You're right, it should have no relevance.

I hold a professional licence and sometimes use it as such for serious purposes, sometimes I'm just using an aeroplane to get from A to B for work or pleasure, and sometimes I'm just going flying because I enjoy going flying and can afford to.

The purpose of my flight should make no difference, save some very extreme circumstances (police / medical emergency, SAR), which don't apply to me personally, but I suppose potentially could.


Similarly, if I'm driving to see my mother in law, to work, or just because I fancy going for a drive because it's a nice day for it, should make no difference to how I'm treated by other road users, by the police, or by the various agencies that provide the road infrastructure.


At the end of the day I'm allowed to be there, the support I need is being paid for, and I'm entitled to use what's there.

G

Workinghard

Firstly, as Genghis points out, the term GA is very gray. Is in non OAT or CAT; is it purely hobbysits?

Are people who use aircraft for work (instructors, pipeline inspectors etc)part of the GA community, or commercial (becuse they earn from it), or both?

Not as straightforward as you are maybe trying to make out, and I certainly don't presume to say it is.

Genghis statedExactly. There are different categories of flight, but outside of them then it does not make any difference.

Point me to where I have ever said anything different!

However Soaringhigh650 has a history on PPrune of intimating that he should be allowed to fly wherever, whenever, in the UK, and that he should not have to pay for the privile(d)ge, other than renting his aircraft and fueling it. Service provision should be provided for nothing...

I'm afraid that does not work. As Genghis states, the purpose of his flight should make no difference - and it does not. However, as you well know, you have to fly in accordance with the rules of the airspace. If you can adhere to the rules/requirements of a particular piece of airspace, then it doesn't matter if you are an A380 or a PA28; whether you are flying for the hell of it, of carrying 500 passengers (i.e. 'GA' (for want of a better phrase) or CAT).

As an ATCO in the LTMA I will freely admit, as will any other ATCO, that an aircraft flying at 100Kts at FL90 is more of a pain to me than an A319, but that does not mean it does not get my full attention or the best service I can give it. In fact it is probably the very opposite. Because the aircraft is such a poor performer, it will probably end up getting more attention than the airliners!

If you look at other posts by Soaringhigh, you will see that as far as he is concerned the rules of the air in the UK are wrong... because it does not allow him to fly where he wants under VFR.

Unfortunately all aircraft cannot be accomodated to do what it wants, how it wants to, in every piece of airspace. Sometime you have to show a certain level of proficiency e.g. IR rating to be able to do that.

You can fly in the LTMA (for example as SH650 continually brings this up) in any aircraft you like, for any purpose, as long as you have the correct qualifications and adhere to the rules i.e. IFR Flight Plan. You will be afforded the same level of service as any other aircraft when you do so.

What was a reasonable question by Genghis has been sidetracked in part by Soaringhigh because he has an agenda. Whenever there is talk of Class G, he wades in with his 'service should be better and free' and 'I should be able to fly VFR in any UK airspace talk'. Unfortunately it seems he does not have an idea what the ramifications are of having no restrictions in certain airspace.

Pedantry
 

I've agonised for an hour over this - but here goes!

'And your going places' - should be 'and you're( or - you are) going places'

There is no D in PRIVILEGE!

The least that intelligent people can do is use their own language correctly!

Back to my rocking chair!;);)

BTW Who is Soaringhigh 650? Why does he criticise (can also be spelt with a z ;)) UK ATC so often?

Spelled, spelt is a type of wheat.

G

Brian,

I did not bother to proof read before I posted, hence the 'd' (that and fat fingers).

I have not changed it, otherwise you're post would not have made sense in that regard, but I have placed the offending letter in parenthisis.

Sorry Gramps, you can get back to Countdown now ;)

And yes, the 'You're' is intentional, you will see I have written this and not edited it after your correction!

Spelled
 

Not so Genghis! Either way is correct; source The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

I knew I would be setting myself up!

Anotherthing,

Please read my post again. All I have stated was that UK en-route ATC already owns a huge amount of Class A airspace designed to exclude VFR flight.

Please read my post again. I can guarantee I can file a Eurocontrol acceptable route IFR but because it is Class A, the same route cannot be flown VFR. Why should one pay tens of thousands of pounds to get an IR to fly through some chunk of airspace?

I don't myself but I know people who do.

Firstly let me clarify that I am NOT wanting things for nothing. I can completely recognize and accept that there are costs which need to be recovered.

Whether you recover your costs through taxation on users, or through user fees, I favor the taxation method and do not favor for-profit ANSPs. But this is just a personal opinion.

Where I do have a grudge is when a pilot talks about an issue with a service, and then someone on this forum sits on their hands and replies with a tone as if to imply "GA does not pay anything and therefore deserves nothing" or "GA needs to pay $$$$$ to get x, y, z rating or install equipment x, y, z which costs $$$$$ to order to use our airspace" then I see these as attitude problems that I CANNOT accept.

If HOWEVER somoene even took the initiative to say that they're listening, and note such things down for future improvements when funding does become available, then that would be a good start in the right direction.

As you're someone who claims to be in the know, why don't you tell us what makes the UK particuarly different to heavily congested airspaces in Germany, Benelux, France or Class B areas in the USA?

Where is the "attitude" against developing higher level VFR corridors and routes coming from?

Soaringhigh, you do realise you should be aiming at the CAA rather than NATS, don't you?

Your issue appears to be with the airspace and restrictions placed upon aircraft/crew because of its classification. ATC merely carry out the procedures according to CAP493 and CAP393.

It's almost as if there should be a department somewhere in some official authority in the civil aviation industry that sets, and monitors the implementation of, policy regarding airspace. Perhaps it might even direct airspace policy.

Oh, hang on.........

Love the post Gonzo but I can't see the use of the word muppet anywhere....:E:E:E:E:E:ok:

The NATS people have pointed out your errors regarding who is responsible for your other grievances (ie. not NATS), but as an ATCO at a regional airport, I thought I'd take a crack at this bit.

In the OP's situation, in all likelihood the controllers at the non-LARS regional airport are employed, either directly by the airport or by a contractor, to provide services to aircraft inbound to or outbound from that airport, and to aircraft wishing to transit the airspace associated with the airport. Nothing else. If you are passing nearby, you may be lucky and get a great service, or you may be unlucky.

The point is, anything you get from a non-LARS unit has to be regarded as a freebie and taken with the knowledge that you are at the very bottom of that unit's list of priorities. It's not that the controllers don't want to give you a seamless ATSOCAS experience - in the main we take professional pride in doing our best for everyone. But, these days more than ever, some of our employers are very clear indeed that freebies to non-paying customers are not what they want us concentrating on.

That's the way it is, this is what informs the responses that the OP had to his question. The joined-up radar service that you want could exist in this country if there was a massive reordering and nationalisation of the ATC infrastructure, and a way to pay for it all could be devised, but that's a matter you should be taking up with the government and the CAA.

But then you get lots of complaints from ATC if you don't get a service and remain unknown traffic.

Apparently that is bad airmanship. The often quoted reason for doing this is if they arn' going to help me why should I help them. Which I must admit has been my view with some units who view a basic service as a license to control you in class G.

Hi Genghis, are you still alive?...I said your post was a good read, and I think it is healthy and proper to debate these things. To assist in flight planning there is a useful LARS chart in the AIP.....try page ENR 6-1-6-3. There is a description given on page ENR 1-6-3-3 etc.
I'm no computer expert, but if you use NATS | AIS and then hit the IAIP button it seems to give you everything by way of the index.
regards.

I can understand this point to a degree. Even with VFR Flight Following over here we can get dumped or not handed off if the controller is too busy with their IFR/inbounds, etc.

No issue here if you have to focus on certain traffic.

But I think the OP was referring to en-route services forpopup IFR flights.

In this case we (in the US) will never be dumped because we would file a IFR plan mid-air and then put onto IFR frequencies to get a continuous service for the rest of the way. Note that workload goes up quite a bit in the cockpit when manually flown in IMC which explains the OP's 'stress'. The last thing pilots want to face is being blocked by controlled airspace coming down or squeezing us into narrow gaps while the ground is going up.

Maybe! But I'm based in the US so I think it'll be up for UK based pilots to do this.

Aha, so you'll just snipe from a safe distance then?:}

Soaringhigh650
 

Please indulge me! Let me tell you a little story.

A few years ago the lovely Mrs B48N and I thought we would go and live in France. 'What' said No1 son, who incidentally lived in France for a year while doing the Test Pilot Course as an RAF pilot on exchange with the Frogs,'Dad will never put up with the French and the way they do things!'.

This made me think, so I went there with a changed open outlook on life. After all,if for instance, I said to a restauranteur 'Why do you serve cheese before dessert? Everyone knows the cheese course comes last and is served with a fine glass of port!'. He would have said 'Monsieur,If you do not like the way we do things in France,may I suggest you go back to your own country'.

In other words, 'When in Rome do as the Romans do!'.

May I respectfully suggest that if you do not like the way we do things in the UK, you stay away. The UK GA fraternity is capable of fighting their corner without your help!

I will continue to remain here until the bigots and pompous attitudes are
eradicated from the forum. :p

SH, but you are aiming your ire at ATCOs, who have to cope with the rules they are given. You continue to do so even when it's pointed out that the ATCOs don't set the rules or airspace classification, it's the CAA DAP who do so. Of course, contacting DAP to discuss and put your experiences and point of view to them is slightly less fun than baiting ATCOs.

Eradicate pompous attitudes all you want, that's not going to change the Worthing CTA to Class B.

Ooooooh!!!

Mmmh,

Unless I am mistaken I have been in a similar situation as that outlined and been unceremoniously dumped by the controller at a really awkward time in the cockpit although thankfully two crew, I hate to think how it would affect a single pilot IFR guy.

For all the ATC hoods out there procrastinating; I suppose the reverse would be pitching up at your zone boundary and calling finals totally unannounced, how would that flick your switch with a busy traffic pattern?

If you would like a little notice of the arrival then I guess what is being got at here is that an "expect to lose the service in 5 miles" call would go a long way to allowing the single pilot IFR guy to have his ducks in a row and perhaps avoid the possibility of disorientation in cloud when the call comes.

Flippant I know but safety first and all that,

HEDP

Good point, HEDP - why not suggest it to CAA/MAA? That would be an extension of the requirement to pre-warn pilots of the next service before leaving CAS.

And that - or similar - happens not infrequently in Class G !

2 s

And yet others who tell you "G-AB, Basic Service, report leaving the frequency". Or to put it another way, you doesn't pay your money and you doesn't get a choice. :)
NS

It all depends on the individual controller.

The shall we say older sounding controllers don't in general do it or give a heads up. And speaking to mates the controllers who are also pilots tend to do what they would want.

Even on the same unit the way individuals deal with the same situation is different so unless you know the voice you won't have clue what to expect.

Personally I now expect no service and if I get one its a bonus. I try and stay in or above cloud sub FL100.

It still gets pretty hairy getting dumped out of London control by decent going into say CAM on a fair wx day. Some just dump you and others keep you until your VMC.

Even getting a service the two airprox I have filed have been under the old RAS service and under a deconfliction. One with a microlight and the other a glider. So although nice to have once your VMC below cloud base I prefer to have all eyes available looking out the window than head in running on vectors.

And they are the ones that phone you and start bitching that you should have spoken to them so that you were known traffic. And they had needed to speak so they could get 5 miles deconfliction on a CAT aircraft which you could see anway and would be deemed seperated from in CAS but under ASTOCAS you would be vectored away from.

If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?

"If you don't get a useful service why bother speaking to a unit?"

Any takers from ATC on this one? Does it help us all for you to know who is where or are GA only to be spoken to "just in case"?

And I've certainly heard the occasional air trafficer throw their teddy out of the cot when it happened.

G

The controller does not know that an unknown aircraft has "his" aircraft in sight and has to be constantly alert that it might change height and track and compromise the deconfliction distance (which, with the agreement of the other pilot, if in contact, could be reduced to 3nm or 1000ft). (Given the same circumstances in CAS, there would be no "deemed" separation as such, but avoiding action and an attempt to stay 5 nm away from the unknown traffic).

Sorry that you view it in terms of "teddies and cots". Look on it as an understandable frustration at the occasional habit that can be hazardous for other pilots, not just for the controller's (not air trafficer, or even trafficker) blood pressure!

2 s

The case I was describing was the traffic was known and not all units have 3nm

If both traffic are working the same unit and one VFR and the other CAT under a deconfliction it doesn't matter that the VFR can see the IFR they will still be radar seperated. Under CAS rules they don't have to be.

So you have the crazy situation that Class G airports try and keep a 10 mile by however long they normally vector the finals for sterile bit of airspace on the instrument approach and it doesn't matter what the VFR can see they will be controlled away from this. Where as in CAS there wouldn't be a problem.

Most companys SOP's tell pilost they have to take the best service available so they can't drop to a traffic service. And the units have usually got an agreement with the operator to provide a deconfliction service so the controller won't drop the service because then the crew will write a report. The the CAT is paying so the VFR traffic get moved and can collect a 10-20 mile diversion off route and usually gets dumped once clear when the controller has lost interest in them.

The more adaptable controllers will chuck both of you to tower and let them deal with it under there rules traffic permitting, but some units will hold both of you on radar.

in class G you won't be controlled away from anything.. if you don't want to take deconfliction advice, you can just say so and do your own thing.

Likewise, aircraft on a traffic or basic service can be asked to stick to certain limits to help deconflicting from other traffic, but the pilots are totally entitled to say no and do their own thing. Everybody can do their own thing in class G, within the limits of legality!! ATC is not sky cops

Thats not the way its working in practise Legal with some units.

You won't get a deconfliction service anyway you will get a basic or if you are very very lucky a traffic service.

And as for refusing an agreement all hell lets loose.

Last time I did that it was 10 plus RT calls to which each responce was "negative" and restating what my intentions were, it finished with them issuing an avoidance instruction to the vector they wanted me on to clear their ILS by 5 miles for a loco who was 10 mins out. I went on route and got a phone call from the SATCO later who I invited to MOR me, which he declined the offer and started bleating about airmanship and stating that I would never make a commercial pilot with my attitude. The thanks mate but I am already a CAT ATPL Captain and if your CAT traffic doesn't want to downgrade to a traffic service they can take the extra track miles caused the phone to be put down.

To be honest from a pilots point of view ATSOCAS isn't fit for purpose. Its confusing and not logical for most if not all none UK pilots. And the rules about deconflicting traffic are more onerous than operating inside controlled airspace.

A few choice words of frustration is one thing, bollocking a pilot on RT at length is another! I have mostly heard the former, but the latter which I've heard once or twice is throwing your teddy out of the cot! To be fair, not very often.

G

I remember trying to tell the CAA that the new ATSOCA rules were not fit for purpose at the time they were introduced. They ignored flight rules, making it more restrictive than controlled airspace in some cases.

It fell on deaf ears as in the main the ex-mil guys who now have jobs in the CAA did not care what flight rules the aircraft was under when using the old system of RIS and RAS. As in the military.

I used to use the statement in the approach section of the MATS 1 to only separate known IFR even under a RAS, so if the traffic is known VFR I would only provide traffic information, similar to class D. I would avoid other known IFR and unknown aircraft. This also meant I wanted pilots to contact me just to know their flight rules, it made things a lot easier.

If you think radar is bad.

You should see the fun and games with procedural.

You can get multiple aircraft on the instrument approach who have taken a basic service because they didn't have a clue what the other one was with the controller passing traffic info to none native speakers who think they have been cleared for the procedure. With the controller more than likely with thier eyes shut and hand on the crash button.

If the controller hadn't asked them what type of service they wanted and confused matters they would have been more than happy to potter into the hold and do as thier told.

Since CAP774 there has been excessive 'over-controlling' of VFR traffic in Class G airspace solely to deconflict it from traffic under Deconfliction Service. The simple provision of traffic information to the VFR flights should suffice. 'Agreements to maintain a specific course of action' are often excessive and overkill.

Service provision is wildly inconsistent between ATSOCA units. Basic Service frequently includes traffic information even though the ATCO should 'avoid the routine provision of traffic information' unless s/he 'considers that a definite risk of collision exists'. The risk of collision in the majority of cases seems to be non-existent. Often the traffic information is more akin to an eye test. 'Duty of Care' is often taken to extreme. I suspect it is probably intended minimise TCAS RAs to avoid paperwork. Many 'agreements' as applied to VFR flights on Basic Service which result in tortuous deviation are often totally unnecessary. If this situation is allowed to continue pilots will be less inclined to contact those units which appear to be unable to provide the services in accordance with CAP774.

To me it all comes down to the CAA pushing the accountability down to the service providers.

Lets face it the duty of care section is a can of worms that only a jury would decide on if the unthinkable happens.

In busy class G the procedural service is about luck, plain and simple.

Depends on who is on the desk and the pilots knowing the rules.

If the pilots doing the procedures have any misconcpetion that they have any protection at all in the procedure while flying in VMC it falls on its arse.

Hence luck?

I see the traffic / deconfliction service as it is provided at the moment as the lesser of two evils - the other one being more class D airspace. And I say that with class D airspace as it is operated in the UK, where clearance is less than assured.

Here is my example: Southend now has some CAT that wants deconfliction service. Our general handling / practice area is over St Mary's Marsh, and gets in the way if they have to provide 5 miles separation to an approach from the west, especially if we do climbing/descending and stalling exercises at around 3,000ft.

I always call for a traffic service, and Southend are VERY accommodating - I do not remember a single service refusal. On occasion, they ask me to work to the west side of the marsh, or remain a bit south, or remain below 2,000ft for 10 minutes. I am always happy to oblige, and it sure beats "basic service only due controller workload" from Farnborough.

I do not see this as overcontrolling - Southend certainly is asking politely - but as a give and take.

If that particular bit of airspace became Class D as during the Olympics, we would lose this training area, and I am certain that a clearance into Class D to do some stalling would not be something I could reliably plan to obtain...

Cobalt

Don't be daft, if that bit of airspace you talk of, is available for you to fly in for what ever reason, then the you have a right to fly in it so long as you follow whatever guidelines the CAA place.

It might mean you have to file a flight plan, god forbid?

If your visual with it why should you have to move or be restricted at all.

You are VFR in Class G.

If the airline wants deconfliction and operates into a cheap regional airport in class G they have to accept it will burn more fuel.

Your students shouldn't be paying for the loco's commercial decision to operate into that airport and the local interpretation of ATSOCA.

Use the Force,

Maybe on Tatooine you need to file a flight plan for Class D ;), but here we have no imperials (with Atlas control gone) so a radio call (which technically is a flight plan, too) will do. And that call would be nearly identical to a call for traffic service.

But there is no assurance that a clearance for airwork in class D will be given, and hence it will make that bit of airspace unsuitable.


Mad_jock,

I agree my students should not pay. They don't - with a bit of notice, I can arrange the general "working" direction to suit both. And Southend also is asking nicely for coordination, and are not ordering me around. If I don't like what they ask for (last week they wanted me to stay below 2,000ft when I wanted to teach stalling) I say so and offer an alternative (in that case, remaining west of a point).

It is all voluntary. I had some cases of attempts to give me instructions in class G (not as nasty as some if the examples in this thread), none of them at Southend.

Fair enough if your happy. But its still wrong if you are having to be seperated when your wouldn't need to be in CAS.

I have never had an issue getting access to class D and there are more than a few local agreements for training areas inside class D.

And if EZY continue the way they are going there it won't be long before there is a case for CAS. And with recent CAS approvals they will be pretty likely to get it.