Zone Infringements
Thread Starter
Zone Infringements
I overheard an interesting conversation on the airwaves a few days ago.
Chappie in a helicopter asks for a direct routing from point A to point B when asked for point of origin and destination. ATCO notes his message and he trundles on his way. A few minutes later the ATCO calls him up and informs him that he has clipped the edge of the Zone. He apologises profusely and the ATCO basically says no problem we were watching you on radar and there was no conflict. Great methinks, error pointed out in friendly manner, apologies made, lesson learned, happy ending to story.
Wrong. Two or three minutes later, extremely agitated Senior ATCO gets on radio and proceeds to tear into the helo pilot and spends a good three or four minutes berating him while a succession of 737's and 757's are waiting to get a word in edgewise on a busy frequency. Why did he bother? I've heard that this is not the first time that this has happened. Not a problem for me but I'm sure it is a concern for the people flying for a living who have to fanny around while this chap vents his spleen.
Any comments peeps?
Chappie in a helicopter asks for a direct routing from point A to point B when asked for point of origin and destination. ATCO notes his message and he trundles on his way. A few minutes later the ATCO calls him up and informs him that he has clipped the edge of the Zone. He apologises profusely and the ATCO basically says no problem we were watching you on radar and there was no conflict. Great methinks, error pointed out in friendly manner, apologies made, lesson learned, happy ending to story.
Wrong. Two or three minutes later, extremely agitated Senior ATCO gets on radio and proceeds to tear into the helo pilot and spends a good three or four minutes berating him while a succession of 737's and 757's are waiting to get a word in edgewise on a busy frequency. Why did he bother? I've heard that this is not the first time that this has happened. Not a problem for me but I'm sure it is a concern for the people flying for a living who have to fanny around while this chap vents his spleen.
Any comments peeps?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the granting of a request to route from A to B at level C amount to a transit of controlled airspace on that route?
(without asking for a CAS transit explicitly)
I hope so... It's a really stupid question but I DO wonder whether the ATCO is really going to hold a ruler against the chart to see what the pilot is talking about.
(without asking for a CAS transit explicitly)
I hope so... It's a really stupid question but I DO wonder whether the ATCO is really going to hold a ruler against the chart to see what the pilot is talking about.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the granting of a request to route from A to B at level C amount to a transit of controlled airspace on that route?
Generally speaking though, a pilot is required to know and understand whether or not he can legally execute an instruction or clearance. That is not the ATCO's responsibility. If in doubt, ask.
2D
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, sounds like a Jobsworth to me 
On the subject of Zone infringements, I flew to L2K a while back from EGHH which took me out to the south then along the coast Another aircraft also went a few minutes behine us. We both had RIS from Solent as the weather was not too good, we stayed at 1900 ' to stay below the Solent Class D north of the Isle Of Wight, yet we heard the other aircraft ask for RIS at 2100'. When we got to L2K we asked the other pilot what altitude they were at and they confirmed 2100', and when we mentioned that that had put them into Solent Class D they went white as a sheet.....
Solent didn't say anything, it was almost as if a clearance had been implied and they obviously didn't care. It would almost be better if when receiving a service from a zone controlling unit, you are either expressly told to "remain clear of controlled airspace" if thats what they want to avoid any ambiguity. I suspect that the chap you heard had assumed he had been cleared to cut the corner of the zone.If they are watching on radar and if it looks like you will be busting CAS without permission, wouldn't it be better if they called up / gave vectors rather than wait to an imfringement and they issue a bollocking?
Another slightly abiguous one happened a few weeks ago. Coming back to Bournemouth with a FIS from Solent, and was told to contact Bournemouth, who gave us weather and which runway to expect, and told us to contact the tower who told us to "report final". No "clearance" into their zone was given, though it was implied and interpreted as so. Is two way Comms now enough to be cleared into Class D airspace?
On the subject of Zone infringements, I flew to L2K a while back from EGHH which took me out to the south then along the coast Another aircraft also went a few minutes behine us. We both had RIS from Solent as the weather was not too good, we stayed at 1900 ' to stay below the Solent Class D north of the Isle Of Wight, yet we heard the other aircraft ask for RIS at 2100'. When we got to L2K we asked the other pilot what altitude they were at and they confirmed 2100', and when we mentioned that that had put them into Solent Class D they went white as a sheet.....
Solent didn't say anything, it was almost as if a clearance had been implied and they obviously didn't care. It would almost be better if when receiving a service from a zone controlling unit, you are either expressly told to "remain clear of controlled airspace" if thats what they want to avoid any ambiguity. I suspect that the chap you heard had assumed he had been cleared to cut the corner of the zone.If they are watching on radar and if it looks like you will be busting CAS without permission, wouldn't it be better if they called up / gave vectors rather than wait to an imfringement and they issue a bollocking?
Another slightly abiguous one happened a few weeks ago. Coming back to Bournemouth with a FIS from Solent, and was told to contact Bournemouth, who gave us weather and which runway to expect, and told us to contact the tower who told us to "report final". No "clearance" into their zone was given, though it was implied and interpreted as so. Is two way Comms now enough to be cleared into Class D airspace?
There's two ways this can happen, I'd venture.
If you ask for a routing, that takes you through airspace, and the routing is granted, I'd take that as permission.
If, on the other hand, you simply inform an air-trafficker of your route, and have only asked for a service (RIS/FIR/RAS), then no permission has been granted, and therefore I'd venture that you need crossing clearance separately.
I can recall an occasion when I fell foul of this, I was working service A, with a RIS, who had my height and routing. They eventually handed me over to service B, whose first call after identifying me was to inform me that I was already 10 miles or 1000ft (depending upon how you look at it) inside their class D airspace without permission. I apologised, and they clearly had better things to do than worry about it - but I was almost certainly at fault since no specific clearance had been requested or given.
In an ideal world, ATC will identify that you will need a clearance, and sort it out before you need to ask for it. But, they are busy folks, and you can't assume that'll happen.
G
If you ask for a routing, that takes you through airspace, and the routing is granted, I'd take that as permission.
If, on the other hand, you simply inform an air-trafficker of your route, and have only asked for a service (RIS/FIR/RAS), then no permission has been granted, and therefore I'd venture that you need crossing clearance separately.
I can recall an occasion when I fell foul of this, I was working service A, with a RIS, who had my height and routing. They eventually handed me over to service B, whose first call after identifying me was to inform me that I was already 10 miles or 1000ft (depending upon how you look at it) inside their class D airspace without permission. I apologised, and they clearly had better things to do than worry about it - but I was almost certainly at fault since no specific clearance had been requested or given.
In an ideal world, ATC will identify that you will need a clearance, and sort it out before you need to ask for it. But, they are busy folks, and you can't assume that'll happen.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the UK two way comms is not sufficient to enter or transit Class D, a specific clearance is required.
Technically unless the atco specifically clears you through, if you've said you're going A to B which would take you through the Class D the atco is working in, then you should not assume you've been cleared and remain outside.
It's very sloppy controlling if the controller thinks they have cleared you through just by acknowledging your route, and if I was the pilot I'd be getting back on the r/t and clearing up the ambiguity by asking something along the lines of "confirm I am cleared to transit the Class D". Hopefully a proper clearance would then be forthcoming.
As for issuing a bollocking on the r/t, whether deserved or not that sort of thing gets me very wound up as it is totally indefensible. The last thing a possibly new or low hours pilot needs, for the controller won't know the experience level of the person he's having a go at, is for his confidence to be shot to h*ll while he's in the air. If something needs to be said, give a phone number to call after landing, that's all that is needed. If I knew who the "senior atco" was at the start of the thread I'd quite happily go and give him a serious bollocking.
Technically unless the atco specifically clears you through, if you've said you're going A to B which would take you through the Class D the atco is working in, then you should not assume you've been cleared and remain outside.
It's very sloppy controlling if the controller thinks they have cleared you through just by acknowledging your route, and if I was the pilot I'd be getting back on the r/t and clearing up the ambiguity by asking something along the lines of "confirm I am cleared to transit the Class D". Hopefully a proper clearance would then be forthcoming.
As for issuing a bollocking on the r/t, whether deserved or not that sort of thing gets me very wound up as it is totally indefensible. The last thing a possibly new or low hours pilot needs, for the controller won't know the experience level of the person he's having a go at, is for his confidence to be shot to h*ll while he's in the air. If something needs to be said, give a phone number to call after landing, that's all that is needed. If I knew who the "senior atco" was at the start of the thread I'd quite happily go and give him a serious bollocking.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kilmacolm
Age: 47
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will hold my hand up and will admit that I've made a control zone airspace bust.
Was departing out of Bembridge enroute to Cardiff via the coastline along Bournemouth.
Climbed up to 3000' and when I called Solent they were waiting for me to call... I was 1000' into their zone but there was no problem and I was cleared through the zone at that altitude anyway, beats asking for it.
They didn't report me, or even ask me to call them on the telephone as when they told me I was in their airspace and I was cleared through I did sound rather suprised (which in fact I was!), looked at my chart and explained what I thought happened - only took twenty seconds or so and the frequency was quiet.
So I am very thankful to the controller who was on duty on Solent Radar that day a few years ago. Never done the same thing again.
On the subject of Solent they have always cleared me into their airspace at various levels, both before and after the incident, usually via SAM without any delay whatsoever. I have nothing but good praise for them... never had to duck under their airspace but have had a plan of action ready anyway. Staying above 3000' does help though, it seems.
Was departing out of Bembridge enroute to Cardiff via the coastline along Bournemouth.
Climbed up to 3000' and when I called Solent they were waiting for me to call... I was 1000' into their zone but there was no problem and I was cleared through the zone at that altitude anyway, beats asking for it.
They didn't report me, or even ask me to call them on the telephone as when they told me I was in their airspace and I was cleared through I did sound rather suprised (which in fact I was!), looked at my chart and explained what I thought happened - only took twenty seconds or so and the frequency was quiet.
So I am very thankful to the controller who was on duty on Solent Radar that day a few years ago. Never done the same thing again.
On the subject of Solent they have always cleared me into their airspace at various levels, both before and after the incident, usually via SAM without any delay whatsoever. I have nothing but good praise for them... never had to duck under their airspace but have had a plan of action ready anyway. Staying above 3000' does help though, it seems.
On a purely private note, and particularly in case there are any Solent controllers reading this - I've never yet found Solent less than 150% helpful with zone crossings (planned or inadvertent). A few other LARS providers in the south of England could do worse than emulate them, they do a good job - and it's certainly not because they have nothing else to do, the frequency is often very busy.
G
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CYQT
Age: 54
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must obtain a crossing / joining clearance to cross / join controlled airspace - PERIOD!!
Advising a controller of your intended route thru controlled airspace and assuming an acknowledgement is a clearance just isn't good enough I'm afraid.
This sort of thing happens a lot:
XXX this is G-XXXX, PA28 routing EGXX to EGXX VFR looking to cross your zone routing XXX DCT XXX at 2000'.
G-XX XXX Radar, roger FIS QNH xxxx squawk xxxx.
ATCO then turns his attention to something else and when complete notices G-XXXX trundling thru the zone minus a clearance.
G-xx XXX Radar, you have entered controlled airspace without a clearance.
XXX Radar G-XX, sorry I thought you'd cleared us in.
Negative G-XX an acknowledgement of a request to transit controlled airspace does not constitute a clearance.
G-XX roger XXX, sorry about that.
Okay G-XX continue VFR through the zone not above 2000' (in a voice which suggests the pilot had better learn from this because next time......
!)
Bit of a generalisation but it does happen.
Without the words "Cleared to enter" or "Cleared to transit / cross" you can't come in! Any ATCO who just says "approved" or "roger" and lets you through is just plain sloppy and/or crap in my book.
ATCOs can do their bit too, such as "Expect to transit as requested but ROCAS for the moment, I will call you back" etc
The key here is if in doubt, ASK!!
As for the highly excitable SATCO jumping on the frequency, if the SATCO here tried that with me in the chair he would be politely told to f
k off 
Advising a controller of your intended route thru controlled airspace and assuming an acknowledgement is a clearance just isn't good enough I'm afraid.
This sort of thing happens a lot:
XXX this is G-XXXX, PA28 routing EGXX to EGXX VFR looking to cross your zone routing XXX DCT XXX at 2000'.
G-XX XXX Radar, roger FIS QNH xxxx squawk xxxx.
ATCO then turns his attention to something else and when complete notices G-XXXX trundling thru the zone minus a clearance.
G-xx XXX Radar, you have entered controlled airspace without a clearance.
XXX Radar G-XX, sorry I thought you'd cleared us in.
Negative G-XX an acknowledgement of a request to transit controlled airspace does not constitute a clearance.
G-XX roger XXX, sorry about that.
Okay G-XX continue VFR through the zone not above 2000' (in a voice which suggests the pilot had better learn from this because next time......
!)Bit of a generalisation but it does happen.
Without the words "Cleared to enter" or "Cleared to transit / cross" you can't come in! Any ATCO who just says "approved" or "roger" and lets you through is just plain sloppy and/or crap in my book.
ATCOs can do their bit too, such as "Expect to transit as requested but ROCAS for the moment, I will call you back" etc
The key here is if in doubt, ASK!!
As for the highly excitable SATCO jumping on the frequency, if the SATCO here tried that with me in the chair he would be politely told to f
k off
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearance v cleared
Two words that are a real problem.
Some years ago following a serious accident the use of the word "take-off" was restricted to a specific occasion and in its application.
It is time for the two very similar; "cleared" and "clearance", but very different words to be revised.
Perhaps the phrase; "expect your routing to be" and "you are cleared to" would be less ambiguous. It would also then become; "after departure your routing will be" followed by; "you are cleared to take-off".
I agree with the many comments that ATC do not always bother to issue a formal clearance once the routing is agreed. In fact i have on occasion experienced a degree of irritation from ATC when i have insisted that a formal "cleared to..." is given.
Some years ago following a serious accident the use of the word "take-off" was restricted to a specific occasion and in its application.
It is time for the two very similar; "cleared" and "clearance", but very different words to be revised.
Perhaps the phrase; "expect your routing to be" and "you are cleared to" would be less ambiguous. It would also then become; "after departure your routing will be" followed by; "you are cleared to take-off".
I agree with the many comments that ATC do not always bother to issue a formal clearance once the routing is agreed. In fact i have on occasion experienced a degree of irritation from ATC when i have insisted that a formal "cleared to..." is given.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, the whole thing is indeed very sloppy.
Route clearances are supposed to be issued with the complete callsign. (CAP413, ss 1.13 refers). Any time a controller uses your complete callsign you are supposed to use it also, so the complete callsign should be used for readback too.
TPK
Route clearances are supposed to be issued with the complete callsign. (CAP413, ss 1.13 refers). Any time a controller uses your complete callsign you are supposed to use it also, so the complete callsign should be used for readback too.
TPK
Thread Starter
englishal
The chap in the helo actually did say that and the response wasn't very friendly! 2Donkeys, squibbler and Warped Factor are completely correct in what they are saying as was the Senior ATCO afterwards, it was a) the fact he decided to comment after the previous ATCO had cleared up the matter and b) the ferocity of his attitude that made me take notice of the exchange.
IO540 I assume that they do tend to watch that corner of the Zone as there are two strips, three airfields and an airport within 30 miles of it
I suspect that the chap you heard had assumed he had been cleared to cut the corner of the zone.
IO540 I assume that they do tend to watch that corner of the Zone as there are two strips, three airfields and an airport within 30 miles of it
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Homeguard says, I have experienced considerable irritation from ATC when I have asked for formal conformation on clearance. It is a problem, which has got a lot more common in the last few years.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CYQT
Age: 54
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homeguard, I'm not entirely sure of your point. Isn't this thread about Zone infringements? You seem to be referring to take off clearances 
How can "G-xx cleared for take off wind 240/12?" be ambiguous?
Are you referring to clearances on the ground or in the air?? Or both......can you be a little less ambiguous ??
Rod - I have experienced considerable irritation from Pilots when I try to get a formal readback!! Clearances are supposed to be read back in full (including the full callsign as ThePirateKing correctly points out). The most common omissions are usually the level restriction (VFR) and the QNH. If I don't get a decent readback I threaten to cancel their clearance - it usually has the desired effect
How can "G-xx cleared for take off wind 240/12?" be ambiguous?
Perhaps the phrase; "expect your routing to be" and "you are cleared to" would be less ambiguous. It would also then become; "after departure your routing will be" followed by; "you are cleared to take-off".
??Rod - I have experienced considerable irritation from Pilots when I try to get a formal readback!! Clearances are supposed to be read back in full (including the full callsign as ThePirateKing correctly points out). The most common omissions are usually the level restriction (VFR) and the QNH. If I don't get a decent readback I threaten to cancel their clearance - it usually has the desired effect
Guest
Posts: n/a
It should be remembered that all ATCOs are professionals, and conduct their roles every day. Not all pilots are professionals, and not all fly every day.
Although I expect amateur pilots to do the best they can, and indeed expect them to avoid controlled airspace unless in receipt of the appropriate clearance, I do not always assume that they can exhibit the same levels of experience as an ATCO in terms of using the correct phraseology. The omission of a QNH or VFR term should not deserve a threatened refusal of a clearance.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.
Also, any kind of "b0ll0cking" over the airwaves is not conducive to good relations between pilots and ATCOs.
Although I expect amateur pilots to do the best they can, and indeed expect them to avoid controlled airspace unless in receipt of the appropriate clearance, I do not always assume that they can exhibit the same levels of experience as an ATCO in terms of using the correct phraseology. The omission of a QNH or VFR term should not deserve a threatened refusal of a clearance.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.
Also, any kind of "b0ll0cking" over the airwaves is not conducive to good relations between pilots and ATCOs.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CYQT
Age: 54
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The omission of a QNH or VFR term should not deserve a threatened refusal of a clearance.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.
).I am not referring to Pilots with poor R/T who struggle to readback clearances (although they can be a pain in their own right.....but that's for another thread). I am referring to experienced and in some cases professional GA pilots who can't manage a correct readback on occassion and by their very tone of voice consider it extremely demeaning to be told by ATC to "readback the full clearance".
You can call me pedantic if you like but I have a licence to maintain so I go by the book and the book says this:
4.6 Acknowledgement of Messages
Pilots are expected to acknowledge all messages. In some cases the sole use of the aircrafts callsign is sufficient. However, an acknowledgement only is not acceptable when a complete or abbreviated read back is required.
4.7 Pilot Read Back of RTF Messages
4.7.1 Pilots are required to read back in full messages containing any of the following items:
Taxi instructions
Level instructions
Heading instructions
Speed instructions
Airways or route clearances
Approach clearances
Runway-in-use
Clearance to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack, cross or hold short of any active runway
SSR operating instructions
Altimeter settings
VDF information
Frequency changes
Type of radar service
Transition levels
4.7.2 Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read back is not immediately forthcoming.
4.7.3 Errors in a read back must be corrected by the controller until the pilot gives an accurate read back.
4.7.4 Items which do not appear in the list above may be acknowledged with an abbreviated read back..........
Last edited by squibbler; 28th Feb 2005 at 15:21.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 2nm due S EGLK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DubTrub,
Anybody not reading back the QNH should be immediately grounded!
Somebody with a single digit error in their QNH setting (say, 1003 instead of 1013) is 300ft adrift of where they think they are. Not good when most VFR pilots seem to fly around at either 2000, 2300 or 2500 feet...
TPK
Anybody not reading back the QNH should be immediately grounded!
Somebody with a single digit error in their QNH setting (say, 1003 instead of 1013) is 300ft adrift of where they think they are. Not good when most VFR pilots seem to fly around at either 2000, 2300 or 2500 feet...
TPK
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clearances
squibbler
I'm talking about all clearances but also give an example of how i think the other clearances such as departure clearances also regularly cause problems, which are fixable.
As for controllers picking up on improper or incomplete readbacks, i'm all for it. I'm always grateful when a controller does so it relieves me from nagging the student over yet another point - and its also how they learn.
I'm talking about all clearances but also give an example of how i think the other clearances such as departure clearances also regularly cause problems, which are fixable.
As for controllers picking up on improper or incomplete readbacks, i'm all for it. I'm always grateful when a controller does so it relieves me from nagging the student over yet another point - and its also how they learn.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall reading somewhere or being told to look upon a clearance as a contract. There are two parties to a contract and each has to EXPLICITLY acknowledged their acceptance of the contract.
In other words G- is Cleared to enter controlled airspace etc, and the acceptance of the contract, G- is cleared to etc.
Nothing else will do, because this avoids any doubt about whether a specific contract has been agreed to enter controlled airspace.
I have tried "G- wishes to route X to X, request zone transit through controlled airspace" and the reply "G- is cleared to route towards X, not above 1,500 feet". There is clearly doubt whether a clearance has been given, whatever might be intended. Why not ensure the position is clear - "Is G- cleared to enter controlled airspace .. .. .."
It seems to me simple, be clear whatever words you use, that a contract been EXPLICITLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY reached between the two parties for you to enter controlled airspace.
In other words G- is Cleared to enter controlled airspace etc, and the acceptance of the contract, G- is cleared to etc.
Nothing else will do, because this avoids any doubt about whether a specific contract has been agreed to enter controlled airspace.
I have tried "G- wishes to route X to X, request zone transit through controlled airspace" and the reply "G- is cleared to route towards X, not above 1,500 feet". There is clearly doubt whether a clearance has been given, whatever might be intended. Why not ensure the position is clear - "Is G- cleared to enter controlled airspace .. .. .."
It seems to me simple, be clear whatever words you use, that a contract been EXPLICITLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY reached between the two parties for you to enter controlled airspace.