G. Sorry, must veto that idea.

The problem with that is that MadsMum uses the M5 to and from work. The afterburner glow would wreck the paintwork on her car even more than it is already and would cost me too much dosh to get it mended.

BEagle

Don't you ever let up re Class D crossings. If it's a problem going through, and I can't believe it is (the mil very rarely, if ever, refuse crossings) go over the top or around the BZN zone.

An intrepid aviator like you should be able to cope!!!

I know it's your home, Beags, but I'm afraid BZN has to go. I learnt at a very early age that it was better (more fuel efficient) to take my military jet over or round than through, and now as a civilian driver, even going round can cause unbelieveable heartache - Benson and Lyneham, on the other hand, have always given a good service.

On another subject, why are we still knocking the Jag. I know I used to, even as a driver of said machines, but it wasn't until I had the pleasure of several other (so-called superior) fast jets, both French and British that I realised how good (relatively) the Jaguar was. Now with the -106 engine ( I remember watching in awe as Bob Mason got one of our -102 engined jets off the Coltishall runway in 1970 something in just 4500ft with 8 x 1000 pounders on board) and the new avionic suit, what's the problem?

A

rej - The main problem is the general lack of understanding of the right of passage for aircraft flying under VFR in Class D airspace. For example, instead of just providing departing IFR traffic with information about any VFR traffic in Class D airspace and avoidance information from that traffic on request, certain controllers will actively vector VFR GA aircraft about the sky in order to provide the same separation standard as would apply to IFR-from-IFR. Also, the manner in which certain controllers at certain aerodromes (not necessarily Brize) treat requests from GA aircraft to enter their Class D airspace is often quite abrupt. "Aircraft calling, remain outside controlled airspace" isn't much help. Particularly when the controller won't respond because he/she's too busy with traffic in wall-to-wall VMC asking for a LARS radar service. Surely there should be some priority to aircraft requesting crossing clearance? Going round or over a Class D zone will often add many miles to the transit distance - and may not be an option in any case if the cloudbase is below the top of the zone or the aircraft is not equipped to fly in IMC. And yes, I can usually cope because I’m reasonably aware of my rights – but I cringe when I hear others being air trafficked to death!

I understand that, in some other countries, merely advising the agency that you wish to transit Class D airspace is considered an adequate R/T contact (after establishing initial comms) - and you can proceed without waiting for a specific clearance?


Airbedane – fully agree about the Jag actually!

BEagle and Airbedane

I don't want to diverge from the real topic of this thread too much but I think you might like to know that the reason why at BZN VFR zone transits are vectored and climbed/descended to allow VFR passage. It is not at the whim of ATC but the airfield users (pseudo-airliners) do not want VFR traffic co-altitude, even if they are VFR. The stn-based aircrews are the ones who have "requested" that ATC separation is built in - and you know the old addage "no brevet - no vote". However, we at the other Clas D airspace, with tac crews willing to accept co-altitude traffic, apply Class D rules as they should be.

On the subject of "remain clear of CAS, standby" that is invariably to prevent ac straying into CAS without a clearance whilst one is being arranged/higher priority trafic being controlled. Unfortunately a number of GA pilots need that prompt otherwise they will continue into the Class D without a clearance (I know of a few local airspace users who have such a habit of trekking on). Why don't you come over to the southern class D tower to see what happens at the "dark side" when you want a crossing clearance (a certain amount of co-ordination takes place that you do not need to know about up there in the sky).


An on the subject of airfield closures/openings, they can reopen anywhere but Wyton (I know it's not strictly closed.... UAS). The thouight of another 3 years in Huntingdon is enough to drive anyone crazy.


Finally, thanks Airdedane for the ack that Lyneham ATC are pretty good - we aim to please.

Brize Radar
 

Beagle,

We seem to have gone bit off topic, however, as you kicked it off, I shall respond. I was one of the, what you so kindly refer to as, 'TWATCOs' at Brize Radar in the mid-1990s - I believe you were there at the same time - and my views of yourself and a number of other 'aircrew' there at that time are completely reciprocated. Sadly, the majority of the 'problems' in the Brize Zone during my time there were caused by the pilots lack of understanding of the rules that had to be applied in the airspace in and around the Zone, despite the fact that some of those rules were introduced at their instigation. In my time there as one of the flt cdrs I don't recall ever seeing any pilot sitting in the ops room for a couple of hours to get an understanding of the 'problems' from the Brize Radar position - and yes I did fly with 10 and 216 on more than one occasion.

I really had to laugh, because you were probably one of those who whined about being given avoiding action, when your own procedural approach took you outside the lateral dimensions of the Zone, now you whine that the Zone is too big - some things never change. I'm afraid that your attitude and views illustrate all too clearly why the 'problems' at Brize are unlikely to ever change.

I suspect that the only way anything will change for the better is when those that effectively make the rules, insist that they're changed. Then the Brize pilots really need to understand how the rules have to be applied on a daily basis and stop whining when that happens.

Perhaps I should add that I normally enjoy your posts Beagle, but on this occasion I'll make an exception.

By the way, like you I'm retired now too, but I still like to rise to the bait when its dangled.

Proletarian

Beagle, I too was one of those sad individuals in Air Tragic at BZN. Like Prole, I remember more than the odd conversation where you extolled the virtues of the BZN CTR, only to reverse the arguement when you were being held at Burford in a Club PA28.

However, you do make some interesting and valid points. The key aspect is understanding the rules and regulations (both aircrew and air traffikers). Unfortunately, we in the UK hang our hats on type of service and not Flight Rules. As long as we play RAS/RIS/FIS, we will always confuse each other and, ultimately, be less effective.

Myself, if you're VFR within Class D airspace and visual with the IFR traffic, then fill your boots. If you're not visual with the IFR traffic, I'm sorry but that's not good enough and I will endeavour to provide some sort of separation regardless of the defined responsibilities. Otherwise, we will ultimately have the another TSA 727 meeting a Cessna as happened in the mid 70s.

FlY Safely


PS. I would still close BZN; it's a dump.

Ahh - now then. A 'Twatco' is an individual Atco who behaves like a, well, ****. NOT a generic term for all our Air Traffickers!

"The stn-based aircrews are the ones who have "requested" that ATC separation is built in - and you know the old addage "no brevet - no vote". However, we at the other Class D airspace, with tac crews willing to accept co-altitude traffic, apply Class D rules as they should be. "

Game, set and match. So it appears that the Class D rules at some aerodromes are being 'modified' to suit individual aerodrome users? No wonder there's so much stress for zone crossers. I agree that Lyneham offers a very good service (although I did once object to my request for a Zone crossing in a military aeroplane being refused due to ac which were still taxiing!) - I'm sure that some will be most interested in that statement of yours.

Extolled the virtues of the Brize CTR? No way, not me!!

Edited to add - actually, it was a couple of civil Class D ATSUs at whom I was aiming my invective. But if the cap fits....

Station Closures!!
 

:p

Why not close each Stationin turn? In that way, the govt would upgrade the accommodation to a standard suitable for prisoners/asylum seekers.

We could then take the Station back when our crappy accommodation has been brought up to a standard fit for a prisoner but obviously too good for those of us that pay to ive in it!!!

Rant Over!

VR!
Classic.
Please accept the Sir Humphrey Award for Outstandingly Devious Civil Service Policy.

Hmm, ddn't they do that in reverse? Acklington, Stradishall etc?:(