Heathrow ATC
 

I have been flying into Heathrow for a good few years, and would like to compliment the controllers, across the board, of the most professional, wonderful job they do, and are doing:D:D
In fact, in my opinion, Heathrow ATC must be one of the top 5 in the world!
If I ever meet one of the Heathrow controllers in a pub.....the entire night is on me!:ok:
Keep it up!!

What's your local pub? :E:E:E

<Best not answer that>

Remember me?

"Clear left, ground point 7"

Mines a pint.:ok:

SGC

A pilot shouting? Must be a new FO.

Yes, Heathrow is my second favourite ATC unit in the world!!!!!

(Who's my favourite? Every other one :ok:)

Mine's a pint.........

I suppose I would agree that Heathrow are pretty good. :) Subjectively, I think Dubai International are the best.

Thank you 'Cows' - we all love compliments (and pints) :D

This subject has been covered before. Maybe it's time for ATC to say who the best and worst flyers are?

Wouldn't matter HD, the worst ones don't read the ATC forum:E

Nah. You'd have a heart attack by letting us VFR 'clockwork mice' into your jealously guarded Class A airspace from the ground up to FL195.

:} :E

Agreed with you, LON ATCOs are always quite pleasant to deal with in general, be it aerdorome or ACC. As are you guys up in Scottish, don't get me wrong Rathlinn!

Heathrow airspace is NOT Class A from ground up - gen up sonny; you're well out of date. Typical clockwork mouse pilot.

http://www.nats.aero/news/caa-approv...on-london-ctr/

A good move in the right direction by NATS but up to 2500ft only.

There's still the other most significant chunk of airspace from 2500ft upwards that you've grabbed away from us.

And also the inner area from ground up.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind. It's very safe to fly over here.

Are you implying we are dangerous?

Look at the stats yourself. We, the clockwork mice in the USA, have 30x more flight hours flown than in the UK and definitely not 30x more accidents.

In fact it's only about 7x more. This means we are over four times safer per flight hour flown.

Never mind. Good to know you're retired.

How much more area there is over there, compared to the UK?
The airspace in England is hopelessly crowded, with constant holding going in and restrictions in climb going out. It would be almost impossible flying there with more traffic occupying the airspace, in particular traffic with a very different performance from turboprops and airliners.

soaringlow,
Buy an atlas, look at the relative sizes of the U.K. and USA, and work it out for yourself.

Soaringhigh,

There must be some problem somewhere, I've still seen no sign of your ACP.

How long ago did you submit it again?

So we have 40x more landmass but 30x more flight hours. So 1.33x more landmass per flight hour. But we also have 4x less accidents per hour flown.

If we had 1.33x less landmass will we have the same if not greater number of accidents per hour flown as the UK? A 4x increase?! I very much doubt it!

Constant holding is an effect of runway availability and poor speed management. Once these problems are solved then holding should reduce and allow for continous climbs and descends.

But this is not GA's problem - In fact I should say that if there are no airplanes inside some airspace, then there is no reason to refuse others a VFR clearance: We don't have any Class A airspace below 18,000ft.

Don't worry! I am in touch with various people who are submitting them on the behalf of UK's 'clockwork mice'. I was kinda expecting you to throw them out the window anyway so why should you care?

The accident rates deduced in the figures above are largely irrelevant to the discussion, unless such accidents are ATC-related.

Midairs, ground collisions and similar.