There was no estimate given for a transit clearance, simply a "remain outside controlled airspace". I have chatted to a few local fellow aviators and they are saying the same thing recently regarding transit of the Aldergrove zone, many say now that they don`t even ask but simply turn transponder off and fly along the zone boundary without even telling the controller they are there nor where they are going. If they are coming from the North they simply ignore Aldergrove and freecall City at Ballyclare and get a zone transit from City to go southbound.:ok:

Perhaps this is what Aldergrove are trying to achieve? Continually refuse VFR traffic and at some stage they will simply stop asking to get in?:hmm: This in turn will save them from having to "separate" the traffic.

A few of the other guys say they have also made contact with Aldergrove and the Safety card had been played straight away.:ugh:

bad bear, you say :Presumably then, you would accept the corollary that if a pilot breaches the same airspace rules by infringing it without a clearance, his licence should be withdrawn & he should be forced to resubmit an application & resit an examination ?

Within these roles definitions we always have a human factor, which is valid for the controller too. If that poor little fellow feels unsafe to maintain collision prevention and smooth flow of traffic, we should help him. A kind letter to his superior asking wether there was something in the air not obvious to us, which can always be the case, will support clarification. And if tat poor li'l controller is overstrained on that chair and mike, we should help getting him the right job for his skills, don't we?

CH you are correct, but my personal experience is that the default procedures used at Aldergrove are different to those employed by City. It would be interesting for the Mats Pt2s to be compared; oh, shouldn't the CAA be doing that? :(

Other lines of enquiry would possibly include CHIRP, or even GATCO?

My own view is that if a pilot accidentally infringes airspace his CFI should make sure his navigating skills are retaught and the pilot has a navigation flight test. If the infringement is intentional then the CAA's legal department usually deal with the issue, and rightly so.

off watch, what action should be taken if a controller (or unit) deliberately and premeditatedly refuses to obey the rules of class "D" by continually refusing reasonable requests? Again my view is that if an individual controller disregards the rules his SATCO should deal with him, and if the SATCO doesn't, then the CAA should take action against the individual and the SATCO.

I normally check the arrivals and departures board as part of my preflight planing if I hope to transit CAS ( I know there will be the occasional freighter or biz jet in addition to those movements). In the case of Aldergrove I see there are around 4 departures and 4 arrivals per hour today at the max and would hope that level of activity would mean VFR transits could be accommodated easily.

Airport Departures and Arrivals

It might be that the MATS pt 2 (which is confidential) needs to have the section on VFR transits "reviewed".

pan*4, might be worth getting the local pilots to try asking for clearances rather than going round every time and reporting every refusal to the CAA so that the full extent of the problem moves from rumour to fact. If you get a refusal it might also be worth asking "how long will I have to wait for a transit?"



bb

Routine evaluation of local application of nats service standards
 

Reasonable, but what about those that have no connection with a flying club or school e.g private owners ? Personally, I think your remedy should be applied to all. Judging by the large number of infringements still reported every month in the CAA Digest, the current system is not working too well.

Agreed - but if the only complaints are on pprune, nothing is going to change.
IMHO the rot set in when "duty of care" was put in the mix - no good an ATCO saying "I was obeying the rules" anymore, hence I believe the "better safe than sorry" mentality has crept in to cover that.

Already covered in MATS Pt 1 :
Joining and Overflying Aircraft
1.100
When an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check.

The rules are very clear for class D and haven't been applied correctly. Write to the unit and ask for an explanation - there may well be a perfectly valid reason for refusing transit though if i were to tell a pilot 'remain outside controlled airspace' i would state the reason and an estimate of delay.
There may well be the 'fear of getting the blame' or 'fear of an airprox report' factor in the decision should anything go wrong which, dare i say, i have noticed creeping into controllers conversations in more recent years( i cannot speak for anyone at Aldergrove).

There are varying attitudes between units in applying the rules (down to management regimes / risk perception?), two adjacent south coast airports are well known for doing this differently to each other.

Update: I have got speaking to another Aldergrove controller today and they have confirmed to me that 5 miles separation is "required" between Mr VFR Puddle Jumper and Mr IFR Airbus. This is required not only between aircraft operating in the Aldergrove zone but also within the TMA which is class E!:ugh:

Somebody somewhere is rewriting the rules.:confused: