refusing access to class D airspace?!?
Guest
Posts: n/a
1261,
If you look back to an earlier post of mine in this thread you'll see that, taking Gatwick as an example, there's an entry in the MATS Pt 2 that effectively puts VFR at a lower priority.
I assume that whoever had that entry put in had the appropriate authority to do so.
WF.
If you look back to an earlier post of mine in this thread you'll see that, taking Gatwick as an example, there's an entry in the MATS Pt 2 that effectively puts VFR at a lower priority.
I assume that whoever had that entry put in had the appropriate authority to do so.
WF.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not assume that a VFR flight does not have an FPL filed.
I file every flight, in order to ensure that spurious route charges are not raised.
The fact that almost no-one is aware of the plans (only the departure and arrival towers) is not relevant, mine is an example of "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and are conforming with normal routing procedures."
Not really making any point, just commenting.
W
I file every flight, in order to ensure that spurious route charges are not raised.
The fact that almost no-one is aware of the plans (only the departure and arrival towers) is not relevant, mine is an example of "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and are conforming with normal routing procedures."
Not really making any point, just commenting.
W
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
My response is based on the inference of what Mr Skinner wrote.
That by simply announcing the correct details, transit a/c
would be allowed thru'.I maintain my response, as it is based on current experience of Class D airspace with an NDB on a 4 mile final, that NDB also being a common waypoint for a/c wishing to transit the CTR VFR north to south or vice versa.A/c flying E-W
on final approach crossing a transit route, hope you see the picture.It doesn't mean that transit a/c are always told NO, as WCollins experience of Manch CTR suggests; simply that, on occasion, if the flight paths look likely to conflict, VFR transit a/c will be informed in advance and advised of a possible re-route.
Duty of care is also an ATCOs responsibility. I haven't yet met an ATCO who would allow this possible confliction to become an actual collision just to allow a VFR flight through. My attitude is if it will work safely, do it. If a confliction, or worse, looks likely, then re-route the VFR transit.
Extra staff would help but even they could not change the potential conflict that exists. An answer would be for VFR transit a/c to use the Manch low level corridor, and at times to avoid a conflict this has been done.
Manch say NO (allegedly), Liverpool say good possibility!!!
Hope this clarifies my response.
My response is based on the inference of what Mr Skinner wrote.
That by simply announcing the correct details, transit a/c
would be allowed thru'.I maintain my response, as it is based on current experience of Class D airspace with an NDB on a 4 mile final, that NDB also being a common waypoint for a/c wishing to transit the CTR VFR north to south or vice versa.A/c flying E-W
on final approach crossing a transit route, hope you see the picture.It doesn't mean that transit a/c are always told NO, as WCollins experience of Manch CTR suggests; simply that, on occasion, if the flight paths look likely to conflict, VFR transit a/c will be informed in advance and advised of a possible re-route.
Duty of care is also an ATCOs responsibility. I haven't yet met an ATCO who would allow this possible confliction to become an actual collision just to allow a VFR flight through. My attitude is if it will work safely, do it. If a confliction, or worse, looks likely, then re-route the VFR transit.
Extra staff would help but even they could not change the potential conflict that exists. An answer would be for VFR transit a/c to use the Manch low level corridor, and at times to avoid a conflict this has been done.
Manch say NO (allegedly), Liverpool say good possibility!!!
Hope this clarifies my response.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a Few
I see your point in your particular case.
Just out of interest, what airspace is above you? If you have instrument traffic passing over the NDB at circa 1400' (assuming a 3 degree glide) who 'owns' 2400 up? (and can't aircraft be routed there, or is it TMA?)
As I said in an earlier post I don't blame controllers for the way the system works, but experience of the US does show that creative thinking can be applied safely to the benefit of all.
The LAX VFR corridor worked very well, with traffic routing well above the airport approach and departure area.... and the LA basin is pretty busy, rather more so than the average class D airfield in the UK. (It did require pilots to observe the rules and transgressions resulted in firm action.)
Although this may sound astonishing to you, I did get an invite en route from a controller to visit VFR in an Arrow "I might have to hold you for 20-30 minutes to fit you into the sequence because your airspeed is a bit slow, but you are very welcome" Then again, 4 parallel runways do give you lots of options if your mind is focused on making something happen. I confess to bottling the opportunity!
But then again, AOPA (US) are very large and strong pressure group with a determination to represent their members in a way that is most un-British (no slight to AOPA UK intended here, its a much smaller organization in a different environment.)
I see your point in your particular case.
Just out of interest, what airspace is above you? If you have instrument traffic passing over the NDB at circa 1400' (assuming a 3 degree glide) who 'owns' 2400 up? (and can't aircraft be routed there, or is it TMA?)
As I said in an earlier post I don't blame controllers for the way the system works, but experience of the US does show that creative thinking can be applied safely to the benefit of all.
The LAX VFR corridor worked very well, with traffic routing well above the airport approach and departure area.... and the LA basin is pretty busy, rather more so than the average class D airfield in the UK. (It did require pilots to observe the rules and transgressions resulted in firm action.)
Although this may sound astonishing to you, I did get an invite en route from a controller to visit VFR in an Arrow "I might have to hold you for 20-30 minutes to fit you into the sequence because your airspeed is a bit slow, but you are very welcome" Then again, 4 parallel runways do give you lots of options if your mind is focused on making something happen. I confess to bottling the opportunity!
But then again, AOPA (US) are very large and strong pressure group with a determination to represent their members in a way that is most un-British (no slight to AOPA UK intended here, its a much smaller organization in a different environment.)
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 10th Jul 2003 at 14:44.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some weeks ago I became embroiled in a thread on Class D airspace penetration on this forum, and the comments on this thread seem to contain much the same sentiments. I abandoned the discussion (being considered a "purist" by some) and on the recommendation that I was losing the battle and to "give it up".
It was my conclusion, though, that there is a problem with class D, in that the separation rules are well defined, but the "powers-that-be" in the ATC world have placed requirements on controllers which make it impossible for them to implement Class D, as it should be (see below). Indeed, for many of the contributors to that thread, and this one, the point is made that in some places they consider there is too much traffic to permit safe VFR operations in Class D. In practice, it seems that in those places ATC operate the airspace like Class C for safety reasons (duty of care etc.), rather than class D.
I have no problem with this from a safety point of view. If the traffic density warrants class C, then make it so! That will not prevent GA access, but it will at least make the airspace class match the actual ATC implementation, and it may well make it safer for all.
What seems to be wrong is the myth spread about how much Class D airspace exists in the UK in order to give good access to GA, when in practice it appears to be slightly less than expected. My point is, If its operated like class C for safety reasons, call it class C, not D. If it is safe to operate as class D, then call it class D and operate it like class D. Also, it should be ABSOLUTELY clear that in class D a controller cannot be held responsible for lack of separation of VFR flights when it is specifically NOT his function.
I reproduce some of the comments from the other thread in support of the case.
Extracts from ATC manuals and documents
Controller comments
It was my conclusion, though, that there is a problem with class D, in that the separation rules are well defined, but the "powers-that-be" in the ATC world have placed requirements on controllers which make it impossible for them to implement Class D, as it should be (see below). Indeed, for many of the contributors to that thread, and this one, the point is made that in some places they consider there is too much traffic to permit safe VFR operations in Class D. In practice, it seems that in those places ATC operate the airspace like Class C for safety reasons (duty of care etc.), rather than class D.
I have no problem with this from a safety point of view. If the traffic density warrants class C, then make it so! That will not prevent GA access, but it will at least make the airspace class match the actual ATC implementation, and it may well make it safer for all.
What seems to be wrong is the myth spread about how much Class D airspace exists in the UK in order to give good access to GA, when in practice it appears to be slightly less than expected. My point is, If its operated like class C for safety reasons, call it class C, not D. If it is safe to operate as class D, then call it class D and operate it like class D. Also, it should be ABSOLUTELY clear that in class D a controller cannot be held responsible for lack of separation of VFR flights when it is specifically NOT his function.
I reproduce some of the comments from the other thread in support of the case.
Extracts from ATC manuals and documents
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.
Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a risk of collision exists.
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.
Regardless of the type of airspace, or the air traffic service being provided, nothing shall prevent a controller from taking action he considers appropriate if he believes a risk of collision exists.
There are occasions when VFR transits are possible but sometimes you need to 'control' them by specifying a route or altitude but this is not to provide separation but to build in some traffic avoidance. This is one of the requirements for IFR traffic inside Class D airspace.
I think my colleagues and I have got the point across to you that we operate Class D in a way we think discharges our Duty of Care and sustains our licence and pension.
I know in an ideal world you are right, but this is the real world. And before you ask, someone somewhere has decided we do not have Class C airspace in the UK. So we don't.
I think my colleagues and I have got the point across to you that we operate Class D in a way we think discharges our Duty of Care and sustains our licence and pension.
I know in an ideal world you are right, but this is the real world. And before you ask, someone somewhere has decided we do not have Class C airspace in the UK. So we don't.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I come back to asking "is there really a problem?"
My experience of asking for Class D penetration is really quite large, and I am a happy bunny ('cept Manch) so what is there to fear from GAAC doing their survey and finding out that this is all a storm in a teacup?
W
My experience of asking for Class D penetration is really quite large, and I am a happy bunny ('cept Manch) so what is there to fear from GAAC doing their survey and finding out that this is all a storm in a teacup?
W
Guest
Posts: n/a
WC
I suspect that you are partly a happy bun because you have ATPL level skills and confidence that help you get clearances.
It will be interesting to see what the GAAC survey shows and I wonder if we maybe have a training issue with some PPLs who are turned away because the controller is busy and reacts (understandably) instinctively to avoid having his/her workload increased by the perception that 'this one may be difficult to work.'
Despite the impression that I may have given, I have seldom been declined a class D transit, although I don't request them anything like as often as you, since my flying allows me easily to circumvent in most cases.... but I wonder if this has anything to do with my training, where I learned at a busy ATC airport and became organised in my thinking and quick and accurate on the com box.
I suspect that you are partly a happy bun because you have ATPL level skills and confidence that help you get clearances.
It will be interesting to see what the GAAC survey shows and I wonder if we maybe have a training issue with some PPLs who are turned away because the controller is busy and reacts (understandably) instinctively to avoid having his/her workload increased by the perception that 'this one may be difficult to work.'
Despite the impression that I may have given, I have seldom been declined a class D transit, although I don't request them anything like as often as you, since my flying allows me easily to circumvent in most cases.... but I wonder if this has anything to do with my training, where I learned at a busy ATC airport and became organised in my thinking and quick and accurate on the com box.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gatwick
Age: 53
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As promised, a quick report on my experience with Gatwick and a zone transit. I was flying from Goodwood to Redhill witha planned route via Guildford when I thought I'd give it a try. My first call was to Gatwick Director as I passed 1000' on climbout from Goodwood requesting a direct routing to Redhill. At the time Gatwick appeared relatively quiet (mid afternoon on a Friday) and were using runway 26.
The controller was very helpful and patient with my adequate-but-not-quite-perfect R/T (I forgot the aircraft type!), giving me a squawk (FIS only though) and radar vectors to clear the climbout track from Gatwick. Once north of the centreline, I was given own navigation through the zone to Redhill. I estimate the transit saved me five minutes compared to my planned route via Guildford, which is the equivalent of about ten quid on the aircraft I was flying.
All in all an excellent service. Thank you, if you happen to be reading this.
MD.
(edited to correct typo)
The controller was very helpful and patient with my adequate-but-not-quite-perfect R/T (I forgot the aircraft type!), giving me a squawk (FIS only though) and radar vectors to clear the climbout track from Gatwick. Once north of the centreline, I was given own navigation through the zone to Redhill. I estimate the transit saved me five minutes compared to my planned route via Guildford, which is the equivalent of about ten quid on the aircraft I was flying.
All in all an excellent service. Thank you, if you happen to be reading this.
MD.
(edited to correct typo)
Last edited by ModernDinosaur; 14th Jul 2003 at 17:55.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ModernDinosaur
Thank you for that report, next time I am doing Biggin - Shoreham, Goodwood or Bembridge I'll give it a whirl, thanks to your encouragement
W
Thank you for that report, next time I am doing Biggin - Shoreham, Goodwood or Bembridge I'll give it a whirl, thanks to your encouragement
W
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well....
I decided to put it to the test today...my track to LFBV was BIG DCT SFD at about 0800Z and back again at about 1600Z and on both occasions LGW gave me a direct transit on track at not above 2000' VFR.
What more could I ask for?!
Keep it up, guys
W
I decided to put it to the test today...my track to LFBV was BIG DCT SFD at about 0800Z and back again at about 1600Z and on both occasions LGW gave me a direct transit on track at not above 2000' VFR.
What more could I ask for?!
Keep it up, guys
W
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a similar experience recently from Redhill to Shoreham in a C172. The frequency appeared quiet and so we asked and were given a Radar Control Service through the zone and once clear to the South resume own navigation.
This was one of the few (i.e 2!)occasions I have done this through Gatwick, it appeared a little easier than own navigation insofaras I just did what I was told turn left heading xyz, turn right heading abc etc. I kept a close eye to nail the altitude and heading and remained aware of my position so I could pick up the nav when released.
This was one of the few (i.e 2!)occasions I have done this through Gatwick, it appeared a little easier than own navigation insofaras I just did what I was told turn left heading xyz, turn right heading abc etc. I kept a close eye to nail the altitude and heading and remained aware of my position so I could pick up the nav when released.
Last edited by Andrew Sinclair; 12th Aug 2003 at 18:54.
Press to Reset
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add another positive experience....
Before Sunday I had never flown in controlled airspace (only asked once before but too much IFR traffic about), on Sunday I flew through the Luton CTR twice, once over the field. Thank you Luton Approach!
MC.
Before Sunday I had never flown in controlled airspace (only asked once before but too much IFR traffic about), on Sunday I flew through the Luton CTR twice, once over the field. Thank you Luton Approach!
MC.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
final3greens.
You may have felt safe and comfortable in your little plane overflying LAX but probably had no idea of the extra workload or possible disaster sequence you could have set in train.
Scott Voigt can probably help me out here, but when I visited LAX TRACON a few years all the controllers there hated that VFR corridor over the top of LAX. Everytime there was a VFR transit they had to amend the go-around procedure to stop below the transit and if there was a departure, it also had to be stopped below. If I remember rightly, a departure I watched got stopped at around 2000ft after take-off. Not much problem for a heavily ladend B747 on a hot day, but you try stopping off a B737/ Airbus at a low altitude! Any stop-off below the SID level is a disaster waiting to happen, it makes increased worload for everyone: someone, someday, is bound to forget the altitude restriction, and for what, just to let someone save a few miles and show off to their mates!
I recall an AEROMEXICO inbound to the LAX region colliding with a VFR transit who was not where they should have been. In the UK, let's keep things as they are please!!
what you describe was achieved perfectly safely with the VFR corridor through LAX class B (A to us) airspace, which is the busiest airspace that I have ever flown in.
Scott Voigt can probably help me out here, but when I visited LAX TRACON a few years all the controllers there hated that VFR corridor over the top of LAX. Everytime there was a VFR transit they had to amend the go-around procedure to stop below the transit and if there was a departure, it also had to be stopped below. If I remember rightly, a departure I watched got stopped at around 2000ft after take-off. Not much problem for a heavily ladend B747 on a hot day, but you try stopping off a B737/ Airbus at a low altitude! Any stop-off below the SID level is a disaster waiting to happen, it makes increased worload for everyone: someone, someday, is bound to forget the altitude restriction, and for what, just to let someone save a few miles and show off to their mates!
I recall an AEROMEXICO inbound to the LAX region colliding with a VFR transit who was not where they should have been. In the UK, let's keep things as they are please!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor RT
In my experience the principle reason for the apparent lack of clearances through class D is the low standard of RT shown by a large proportion of GA pilots.
You only have to listen to the lack of understanding of the LARS service to reason with a controller in letting someone of questionable ability to transit in the vicinity of commercial traffic. It's simply a matter of being willing to jepordise the safely of the principle task of vectoring IFR flights.
I do not believe that the UK has a problem with controllers withholding clearances. It does with regard to the standard of flying and RT of a great many light aircraft pilots.
You only have to listen to the lack of understanding of the LARS service to reason with a controller in letting someone of questionable ability to transit in the vicinity of commercial traffic. It's simply a matter of being willing to jepordise the safely of the principle task of vectoring IFR flights.
I do not believe that the UK has a problem with controllers withholding clearances. It does with regard to the standard of flying and RT of a great many light aircraft pilots.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmic
Your point has been discussed at length here
The consensus seems to be that most people think that R/T standards do make a difference, a few insist that it matters not a jot.
W
Your point has been discussed at length here
The consensus seems to be that most people think that R/T standards do make a difference, a few insist that it matters not a jot.
W
I recall an AEROMEXICO inbound to the LAX region colliding with a VFR transit who was not where they should have been. In the UK, let's keep things as they are please!!
