Zone Infringements
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a request for a clearance is made (10 minutes+ before the airspace boundary and more if a flight plan is not filed), ATC either issue the clearance or tell the pilot to "remain outside controlled airapace" and pass an expect onward clearance time. That was the system the last time I checked.
In many places outside the UK if you request a routing from a to b to c where b is within controlled airspace, you will either get a clearance or be clearly told to remain outside. a simple roger is not enough.
I find it very common especially round Odiham that when a MATZ transit is requested the atco merely acknowledges the call and must be pressed in order to get the words "MATZ transit approved" - of course when VFR we are usually going throgh anyway but it did make me laugh when 10 minutes after requesting a MATZ transit VFR we told ATC that we had the traffic on final approach 12 O'clock .5nm in sight............lots of eh em eh eh roger!!!
Even better is the MATZ transit approved remain outside the ATZ...........followed by GXXXX confirm remaining outside the ATZ.............followed by GXXXX you were told to remain outside the ATZ you are directly over XYZ airfield.......to which the reply is "GXXXX is 2500ft above XYZ airfield we are overhead and outside the ATZ.
Face it......the system isn't perfect on both the ATC side and the Pilot side.......I wait the time when a pilot chews out an ATCO for something as keeps their licence!
Regards,
DFC
In many places outside the UK if you request a routing from a to b to c where b is within controlled airspace, you will either get a clearance or be clearly told to remain outside. a simple roger is not enough.
I find it very common especially round Odiham that when a MATZ transit is requested the atco merely acknowledges the call and must be pressed in order to get the words "MATZ transit approved" - of course when VFR we are usually going throgh anyway but it did make me laugh when 10 minutes after requesting a MATZ transit VFR we told ATC that we had the traffic on final approach 12 O'clock .5nm in sight............lots of eh em eh eh roger!!!
Even better is the MATZ transit approved remain outside the ATZ...........followed by GXXXX confirm remaining outside the ATZ.............followed by GXXXX you were told to remain outside the ATZ you are directly over XYZ airfield.......to which the reply is "GXXXX is 2500ft above XYZ airfield we are overhead and outside the ATZ.
Face it......the system isn't perfect on both the ATC side and the Pilot side.......I wait the time when a pilot chews out an ATCO for something as keeps their licence!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MATZs are slightly odd concepts. You're daft if you enter one without "permission" but as they're class G.......
A typical zone D airport joining goes like this in my experience:
"XYZ radar, GABCD 5 east of <VRP> 2000 landing with Xray"
"GABCD QNH 1020 expect runway AB report field in sight"
"1020 wilco GABCD"
"field in sight ABCD"
"ABCD contact XYZ tower now on 123.45"
"tower on 123.45 GABCD"
"XYZ tower, GABCD inbound"
"GABCD XYZ tower, roger, join left base for AB, wind 270 at 10"
" left base for AB GABCD"
"GABCD cleared to land, where will you be parking"
"cleared to land parking at handling ABCD"
"GABCD take the next left, taxy to handling via bravo"
"left and via bravo to handling, ABCD"
I stress this is typical, only occasionally have I been asked to "remain outside CAS", and virtually never have I been given an EXPRESS CLEARANCE to enter CAS. I have queried this in the past "XYZ radar confirm GABCD is cleared into ABCD delta" but as I always have been, I've stopped now.....?
A typical zone D airport joining goes like this in my experience:
"XYZ radar, GABCD 5 east of <VRP> 2000 landing with Xray"
"GABCD QNH 1020 expect runway AB report field in sight"
"1020 wilco GABCD"
"field in sight ABCD"
"ABCD contact XYZ tower now on 123.45"
"tower on 123.45 GABCD"
"XYZ tower, GABCD inbound"
"GABCD XYZ tower, roger, join left base for AB, wind 270 at 10"
" left base for AB GABCD"
"GABCD cleared to land, where will you be parking"
"cleared to land parking at handling ABCD"
"GABCD take the next left, taxy to handling via bravo"
"left and via bravo to handling, ABCD"
I stress this is typical, only occasionally have I been asked to "remain outside CAS", and virtually never have I been given an EXPRESS CLEARANCE to enter CAS. I have queried this in the past "XYZ radar confirm GABCD is cleared into ABCD delta" but as I always have been, I've stopped now.....?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leicestershire
Age: 44
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At East Mids the clearance is rarely (if ever) confusing. Particularly with regards to entering the zone - if they can't offer you a clearance straight away they usually tell you that you're not yet cleared. It typically goes like this:
"G-ABCD is at Markfield, request re-join"
"G-CD route towards the southern zone boundary, runway 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, you're not yet cleared to enter the zone"
"G-CD wilco, 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, not yet cleared into the zone."
"G-CD is cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above 2000ft VFR, report the southern zone boundary"
"G-CD cleared Sierra Echo not above 2000ft, wilco."
"G-CD zone in Shepshed" <Shepshed is the town on the zone boundary>
"G-CD roger, contact tower 124.0"
"Tower 124.0, G-CD"
"East Mids Tower, G-ABCD zone in Shepshed"
"G-CD report left base for 27, number one"
englishal
What you descibe above is more like what happens (to me anyway!) when I've been into places like Coventry and Cambridge - not class D. However, it was also quite similar to the crossing clearance I got from Luton once. I.e. they did not use the words 'cleared to enter', nor did I. All quite informal and I didn't see that as a problem. But I guess the words "you are cleared" were never spoken - therefore was I really 'cleared'?
"G-ABCD is at Markfield, request re-join"
"G-CD route towards the southern zone boundary, runway 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, you're not yet cleared to enter the zone"
"G-CD wilco, 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, not yet cleared into the zone."
"G-CD is cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above 2000ft VFR, report the southern zone boundary"
"G-CD cleared Sierra Echo not above 2000ft, wilco."
"G-CD zone in Shepshed" <Shepshed is the town on the zone boundary>
"G-CD roger, contact tower 124.0"
"Tower 124.0, G-CD"
"East Mids Tower, G-ABCD zone in Shepshed"
"G-CD report left base for 27, number one"
englishal
What you descibe above is more like what happens (to me anyway!) when I've been into places like Coventry and Cambridge - not class D. However, it was also quite similar to the crossing clearance I got from Luton once. I.e. they did not use the words 'cleared to enter', nor did I. All quite informal and I didn't see that as a problem. But I guess the words "you are cleared" were never spoken - therefore was I really 'cleared'?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a request for a clearance is made (10 minutes+ before the airspace boundary
Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP.
You must obtain a crossing / joining clearance to cross / join controlled airspace - PERIOD!!
The issue is most pronounced on joining the airways system from outside controlled airspace, where routings are issued with a clearance implied. For example, on coming down from Carlisle:
"G-ABCD route MCT, HON for Cambridge"
was what I got from Manch by way of clearance. Similar often happens outbound from Cambridge to the south, with no explicit clearance given, but instructions that clearly require me to enter controlled airspace.
I don't think it's a big deal, but if ATCOs got into to the same trouble every time that they failed to issue an explicit clearance for an aircraft they expected to enter controlled airspace as pilots do if they enter without a clearance, the world would be a different place.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540,
In any half decent SEP, you might have problems contacting the ATCU from 10 minutes out
If you had a half decent radio you would have a range of over 30nm at 1000ft. Takes 10 minutes at 180Kt GS. Good speed for an SEP.
Of course the 10 minutes counts back from the time at which you want the clearance. You can still keep your dodgy radio and be willing to hold outside for up to 10 minutes (if they will give a clearance with such a radio - the receiver site could be the best part of 20nm from you when at the zone boundary in some cases!)
Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP
Check out the AIP for the times when a flight plan is required.
You can either plan ahead and ensure that the unit gets a copy of a filed flight plan if you made one (include their address in the required place) or pass the details (file a plan) by R/T.
Basically the system says that if your plan to transit controlled airspace you should file a flight plan prior to the flight. If you file in the air (pass the details to the ATC unit) you could be further delayed while the plan is processed.
Regards,
DFC
In any half decent SEP, you might have problems contacting the ATCU from 10 minutes out
If you had a half decent radio you would have a range of over 30nm at 1000ft. Takes 10 minutes at 180Kt GS. Good speed for an SEP.
Of course the 10 minutes counts back from the time at which you want the clearance. You can still keep your dodgy radio and be willing to hold outside for up to 10 minutes (if they will give a clearance with such a radio - the receiver site could be the best part of 20nm from you when at the zone boundary in some cases!)
Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP
Check out the AIP for the times when a flight plan is required.
You can either plan ahead and ensure that the unit gets a copy of a filed flight plan if you made one (include their address in the required place) or pass the details (file a plan) by R/T.
Basically the system says that if your plan to transit controlled airspace you should file a flight plan prior to the flight. If you file in the air (pass the details to the ATC unit) you could be further delayed while the plan is processed.
Regards,
DFC
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
DFC
You seem to have some odd ideas about UK ATC.
It is pointless sending a copy of a FPL to an en-route aerodrome whose Class D CAS you wish to cross. The vast majority wouldn't do anything with the information as you are never sure if the acft would call you or route elsewhere; there is little advantage in having a strip prepared. This certainly was the case at Luton when we had the APP function there. Indeed, once we had automatic data processing we would not have even known such a FPL had been sent as the system only dealt with FPLs where we were the destination or point of departure.
An acft calls for transit (thereby passing an 'abbreviated FPL'), you write it on a strip and you deal with it. Simply. You seem to imply there is a delay whilst the details are entered into a 'system'. There isn't. No is no 'system' into which transit acft details are entered.
Earlier you said if CAS transit was refused an onward clearance time would be issued. If you mean a simply Class D transit then I have never known such a time to be given where I have operated. I might have said 'remain outside controlled airsapce, I'll get back to you in a few minutes' but not issue a specific time. This implies, in the event of radio failure, the acft could then transit the Class D. Wouldn't want that.
You seem to have some odd ideas about UK ATC.
It is pointless sending a copy of a FPL to an en-route aerodrome whose Class D CAS you wish to cross. The vast majority wouldn't do anything with the information as you are never sure if the acft would call you or route elsewhere; there is little advantage in having a strip prepared. This certainly was the case at Luton when we had the APP function there. Indeed, once we had automatic data processing we would not have even known such a FPL had been sent as the system only dealt with FPLs where we were the destination or point of departure.
An acft calls for transit (thereby passing an 'abbreviated FPL'), you write it on a strip and you deal with it. Simply. You seem to imply there is a delay whilst the details are entered into a 'system'. There isn't. No is no 'system' into which transit acft details are entered.
Earlier you said if CAS transit was refused an onward clearance time would be issued. If you mean a simply Class D transit then I have never known such a time to be given where I have operated. I might have said 'remain outside controlled airsapce, I'll get back to you in a few minutes' but not issue a specific time. This implies, in the event of radio failure, the acft could then transit the Class D. Wouldn't want that.
Thread Starter
jezbowman in every dealing I've had with Luton Approach they have been very specific with the "remain outside controlled airspace" and "G-ABCD is cleared to enter / leave the zone" statements. I have always found Luton App to be considerate and helpful personally. Shame they are actually located in West Drayton rather than Luton itself.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vintage ATCO,
If I addressed a copy of my flight plan to any ATC unit and subsequently found that they had ignored both the flight plan and the departure time I would considder that an MOR could be appropriate.
The UK has no differences filed to ICAO ALerting Service requirements when ATC units are concerned. (The only difference applies when the destination has no ATS).
You are required to initiate the "uncertainty" phase when no communication has been receved from an aircraft within a period of 30 minutes after the time a communication should have been received.
The MATS Part 1 does quite correctly point out that strict compliance with a flight plan can not be expected of non-radio aircraft.
However aircraft with radio who make in-flight changes to flight plans are required to notify those changes to the appropriate agency. Since you will rarely issue a clearance for a non-radio aircraft to transit Class D zones these days I think we can assume that transit aircraft are going to be radio equipped.
For aircraft who sufer radio failure in flight - the procedures are well documented.
Thus we have the situation where you recive a flight plan and a departure message but ignore them and will be unable to determine that an aircraft is in need of alerting service.
If your argument for ignoring my flight plan messages are that radio equipped VFR flights bimble all over the place and often don't bother to call or go elsewhere.........are you in a position to provide figures for the number of flight plans addressed to you who have a departure time and who subsequently do not turn up without telling you first?........doubt it since you discard them.
Perhaps the answer is not to arbitarily reduce the alerting service you are required to provide but to ensure that pilots who file a flight plan comply with the requirements to stick to that plan as much as possible unless they pass changes.
I can understand why units in Class G such as London info do not refer to any flight plans..........there is no requirement to call them. However if my route is clearly through the controlled airspace overhead your airport then the only option I have following my filed route is to call you and the least you could do after I have warned you in advance of my impending request is to be ready when I call on time and on route.
If on the other hand you see a 7600 passing round the zone at about the time I told you I would be there then you might like to pass on the posibility that I have had a radio failure!
Throw the flight plans in the bin and some day the question will be.........You got the flight plan but ignored it and after a surviveable accident, the pilot died of Hypothermia in a field 20nm from you but you never did what you are requirted to do..........provide an alerting service when the radio equipped flight failed to show up...........Can you honestly say that in that case you met your responsibilities?
Regards,
DFC
If I addressed a copy of my flight plan to any ATC unit and subsequently found that they had ignored both the flight plan and the departure time I would considder that an MOR could be appropriate.
The UK has no differences filed to ICAO ALerting Service requirements when ATC units are concerned. (The only difference applies when the destination has no ATS).
You are required to initiate the "uncertainty" phase when no communication has been receved from an aircraft within a period of 30 minutes after the time a communication should have been received.
The MATS Part 1 does quite correctly point out that strict compliance with a flight plan can not be expected of non-radio aircraft.
However aircraft with radio who make in-flight changes to flight plans are required to notify those changes to the appropriate agency. Since you will rarely issue a clearance for a non-radio aircraft to transit Class D zones these days I think we can assume that transit aircraft are going to be radio equipped.
For aircraft who sufer radio failure in flight - the procedures are well documented.
Thus we have the situation where you recive a flight plan and a departure message but ignore them and will be unable to determine that an aircraft is in need of alerting service.
If your argument for ignoring my flight plan messages are that radio equipped VFR flights bimble all over the place and often don't bother to call or go elsewhere.........are you in a position to provide figures for the number of flight plans addressed to you who have a departure time and who subsequently do not turn up without telling you first?........doubt it since you discard them.
Perhaps the answer is not to arbitarily reduce the alerting service you are required to provide but to ensure that pilots who file a flight plan comply with the requirements to stick to that plan as much as possible unless they pass changes.
I can understand why units in Class G such as London info do not refer to any flight plans..........there is no requirement to call them. However if my route is clearly through the controlled airspace overhead your airport then the only option I have following my filed route is to call you and the least you could do after I have warned you in advance of my impending request is to be ready when I call on time and on route.
If on the other hand you see a 7600 passing round the zone at about the time I told you I would be there then you might like to pass on the posibility that I have had a radio failure!
Throw the flight plans in the bin and some day the question will be.........You got the flight plan but ignored it and after a surviveable accident, the pilot died of Hypothermia in a field 20nm from you but you never did what you are requirted to do..........provide an alerting service when the radio equipped flight failed to show up...........Can you honestly say that in that case you met your responsibilities?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to add my 2 penneth as our procedures are being scrutinized!!
jezbowman:- refers to the phrase "...not yet cleared to enter" which i personally do not use as it would only take a slight break up in the transmision or interference for that to be heard as "....cleared to enter"
in the situation that jezbowman refers my reaction would be "continue towards the zone boundary, standby for zone entry" thereby avoiding the words "cleared" and "to enter" without actually using them in the act of clearing someone in. I don't think my phrase is perfect but its the best i've been able to come up with over the years!!
and FYI jezbowman:- as a matter of interest unless you are using the lanes Special VFR it is not actually in our rules that VFR must be specified in the clearance so "cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above altitude two thousand feet" is all that is required...not sure if that is an ommision in our Manual of air traffic services or not but thats what the book says so thats what i use!! (if you were special VFR then it would obviously be "sierra echo not above altitude 2000 feer special vfr")
And for all those wondering, a "sierra echo" (etc) is a local procedure only used by the based schools so if you are visiting don't expect to be expected to be familiar with it!!
jezbowman:- refers to the phrase "...not yet cleared to enter" which i personally do not use as it would only take a slight break up in the transmision or interference for that to be heard as "....cleared to enter"
in the situation that jezbowman refers my reaction would be "continue towards the zone boundary, standby for zone entry" thereby avoiding the words "cleared" and "to enter" without actually using them in the act of clearing someone in. I don't think my phrase is perfect but its the best i've been able to come up with over the years!!
and FYI jezbowman:- as a matter of interest unless you are using the lanes Special VFR it is not actually in our rules that VFR must be specified in the clearance so "cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above altitude two thousand feet" is all that is required...not sure if that is an ommision in our Manual of air traffic services or not but thats what the book says so thats what i use!! (if you were special VFR then it would obviously be "sierra echo not above altitude 2000 feer special vfr")
And for all those wondering, a "sierra echo" (etc) is a local procedure only used by the based schools so if you are visiting don't expect to be expected to be familiar with it!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leicestershire
Age: 44
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to add my 2 penneth as our procedures are being scrutinized!!
You are of course correct with regards the VFR term - I've not flown during the day yet this year so all I've had recently have been Special VFR.
I have always found Luton App to be considerate and helpful personally.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Your expectations of ATC when conducting a VFR (or IFR for that matter) flight outside the airways system are dramatically out of line with the actual situation.
Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?
2D
Your expectations of ATC when conducting a VFR (or IFR for that matter) flight outside the airways system are dramatically out of line with the actual situation.
Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?
2D
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Out on the bike in Northumberland
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jez- he needs all the praise he can get!
agree with EvilJ about possiblity of clipping leading to problems with certain phrases(but then I did help train him) and he is right technically about dropping the VFR but you will find that some of the older ones still insist on clarifying the flight rules on issuing an entry clearance(old habits die hard!)
agree with EvilJ about possiblity of clipping leading to problems with certain phrases(but then I did help train him) and he is right technically about dropping the VFR but you will find that some of the older ones still insist on clarifying the flight rules on issuing an entry clearance(old habits die hard!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, I agree with Vintage ATCO.
And with an attitude like yours you need to take lessons on what is reality in the real world.
You certainly won't get anywhere looking at all the laws and expecting everything to be exactly as it is written. It ain't, it never has been and it never will be.
But.............you might care to learn this little lesson. ATC is your mate, your friend in the sky. You don't have another - who knows as much who sees as much and gives as much. Never take them for granted and always let them help you. Remember, they help EVERYONE along the way - it seems you need some help anyway.
And with an attitude like yours you need to take lessons on what is reality in the real world.
You certainly won't get anywhere looking at all the laws and expecting everything to be exactly as it is written. It ain't, it never has been and it never will be.
But.............you might care to learn this little lesson. ATC is your mate, your friend in the sky. You don't have another - who knows as much who sees as much and gives as much. Never take them for granted and always let them help you. Remember, they help EVERYONE along the way - it seems you need some help anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience the poorest response to requests for clearance tends to come from military class D (two near me!); several times with one of them I've had to say 'Confirm G-ABCD cleared to transit zone' and they've sounded rather narked, as if that was obvious, yet they'd never used the word 'cleared'. Yet at the mil airfield I now fly from they routinely issue 'departure clearances' to depart their (class G) MATZ. I think there is still plenty of confusion in the military ATCO mind about airspace classes and air traffic services...
Tim
Tim
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vintage ATCO,
If I am required by the AIP to file a flight plan proir to requesting a clearance to enter controlled airspace and I choose to do so by filing a full flight plan prior to flight (ensuring that all appropriate ATC units get a copy as per ICAO and UK AIP procedures), is it not wrong for such an ATC unit to discard that flight plan and later require me to re-file that plan over the R/T despte no changes?
Does this not unnecessarily increase R/T loading, cockpit workload and ATCO workload?
As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.
Remember that I am talking about ATC within controlled airspace which is where the flight will be during a zone transit. I am not talking about flights that choose to file a flight plan that will remain in class G for the whole flight.
As for MORs - feel free to MOR me if I file a flight plan and transmut a departure message but fail to turn up at your zone on time without good reason.
---
2 Donkeys,
Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?
Absolutely not.
ATC units can quite rightly refuse a transit request because of traffic or other reasons. No problem there.
However, the flight plan required to be passed to such a unit can be passed either;
1. Abrieviated flight plan in flight direct to that unit on R/T.
2. Full airbourne flight plan filed with say London Info and with the ATC unit concerned in the list of addressees.
3. Full flight plan filed before departure.
Either of those are valid messages conveying essential information regarding the flight.
What an ATC unit is required to do is initiate overdue action when no communication has been received within 30 minutes from the time that it was expected. That is a UK and ICAO standard. Thus if you have told ATC that you will be at their zone boundary at say 1000 and have not shown up by 1030, they are required to initiate overdue action unless they know that you are safe. That is one of the most basic concepts of the alerting service.
Where I would have a problem is if ATC discarded a flight plan and were thus unable to provide the required alerting service.
As for IFR - when flying IFR and expecting to transit controlled airspace, we are required to file a flight plan in advance becauseof flow control measures which can affect airfield units as well as enroute units. We address the plan to all appropriate units and the CAA are clear as to what the extra addresses are when IFR off airways or for mixed VFR and IFR flights.
Would you not find something wrong with writing a letter to your bank manager only to be told that as a matter of policy they bin all customer letters and require them to repeat the full info verbally when the arrive at the bank.....same thing but not as serious!
---
We are legally required to file an MOR for any situation covered by the MOR system. Failure of the flight planning system would I believe be a reportable occurance.
Unless someone reports these "traditions" we don't know if they can be or need to be changed because no data exists. That is what MORs are for isn't it?
Regards,
DFC
If I am required by the AIP to file a flight plan proir to requesting a clearance to enter controlled airspace and I choose to do so by filing a full flight plan prior to flight (ensuring that all appropriate ATC units get a copy as per ICAO and UK AIP procedures), is it not wrong for such an ATC unit to discard that flight plan and later require me to re-file that plan over the R/T despte no changes?
Does this not unnecessarily increase R/T loading, cockpit workload and ATCO workload?
As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.
Remember that I am talking about ATC within controlled airspace which is where the flight will be during a zone transit. I am not talking about flights that choose to file a flight plan that will remain in class G for the whole flight.
As for MORs - feel free to MOR me if I file a flight plan and transmut a departure message but fail to turn up at your zone on time without good reason.
---
2 Donkeys,
Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?
Absolutely not.
ATC units can quite rightly refuse a transit request because of traffic or other reasons. No problem there.
However, the flight plan required to be passed to such a unit can be passed either;
1. Abrieviated flight plan in flight direct to that unit on R/T.
2. Full airbourne flight plan filed with say London Info and with the ATC unit concerned in the list of addressees.
3. Full flight plan filed before departure.
Either of those are valid messages conveying essential information regarding the flight.
What an ATC unit is required to do is initiate overdue action when no communication has been received within 30 minutes from the time that it was expected. That is a UK and ICAO standard. Thus if you have told ATC that you will be at their zone boundary at say 1000 and have not shown up by 1030, they are required to initiate overdue action unless they know that you are safe. That is one of the most basic concepts of the alerting service.
Where I would have a problem is if ATC discarded a flight plan and were thus unable to provide the required alerting service.
As for IFR - when flying IFR and expecting to transit controlled airspace, we are required to file a flight plan in advance becauseof flow control measures which can affect airfield units as well as enroute units. We address the plan to all appropriate units and the CAA are clear as to what the extra addresses are when IFR off airways or for mixed VFR and IFR flights.
Would you not find something wrong with writing a letter to your bank manager only to be told that as a matter of policy they bin all customer letters and require them to repeat the full info verbally when the arrive at the bank.....same thing but not as serious!
---
We are legally required to file an MOR for any situation covered by the MOR system. Failure of the flight planning system would I believe be a reportable occurance.
Unless someone reports these "traditions" we don't know if they can be or need to be changed because no data exists. That is what MORs are for isn't it?
Regards,
DFC
As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.
overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.
and within controlled airspace when:
overflying aircraft are within the relevant controlled airspace.
What leads you to believe that an Approach Control Unit owes you an Alerting Service merely because you send them a FPL?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South East
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, Vintage ATCO is correct. 99% of airfields will either not receive or take any action for an en-route flight plan. So many pilots change there routing, i.e route around CAS without talking to the ATSU most airfields would have to have someone on the phone all the time taking overdue action.
However, you destination should alway action your FPL. When you depart they should receive a departure message from your origin if your flight is outside CAS. Your ETA is then calculated from this and overdue action is taken from this time.
However, you destination should alway action your FPL. When you depart they should receive a departure message from your origin if your flight is outside CAS. Your ETA is then calculated from this and overdue action is taken from this time.