Hope you don't mind me popping in here with a quick observation. Seems to be there's a bit of a chicken and egg situation going on. Let me explain:

At the moment, controllers are saying it's sometimes not safe to allow light aircraft through their Class D because the CTRs and CTAs are so small. Private pilots are against the expansion of controlled airspace because they view it (rightly or wrongly) as "off limits" in many cases.

Now, if we could make this controlled airspace bigger, would that make it easier to route us little guys through it? Would we then remove the "off limits" stigma which private pilots attach to controlled airspace? Only problem is that while that stigma is there, private pilots will opose any expansion of controlled airspace, therefore the stigma will remain in place.

Does that make sense?

FFF
----------

Bex

Good question and hopefully the GASCO research will quantify this.

Whether some people are whingers or genuine victims should then become more transparent, as presently it is more a matter of opinion

:}

FFF

FFF - good summary. Sadly, there is also the perception in the GA community that when CAS is created, it is likely to be 'off limits' as you put it, due to the ATSUs being 'up to capacity' etc and frankly, having a mindset that puts GA as a very low priority - for example, see comments from Eggs Pectation which do not exactly reassure.

However, if CAS was expanded with workable VFR corridors, then that's a different matter and maybe this is an option to accomodate all.

ferris

The ICAO definition of class D requires a clearance for VFR aircraft. The US (and perhaps other places that you're used to) has a filed difference, requiring only two-way radio communication with the ground facility, not an explicit clearance.

There is certainly an argument that the ICAO definition of class D was intended to produce a complete known traffic environment rather than a completely controlled environment (which is what class B is for).

As others may have commented, states other than the UK, for example the US, seem to operate class D quite happily on the basis of visual separation between VFR and IFR. The US also has different separation standards for IFR and VFR within class B, hence in practice US class B operations and UK class D operations are not very different.

Finally, it's worth noting that a large number of UK airports currently surrounded by class D would qualify for class B under US criteria. Provided the separation standards were modified to the US versions, conversion to class B would not require a substantial difference in behaviour, as flower suggests may be an appropriate outcome from the GASCo survey.

May a contented pilot slip in a word?

I fly my Aztec the length and breadth of the country, quite often, and I always plan a straight line and ask for crossings.

I am very rarely refused.

I guess in order of frequency I ask for crossings of:
London City (nearly all the time)
Solent (a lot)
Leeds (a lot)
E Midlands (quite a bit)
Teesside (often)
Luton (now and again)
Birmingham (fairly regularly)
Newcastle (from time to time)
LHR (used to a lot, now not so often)
Stansted (once in a while)

...and I reckon that I have been refused, what, twice or three times in the last couple of years. Thames (who almost always say 'yes') sometimes just have to say 'no', and Luton has said 'no' once. Apart from that my experience is wholly positive.

The only zone I really don't like is Manch. They do seem to say 'no' on principal.

For some reason I never ask Gatwick, I always fly round. I might try it next time.

So the message from me is 'problem, what problem?'

One other thing, that may or may not be relevant, is that I am an ATPL using PPL privileges, so I've got 'the voice' and am fairlly crisp on R/T. I don't know if that's relevant or not.

W

...just to add to my previous...

Edinburgh are very odd about their Class E. I have flown in there VFR, being in radio contact with Edinburgh Approach (or radar, I forget) and been given instructions to follow certain routes.

My response has been to follow the instructions as if they were requests and then to say 'Please confirm that this is Class E airspace and you have me on your strip as VFR?' which has been greeted very frostily :}

FFF:
Yes, I think that at some ATCUs the ATCO workload could be eased by a moderate increase in airspace. This I believe could release capacity to cope with freecalls, airspace transits etc. Albeit clumsily, that is a point that I was trying to make.

As I and other ATCOs have said, we try to be helpful and accommodate all requests for service but whether Final 3 Greens likes it or not our first priority is to IFR a/c, in respect of their separation and sequencing. That is a clear legal obligation and we and our employers have a duty of care and are responsible should an error be made. The easier it is for us to work these a/c, the more spare capacity we have for other things.

I think it is a shame that some GA pilots view CAS as off limits or with trepidation, suspicion, concern etc. I would support and encourage all measures to change this.

WCollins may have a point with Voice, R/T. If we are busy then a crisp confidently delivered request may be easier to deal with than one that is more hesitant and unsure sounding. However I say again, we do try to help everyone.

Bear in mind what u hear on the R/T is only part of the picture. U r not hearing the telephone/intercom coordination and requests that the ATCO is dealing with. Likewise u do not know what equipment limitations he/she is struggling with. If an ATCO sounds curt then it could just be that they are working hard or dealing with a problem. They don’t mean to be rude and probably would like to be more helpful.

Final 3 Greens, I think it unfortunate that u seem to think that we ATCOs have a mindset that is against G/A. That is not the case. Please try to see a situation from the other side of a radar screen as well as from another cockpit.

:ok:

Final.....

Unfortunately I fear the GASCO research may be flawed. It seems to actually ask the question "Who's UNHAPPY here?", rather than "WHO is Content with the way things stand?" (Like WCollins).

It is a truism that those that complain the most are often a minority. Those that are content rarely make their views known (ask any mid term government).

Rgds BEX

Eggs Petition

Do u spk 2 pilots n txt spk as wll ?? :rolleyes: :p

Bex

I see where you are coming from. Let's hope that you are wrong and the outcome is helpful. As others have said, there may be some different ways of handling airspace that would be good for all of us. I would be comfortable operating under US 'class B', also class C for that matter, since I have knocked up a number of hours there and find it works very well. Whether we could support 'flight following', a major safety plus IMHO, is another matter.

Eggs

I was feeding back the anecdotal view that many in GA take. Like WCollins, I am satifisfied with the service too, but for different reasons.

I often 'check in' with Essex for a FIS, mainly so they know my intentions, especially when I'm operating under their airspace around North Weald - its a win win and they are always very helpful.

Also, as you can see in the dialogue with Bex, I do respect the views of ATCOs and do appreciate the other side of the radar screen to some degree, although not so well as the inside of a SEP.

Maybe you ought to read the following extracts from your posts on this thread and reflect on the tone your are sending. I believe your other statements that you try to be helpful to GA, but there's also a bit of a mixed message in there too ;)

"At the end of the day my frustration is with those in the GA (and Military!) world who seem to have a lot of opinion but little true appreciation of modern commercial civil aviation."

"Pax pay money for their seat on an aeroplane. They deserve certain levels of safety and protection. Your right to play is, rightly, of lesser importance."

"And the UK is not the only place with problems. Let's not adopt too much of a "grass is greener" mentality."

"whether Final 3 Greens likes it or not our first priority is to IFR a/c"

"If that means, unfortunately, a GA a/c can't have exactly what he/she wants: so be it. It is in the interests of safety."

An interesting point by Bexil140 and the "Duty of Care" with which we were all trained and are throughly familiar. At a recent meeting with "The Management" at Swanwick about lack of staff and overloads on the FIR where a FIS is provided The assembled FIR staff, when this subject was brought up were told that ATC staff do not have a "duty of care" by a very senior member of the management staff at Swanwick. I am not convinced that would stand up in court as a defence!.

A couple of points from a relatively new PPL operating out of Redhill just on the northern edge of Gatwick's zone. The perceived wisdom at Redhill is that you don't ask Gatwick if you want to fly south (e.g. to Shoreham) but you fly via Guildford. I've never actually worked out the track distance, but my guess is that Redhill-Guildford-Midhurst-Shoreham is about twice as long as Redhill-Shoreham direct - and that's a big cost difference to a PPL!!! I have heard a few instructors recently saying that they have tried asking Gatwick for zone transits and have usually been accommodated - I will try it myself next time I'm heading for Shoreham and report back.

My second observation comes from a recent flying holiday in the US. The "base airfield" I chose was 7nm south of San Francisco international, and two of the standard departures from the airfield routed underneath the final approach for SFO with a ceiling of 1500', and I frequently heard zone transit requests being granted through the SFO class-bravo airspace, typically "remaining west of route 101, not above 1500 feet" or similar.

My most memorable detail from that trip, however, was the real benefit of a service the US ATC are able to offer called "flight following" which is roughly akin to the UK's RIS. On one flight I heard a comercial "United XYZ" flight being advised of a Cessna ahead, then heard the controller call me with "Cessna 12345 your traffic is a Boeing 737, descending through your altitude, passing half a mile to your right." They had me on TCAS, I had them visually, and a 737 half a mile away nearly two miles up in the sky is a VERY impressive sight.

I can't say for certain, but it seemed to me that Norcal had enough controllers to be able to offer every GA pilot the flight following service, and the radar coverage was excellent - travelling along several 2+ hour sectors I never heard "you are approaching the edge of my radar cover, squawk VFR, freecall enroute", something I hear frequently when flying in the south east of the UK. Yes, I did get passed from one controller to another, but save for one occasion when I goofed it, this was almost a non-event. My guess is that this is a necessary side-effect of the US making almost all of their airspace Class-E (I think!!!) except around airports where Class-D is normal (even for a lot of "little" airfields), Class-C common and Class-B for the "biggies". Yet through all of these, the GA pilot in a clapped out C172 is welcome to fly.

I know the US and the UK fund ATC differently, but to the GA pilot the difference is VERY noticeable, and having the security blanket of 'RIS' available everywhere to everyone who wants it certainly makes the airspace seem a lot more safe. My impression is that it makes pilots more likely to talk to the controllers, and that in turn makes the sky safer - instead of unknown blips dodging around the edge of controlled airspace at unverified heights (if they've even turned SSR on) and talking to no-one, suddenly you have identified, height-verified blips who you can talk directly to and issue instructions to if the situation goes suddenly pear-shaped. Surely that's safer for all, IFR, VFR, passenger carrying, training and "playing"?

I'll post how my trial with Gatwick Class-D goes next time I need to give it a go.

Cheers,

MD.

Can assure you that Edi works its class E airspace by the book. Dont know why you were asked to fly a route, all I can say is that certainly is not the norm and I have never seen it done.

The only thing we do sometimes is ask VFRs if they are happy to fly below a certain altitude, usually below 2000'. This is generally around the 10 mile final points of our approaches, so that we can desend IFR traffic down to 3000' above.

However as it is class E they can refuse, but most of the time they will help us out and obligue.

As for transits through class D, usually I will always try and accomodate but on the rare occasion I have refused it is because, in my humble opinion, I have been to busy to deal with it or some other situation, such as an emergency, has been happening at the time. As already said just coz the frequency is quiet doesn't mean the controller is sitting back drinking coffee!!

MD;

I won't say that our staffing is any better than in the UK or most of Europe, in fact in many of our facilities the staffing is getting quite thin. I think that the mind set of most US controllers is just a bit different than that of most European controllers when it comes to GA. Not a good or bad thing, just different, as is our view and approach to how we do our airspace and restrictions to flight.

Sometimes to our chagrin, we probably take on a bit more than we should, just due to our way of doing business. We don't have the limits that you hear of in many European circles. We do have recomended numbers that a certain sector should work, but they are always guidelines and are never hard numbers. ATC is a bit too difficult to give them hard numbers. There are sectors where you can find your self working a LOT of departures and a couple of overflights mixed in and it is not straining you too bad. But then another day, you only have 2/3's of the departures but the rest are overflights or military with a lot of strange requests and just puts you straight down the pooper... <shrug> Our job is like that every day over here. Ya just never know what you are going to end up with <G>. There are times where I do have to just say no to additional work load items like flight following (RIS) to additional aircraft. The good news though is that in about 15 to 20 minutes, I generally have things sorted out enough that I can get back to the other aircraft. If the other aircraft was a C172, you can bet that he/she is still out there. <G>

Take care

Scott

PS. Glad that you enjoyed your flight here... The Bay Area was always one of my favorite places to fly...

Yes, but private pilots probably pay a whole lot more for *their* seat on an aeroplane! Sorry, couldn't resist that.

Ratsarse

I had let this point go, but now you mention it.......

As a frequent business traveller earning lots of euros for UK PLC, why should other people be allowed to travel on leisure, blocking airports, over loading infrastructure etc., when all they are doing is having some 'fun', which is getting in the way of my serious business?

Perhaps we should appoint 'fun' controllers to stop it all getting out of hand ;)

Well glad I started that!!

It's actually been a very interesting debate which has encompassed various other issues and obviously riled more people than just me.

I can only come back to my original point which isn't really concerned with the economic issues, just safety safety safety.

As Just a Few mentioned, the issue isn't how 'properly' the r/t is delivered. I feel the issue is whether the controller has capacity to safely offer the required service.

Maybe we do need a big shake up of perceptions in the UK or to be introduced to different classes of airspace - but how likely is that to happen in the immediate future?

I will continue to try and accommodate requests from G/A pilots to the best of my ability. I do feel a 'duty of care' to a/c outside CAS, and even when they only want a FIS (or that's all I can offer) I will upgrade the service to point out conflicts that I feel could become dangerous.

There will still be times, however, where I feel (over)loaded to a point where I cannot possibly accommodate a transit/service and at this point it will be refused. This may be a staffing issue or a lack of extra frequencies issue, but either way I won't let myself 'go under'. This is my 'duty of care' to all other aircraft I am speaking to at that time.

And finally as a matter of interest - as a G/A pilot, if you request a transit through the final approach at a time when we are 'packing' inbounds, would you rather be given a clearance to enter the zone, and end up orbiting for maybe 10 mins until there's a gap, or would you rather be instructed to route around?

You're right SMB, this has been a top thread.

I feel that I understand an ATCOs 'mindset' a little better now. Hopefully, some of them understand GA pilots' concerns a little better too.

I can't speak for the controller(s) concerned in W Collins' post, but there's a slightly odd scenario at GLA / EDI due to the Class E airspace. For example, when a VFR leaves EDI's zone to the east and gets into the Class E TMA, they can perfectly legitimately climb to just under 6000' without permission from anybody (or even transit through this airspace without being in R/T contact with anyone, with no transponder etc). At the same time, ATC are decending IFR traffic for rwy 24 to -ultimately - 2300' through this bit of sky. Nothing ATC can do to stop it, either. Traffic information is passed but there's no requirement for avoiding action, even if it's a head-on, same level situation. Other folk have mentioned the 'duty of care' requirement which is why VFR transit traffic is sometimes asked if they can accept "not above 2000' for the next 5 miles" or something similar, to avoid lengthy traffic information or big track deviations for the IFRs.

Essentially it seems that commercial pilots have come to expect that if they conduct the whole flight in controlled airspace, they will be separated at all times from other traffic - any more commercial crews care to comment on this thread?

ATCBabe

All I can say is that it has happened a couple of times that I have been routing up once to Dundee, the other Inverness, passing to the East of your Class D, in your Class E, but reasonably close to the boundary between the two (say two miles).

I can't remember the exact form of words, but along the lines of "G-xxxx, turn right 020, we have an inbound positioning for the ILS; can you descend to 2000' maintaining VMC?"

"G-xxxx radar heading 020, leaving 2,500 feet for 2,000, VMC VFR. Please confirm that I am in Class E airspace and you have me down as VFR."

"G-xxxx, affirm, you are in Class E airspace."

Both times a female ATCO (but clearly not you ;) )

I am not really complaining...just commenting that there seems to be a disparity between the airspace needs of EDI and its provision.

W

Firstly may I say what an interesting thread this is.

I would like to contribute a few observations.

I agree that in general the service from ATCOs in UK is very good for GA pilots. Most of the time I have received excellent service from them.

With regard to comments about the crispnes of R/T, of course the paradox is that it is probably the less confident less experienced pilot who is more in need of assistance ( and from a safety point of view more likely to get lost and infringe your CAS). When I was even less experieneced than I now am, the thought of having to work out an impromtu navigation diversion (becasuse you don't know when a clearnace will or not be given) was considerably more taxing than it is now, so perhaps ATCOs should try and accomodate the hesitant GA pilot more than the confident. (Even though this may tax his/her patience!)

With regard to SFO my only experienence was similar to other posts. I was simply asked to do an orbit while they inspected the gear of a heavy which had declared emergency, and then cleared to transit the overhead en-route to the bay, with thanks from the controller for co-operating with them!!

With regard to more CAS, I like most GA pilots have a concern that like the motorways, the more you build, the more traffic you attract.

With regard to the priority of commercial traffic over GA "pleasure rides", well this is really a quality of life issue. Is my chosen recreation any less deserving than that of the the package holidaymaker using a no frills airline packing them in on as short a turn around as possible? I think this is a mute point, but in a free democracy, where the freedoms of most minority groups are held sacrisanct, lets hope that we never get to the point where certain recreational activities are prohibited in favour of others. Otherwise those who live under the flight path of LHR might one day succeed in stopping those commercial joy riders!!

I've always been a bit fuzzy on one issue which has arisen in this discussion; why do we always assume that IFR traffic has priority over VFR traffic? You can argue that the airport operator expects such from his [commercial] ATC provider, but leaving that and other practical considerations to one side, where does it actually say that IFR traffic has priority?

The MATS Part 1 defines (Section 1, Chapter 4, Page 6) "Flight Priorities". It states that "Normal Flights" are:

"Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and are conforming with normal routing procedures."

It also mentions exam flights, but let's ignore that now.

For VFR traffic transiting class D airspace in the UK, the normal method of filing a flight plan (UK AIP ENR 1-10) is to pass over the r/t "the limited information required to obtain a clearance for a portion of flight (e.g. flying in a control zone...)". So, for VFR traffic to be operating in class D airspace, it must by definition have filed a flight plan. Assuming that such traffic then goes on to conform with "normal routing procedures", I can see no reason why he should be afforded any less priority than his IFR colleagues.

As I said above, I'm not saying that for practical purposes on any given day, VFR traffic won't end up some way down the priority list - just that I can't find any legislation which states that it should be so.

Now comes the part where someone more experienced than myself says "didn't you read the other side"....!

1261,

If you look back to an earlier post of mine in this thread you'll see that, taking Gatwick as an example, there's an entry in the MATS Pt 2 that effectively puts VFR at a lower priority.

I assume that whoever had that entry put in had the appropriate authority to do so.

WF.

I'm pretty sure that there's no such entry in ours (it mentions SVFR, however) but then I can't check at home because we no longer get a copy of the MATS 2!!

Save My Bacon

To quote Churchil "More jaw jaw, less war war."

I've learned a lot from Eggs and Bex's postings (and others too) and I agree with you that this has been a good thread. :O

Let's not assume that a VFR flight does not have an FPL filed.

I file every flight, in order to ensure that spurious route charges are not raised.

The fact that almost no-one is aware of the plans (only the departure and arrival towers) is not relevant, mine is an example of "Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and are conforming with normal routing procedures."

Not really making any point, just commenting.

W

Final 3 Greens


My response is based on the inference of what Mr Skinner wrote.
That by simply announcing the correct details, transit a/c
would be allowed thru'.I maintain my response, as it is based on current experience of Class D airspace with an NDB on a 4 mile final, that NDB also being a common waypoint for a/c wishing to transit the CTR VFR north to south or vice versa.A/c flying E-W
on final approach crossing a transit route, hope you see the picture.It doesn't mean that transit a/c are always told NO, as WCollins experience of Manch CTR suggests; simply that, on occasion, if the flight paths look likely to conflict, VFR transit a/c will be informed in advance and advised of a possible re-route.
Duty of care is also an ATCOs responsibility. I haven't yet met an ATCO who would allow this possible confliction to become an actual collision just to allow a VFR flight through. My attitude is if it will work safely, do it. If a confliction, or worse, looks likely, then re-route the VFR transit.

Extra staff would help but even they could not change the potential conflict that exists. An answer would be for VFR transit a/c to use the Manch low level corridor, and at times to avoid a conflict this has been done.

Manch say NO (allegedly), Liverpool say good possibility!!!


Hope this clarifies my response.

Just a Few

I see your point in your particular case.

Just out of interest, what airspace is above you? If you have instrument traffic passing over the NDB at circa 1400' (assuming a 3 degree glide) who 'owns' 2400 up? (and can't aircraft be routed there, or is it TMA?)

As I said in an earlier post I don't blame controllers for the way the system works, but experience of the US does show that creative thinking can be applied safely to the benefit of all.

The LAX VFR corridor worked very well, with traffic routing well above the airport approach and departure area.... and the LA basin is pretty busy, rather more so than the average class D airfield in the UK. (It did require pilots to observe the rules and transgressions resulted in firm action.)

Although this may sound astonishing to you, I did get an invite en route from a controller to visit VFR in an Arrow "I might have to hold you for 20-30 minutes to fit you into the sequence because your airspeed is a bit slow, but you are very welcome" Then again, 4 parallel runways do give you lots of options if your mind is focused on making something happen. I confess to bottling the opportunity!

But then again, AOPA (US) are very large and strong pressure group with a determination to represent their members in a way that is most un-British (no slight to AOPA UK intended here, its a much smaller organization in a different environment.)

Some weeks ago I became embroiled in a thread on Class D airspace penetration on this forum, and the comments on this thread seem to contain much the same sentiments. I abandoned the discussion (being considered a "purist" by some) and on the recommendation that I was losing the battle and to "give it up".

It was my conclusion, though, that there is a problem with class D, in that the separation rules are well defined, but the "powers-that-be" in the ATC world have placed requirements on controllers which make it impossible for them to implement Class D, as it should be (see below). Indeed, for many of the contributors to that thread, and this one, the point is made that in some places they consider there is too much traffic to permit safe VFR operations in Class D. In practice, it seems that in those places ATC operate the airspace like Class C for safety reasons (duty of care etc.), rather than class D.

I have no problem with this from a safety point of view. If the traffic density warrants class C, then make it so! That will not prevent GA access, but it will at least make the airspace class match the actual ATC implementation, and it may well make it safer for all.

What seems to be wrong is the myth spread about how much Class D airspace exists in the UK in order to give good access to GA, when in practice it appears to be slightly less than expected. My point is, If its operated like class C for safety reasons, call it class C, not D. If it is safe to operate as class D, then call it class D and operate it like class D. Also, it should be ABSOLUTELY clear that in class D a controller cannot be held responsible for lack of separation of VFR flights when it is specifically NOT his function.

I reproduce some of the comments from the other thread in support of the case.

Extracts from ATC manuals and documents
Controller comments

I come back to asking "is there really a problem?"

My experience of asking for Class D penetration is really quite large, and I am a happy bunny ('cept Manch) so what is there to fear from GAAC doing their survey and finding out that this is all a storm in a teacup?

W

WC

I suspect that you are partly a happy bun because you have ATPL level skills and confidence that help you get clearances.

It will be interesting to see what the GAAC survey shows and I wonder if we maybe have a training issue with some PPLs who are turned away because the controller is busy and reacts (understandably) instinctively to avoid having his/her workload increased by the perception that 'this one may be difficult to work.'

Despite the impression that I may have given, I have seldom been declined a class D transit, although I don't request them anything like as often as you, since my flying allows me easily to circumvent in most cases.... but I wonder if this has anything to do with my training, where I learned at a busy ATC airport and became organised in my thinking and quick and accurate on the com box.

As promised, a quick report on my experience with Gatwick and a zone transit. I was flying from Goodwood to Redhill witha planned route via Guildford when I thought I'd give it a try. My first call was to Gatwick Director as I passed 1000' on climbout from Goodwood requesting a direct routing to Redhill. At the time Gatwick appeared relatively quiet (mid afternoon on a Friday) and were using runway 26.

The controller was very helpful and patient with my adequate-but-not-quite-perfect R/T (I forgot the aircraft type!), giving me a squawk (FIS only though) and radar vectors to clear the climbout track from Gatwick. Once north of the centreline, I was given own navigation through the zone to Redhill. I estimate the transit saved me five minutes compared to my planned route via Guildford, which is the equivalent of about ten quid on the aircraft I was flying.

All in all an excellent service. Thank you, if you happen to be reading this.

MD.

(edited to correct typo)

ModernDinosaur

Thank you for that report, next time I am doing Biggin - Shoreham, Goodwood or Bembridge I'll give it a whirl, thanks to your encouragement :ok:

W

Well....

I decided to put it to the test today...my track to LFBV was BIG DCT SFD at about 0800Z and back again at about 1600Z and on both occasions LGW gave me a direct transit on track at not above 2000' VFR.

What more could I ask for?!

Keep it up, guys :)

W

I have had a similar experience recently from Redhill to Shoreham in a C172. The frequency appeared quiet and so we asked and were given a Radar Control Service through the zone and once clear to the South resume own navigation.

This was one of the few (i.e 2!)occasions I have done this through Gatwick, it appeared a little easier than own navigation insofaras I just did what I was told turn left heading xyz, turn right heading abc etc. I kept a close eye to nail the altitude and heading and remained aware of my position so I could pick up the nav when released.

Just to add another positive experience....

Before Sunday I had never flown in controlled airspace (only asked once before but too much IFR traffic about), on Sunday I flew through the Luton CTR twice, once over the field. Thank you Luton Approach!

MC.

final3greens.

You may have felt safe and comfortable in your little plane overflying LAX but probably had no idea of the extra workload or possible disaster sequence you could have set in train.

Scott Voigt can probably help me out here, but when I visited LAX TRACON a few years all the controllers there hated that VFR corridor over the top of LAX. Everytime there was a VFR transit they had to amend the go-around procedure to stop below the transit and if there was a departure, it also had to be stopped below. If I remember rightly, a departure I watched got stopped at around 2000ft after take-off. Not much problem for a heavily ladend B747 on a hot day, but you try stopping off a B737/ Airbus at a low altitude! Any stop-off below the SID level is a disaster waiting to happen, it makes increased worload for everyone: someone, someday, is bound to forget the altitude restriction, and for what, just to let someone save a few miles and show off to their mates!

I recall an AEROMEXICO inbound to the LAX region colliding with a VFR transit who was not where they should have been. In the UK, let's keep things as they are please!!

Poor RT
 

In my experience the principle reason for the apparent lack of clearances through class D is the low standard of RT shown by a large proportion of GA pilots.

You only have to listen to the lack of understanding of the LARS service to reason with a controller in letting someone of questionable ability to transit in the vicinity of commercial traffic. It's simply a matter of being willing to jepordise the safely of the principle task of vectoring IFR flights.

I do not believe that the UK has a problem with controllers withholding clearances. It does with regard to the standard of flying and RT of a great many light aircraft pilots.

Cosmic

Your point has been discussed at length here

The consensus seems to be that most people think that R/T standards do make a difference, a few insist that it matters not a jot.

W

Not really a VFR transit. The Cherokee in question apparently penetrated the LA CTA inadvertently. It wasn't using, or trying to use, a corridor.

WCollins....

Never mind good RT skills - I've heard that bribery in the form of fine Italian pasta works wonders!!

;)

THIRTY FEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D