SH650, for someone ostensibly based in the USA why such an interest and such strong feelings about UK ATC in general and the London area in particular?

Are you actually who/what you suggest you are, or an alter ego for someone else, or one of the sciolists we're all warned about at the bottom of the page?

I just don't get why a USA based pilot should have such strong feelings about one small area of European airspace?

I have fairly strong feelings about some of the CTRs around London too with my GA hat on, but fundamentally, the big problem with SE GA is their inability to comply with the glide clear rule within the London CTR. SVFR traffic (helicopters and light twins) is dealt with very well by Heathrow Special and Thames Radar.

On Point Merge, what is the London flavour going to do to CDAs?

It's historical. I also have a base in SE England so fly there sometimes. Generally no problems in the air and work with some excellent controllers. Main issue is being kept unnecessarily low: less than 2400ft due to Class A above. I am not IFR rated. What mainly winds me up are the NAT$$$ trolls on here who see GA as a dangerous interference and keep asking for loads and loads of money if I want to fly higher and use their sacred airspace.

London airspace is beginning to be redesigned therefore the founding design principles must be correct or else it will be Class A down to the ground and Nimmer, anotherthing, HD, and several others here drinking plenty of champagne having run their successful secret agenda of eradicating GA.

Jwscud, the CTRs seem largely a non-issue compared with everything else in SE England. They actually allow (S)VFR flight. However we don't all fly less than 2000 ft.

I'm sure you've spent time visiting Swanwick to find out why the airspace limits are as they are.

What did you find out?

Some of the as you so eloquently put it, happen to be very capable and professional controllers. I would suggest arranging a visit to Swanwick on a busy summer morning.

Back to the original point merge debate....I'm not sure what the main benefits are. I'm not sure how it fits into our fuel saving / carbon saving plans? It feels like it's being introduced because it's a fancy new system and therefore should be introduced. I'd love to be proven wrong. Before anyone says anything, I'm not a grumpy old fart adverse to change, I'm all for improvements to the service we provide. I know my watch colleagues will also go out of their way to facilitate directs or the removal of level capping on a daily basis.

Point Merge results in increased fuel consumption..."fact". One location where it might work is an airport with little adjacent airport airspace complexity and vast amounts of sky available. Lots of data from Oslo...for a quick overview google Oslo pointmerge. Please take time to advise airlines not to go out and buy fast aeroplanes, it is a complete waste of money if speeding and sequencing start over a hundred miles out!

Point Merge can have benefits at some locations. As in a lot of cases it depends on factors like how busy the airport is, how effective ATC already are at achieving high runway utilisation, how much airspace is available etc. The problem is that PM is often seen as a new technique and therefore "sexy" by ATC and Airport managements who are under pressure to innovate and reduce environmental impacts. It is also being pushed hard by equipment manufacturers keen to sell their black boxes, i.e controller support tools, that are needed to implement PM.

The acid test will be real fuel burn numbers as opposed to projections. For me the critical issue for Gatwick with its high intensity single runway ops is, does the use of PM reduce runway utilisation?

SH, I suggest when flying in the UK you change your name to soaring low!!!!!!

Yes. So capable and professional that they can't mix IFR and VFR traffic where VFR does not affect IFR.... and so capable and professional that I have to keep:

:rolleyes:

Vent all you like to the people here SH650, but they are not the policy makers. They apply the rules they are given, they don't make them. That you repeatedly fail to understand this is unfortunate.

Anyway, keep banging away if it makes you feel better and is somehow cathartic, but don't expect anything to happen because of it bar you alienating just about everyone here.

SH, please make up your mind. I thought your problem was with the amount of Class A. Are you now changing your tune to lambast ATC in Class D?

Which is it?

Gonzo - No I am not lambasting ATC in Class D.

Warped Factor - OKAY I get your point. This Class A issue will be referred to those who make up the RULE$ to see if they would even LI$TEN.

Or whether it'll fall onto DEAF EAR$ again for another 50 years.

So which controllers are you talking about here then....?

You must be talking about controllers who have the option of permitting IFR and VFR to mix, but choose not to. I'm sure you're not referring to controllers who work airspace where VFR flight is not permitted, as that would be a rather spurious argument.

If a PA28 says they can climb over the top of Something at FL180 can you get the medics to meet them on the ground please they are more than likely on drugs.

I have had my fun, time to put SH out of his misery. Any new regulated airspace in the UK has to be class C!!!!!

Pity its not all Class A - keep them clockwork mice away! I think it's time for my evening bottle of Krug... so much nicer than Horlicks don't you know.

Prefer a decent vintage Chateau Margaux myself, although had a rather pleasant bottle of Ruinart this weekend...

As for our secret agenda, NAT$ controller$ do a pretty good job in the main, working to the rules that NAT$ are bound by as part of the licence they have which is stipulated by the CAA.

However SH; I'm sure the facts of how UK airspace is governed and controlled is of no interest to you as you seem to have a beef with the controller$ themselves...

Can someone explain how tooling around a hold at 4000 feet with a 180 every minute less efficient than point merge?

I thought point merge is just RNAV vectoring. Nothing more

Join an RNAV arc and wait for direct to the merge instead of "fly heading - direct to merge"

Will a CDA still be required for the descent from the turn in point?