Perhaps it should also be you who might benefit from a tour of the ATC facility to let you have first hand experience of what is faced by controllers on a daily basis (if you have not done so already/recently).

WE well actually I have, perhaps not as recently as I should, and I have a lot of sympathy for the problems faced by ATC. How is it to be resolved? Not by imposing ROCAS ad lib, that just exacerbates pilot views of ATC, albeit unfounded. If you respond to traffic and find them unable to observe the clearance then why not give them a course straight out of your airspace and rescind the clearance? There are notable areas where the access to CAS is very good and there are times when the service surpasses all expectations but, sadly, my experience in the UK is there are a few who seem (note I said seem) to just be obstructive and forget they are supposed to provide access equally when safety allows. Our airspace is complicated and so very easy in marginal or poor conditions to inadvertently stray from a planned route so a little help from a radar unit might go a long way to avoiding infringements for those who are inexperienced or not so adequately equipped, don’t you agree? And just for the record I always plan a route away from CAS but that should not be necessary I think and it can add considerably to distances and costs.

Working hard. Having been a controller in a tower only environment we aren't fans of GA aircraft. Mainly because when they interact it will be close to a major airfield, and if it goes wrong, it will quickly and will usually end in tears, especially for some controllers I've worked with over the years. A couple of weeks of community service because a pilot didn't do what they were told will generally act as a really good reason not to let them near my airspace. Anyway you state :" they are supposed to provide access equally when safety allows". Where is this stated please, as I can't remember reading it. Thanks.

Soaringhigh650 - your description of your map is wrong and very misleading for those following the debate with little knowledge. You state:
I control some of the airspace on your map, you are wrong in what you have said. I don't know what the map is actually for, but it doesn't show much accuracy for air traffic or navigational purposes as half the information is irrelevant and half the information is also missing.

WorkingHard - You may want to fly the most desired route for nothing, but we have very limited space to cram the paying customers through. The TMA airspace is mainly designated Class A on safety grounds, a card that will ALWAYS win.

terrain safe, for starters you might want to dig out the Air Traffic Services Licence for NATS (En Route) PLC.

Condition 2: General obligation to provide Core Services and Specified Services may be your first point of reference.

As for your community service analogy, you don't often hear of airline pilots saying they're not going back to your airport when one of you has stuffed up. Don't tar everyone with the same brush, you are there to provide a service to all users. Oh and it's not 'your airspace', you are just managing it on behalf of the users.

Working Hard, providing an air traffic service does come at a cost and it's the airlines that bear the bulk of the burden there. I'm sure NATS would love to provide you with lots of dedicated VFR services over and above what's available now but someone does have to pay for it. The airlines won't, indeed they are already trying to get VFR GA to pay something to reduce their own costs, so who do you suggest does?

In the brave new(ish) world of the UK's privatised ATC service, he who pays the most does call more of the shots.

The best answer I can give Roffa is to repeat that it is not GA that needs the CAS but the airlines and if they wish to have a very large volume of airspace (for which they have paid nothing) then surely it should be incumbent on them to provide the necessary infrastructure to allow others to use that airspace when safe so to do and I would also venture that not enough controllers should not be a "safety" issue. NATS or whoever want the airspace to satisfy their fee paying airlines who will simply add any additional costs on to their fee paying passengers whereas the majority of GA does not have that luxury. So I say again it is not GA that needs the airspace it is the airlines so why should GA pay for the "privilidge" of being able to transit through a chunk of airspace that someone claims as their "own" and have paid nothing for it?

Wrong!
The airlines pay navigation charges which pays for the infrastructure... airspace development, airspace consultations, ATS within the airspace etc.

In fact the airlines (all of them who enter UK airspace) pay a lot of money for the privilege... To the extent that UK route charges are amongst the most expensive around... This fact is brought about because of the complexity and saturation of the airspace (the very reasons that VFR traffic is not allowed).

Not enough controllers is a safety issue!!! And I'm afraid any ATS provider is not going to employ more (at their expense) just so that a non fee paying punter can enter airspace.

Some questions for you, though I am tiring of this discussion as it is getting nowhere because unless you can have freedom to fly wherever you want, you probably wont be happy...

1. Do you believe that passenger airliners should be afforded protection?
2. If yes, how do you propose it is given?
3. Should commercial traffic be given priority over general GA, or should it be first come, first served i.e. you want a zone crossing so departures get stopped to facilitate you...?
4. How much are you willing to pay for a mandatory service through a piece of airspace, of any classification within which an ATS is provided for safety?
5. Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc?

Roffa

I don't work for NERL so that doesn't apply to me. As for my airspace, if you need my permission to enter it, it's mine.

terrain safe,

Poor attitude if you don't mind me saying so, the airspace isn't your personal fiefdom. You might want to take note of the CAA's policy statement on the Purpose of Controlled Airspace...

The purpose of CAS in the UK is to enhance the protection of Air Transport Movements (ATMs) operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) during en-route flight and the critical stages of an Instrument Arrival or Departure, and to permit the safe and effective integration of such traffic with other IFR flights and flights operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Such protection is principally established by means of a “known traffic” environment.

Note it's not to keep one type of traffic out, it's to allow safe and effective integration.

Or if you work for NATS, be it NERL or NSL you'll find "We are charged with permitting access to airspace on the part of all users, whilst making the most efficient overall use of airspace".

Along with the fact that an airliner and a non-training VFR transit or arrival/departure actually have the same level of flight priority you might want to be a bit more service orientated to all the potential customers. Or is it just an ego trip for you?

The airlines pay navigation charges which pays for the infrastructure... airspace development, airspace consultations, ATS within the airspace etc.

Well yes of course as I said it is they who demand it (for safety reasons) so then it is right they should pay. GA does not need this but IT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY for CAT

In fact the airlines (all of them who enter UK airspace) pay a lot of money for the privilege... To the extent that UK route charges are amongst the most expensive around... This fact is brought about because of the complexity and saturation of the airspace (the very reasons that VFR traffic is not allowed).
To quote you WRONG. It may be that YOU do not allow VFR traffic but that is not what you are required to do

Not enough controllers is a safety issue!!! And I'm afraid any ATS provider is not going to employ more (at their expense) just so that a non fee paying punter can enter airspace.
Look at the terms and conditions for grant of that airspace and you may find that is just what ATS is required to do.

Some questions for you, though I am tiring of this discussion as it is getting nowhere because unless you can have freedom to fly wherever you want, you probably wont be happy...
Puerile rubbish sir and I have never suggested anything like this.

1. Do you believe that passenger airliners should be afforded protection?
Yes of course
2. If yes, how do you propose it is given?
By operating according to current laid down procedures
3. Should commercial traffic be given priority over general GA, or should it be first come, first served i.e. you want a zone crossing so departures get stopped to facilitate you...?
CAT, which is more costly to run, should almost always take priority but there is a judgement which may be made that allows GA and CAT to operate safely in the same environment without a necessary exclusion.
4. How much are you willing to pay for a mandatory service through a piece of airspace, of any classification within which an ATS is provided for safety?
I believe I have already made a case for GA not paying for a transit of NON EXCLUSIVE airspace.
5. Do you also argue to the military people that you should be able to fly willy nilly through active danger areas etc


Perhaps I may be allowed to ask you a few questions?
1) Do you know what a DA crossing service is?
2) Are you really an ATCO and if so do tell which is YOUR exclusive bit of CAS so we may not bother you at all with entirely superfluous RT calls?
3) Do you really have such a blinkered view of the world of aviation or are you just attempting to have a bit of fun?

WH

A DA crossing service will be provided if it is safe to do so... DAs exist for more than just aircraft flying around, missile firings etc also require a DA.

It is very easy to give a DA crossing service in a piece of airspace several hundred square miles in size when it is being used by only a couple of Typhoons. Crossing a packed TMA is an entirely different proposition...

I work class A airspace in the LTMA. SVFR is not available in this airspace.

Class D airspace Zone crossings can be done under SVFR, subject to workload. I'm afraid that fee paying commercial traffic will always get priority, even though you are of equal flight priority. Any ATCO who refuses a zone crossing when they are able to give one, needs to be taken aside and re-briefed.

A commercial ANSP will not pay money to provide extra controllers just to give Zone crossings. In fact there is no need to, either the crossing is possible (which means that the workload allows it) or it isn't... having an extra controller will rarely make a difference if there is traffic to prevent the crossing.

The airspace in the LTMA is not ideal, but had been designed to try to give as much class G as possible. Any airspace changes have to be approved and it is a long drawn out process. Zone crossings are available, subject to workload. If workload is sufficiently high, then no amount of controllers sitting in would mean that the Zone crossing could happpen... because it would mean delaying the Fee paying aircraft.

Two final questions for you...

Do you think VFR/SVFR should be allowed in the Class A portions of the LTMA?

What are your thoughts on the VFR route proposed by SoaringHigh in his picture, i.e. the straight line from Shoreham to Cambridge... any potential problems with it do you think???

Do you think VFR/SVFR should be allowed in the Class A portions of the LTMA?

No I do not think it is either desireable or necessary

What are your thoughts on the VFR route proposed by SoaringHigh in his picture, i.e. the straight line from Shoreham to Cambridge... any potential problems with it do you think???

Not a route I would choose that's for sure. I would be routing - Mayfield, Detling, EGMC, Earls Colne then Cambridge which is 106 track miles (47 minutes). If I get a direct from Stansted then so be it; experience says dont bother asking. The direct line is 84 track miles (37 minutes) but in very congested airspace with much faster traffic (I only do about 135 Kts) and with the likely number of different tracks to avoid the big stuff it is most probably quicker on my preferred route.

In the context of this thread I have not referred to the Class A or indeed some of the very busy airspace to which you refer. But in general where, for example, class D exsist and there is a distance to go around or having to take another route entirely then the denial of a crossing may be irksome when it is perceived as unjustified. Looking at the current use % against the capacity figures for some airports that have class D and sadly also have a reputation for issuing blanket ROCAS, then that perception could possibly be justified.
Much of which Roffa said in his last post is I think very apt.

It is clear we are on different sides of a divide and I find it very sad that this divide exists at all.

Au contraire... NATS led a couple of workstreams that were principally about educating the general GA community about infringements and what effect it has.

The number of infringements has dropped significantly... I could get you the exact figure, but I do not have it to hand. However off the top of my head I believe it is in the region of 30-40%, a not insignificant number.

By continuing the education it is believed that the numbers will continue to tumble.

Doesn't matter how complicated the airspace is deemed to be... sensible route choice and fastidious planning would all but eradicate infringements - and for the purposes of this thread drift, the 'right' to enter CAS is a totally different argument from the (in)ability to navigate round it

soaringhigh650, you refer to your diagram but fail to answer my question as to what your diagram is showing, because it isn't showing the changing bases of CAS (I know this because some of it is the airspace I hold a license to provide a radar control service in).

Comparing the London TMA to ANY other area in the world is fruitless, there is no other area with the same requirements or amounts/types of traffic across such a small zone. The sectorisation isn't perfect and is always being modified, however excluding VFR traffic is done for a very good reason.

workinghard,
The airspace anotherthing and myself control in is Class A, therefore no VFR, therefore we are both doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing, and cannot allow VFR flight.

Forgive me but that's... [cough]bollox.[/cough]

5milesbaby - of course but if it had been specified we were talking about Class A, which we were not, then the questions and answers would have been markedly different. To introduce that at this stage is just plain silly and lets hope you are more forthcoming with the aircraft you do control in your lovely class A. Perhaps we have spoken on the RT and I would never know.

Wh,


to be fair neither you nor SoaringHigh were specific, and seeing as the thread is about Olympic airspace validation (Class A in the main), then I think 5Miles and myself were entitled to surmise that was what you were both talking about.

Throw in the diagram that SoaringHigh provided, where he states that the 'red lines depict Class A airspace', and upon which he draws a nonsensical route on it, to be flown at 10000', then I'm afraid the confusion lies more squarely at his, or both of your feet, as you didn't correct it :)

OK point take anotherthing but actually the restrictions are very wide ranging and will have an enormous impact on GA, almost certainly much much more than on IFR traffic.
Thanks for all the insights.

WH, the whole VFR debate was started by soaringhigh650 who's first sentence was:
Who needs to be forthcoming??

Another thing
 

... you are so wrong Sir,

(I am using Steak and Chips login as I dont have one, but this post has annoyed me so much I had to reply- I will however get one.

You seem to forget the extra tax that was put on AVGAS which we all use ( well most of GA) that was justified all those years ago as paying for your "services".

In a pence paid per mile per passenger per service used the GA community actually pays far more than anyone else by a factor of about 50.

What worries me more is your stinking attitude to GA pilots. I am only replying because as a ATPL holder with 32000 hours that flies into the LTMA on a weekly basis, BUT ALSO as (like so many of us are) private pilots- in my case for aerobatics, I expect the same service whether I have 250 pax or I am a Slingsby T67. I am the same pilot in both, BUT the difference I get in service is incredible. As a T67 pilot I am often treated rudely and with indifference to requests- WHY?

Please dont treat all GA pilots as idiots as that is how you come across and you are (IMHO) a discredit to what is generally a highly respected, highly professional and great bunch of people. :ugh:

Oh, and don't tell me, you believe the money from tax on petrol goes to road maintenance too!! ATC service is paid for from route charges, and route charges only. If you pay route charges then you can expect a service.

NotLongNow - actually I think that is the nub of the problem. It is not you, the ATCO, who decides the details of who/what/why/where etc. but the terms of the licence for the airspace and you are (supposedly) required to administer that airspace in accordance with the terms set out in various documents. So please do not say if we pay route charges we can have a service. It is not you that makes that decision but as the previous poster says the poor attitude to GA is sometime quite obvious. For example there is a requirement for you, when access has been requested to your!! airspace and you cannot allow at that time, to provide an estimate of when such access will be granted. How often have you followed that rule please?

Hand on heart, in the last approx. 20 years, I have refused a joining clearance 3 times, twice due to weather and once for a Mayday causing some 'interest' in the sector. In all cases, I gave an estimated wait time, and in all 3 cases the a/c elected to continue 'outside' rather than wait. Your point???

Not Long Now, I am genuinely impressed and your are to be congratulated. My experience of VFR in the UK over the last 28 years suggests you are a rarity and whilst I have always had a very good service from UK controllers when in CAS it has become increasingly difficult to gain access. As I said in a prior post I now routinely avoid the vast majority of CAS for that reason. With traffic volumes at an all time low for many years one would have expected more access to CAS and not less.

Well if you're VFR then I'm not going to give you a clearance, as my airspace is classified as to prohibit that. Argue the toss with the regulator, not the ATCO. Also, a correction, if you're exempt from route charges (weight being a prime example) you can still get a service, just file an IFR flight plan!

SteakandChips...
Things have moved on somewhat, old chap. Has done for quite some number of years now. The 'justification' for the tax is no longer 'just'.

The Government get the tax, they do not give it to NATS main business, except a tiny amount to each LARS unit, for the provision of ATSOCAS.

INCAS, money is generated by route fees.

Unlike Like Not Long Now, I have never refused CAS joins, I have been fortunate not to have had to.

Like Not Long Now, the airspace I control in does not allow for VFR traffic... as was explained above your post, we are talking Class A... the reason we are talking class A is because the title of this thread is 'Olympic Airspace Validation'... which is Class A airspace. Also please read the very short post immediately before you one...

The confusion was further added to by a post by SoaringHigh (above)showing a chart, with a fictitious route to be flown at 10,000', VFR, wholly within Class A.

Now as a pilot with your experience, you will understand that what you are talking about, and what I am talking about, are two totally different things.

But just to repeat; AVGAS tax does not pay for the provision of ATC within CAS. As a T67 pilot, if you were to file an IFR flight plan to fly through the LTMA, you would get clearance and because of aircraft weight, would pay nothing for it... The gas you consumed would line the coffers of the Government.

As a pilot of a slow, light aircraft... you would cause a higher workload by being in the sirspace because you are there for longer, take longer (usually) to climb, and usually cruise at an awkward level. That's not a 'stinking attitude', it's a fact I'm afraid.

Despite that fact, I will reiterate that in the airspace I work, I have never refused a join, and most of my colleagues have neither.

Only a very few, like Not Long Now, have experienced conditions bad enough that it was felt refusal was the only course of action in the interest of safety.

SoCal App

Totally different airspace, with different rules.

Heathrow and Gatwick, 2 of several major airports within the area... with a hell of a lot more than one GA airfield within a couple of miles...

You cannot compare your airspace with the LTMA, both are unique.

Unless things have changed very recently, LARS is funded out of the route charges pot i.e. effectively the airlines are paying for it. A situation they are not happy with and have actively been trying to change. It was circa £1.6M a few years ago (pre Farnborough LARS expansion).

The most recent CAA review of LARS funding concluded that changes, such as moving to hypothecation of fuel duty, charging at point of use or other ways of billing the main user had disadvantages such that no change was made.

So, the airlines very begrudgingly continue to fund LARS through route charges.

It's also almost certainly the case that the LARS funding that is received doesn't actually cover the cost of providing the service. So LARS users are in fact being subsidised both by the airlines and the ATC service providers.

It might be worth researching the history of LARS and how it seems to have changed from an occasional service when capacity was spare to something that is now expected to be open and manned at published times despite the fact that costs probably are not being covered.

The London LARS services provided from Farnborough were intially (and could still be) funded by NATS Services Ltd from it's own contingency funds, not even from en-route charges.

Roffa,

Unless things have changed since PPP, HM Taxpayer pays a paltry sum towards ATSOCAS/LARS.

It certainly used to be the case that money was given to LARS units, however it barely covered the salary of one member of staff, never mind all the staff and equipment needed! There may be a difference between LARS provided as part of a 'bolt' on by ANSP's such as NATS and LARS provided by HMG dictate from military units where, I think, the equivalent of one persons salary was given by HMG as reward for the provision!


Chevvron,

NATS and Farnborough LARS are possibly different in-so-much it was a decision by NATS, and not part of any Government policy, to provide a LARS service from Farnborough, in an effort (that has had some considerable success) to prevent infringements and airprox's with traffic flying under the LTMA and into and out of LF Clutch airfields; a requirement from one of the previous safety plans. NATS therefore covers the cost for this service (and by default the airlines pay for it through route charges).

GA IS accomodated in the LTMA, but it has to be IFR, which is the somewhat huge difference. We cannot simply pass traffic, we must provide standard separation.

Andy, I don't know what you're confused about.

My posts were in response to the comment you made about an "inordinate amount of infringements" on June 14th and I was simply highlighting the fact that over-complex airspace and no-VFR access are also reasons for infringements, as well as pilot navigation too.

FlyOnTrack's 2010 figures show whilst infringements are down by 14% compared to 2009, they're still up by 6% compared to 2008.

You have the remaining 85%+ to go.

5milesbaby:

I've sent you a PM.

Please explain what's wrong with CVFR and using standard separation when it is clear VMC.

<<We cannot simply pass traffic, we must provide standard separation.>>

Which is good. So far as I am aware, the last mid-air collision in UK controlled airspace involving passenger aircraft was in 1946. How many have there been in the USA in the same period?

Or perhaps the question should be better phrased as: How many more aircraft has the USA handled in the same period and what is the ratio of collisions to numbers handled?

It appears the last UK mid-air collision involving a commercial airliner was in 1948. Since then, there have been at least 16 such incidents in the US. Draw your own conclusions, but I would say it's hardly a glowing recommendation for US airspace planning.

Back to the subject of the thread now, maybe?

LTP

Soaringhigh360, unfortunately your link in your PM to me is to a website that needs a Microsoft operating system to view, so I sadly cannot. You say it all in the description though, that it shows base level changes AND airway boundaries. Not all airway boundaries are points of changes of base levels, therefore your diagram is certainly misleading as I originally said.

Get the approval, and you can come play VFR in my airspace, just have to be FL200+...... :}

London 2012 airspace restrictions announced
 

Further development of the airspace security restrictions covering the London Olympic and Paralympic Games for 2012 were announced July 19 by the UK Government, as part of its objective to deliver of a safe and secure Games for all.

Read details at: Air Traffic Management : Strategy, Technology and Management for the world's most global industry

anotherthing,

VFR does not go in "willy nilly" in the US.
But VFR is allowed in under guidance and control in Class B or C airspace and under protection from IFR, etc.

I am not throwing my toys out of a cot. I was highlighting the fact that allowing as much Class G as possible:

1. Has made your operations within Class A probably more intense than it could be
2. Reduces or stops safe VFR access - flying in CAS is safer than OCAS
3. Increases the amount of infringements due to your complicated boundaries and base levels, as shown on my diagram.

Some countries like the US and France pays for its ATC out of taxation. Other countries like Germany and Canada have approach navigation charges operating on a cost recovery basis. If there are AVGAS taxes it should fund ATC, airports etc. If there are no taxes, then of course the users should pay for it.

There should never be priority between who's operating commercially or non-commercially.

In the US an ATC service is provided on a first-come-first-served basis with some exceptions, one being IFR aircraft having priority over SVFR.

Class A should be minimized whereever possible. This includes your lower airways too. All non-instrument rated pilots, regardless of what they are flying, ain't gonna like it.

And use of low level Class A is completely against the principles of AOPA.

No problems at all under IFR. As of today Eurocontrol accepts routing of OCK M185 BPK DCT BKY at FL 100 in the flight plan. On the day you might tactically vector me on another route under your direction, and I am happy with that.

I shouldn't expect this clearance to only be granted if I file IFR. Especially when it is clear VMC. :ugh:

So if I file IFR there will always be capacity and when I fly VFR there will never be capacity? There's a deep rooted ATC issue somewhere.

5milesbaby,

I disagree. Your infringement numbers are evidence that this has failed.

Have you considered partitioning controlled airspace with different transit/approach/departure sectors for the different categories (ie. A,B,C,D) of airplanes on safety grounds? This includes both IFR and VFR which are operate safely under control.

One should study the infringement problem and compare your stats with other countries. I don't think us US PPLs navigate any less or better than our European trained counterparts. What is definitely true is that the airspace volumes are more predictable with concentric circles centered around VORs based at the airport or airspace boundaries following prominent visual features on the ground. Hence I'm not surprised places like Stansted keep getting busted on a daily basis.

My guess is that if some here firmly believe that all existing and complex Class A airspace should be left as it is and people prevented from access, these infringement numbers are never going to come down significantly. Good luck!

It would be nice to start with a clean sheet of paper, instead of the dogs breakfast which has evolved, sorry, mutated in to the current UK airspace.

Alas time, money, politics, defence needs, and the various agendas of multiple user and service provider groups mean it will probably never happen :(