Skirting Around ATZs & MATZs
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO Two - I just read your post and am very sympathetic with your point-of-view as well. I have a suggestion which I think would help encourage the "give and take" that's required on both sides: could EGLC offer LARS? If so, it would appear on our charts as such (as well as in AIP ENR 1.6.3) and more people would be encouraged to call for a service, and that way you'd have more chance of guiding people as required. Maybe it's the case that you are happy to provide a service for passing traffic anyway - I've never called Thames Radar as I am under the impression it's really for zone transits (but I am not sure?)... anyway, I give you a wide berth whenever I steam by...
Sadly for us, it seems inevitable in that case that one day someone will enlarge the Class D if ATCO's concerns on this front remain - so I would hope that others take heed and think about leaving a wider margin in this case!
Andy
Sadly for us, it seems inevitable in that case that one day someone will enlarge the Class D if ATCO's concerns on this front remain - so I would hope that others take heed and think about leaving a wider margin in this case!
Andy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Atco 2
Perhaps you ought to, it sounds pretty scary to me. What you are saying is that you do not believe that it is safe for GA traffic to comply with the relevant air law and that is profoundly worrying.
Without going into the possible reasons for this
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3G:
That's true, but I still feel that the alternative (less Class G) is less attractive and may inevitably be the outcome if we don't communicate when able. But it's a two-way street! You go on to say:
Sadly I think we have all experienced this - it doesn't take much to read between the lines (e.g. Luton!) to discern the not-so-hidden message which is "oi, yo, b*gger off and don't disturb us important people..".
It's like that well-know red/blue strategy game often taught in business schools or on "personal development" training courses: it doesn't take much for us versus them mindsets to set in, inevitably leading to less than ideal outcomes for both players! So it's better for all, on both sides, to "play nice"...
F3G again:
I believe the situation re- the EGLC SIDs and STARs proximity to that eastern end of the Class D has been discussed on here a while back (or maybe ATC forum?)... From memory it's a bit of an historical anachronism: while some of the SID/STAR profiles have changed, the other thing that has changed is that many GA SEP have GPS aboard. In the "pre-digital" era, you'd naturally give a wider berth to protected airspace boundaries because you had to make decisions based largely on analogue instruments and mark-1 eyeball, erring for caution slightly further than closer. But with our little line on our GPS screens, now any fool can fly within a gnat's todger's width of an airspace boundary, compounding the sitiation. As you say, it is "profoundly worrying" and if people keep doing it then inevitably someone in CAA will respond by enlarging the Class D... is that what you want?
Andy
PPLs are not responsible for planning airline ops in class G.
the response I got was often brusque, unhelpful and occasionally plain rude
It's like that well-know red/blue strategy game often taught in business schools or on "personal development" training courses: it doesn't take much for us versus them mindsets to set in, inevitably leading to less than ideal outcomes for both players! So it's better for all, on both sides, to "play nice"...
F3G again:
What you are saying is that you do not believe that it is safe for GA traffic to comply with the relevant air law and that is profoundly worrying
Andy
PPRuNe Enigma
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Scotland
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the whole point of skirting or circumnavigating a zone rather than taking a direct routing is to reduce both your and the controller's workload by not asking for a service / transit that you don't really need and can easily avoid by remaining Class G, even if it means a little bit of a dog-leg.
However, niknak makes a valid point that often height information may not be available, leading to a certain amount of uncertainty, so there's no harm in letting everyone know what you're doing. I usually find a quick call of "Helicopter G-xxxx, [height] [routing] remaining outside controlled airspace, for information only, no service required" will do the trick.
However, niknak makes a valid point that often height information may not be available, leading to a certain amount of uncertainty, so there's no harm in letting everyone know what you're doing. I usually find a quick call of "Helicopter G-xxxx, [height] [routing] remaining outside controlled airspace, for information only, no service required" will do the trick.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaah, I see the rules are changing already. From being about flying close to airspace boundaries it's now about keeping clear of the in and outbound sectors and airmanship.
Well, I'm not suggesting people go flying round airspace boundaries for the hell of it.
Niknak, and Fuji,
The whole point of uncontrolled airspace is that it is uncontrolled. If some-one wishes to talk to a neighbouring ATC unit let them but I fail to see how that helps IFR seperation. The aircraft outside of controlled airspace has no obligation to tell you if he should change his mind about what he has told you beyond politeness. I have never had a problem with accepting a take-off clearance with "unknown traffic".
What I'm trying to get over is that knowing what you are allowed to do and being able to do it if you need to is a major part of airmanship.
It is so easy to question another's airmanship. Like saying safety, it puts you on the moral high ground but doesn't actually achieve anything.
I consider the ability to conduct flight WITHOUT the use of radio a much greater feat of airmanship than the other way round.
There is also an argument that goes along the lines that,"We may as well make this bit controlled as well because people are always calling and asking for etc...".
Well, I'm not suggesting people go flying round airspace boundaries for the hell of it.
Niknak, and Fuji,
The whole point of uncontrolled airspace is that it is uncontrolled. If some-one wishes to talk to a neighbouring ATC unit let them but I fail to see how that helps IFR seperation. The aircraft outside of controlled airspace has no obligation to tell you if he should change his mind about what he has told you beyond politeness. I have never had a problem with accepting a take-off clearance with "unknown traffic".
What I'm trying to get over is that knowing what you are allowed to do and being able to do it if you need to is a major part of airmanship.
It is so easy to question another's airmanship. Like saying safety, it puts you on the moral high ground but doesn't actually achieve anything.
I consider the ability to conduct flight WITHOUT the use of radio a much greater feat of airmanship than the other way round.
There is also an argument that goes along the lines that,"We may as well make this bit controlled as well because people are always calling and asking for etc...".
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of uncontrolled airspace is that it is uncontrolled. If some-one wishes to talk to a neighbouring ATC unit let them but I fail to see how that helps IFR seperation. The aircraft outside of controlled airspace has no obligation to tell you if he should change his mind about what he has told you beyond politeness. I have never had a problem with accepting a take-off clearance with "unknown traffic".
Airfield in Class 'G' with radar and ILS. A/C inbound IFR under a RAS being descended. He's positioning in the approach configuration, ready for glidepath intercept.
At the same time 7000 squawk, no mode 'C' is aiming straight at the 5 mile point of the ILS and exercising his divine right not to talk to anybody. ATCO has no idea whether the guy is 500 ft or 5000ft, and has no option but to break off the approach.
The radio call would have established his level, and could have prevented the break off and subsequent vectoring. Still think it's not an aid to separation?
Grainger
I must say that your:
"Helicopter G-xxxx, [height] [routing] remaining outside controlled airspace, for information only, no service required"
makes sense, don't know why I hadn't thought of it, don't know why it's not on every page of CAP 413.
The controller knows who you are, where you are and what you're doing but doesn't have to add to his workload and you're talking to someone in case it all goes Pete Tong and you need help.
Fantastic.
I must say that your:
"Helicopter G-xxxx, [height] [routing] remaining outside controlled airspace, for information only, no service required"
makes sense, don't know why I hadn't thought of it, don't know why it's not on every page of CAP 413.
The controller knows who you are, where you are and what you're doing but doesn't have to add to his workload and you're talking to someone in case it all goes Pete Tong and you need help.
Fantastic.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not wanting to get embroiled in a debate about the rights and wrongs of skirting the edge of an ATZ without talking to the relevant ATSU, to those that see it as an issue of exercising their right to fly in uncontrolled airspace unhindered I feel I should point out that the frequency of unknown traffic delaying the progress of IFR traffic by this means will doubtless be a large factor in the DAP's considerations when that unit inevitably applies for a class D zone to gain some protection.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you value the freedom of class G, the way to protect it is to help make sure it works. Why not play the game? The outcome otherwise is going to be more controlled airspace, and less of your jealously guarded freedom.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you value the freedom of class G, the way to protect it is to help make sure it works. Why not play the game? The outcome otherwise is going to be more controlled airspace, and less of your jealously guarded freedom.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rodan's comment above I think sums it up very well:
The alternative belligerence won't serve our interests well.
So on Saturday when (weather permitting) I fly from Wycombe to Land's End I will call Boscombe MATZ, although I am 99% sure nobody will be home (this will cost me 20 seconds effort). I may tune into Thruxton & Old Sarum ATZ frequencies as I pass over to hear what's going on,but there may be no need to make calls and waste anybodies time there if I am able to stay well clear vertically of these zones. Then I will call Exeter as I pass by from the west within about 5NM of the EX NDB and the associated instrument approach path marked on the chart; I will take an FIS (maybe convert to RIS if needed depending on wx/vis) from them, which is a good trade and will cost me nothing - and if the zone is clear, it might enable me to cut the corner... Then likewise I'll call Plymouth, and later St. Mawgan & Culdrose. I doubt any of this will lead me to think my freedom & rights have been in any way dimished... I just don't get that attitude!?!
Andy
if you value the freedom of class G, the way to protect it is to help make sure it works
So on Saturday when (weather permitting) I fly from Wycombe to Land's End I will call Boscombe MATZ, although I am 99% sure nobody will be home (this will cost me 20 seconds effort). I may tune into Thruxton & Old Sarum ATZ frequencies as I pass over to hear what's going on,but there may be no need to make calls and waste anybodies time there if I am able to stay well clear vertically of these zones. Then I will call Exeter as I pass by from the west within about 5NM of the EX NDB and the associated instrument approach path marked on the chart; I will take an FIS (maybe convert to RIS if needed depending on wx/vis) from them, which is a good trade and will cost me nothing - and if the zone is clear, it might enable me to cut the corner... Then likewise I'll call Plymouth, and later St. Mawgan & Culdrose. I doubt any of this will lead me to think my freedom & rights have been in any way dimished... I just don't get that attitude!?!
Andy
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Andy - In areas of high traffic density and high airfield density you are clearly correct. In other open FIR regions the incidence of traffic is small and many airfields simply dont want to talk to you. May I also point out that the attitude as you put it may be a result of GA being treated as second class citizens by so many units. It is not an excuse just a possible reason. We can all think of examples. Recently for example we have Doncaster airport established with "free" approaches by GA for practise. Now they have at least one commercial flight a week and when I called them on a weather diversion I was told I needed to give three weeks notice for an ILS approach and I would have to pay for the approach and for navigation charges. ALL I wanted was a let down! My initial call was to tell them I was heading across their published instrument approach path. Who has the attitude problem? I shall continue to excercise good airmanship at all times but my views of SOME airfields are well founded.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncertain which field you are at NN, but the aircraft you refer to may be taking a service from another controller (say a LARS service) or London Information, and have only one radio box.
This is a small and conjested island, and if the ANO is being upheld then there is no cause for complaint (unless you believe the law is wrong ??).
NB just a debating point, I have loads of radios and talk to multiple sites (and keep listen watches) but not everybody has that luxury (and some aircraft are not radio equipped and can fly legally in Class G airspace, remaining clear of ATZs).
h-r
This is a small and conjested island, and if the ANO is being upheld then there is no cause for complaint (unless you believe the law is wrong ??).
NB just a debating point, I have loads of radios and talk to multiple sites (and keep listen watches) but not everybody has that luxury (and some aircraft are not radio equipped and can fly legally in Class G airspace, remaining clear of ATZs).
h-r
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,619
Received 488 Likes
on
260 Posts
I'm going to play devil's advocate.
Some ATC decisions / instructions are based on a perceived idea of cost and NOT on safety grounds.
The rules of the air dictate who should give way, not the cost of fuel.
I'll give an example.
Pilot flying in class G in CAVOK conditions calls up ATC (ATZ only, but with an Approach controller) to inform them of his position and that he is passing 9 miles abeam and requesting flight information.
Approach controller immediately orders pilot to "Turn left 50 degrees, I have inbound traffic south of you by 6 miles, shortly turning inbound".
Traffic is in sight and is no threat as it will pass behind. If pilot complies with ATC instruction it will subsequently put him in a position where rules of the air dictate that he will end up having to giving way to the inbound, likelihood of reversed track.
Next time perhaps pilot won't bother to call....
It does happen.
Some ATC decisions / instructions are based on a perceived idea of cost and NOT on safety grounds.
The rules of the air dictate who should give way, not the cost of fuel.
I'll give an example.
Pilot flying in class G in CAVOK conditions calls up ATC (ATZ only, but with an Approach controller) to inform them of his position and that he is passing 9 miles abeam and requesting flight information.
Approach controller immediately orders pilot to "Turn left 50 degrees, I have inbound traffic south of you by 6 miles, shortly turning inbound".
Traffic is in sight and is no threat as it will pass behind. If pilot complies with ATC instruction it will subsequently put him in a position where rules of the air dictate that he will end up having to giving way to the inbound, likelihood of reversed track.
Next time perhaps pilot won't bother to call....
It does happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you stillin1 and nik nak for coming down on my side.... it was interesting to see the split in opinion.
To the rest... Fact, in the UK ATC are not allowed to disregard non-participating traffic; and so have to apply increased separation standards against unknown traffic (check the rules yourself)
My point is calling ATC/AGS need not restrict your freedom (Heck, you don't even have to agree to anything... you're in un regulated airspace after all)... but by letting them know who/where you are they may be able to:
a. Inform other aircraft to assist their look out (safe).
b. Reduced separation = reduced delays (expeditious)
... and if you want peace & solitude, the freedom of the open skies etc... or are in the middle of teaching a delicate, but difficult manoeuvre to a student. Find yourself a chunk of Class G, place yourself away from any ATZ/MATZ/CTZs etc. and enjoy.
Is everyone's happy....
PS... it was slightly unfair of me to target this at the GA fraternity, truth is many military pilots are as guilty... but didn't want this thread to spin off on a tangent.
To the rest... Fact, in the UK ATC are not allowed to disregard non-participating traffic; and so have to apply increased separation standards against unknown traffic (check the rules yourself)
My point is calling ATC/AGS need not restrict your freedom (Heck, you don't even have to agree to anything... you're in un regulated airspace after all)... but by letting them know who/where you are they may be able to:
a. Inform other aircraft to assist their look out (safe).
b. Reduced separation = reduced delays (expeditious)
... and if you want peace & solitude, the freedom of the open skies etc... or are in the middle of teaching a delicate, but difficult manoeuvre to a student. Find yourself a chunk of Class G, place yourself away from any ATZ/MATZ/CTZs etc. and enjoy.
Is everyone's happy....
PS... it was slightly unfair of me to target this at the GA fraternity, truth is many military pilots are as guilty... but didn't want this thread to spin off on a tangent.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Shy T
With reference to your scenario, does the controller make any attempt to identify the aircraft calling? Does the controller make any reference to the type of service being provided (FIS,RIS,RAS etc)?
If the answer to any of the questions are no, feel free to MOR the controller or unit concerned.
However, if the answer to both questions is yes, the correct course of action would have been to acknowledge the traffic info on the inbound a/c, and either carry on your way with a FIS or decline to participate any further with the service.
Either way, info was given to the pilot about a potential confliction which the pilot may not have been aware of if two way contact hadn't been made.
As an ATCO providing a Tower and Procedural Approach Control service at a unit in Class G airspace, I greatly appreciate any calls made by passing aircraft, especially if they intend to (quite legally) cross the final approach track or climb out lane. I like having the traffic info around to inform my circuit traffic. Bear in mind that when things get a little busy at these units, the sheer volume of traffic in the circuit can often take the pattern outside of the ATZ. It ain't the atco's or the pilot's fault: if there are 6 or 7 in the circuit and a bunch of joiners, these things happen. Look out for aircraft flying v-bomber circuits in their pipers and cessnas too, often outside the ATZ.
So by all means bimble around making no calls. I used to trogg around in a cub with a radio that was worse than useless. I can see the appeal in the feeling of freedom, but keep a good look out and all should be well. However, a courtesy call to any local units surely isn't too much of an imposition and may stop a training student bashing the circuit from getting a very nasty fright.
With reference to your scenario, does the controller make any attempt to identify the aircraft calling? Does the controller make any reference to the type of service being provided (FIS,RIS,RAS etc)?
If the answer to any of the questions are no, feel free to MOR the controller or unit concerned.
However, if the answer to both questions is yes, the correct course of action would have been to acknowledge the traffic info on the inbound a/c, and either carry on your way with a FIS or decline to participate any further with the service.
Either way, info was given to the pilot about a potential confliction which the pilot may not have been aware of if two way contact hadn't been made.
As an ATCO providing a Tower and Procedural Approach Control service at a unit in Class G airspace, I greatly appreciate any calls made by passing aircraft, especially if they intend to (quite legally) cross the final approach track or climb out lane. I like having the traffic info around to inform my circuit traffic. Bear in mind that when things get a little busy at these units, the sheer volume of traffic in the circuit can often take the pattern outside of the ATZ. It ain't the atco's or the pilot's fault: if there are 6 or 7 in the circuit and a bunch of joiners, these things happen. Look out for aircraft flying v-bomber circuits in their pipers and cessnas too, often outside the ATZ.
So by all means bimble around making no calls. I used to trogg around in a cub with a radio that was worse than useless. I can see the appeal in the feeling of freedom, but keep a good look out and all should be well. However, a courtesy call to any local units surely isn't too much of an imposition and may stop a training student bashing the circuit from getting a very nasty fright.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some might call having to buy a radio an infringement of their freedom.
Imposing unnecessary pressure on an uncontrolled flight is also bad airmanship; it increases perceived workload.
For as many examples as you can find to back up your 'opinion', I can find as many examples to the contrary.
When an airfield gets sufficiently important to warrant it's own controlled airspace I am in no doubt it will get it.
Until then the GA community will have to listen to the bleating of ATCOs who really would have liked to work at a 'proper' airport, fortunately a very small minority.
Nicely put Murphy,
But you can see how \'appreciating a call\' could be seen as self-justification. The more more people who make that call, the more work there is for you. And it follows then that \'in the interest of safety\' the airspace should be upgraded. It\'s a slippery slope.
I\'ve always been astounded at how busy some places seem when I hear all the r/t traffic. V.difficult to see all the aeroplanes though, they are so far from each other because of the time taken up on the radio.
6-7 in the circuit does \'sound\' very busy but the system can easily cope with more if it were non-radio.
Imposing unnecessary pressure on an uncontrolled flight is also bad airmanship; it increases perceived workload.
For as many examples as you can find to back up your 'opinion', I can find as many examples to the contrary.
When an airfield gets sufficiently important to warrant it's own controlled airspace I am in no doubt it will get it.
Until then the GA community will have to listen to the bleating of ATCOs who really would have liked to work at a 'proper' airport, fortunately a very small minority.
Nicely put Murphy,
But you can see how \'appreciating a call\' could be seen as self-justification. The more more people who make that call, the more work there is for you. And it follows then that \'in the interest of safety\' the airspace should be upgraded. It\'s a slippery slope.
I\'ve always been astounded at how busy some places seem when I hear all the r/t traffic. V.difficult to see all the aeroplanes though, they are so far from each other because of the time taken up on the radio.
6-7 in the circuit does \'sound\' very busy but the system can easily cope with more if it were non-radio.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ex (civil) ATCO who worked a MATZ, I fully appreciate the usefuleness of a call to ATC. Whenever I am close to any sort of zone, but not entering, I will give a call to ATC just to let them know who the radar return belongs to and who they need to talk to if they should have any problems. This will allow them to make better judgement calls on their own traffic which I can't see. If I get a curt reply with "remain clear of airspace" etc. its usually for a good reason (like high speed bits of metal). If they don't want to talk to me, no problem.
If outside a zone and given an ATC instruction (which is of course incorrect of the controller and not mandatory to follow), I will comply (and have done so in the past), if I consider it safe to do so and it doesn't put me into cloud, of course.
I've always seen ATC as a friend, never an enemy, and I can't think of any time flying in the UK, or elsewhere, where ATC have not been helpful.
GB
If outside a zone and given an ATC instruction (which is of course incorrect of the controller and not mandatory to follow), I will comply (and have done so in the past), if I consider it safe to do so and it doesn't put me into cloud, of course.
I've always seen ATC as a friend, never an enemy, and I can't think of any time flying in the UK, or elsewhere, where ATC have not been helpful.
GB
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,619
Received 488 Likes
on
260 Posts
A good pilot will give all possible help to ATC because we strongly believe in working together, but sometimes it's not easy. 
Another one:
Pilot, attempted to speak to a radar unit in good time (as soon as airborne, well clear of airspace). Attempt was to obtain FIS and request transit across base of a TMA, to avoid other ATZ close to track. Reply was to standby. Apparently then forgotten (because subsequent similar GA aircraft calling given immediate attention and service).
Pilot called one more time before descending to below TMA (and calling other airfield below on box 2). Told tersely again to standby by controller. Having shrugged shoulders, underflown and cleared beyond TMA, pilot called simply "Callsign, clearing to south, going on route" as a service no longer required or expected.
As a reply to this call, controller then (without having positively identified or agreed service of any sort) immediately gave avoiding action on an inbound airliner in class G, ahead and above, crossing track. When the ordered 40 degree turn was declined, as other aircraft seen and not conflicting, controller gets in a fizz and berates pilot over RT, saying that "other pilot might now file against him due to possible TCAS warning" (but no warning from pilot's own TCAS, with aircraft no closer together than 4 to 5nm).
Both a/c in class G, excellent VFR, no avoiding action necessary under "see and avoid" principle. Airliner unusually being flown outside controlled airspace but no conflict.
Yes, the MOR is an option and next time said pilot might just use that channel. However, given such treatment, one tends not to call, simply to avoid the hassle.
Another one:
Pilot, attempted to speak to a radar unit in good time (as soon as airborne, well clear of airspace). Attempt was to obtain FIS and request transit across base of a TMA, to avoid other ATZ close to track. Reply was to standby. Apparently then forgotten (because subsequent similar GA aircraft calling given immediate attention and service).
Pilot called one more time before descending to below TMA (and calling other airfield below on box 2). Told tersely again to standby by controller. Having shrugged shoulders, underflown and cleared beyond TMA, pilot called simply "Callsign, clearing to south, going on route" as a service no longer required or expected.
As a reply to this call, controller then (without having positively identified or agreed service of any sort) immediately gave avoiding action on an inbound airliner in class G, ahead and above, crossing track. When the ordered 40 degree turn was declined, as other aircraft seen and not conflicting, controller gets in a fizz and berates pilot over RT, saying that "other pilot might now file against him due to possible TCAS warning" (but no warning from pilot's own TCAS, with aircraft no closer together than 4 to 5nm).
Both a/c in class G, excellent VFR, no avoiding action necessary under "see and avoid" principle. Airliner unusually being flown outside controlled airspace but no conflict.
Yes, the MOR is an option and next time said pilot might just use that channel. However, given such treatment, one tends not to call, simply to avoid the hassle.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation, like most of society, attracts a wide range of people, attitudes and competence.
What is noticably lacking if the understanding of the 'other person point of view' in many cases.
It would be valuable if we had more familiarisation trips to the Tower, Approach Control & etc, and controllers, FISOs had more time in the air with pilots (i.e. not them flying for those that are also GA pilots, but with somebody else to appreciate their point of view).
I'm sure it would do no 'arm. May even do a little good as well.
h-r
What is noticably lacking if the understanding of the 'other person point of view' in many cases.
It would be valuable if we had more familiarisation trips to the Tower, Approach Control & etc, and controllers, FISOs had more time in the air with pilots (i.e. not them flying for those that are also GA pilots, but with somebody else to appreciate their point of view).
I'm sure it would do no 'arm. May even do a little good as well.
h-r
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about giving a courtesy call. It takes only a moment and never mind the class D traffic, it gives everyone else an indication of who is around and at what height. Of course if you do not have a radio you cant make the call.
Never the less I think we get horribly wrong this business about giving commercial traffic some sort of special treatment. The fact of the matter is that already there are huge areas of controlled airspace in this country. Having done some flying in the States the integration of GA with commercial traffic is seamless, the controllers ever helpful and I cant help thinking their whole mindset improves the use of the airspace for all concerned. Whilst my own experience is that the controllers here, particulaly in more recent times, have improved greatly in providing a service to GA there still seem to be many exceptions reported here and elsewhere where radio calls are ignored, forgotten or the pilot left on standby for an unacceptably long period of time.
I dont pull over on the road to let a coach pass me by because it is loaded with 60 fare paying passengers, and when events dictate they sit in the same traffic jam with the rest of us without the traffic police giving them special treatment.
Never the less I think we get horribly wrong this business about giving commercial traffic some sort of special treatment. The fact of the matter is that already there are huge areas of controlled airspace in this country. Having done some flying in the States the integration of GA with commercial traffic is seamless, the controllers ever helpful and I cant help thinking their whole mindset improves the use of the airspace for all concerned. Whilst my own experience is that the controllers here, particulaly in more recent times, have improved greatly in providing a service to GA there still seem to be many exceptions reported here and elsewhere where radio calls are ignored, forgotten or the pilot left on standby for an unacceptably long period of time.
I dont pull over on the road to let a coach pass me by because it is loaded with 60 fare paying passengers, and when events dictate they sit in the same traffic jam with the rest of us without the traffic police giving them special treatment.