Who was right?

[Bright-Ling]

So would I Skycop.....

[Fuji Abound]

"Not always true old chap. I have been involved in CAA legal action even though the pilot was unaware he was over BUR heading South East at 2400 - thinking he was in the CPT area aiming for Fairoaks.

Not exactly blatant but costly all the same."


I suppose it is all relative but being over Burham headin SE would seem pretty blatant to me never mind being at 2,400. If not I am not sure what would constitute blatant old boy.

Not exactly what I had in mind.

[S-Works]

I know it is the other site, but as I have been exonerated I thought I would post the outcome.

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=155569#155569

[phnuff]

I think this thread, while in some ways interesting, is in danger of turning into a case of how deeply can one dig ones heals in. As I understand it, the controller hasn't filed for infringement which means that he is either a nice bloke or not sure of his facts, and the pilot having received a bollocking is looking for support from other pilots. At the end of the day, unless action is taken by one of the sides, it is probably best to let it go and assume that one of the sides had a bad day. We all have them after all . . . . .

Edited by phnuff

Well, my post seems to have somehow crossed with the resolution post. I am glad it ended well, and EGGW, despite the odd bad day seem to remain a very friendly place for general aviation

[Aussie Andy]

Glad to see you've been exonerated (read the tail-end of the thread in "another place")... but this reminds me of something that was discussed recently regarding the eastern edge of the London City zone: much of the airspace we are talking about was designed before chaps like us had accurate GPS aboard our aircraft, and so people tended to give a wider berth to the various CTR/CTAs.

Now that we have GPS, we can technically fly within 100 yards of the edge of zone in theory! The view the controller has via his radar may - for reasons mentioned above - not be as accurate. There are some standard approaches and departures (at LCY and elsewhere) that take the IFR traffic temporarily slightly outside of CAS, so this can be more of an issue than in the past...

Also, a busy / stressed controller might be alerted by a seemingly close target, look away to other traffic, then look back just after one of us has just skirted around the edge of some bit of his zone, and conclude wrongly that you have flown the straight line between where he last saw you and where you are now, clipping his zone. I am guessing that the guy had had a previous VFR flight infringe his zone and cause him a problem, but not on his frequency at the time (that's why us local pilots avoid calling Luton - only joking...) and so he might have decided to take it out on the next bloke who came close and whom he had radio contact with! Just a guess...

Anyway, my point is that it wouldn't hurt us to routinely leave a wide berth of say min 3~5NM when skirting someone's zone... it's not really that inconvenient in terms of time or money, and it means that a small error on my part or on the part of the controller is not going to cause a lot of bother and hot air. The alternative might be a decision to slightly enlarge the CAS.. which would be a great shame..!

Just my two-cents worth...!

Andy

[S-Works]

Andy, Agreed. But for the record I was not skirting the zone I had no choice but to approach it as my destination was inside the LTMA and along side Luton. My path was always intended to keep me clear of CAS.

[Aussie Andy]

Understood: and was not really intending to comment on your case, just wanted to make the general point FWIW!

Andy

[BEagle]

.....but some controllers are just too ready to give out a tongue lashing on the radio

It's those who are my despised 'Tw@cos' - NOT all ATCOs, PPRuNe Radar! Just as I view some "Err, Golf, err, Alfa, sir, err, this, err is a Sunny Sunday err, Cheorkee, over" pilots as utter numpties!

There is an interesting brief doing the rounds from the Defence Air Safety Centre (IFS in pre-Purple days) which reminds both pilots AND military ATCOs of their responibilities and authority over flights - makes good reading!

Mind you I was brought up in my Hunter days with the edict "Don't talk to ATC unless you have to - they'll just cost you fuel!". Perhaps somewhat inappropriate in this day and age!

[slim_slag]

They seem to use the Class D's I fly out of as practical testing grounds for controllers when they have come out of ATC school. I have to say the vast majority are probably better trained and more professional than 99% of civilian pilots, and to be quite honest they do a much harder job than us too.

Some of them obviously aren't up to it and have to be reassigned to a post where they give out the weather and the biggest order they can give to pilots is 'VFR flight not recommended'. Ripping somebody a new a-hole would be a significant step in that direction, imho.

Bring on Mode S!

(that last bit was being sarcastic)

[Timothy]

All this soul-searching about one ATCO making one non-life-threatening error of judgement on one occasion!

It doesn't mean that the whole system is rotten, nor that ATCOs are rotten, nor that Luton ATC is rotten, nor indeed that this particular guy is rotten.

He made one bad call. It has been resolved. It got bose's back up, as it would mine, but now some learning is going to take place.

95% of ATCOs are great 99% of the time. Aren't we lucky?!?

[Aussie Andy]

Here-here! And a special word of thanks to the nice folks at Cranfield who do a great job of one-armed-paper-hanging running both TWR and procedural APP services on the weekends..!

Andy

[david viewing]

I would venture to suggest that there is another more fundamental issue at play, which has not really come out despite all the discussion here and elsewhere. That is the alleged failure of ATC to reply to initial calls or perhaps on other occasions the curt 'remain clear' or 'standby' that many of us are familiar with.

I think most private pilots must understand that controllers on a 'quiet' frequency might be busy elsewhere, especially with the military who have UHF frequencies as well. But do controllers fully appreciate the converse, the tension escalating in the cockpit as some boundary approaches? In some cases the pilot will have doubts that his call has been heard, that he has the right frequency (the rate of change of frequencies is considerable) or that his radio is functioning. All the time the boundary is approaching and options are reducing.

Because there is a definite habit (In my opinion) of putting private pilots on 'hold', some pilots might have a tendency to conclude that the controller is playing 'chicken' and continue inbound where otherwise, they might take a different route.

In my experience, a polite reminder often produces an instant clearance, leaving one to wonder why the clearance or at least a 'continue inbound' had not been forthcoming immediately.

Would it be possible for someone in ATC to look in to this issue of what I might call 'delayed response'? If the controllers are really too busy to respond immediately, are there safety issues with the workload and the traffic that they are handling? And if not, is it possible that there is in some cases a culture of 'private pilots can wait' that could be improved by a little education?


I would like to add that I am not any way 'knocking' UK ATC who in my experience provide an excellent and friendly service and doubtless have their own completely justified opinions regarding 'amateur' pilots. It's worth adding that similar situations arise in the USA and that Class 'B' controllers in my experience occasionally play a very similar tactic regarding 'cleared to enter class B' right up to the point where one would have to make a 180.

[S-Works]

Heard a similar exchange yesterday going through Waddington zone on my way to Sturgate. Pilot called up and was told to standby several minutes later no response so the pilot called again and was given a curt response that he was told to standby.

There does need to be better communication and a faster return to pilots on standby.

I go through East Midlands on almost a daily basis and it is rare for me to wait more than a minute after a "standby I will call you back". It is also very rare for me to be refused a transit, they will usually tell me to continue on track while they work me through.

Perhaps a bit of commanality could help?

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

David, you make some interesting observations. I think most of us would agree that controllers will only put an aircraft on a "standby" if they are busy. Prioritising your aircraft is something that is necessary - eg. I would offer that it is more important to assure a closing angle for an ILS than enter a discussion about providing someone a RIS/FIS. There are obviously occasions where this is not the case but a controller is forced to make a quick decision as to where his priorty should lie.

If an aircraft is on standby for a number of minutes, it is for one of two reasons: either the controller is really busy or, unusually, he has forgotton the initial call. The bottom line is that many ATC units no longer have the resources necessary to provide services to much more than their planned traffic (arrivals/departures). Consequently, it really is something of a lottery for people who wish to avail themselves of either a CTR transit or ATSOCAS. A sorry state of affairs but the harsh reality.

[WorkingHard]

Whipping Boy's SATCO - Forgive me if I have misunderstood but you seem to be suggesting that if a CONTROLLER (my emphasis) is too busy then a transit through CAS may be denied. Surely the basic premise is that ALL a/c have a right to enter provided the airspace can accomodate them safely and no conflicts will result (i.e. equal access). The fact that a CONTROLLER is too busy does seem to be an invalid reason. Please be assured this is no way "getting at" controllers for whom I have the utmost respect, more a comment on the system. CAS is NOT there for the exclusive use of CAT and lack of controllers must be addressed. Am I right please?

[david viewing]

Whipping Boy - would it help if pilots used a specific initial call similar to 'G-abcd request Matz pentration?' ie 'request zone penetration in x mins' or something? (I mean on first contact).

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

WH, I would not disagree. However, the reality is that if a controller is working to his/her capacity, then the only way they can manage their workload is to limit/restrict access to the CAS that they are responsible for managing; this is irrespective of 'right of transit'. This takes me back to my point that units must ensure they are properly resourced to meet the task.

David, an interesting proposition - I will put this one in the melting pot.

[Timothy]

Please let us not equate those operating outside CAS with "Private Pilots".

Many indeed are, but many are doing one kind of aerial work or public transport or another, and are therefore professional pilots.

Not that it should matter to those giving services, but a mindset that dismisses all aircraft outside controlled airspace as recreational bimblers leaves aside ambulances, pipe and wire inspections, air charter, at some times of year mail and so on.

Which, of course, raises the thorny issues of registration vs flight number and whether it makes a difference.

[Chilli Monster]

David Viewing

But do controllers fully appreciate the converse, the tension escalating in the cockpit as some boundary approaches?

Why is there tension? Why haven't you got plan 'B' (going around it or holding outside if inbound) ready and available to use. If you're feeling tension in that scenario then what are you gong to be like dealing with a real problem. Sorry, but that's a 'non comment'.

would it help if pilots used a specific initial call similar to 'G-abcd request Matz pentration?' ie 'request zone penetration in x mins' or something? (I mean on first contact).

Yes - and why don't you?

"xyz Approach, G-ABCD request zone transit" would be perfectly acceptable and even desirable

Working Hard

Surely the basic premise is that ALL a/c have a right to enter provided the airspace can accomodate them safely and no conflicts will result (i.e. equal access). The fact that a CONTROLLER is too busy does seem to be an invalid reason.

Fact of life - if you're working at full capacity you prioritise the workload (as WBS points out). You as a transit I'm afraid is a lower priority than the people you are vectoring for the approach or are departing. Nothing against you as a transit - that's just life. They have to be sequenced on the ILS, or have to be given a service on departure to get them to their cruising level. You on the other hand don't have to transit the zone.

You may have the right, but if the Controller's too busy with his primary task and so is unable to give the clearance then you're not going to get it.

As for the system being poorly resourced - the bad news is there aren't enough qualified controllers to go round, whether the unit wants to be fully manned for the task or not.

[bar shaker]

"XYZ Approach, G-ABCD request transit/MATZ penetration" is the correct CAP413 phraseology for a first call (when requiring such a clearance) and works every time for me.