refusing access to class D airspace?!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: london
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
refusing access to class D airspace?!?
Having just read the latest GATCO magazine (yes I really did read it), I have to comment on the article about clearance to enter controlled airspace.
Apparently the General Avaiation Safety Council and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association feel that a properly announced R/T request for crossing clearance should not be refused on such grounds as "unit working to capacity".
What is pertinent is not how 'properly announced' the R/T is, but the workload of the controller.
Surely if a unit/ATCO is working to capacity then this is perfectly acceptable grounds to refuse entry into their airspace or to offer a service beyond their means. I have spent a long time working very busy class D airspace, and I can assure pilots that we do not refuse crossing clearances. radar services etc... on the grounds that we can't be bothered. Many of my colleagues fly themselves and go out of their way to assist GA traffic. If we refuse clearance then we are genuinely too busy to cope with it and/or feel it is not safe at that time.
The article also states that checking up on class D units is not an initiative to 'pillory' controllers but it damn well feels like it. Whether we like it or not, things have changed and become busier and we are unable to accommodate everything we once could. If we are in danger of becoming overloaded and feel that we are unable to take on another joiner/crosser at that present time then pilots must understand that in the interests of safety.
I feel it would be foolish to offer a service to a pilot and then find myself unable to provide it. There is a often a lot of coordination required to get someone across CAS which is time consuming, and our priority does remain IFR passenger carrying aircraft.
Whinge over.
Apparently the General Avaiation Safety Council and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association feel that a properly announced R/T request for crossing clearance should not be refused on such grounds as "unit working to capacity".
What is pertinent is not how 'properly announced' the R/T is, but the workload of the controller.
Surely if a unit/ATCO is working to capacity then this is perfectly acceptable grounds to refuse entry into their airspace or to offer a service beyond their means. I have spent a long time working very busy class D airspace, and I can assure pilots that we do not refuse crossing clearances. radar services etc... on the grounds that we can't be bothered. Many of my colleagues fly themselves and go out of their way to assist GA traffic. If we refuse clearance then we are genuinely too busy to cope with it and/or feel it is not safe at that time.
The article also states that checking up on class D units is not an initiative to 'pillory' controllers but it damn well feels like it. Whether we like it or not, things have changed and become busier and we are unable to accommodate everything we once could. If we are in danger of becoming overloaded and feel that we are unable to take on another joiner/crosser at that present time then pilots must understand that in the interests of safety.
I feel it would be foolish to offer a service to a pilot and then find myself unable to provide it. There is a often a lot of coordination required to get someone across CAS which is time consuming, and our priority does remain IFR passenger carrying aircraft.
Whinge over.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a unit is already working to capacity, then further IFR aircraft would be refused a slot or placed in to a holding pattern and, ergo, a clearance to enter is being 'refused' temporarily.
VFR traffic should be no different in this respect.
I guess the slippery slope is that Class D airfield units might have to start declaring their capacities and regulating to the capacity number. The En Route sectors whose airspace is Class D already do so through the CFMU.
This may lead to VFR traffic having to get PPR from the operator to find out if the capacity is predicted to exist for their flight, or having to get Flight Plans in to the CFMU system so that they can be included in any airspace counts.
But if it's what AOPA, etc, want, then they will have to put up with the system beaurocracies that the rest of the aviation world operating in busy airspace already have to.
VFR traffic should be no different in this respect.
I guess the slippery slope is that Class D airfield units might have to start declaring their capacities and regulating to the capacity number. The En Route sectors whose airspace is Class D already do so through the CFMU.
This may lead to VFR traffic having to get PPR from the operator to find out if the capacity is predicted to exist for their flight, or having to get Flight Plans in to the CFMU system so that they can be included in any airspace counts.
But if it's what AOPA, etc, want, then they will have to put up with the system beaurocracies that the rest of the aviation world operating in busy airspace already have to.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
simple economics dear boy!!
now, if you want to contribute for receiving a service please send all cheques to me!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what service?
As far as I can recall it is just a 'known traffic environment'. VFR traffic is still responsbile for its own separation and the only 'service' would be if or when your IFR and VFR traffic could conflict - which is a pretty small area of most Class D space.
The French (and many others) deal with this by allowing VFR traffic to freely transit their CAS, often with published routings which are in many cases very close to or even across major airports.
That does not happen in the UK and is perhaps the crux of the issue. Most ATC units seem to want to give a full traffic service - when frankly most of the time it is not needed. But the emphasis is still there.
Stand back and wait for fireworks???
As far as I can recall it is just a 'known traffic environment'. VFR traffic is still responsbile for its own separation and the only 'service' would be if or when your IFR and VFR traffic could conflict - which is a pretty small area of most Class D space.
The French (and many others) deal with this by allowing VFR traffic to freely transit their CAS, often with published routings which are in many cases very close to or even across major airports.
That does not happen in the UK and is perhaps the crux of the issue. Most ATC units seem to want to give a full traffic service - when frankly most of the time it is not needed. But the emphasis is still there.
Stand back and wait for fireworks???
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fireworks indeed.....or just a bait!
The service is me talking to you and listening to life stories stepping on my Cat A or IFR traffic.
The service is me giving traffic info to you and the IFR arrival or outbound (who may ask for avoiding action)
The service is you having to hold - me co-ordinate with the tower - tower to work you across the field and me getting you back.
The service is me and my colleagues often busting a gut to get you across our zones so that you may see the sights or save 5 minutes flying time.
I agree that at some zones "cleared lanes" are a good idea but not in every case. I am guessing here but they probably don't have such small zones as we do in the SE of the UK.
Oh - and for what it's worth I don't know anyone who won't give a transit if the traffic conditions dictate it is possible.
We are not here to delay anyone - but PPL's flying VFR often forget that they are at the bottom of the food chain. (Apart from gliders of course!!!!
)
Rant over - your turn.................
The service is me talking to you and listening to life stories stepping on my Cat A or IFR traffic.
The service is me giving traffic info to you and the IFR arrival or outbound (who may ask for avoiding action)
The service is you having to hold - me co-ordinate with the tower - tower to work you across the field and me getting you back.
The service is me and my colleagues often busting a gut to get you across our zones so that you may see the sights or save 5 minutes flying time.
I agree that at some zones "cleared lanes" are a good idea but not in every case. I am guessing here but they probably don't have such small zones as we do in the SE of the UK.
Oh - and for what it's worth I don't know anyone who won't give a transit if the traffic conditions dictate it is possible.
We are not here to delay anyone - but PPL's flying VFR often forget that they are at the bottom of the food chain. (Apart from gliders of course!!!!
)Rant over - your turn.................
could it be because ATC at a unit is largely funded by the IFR passenger carrying aircraft?
simple economics dear boy!!
simple economics dear boy!!
If that's the case, why doesn't the ATS provider simply have a policy of refusing access to its demise to those who don't pay, just like you might see 'Private property -- No trespassing' signs around a commercial property?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you AlanM,
what is often unseen by Pilots is the amount of coordination required for what would appear a simple zone transit, we do our very best to accomodate you , we are not in the business of delaying you or rerouting you for our pleasure.
Yesterday Iwould have appeared very much like a Swan , graceful on top but paddling like no ones business underneath just to keep going.
what is often unseen by Pilots is the amount of coordination required for what would appear a simple zone transit, we do our very best to accomodate you , we are not in the business of delaying you or rerouting you for our pleasure.
Yesterday Iwould have appeared very much like a Swan , graceful on top but paddling like no ones business underneath just to keep going.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA delegates management of a particular piece of the UK's airspace to a particular ATS provider for the ATS provider to commerically exploit the airspace and maximise its revenues?
As the airspace was "given" as you say to a unit for the purpose of getting PUBLIC TRANSPORT FLIGHTS safely into the airways system, yes, it is they who have priority!!!
I won't bother quoting my MATS pt 2 but at the front it details priority of flights. Yes - you guessed it - VFR transits isn't at the top!!
If you feel you don't access to any Class D and THAT IS UNFAIR you should take it the units management and/or DAP.
For what it's worth the SRG man who sat in with me mentioned not giving too many zone transits when you are busy wth other things. Other things being a multitude of stuff.......but not VFR FIS'ers!
It is far easier to work a constant stream of IFR ins and outs than a few IFR's and a load of zone transits I can assure you.
Sorry - that's just the way it is.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
Flight priorities are dictated to us ,the MATS part 1 tells us how we deal with different categories of flight.
Normally requests for clearances shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received and issued in accordance to the traffic situation
When two or more flights of different categories request clearance the flight with the highest priority shall be dealt with first.
IFR scheduled flights which have filed a flight plan have a higher category of flight than VFR aircraft.
Flight priorities are dictated to us ,the MATS part 1 tells us how we deal with different categories of flight.
Normally requests for clearances shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received and issued in accordance to the traffic situation
When two or more flights of different categories request clearance the flight with the highest priority shall be dealt with first.
IFR scheduled flights which have filed a flight plan have a higher category of flight than VFR aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you seriously saying that we should delay passenger flights just so that you can transit the zone?
Mmmmm - delay a few hundred pax just so you can route in a direct line? Am I to give an inbound extra track miles to facilitate yr desire to enter CAS on a jolly? I am sure the airlines will be greatful for burning £100's if not £1000's of more fuel to keep you happy.
We do what we can fella, but as said you just have to accept it and dry your eyes!
get with the
plot
and yes - I do fly
Mmmmm - delay a few hundred pax just so you can route in a direct line? Am I to give an inbound extra track miles to facilitate yr desire to enter CAS on a jolly? I am sure the airlines will be greatful for burning £100's if not £1000's of more fuel to keep you happy.
We do what we can fella, but as said you just have to accept it and dry your eyes!
get with the
plotand yes - I do fly
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are beginning to see why there is a problem!
ATC who 'own' the airspace and must regulate everything that happens within it. (Yes I know about the rules, my point is about the mindset). Zones which are considered 'small' (well they have to be otherwise in the SE there would just be one!).
And yet I can meander down the Manchester low level corridor with none of that happening. And that works (granted it would help if it were a bit wider and higher! and most of that class D is very empty).
Corridors work because they do not require you to do all the things you call 'service' and because of which you refuse entry into CAS.
As far as VFR traffic is concerned CAS should be patterned much more like a MATZ than the present vast expanses, through which virtually none of your IFR traffic actually flies. (I'm thinking here about less than 3000').
I'm not trying to pick a fight or goad anyone, but the whole concept that public access to huge chunks of airspace is governed by whether the people accessing that space pay for a 'service' is one which is by international laws illegal. There is a right of free navigation. Now if the 'service provider' puts restrictions on the access and the people who work for them keep on using the 'safety' argument do not be surprised when there is some pushback.
In the SE and other places transiting CAS is difficult. Controller workload is certainly a big issue and one which is usually sighted, but there seem to be no initatives to adapt procedures and arrangements, it's just the 'we're big, you're small' argument. If VFR traffic start logging Class D transit refusals then the size of the issue can be seen. Could the answer be as simple as having a single VFR frequency and controller at peak periods?
ATC who 'own' the airspace and must regulate everything that happens within it. (Yes I know about the rules, my point is about the mindset). Zones which are considered 'small' (well they have to be otherwise in the SE there would just be one!).
And yet I can meander down the Manchester low level corridor with none of that happening. And that works (granted it would help if it were a bit wider and higher! and most of that class D is very empty).
Corridors work because they do not require you to do all the things you call 'service' and because of which you refuse entry into CAS.
As far as VFR traffic is concerned CAS should be patterned much more like a MATZ than the present vast expanses, through which virtually none of your IFR traffic actually flies. (I'm thinking here about less than 3000').
I'm not trying to pick a fight or goad anyone, but the whole concept that public access to huge chunks of airspace is governed by whether the people accessing that space pay for a 'service' is one which is by international laws illegal. There is a right of free navigation. Now if the 'service provider' puts restrictions on the access and the people who work for them keep on using the 'safety' argument do not be surprised when there is some pushback.
In the SE and other places transiting CAS is difficult. Controller workload is certainly a big issue and one which is usually sighted, but there seem to be no initatives to adapt procedures and arrangements, it's just the 'we're big, you're small' argument. If VFR traffic start logging Class D transit refusals then the size of the issue can be seen. Could the answer be as simple as having a single VFR frequency and controller at peak periods?
Are you seriously saying that we should delay passenger flights just so that you can transit the zone?
I won't bother quoting my MATS pt 2 but at the front it details priority of flights.
If you feel you don't access to any Class D and THAT IS UNFAIR you should take it the units management and/or DAP.
What is important to me is the basis for the prioritisation that is applied as it goes to the heart of the regulator-provider relationship that has been in place since the NATS privatisation, as well as the mandates of ATS providers elsewhere.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The priorities of flight are a direct quote from MATS part 1, word for word.
VFR flights come beneath Normal flights thus a lower priority.
Comments about not using all the airspace available seem a little strange, Quite frankly in my limited piece of CAS I use every bit of CAS available at various times throughout my duties.
Again I do not limit zone transits and anyone who has flown whilst I have been on radar can confirm that , I may ask for an alterration of track or level and have a few times asked for orbits, but it is a very long time since i have refused zone transit and then I believe it was because I had an emergency situation at the time.
To those who feel we deliberatley limit GA and VFR traffic for commercial reasons I say visit those units on a busy day and view what actually goes on in the Ops room.
As ATCOs we do not think in a commercial mindset we think in a safety mindset.
Safety comes First at all times
VFR flights come beneath Normal flights thus a lower priority.
Comments about not using all the airspace available seem a little strange, Quite frankly in my limited piece of CAS I use every bit of CAS available at various times throughout my duties.
Again I do not limit zone transits and anyone who has flown whilst I have been on radar can confirm that , I may ask for an alterration of track or level and have a few times asked for orbits, but it is a very long time since i have refused zone transit and then I believe it was because I had an emergency situation at the time.
To those who feel we deliberatley limit GA and VFR traffic for commercial reasons I say visit those units on a busy day and view what actually goes on in the Ops room.
As ATCOs we do not think in a commercial mindset we think in a safety mindset.
Safety comes First at all times
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does that mean that a VFR flight that has filed a VFR flight plan through class D has more chance of getting a class D clearance than a flight which has not filed a plan ?
Just curious.. never been refused yet..
Just curious.. never been refused yet..
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does that mean that a VFR flight that has filed a VFR flight plan through class D has more chance of getting a class D clearance than a flight which has not filed a plan ?
All VFR flights get through the zone (LCY/LHR for me) on an opportunity basis and subject traffic/workload. Simple as that.
Bookie..!
The MATS pt 1 talks about the priorities of flights and that they should in no way hinder IFR flights. Too busy to give a page ref but it is there!
In my MATS Pt 2, there is a list of priorities. Starting with IFR AIRWAYS inbound, then outbound, the IFR's IN from the FIR and then OUT to the FIR. I won't bore you with the full list but it goes in that manner. Then - at the bottom - are VFR flights.
Could the answer be as simple as having a single VFR frequency and controller at peak periods?
Please don't say the airlines........!
Guest
Posts: n/a
As I read the Pt 1 (1.4.5.9) it offers IFR traffic no particular priority over VFR, it's training flights (and that could be IFR or VFR) that are right at the bottom of the pile. Both IFR and VFR are covered in the "normal flight" category.
What you will find in most of our Pt 2's though is a caveat that VFR traffic is not to hinder IFR. For example the TC Pt 2 for EGKK says....
"IFR/SVFR/VFR zone transit flights, non-standard flights and special flights are not to be permitted to affect the normal Gatwick operation unless they have been formally afforded a flight priority of Cat E or higher".
And that is the get out clause for all those that say they can't or won't approve transit flights or any other services requested for any reason, whether justified or not in some cases.
WF.
What you will find in most of our Pt 2's though is a caveat that VFR traffic is not to hinder IFR. For example the TC Pt 2 for EGKK says....
"IFR/SVFR/VFR zone transit flights, non-standard flights and special flights are not to be permitted to affect the normal Gatwick operation unless they have been formally afforded a flight priority of Cat E or higher".
And that is the get out clause for all those that say they can't or won't approve transit flights or any other services requested for any reason, whether justified or not in some cases.
WF.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normal Flights :
(1) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.
(2) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit (RTF callsign EXAM)
Category Z which falls below normal flights :
Non Standard and other Flights.
(1) Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procedures.
(2) Initial instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining Unit (RTF callsign EXAM)
Category Z which falls below normal flights :
Non Standard and other Flights.
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of the above changes the fact that other countries with equally busy or busier zones manage to accomodate VFR traffic without too much trouble or denials.... why is it so difficult in the UK?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilotwolf
Why is it that we don't accept the logic of the Euro?
Why is it that we implement every EU directive to the the letter or beyond, when others don't?
Why is it that the LA basin (over 40 very active airfields and airports in a space smaller the size of Essex) can offer class C (RIS) to VFR flights and acknowledgement of the tail number on first contact is a clearance to enter?
It's because we are a special case
I don't blame the individual controllers, they work in the system, but there's something wrong out there,
Especially when the government send me (a EGSS resident) a booklet saying that there is loads of airspace capacity across the LTMA to support 3 new runways.
Why is it that we don't accept the logic of the Euro?
Why is it that we implement every EU directive to the the letter or beyond, when others don't?
Why is it that the LA basin (over 40 very active airfields and airports in a space smaller the size of Essex) can offer class C (RIS) to VFR flights and acknowledgement of the tail number on first contact is a clearance to enter?
It's because we are a special case
I don't blame the individual controllers, they work in the system, but there's something wrong out there,
Especially when the government send me (a EGSS resident) a booklet saying that there is loads of airspace capacity across the LTMA to support 3 new runways.