then that aircraft will have to move because there are paying customers on the other aircraft and it is not a leisure flight. and i saw for myself the actions taken by the pilot of a light aircraft whilst trying to land on runway 33
believe they do work hard up there
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No 2.
I'm with vinatge atco - Manu Forte gave a very comprehensive and helpful explanation as to what goes on at Birmingham and also was very open in clearly stating that no atco is perfect and we all have infalibilities, which goes a long way to giving some explanation as to why the "incident", as unnecessary as it was, may have happened in the 1st place.
Cloudhopper - being told to "standby" and then hearing nothing for a while is not unusual, it usually means that the atco concerned is dealing with another more pressing matter, such as coordination or using another frequency which you can't hear. I suggest that before you post such unhelpful remarks about the standard of service that you get from Birmingham, you go and spend an afternoon at the unit, I wager it will open your eyes to the real world.
I'm with vinatge atco - Manu Forte gave a very comprehensive and helpful explanation as to what goes on at Birmingham and also was very open in clearly stating that no atco is perfect and we all have infalibilities, which goes a long way to giving some explanation as to why the "incident", as unnecessary as it was, may have happened in the 1st place.
Cloudhopper - being told to "standby" and then hearing nothing for a while is not unusual, it usually means that the atco concerned is dealing with another more pressing matter, such as coordination or using another frequency which you can't hear. I suggest that before you post such unhelpful remarks about the standard of service that you get from Birmingham, you go and spend an afternoon at the unit, I wager it will open your eyes to the real world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London, England
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vintage ATCO,
No problem.
The information Manu Forte was comprehensive, but they needn't have explained what they do in order to defend themselves. I merely wanted their views on a situation where someone asked for a zone transit and was then subject to a telling off. Of course this is only based on the information in the article but it appeared, to me at least, a rather heavy response by the ATC officer at the time. According to the article this wasn't a standard response to a zone transit made at the time; instead another ATC officer actually made the point of contacting the pilot, some five minutes later, for the sole purpose of telling him off for asking for such a request.
No problem.
The information Manu Forte was comprehensive, but they needn't have explained what they do in order to defend themselves. I merely wanted their views on a situation where someone asked for a zone transit and was then subject to a telling off. Of course this is only based on the information in the article but it appeared, to me at least, a rather heavy response by the ATC officer at the time. According to the article this wasn't a standard response to a zone transit made at the time; instead another ATC officer actually made the point of contacting the pilot, some five minutes later, for the sole purpose of telling him off for asking for such a request.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No2
You asked for a responce from a Birmingham ATCO and you got one. Yes he answered your question in the first sentence and then very appropriatly tried to give you some background. If all you wanted was for every ATCO in the country to say " we do not condone that type of R/T response" (which every one will give) then it would be a very pointless discussion forum.
You asked for a responce from a Birmingham ATCO and you got one. Yes he answered your question in the first sentence and then very appropriatly tried to give you some background. If all you wanted was for every ATCO in the country to say " we do not condone that type of R/T response" (which every one will give) then it would be a very pointless discussion forum.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 67
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilot_2b
Most commercial flights operate to permit the public to indulge their pleasure of travelling and going to exotic places on holiday.
Light aircraft are flown by those who wish to indulge their passion for aviation, or are training for a career in aviation.
I do not complain about my fellow human beings' desire to fly away on holiday, but I fail to see why this type of "commercial" operation should be treated in principle any differently from the light aircraft flyer who pays his fuel, duty, landing and nav fees pro-rata for his use of the airfield and its facilities.
All light aircraft operators accept that for very good safety reasons they will usually have to give way to larger and less manoeuverable jet passenger aircraft.
I might add that at my own base airfield EGNT almost without exception the ATCOs try very hard to coordinate light and heavy traffic to minimse delay to GA users, perhaps this is because several of them fly too!
Most commercial flights operate to permit the public to indulge their pleasure of travelling and going to exotic places on holiday.
Light aircraft are flown by those who wish to indulge their passion for aviation, or are training for a career in aviation.
I do not complain about my fellow human beings' desire to fly away on holiday, but I fail to see why this type of "commercial" operation should be treated in principle any differently from the light aircraft flyer who pays his fuel, duty, landing and nav fees pro-rata for his use of the airfield and its facilities.
All light aircraft operators accept that for very good safety reasons they will usually have to give way to larger and less manoeuverable jet passenger aircraft.
I might add that at my own base airfield EGNT almost without exception the ATCOs try very hard to coordinate light and heavy traffic to minimse delay to GA users, perhaps this is because several of them fly too!