Skirting Around ATZs & MATZs
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems here, is the fact that certain units seem to have enough controlled airspace to keep their arrivals & departures well within their airspace, and therefore aren't interested in what's going on outside it. I have read here in the past, some controllers saying they are over worked, and try to help out as best they can, but would prefer if people out for a bimble didn't call them up looking for a FIS. They simply don't have the time to deal with it.
On the other hand, some units have to send traffic outside their airspace, and as such may find a call from traffic outside their zone, very useful.
It's not apparent from looking at a chart, who would appreciate a call, and to whom a call is a further nuisance.
dp
On the other hand, some units have to send traffic outside their airspace, and as such may find a call from traffic outside their zone, very useful.
It's not apparent from looking at a chart, who would appreciate a call, and to whom a call is a further nuisance.
dp
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ATCOs want a trip aloft coming close to your boundary? I'll happily oblige any time (well nearly anytime). Pick a day of poor viz and a track close to your zone boundary at a time when you have little traffic. See (hear?) the responses you get from different units and see how sometimes your perception of your zone boundary differs from ours both on a map and a GPS. Of course any decent pilot will not be deterred from calling any unit that he wants to talk to or indeed ought to talk to but some, just a very few, people on the end of a radio on the ground are real ****s. You guys know who they are, you work with them so why not do all of us a favour and persuade them they need additional training.
Just to add I believe our ATC is as good as it get anywhere in the world and we should be proud of it, so please accept that some need just a little more training.
Just to add I believe our ATC is as good as it get anywhere in the world and we should be proud of it, so please accept that some need just a little more training.
Last edited by WorkingHard; 20th Jun 2005 at 18:40.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curiously enough, a student of mine raised this very subject today when we were talking about a route he was planning which took him close to an ATZ. Conversation went something like this:
Him: "So would you contact XYZ Approach, even though you're not going through their ATZ?"
Me: "Think of it this way. Imagine you're leaving the circuit, and as soon as you leave the circuit you find another aircraft right in front of you. Of course it's everyone's responsibility to see and avoid, but wouldn't it have been much easier if the other guy had told ATC he was there, and then ATC could have told us?"
Him: "Yeah, I suppose when you think of that way, it's just common sense isn't it?"
So there you go. The verdict from a student pilot is that "it's just common sense." As for those who say it's uncontrolled airspace, so it's legal to be there without talking to anyone, yes that's true. It's also legal for an IMC-rated pilot to fly an aircraft with no instruments at 139kt in 1600m viz on a x-country flight, but that doesn't make it sensible. We are fortunate enough to enjoy a hobby where the law is extremely lenient, and leaves it to our own individual judgement to decide where many of the boundaries lie. If we abuse this priviledge, as others have said, the only thing which can result is that it will be taken away from us.
FFF
--------------
Him: "So would you contact XYZ Approach, even though you're not going through their ATZ?"
Me: "Think of it this way. Imagine you're leaving the circuit, and as soon as you leave the circuit you find another aircraft right in front of you. Of course it's everyone's responsibility to see and avoid, but wouldn't it have been much easier if the other guy had told ATC he was there, and then ATC could have told us?"
Him: "Yeah, I suppose when you think of that way, it's just common sense isn't it?"
So there you go. The verdict from a student pilot is that "it's just common sense." As for those who say it's uncontrolled airspace, so it's legal to be there without talking to anyone, yes that's true. It's also legal for an IMC-rated pilot to fly an aircraft with no instruments at 139kt in 1600m viz on a x-country flight, but that doesn't make it sensible. We are fortunate enough to enjoy a hobby where the law is extremely lenient, and leaves it to our own individual judgement to decide where many of the boundaries lie. If we abuse this priviledge, as others have said, the only thing which can result is that it will be taken away from us.
FFF
--------------
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RPMcMurphy - If I come your way I certainly shall but I dont often have a need to go that far north. I bet you dont get too many unknown radar returns either!
FFF said "We are fortunate enough to enjoy a hobby where the law is extremely lenient, and leaves it to our own individual judgement to decide where many of the boundaries lie"
I do think a great many would not agree with that statement. We are very regulated indeed and for the most part quite correctly so. Many of the regulations are of no benefit to GA, only to CAT and it seems little thought is given to the impact of those regulations.
Others have said that if one wants to go close to a boundary without the use of RT then it is perfectly legal and correct so to do. IT IS so why are they "wrong" and why should that result in yet more regulation? More regulation is usually a result of someone with a bigger stick making thier point over others. BA and more CAA charges to GA for example.
FFF said "We are fortunate enough to enjoy a hobby where the law is extremely lenient, and leaves it to our own individual judgement to decide where many of the boundaries lie"
I do think a great many would not agree with that statement. We are very regulated indeed and for the most part quite correctly so. Many of the regulations are of no benefit to GA, only to CAT and it seems little thought is given to the impact of those regulations.
Others have said that if one wants to go close to a boundary without the use of RT then it is perfectly legal and correct so to do. IT IS so why are they "wrong" and why should that result in yet more regulation? More regulation is usually a result of someone with a bigger stick making thier point over others. BA and more CAA charges to GA for example.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading this thread with interest and was wondering what the correct RT response would be to an ATC instruction which you choose not to follow since you are in class G, and so not obliged to do?
Also, if you are receiving a flight information service and decide that you don't want to talk to the controller any more, you would request a frequency change from the controller. But what would happen if the controller declined your request?
Carl
Also, if you are receiving a flight information service and decide that you don't want to talk to the controller any more, you would request a frequency change from the controller. But what would happen if the controller declined your request?
Carl
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
The word you are looking for is "Negative".
Politely followed by your intention / alternative action. Don't forget to sound friendly about it or don't expect a fancy clearance through his airspace on the return trip
Politely followed by your intention / alternative action. Don't forget to sound friendly about it or don't expect a fancy clearance through his airspace on the return trip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
carbar
I agree with shytorque... "negative" will do, but would also suggest "unable to comply" or similar would be more informative.
("Unwilling to comply" might be closer to the truth but sounds very negative... which, if there is no reason for refusal is, perhaps, exactly what you are being?)
Re: changing on route... my advice is don't request it! If you're in open FIR there is no mandate to be on the radio, therefore you don't need permission to change (at the risk of contradicting myself, but perhaps proving I do know the rules... just say "c/s changing en-route" with perhaps a "Good Day!" thrown in if I've been nice to you... but PLEASE no "Sir!". I will be glad you called in the first place.... promise.
However, once you leave frequency, you become unknown traffic again, and the controller is back to taking increased separation from you...
Finally... I know some ATCOs can be unco-operative, sorry its a fact of life/human nature. Firstly, high-workload is not constrained to the cockpit environment... secondly, everyone has to learn, then when you've learnt you gain experience.
I agree with shytorque... "negative" will do, but would also suggest "unable to comply" or similar would be more informative.
("Unwilling to comply" might be closer to the truth but sounds very negative... which, if there is no reason for refusal is, perhaps, exactly what you are being?)
Re: changing on route... my advice is don't request it! If you're in open FIR there is no mandate to be on the radio, therefore you don't need permission to change (at the risk of contradicting myself, but perhaps proving I do know the rules... just say "c/s changing en-route" with perhaps a "Good Day!" thrown in if I've been nice to you... but PLEASE no "Sir!". I will be glad you called in the first place.... promise.
However, once you leave frequency, you become unknown traffic again, and the controller is back to taking increased separation from you...
Finally... I know some ATCOs can be unco-operative, sorry its a fact of life/human nature. Firstly, high-workload is not constrained to the cockpit environment... secondly, everyone has to learn, then when you've learnt you gain experience.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following the thread with some interest, given recent experiences.
My own technique is usually to give a courtesy call to the nearest station as I pass by, mainly to tell them what I am doing, but also for me to listen in to any conflicting traffic. If I hear an aircraft is likely to be near to me I pass a second position message so the other pilot knows where I am.
At least that is the theory -
Too often, at boundaries there is a confusion as to who is providing service. I was nearly blatted by a PA28 out of Coventry whilst I was working Brize. Brize didn't know about him and as a low and slow craft, I was low down on his very busy Radar. When I asked what had happened, they shrugged it off, as the other pilot 'wasn't working us'
Similarly, at our local field, outbound on Tower freqency about to change to Approach you can often meet inbound Approach aircraft about change to Tower. On a busy airfield with difficulty breaking into the radio conversation, that also creates a hazard.
Between Shoreham and Solent, the same thing. Lots of options as to who to call, and no guarantee that 2 aircraft in the same space are tuned alike. We might be in contact with one service or another, but rarely both. We are often lulled into a sense of false security communicating with a service, when the service doesn't have all the info.
Finally, I am torn between the views of ATCOs and "non-radio" pilots. I don't agree that the commercial imperative necessarily should take priority.
Having been held in the circuit at EGTE for what seems like hours, orbiting while the wake turbulence decays, just in time for the next holiday jet to arrive, I think they have it a bit too much their own way. Even worse, the ATCOs there are on duty well past the published hours, yet, GA pilots here have to pay a hefty, 'after hours' fee for attempting to land a few minutes after 7pm on a Saturday. Not the ATCOs fault, of course.
My own technique is usually to give a courtesy call to the nearest station as I pass by, mainly to tell them what I am doing, but also for me to listen in to any conflicting traffic. If I hear an aircraft is likely to be near to me I pass a second position message so the other pilot knows where I am.
At least that is the theory -
Too often, at boundaries there is a confusion as to who is providing service. I was nearly blatted by a PA28 out of Coventry whilst I was working Brize. Brize didn't know about him and as a low and slow craft, I was low down on his very busy Radar. When I asked what had happened, they shrugged it off, as the other pilot 'wasn't working us'
Similarly, at our local field, outbound on Tower freqency about to change to Approach you can often meet inbound Approach aircraft about change to Tower. On a busy airfield with difficulty breaking into the radio conversation, that also creates a hazard.
Between Shoreham and Solent, the same thing. Lots of options as to who to call, and no guarantee that 2 aircraft in the same space are tuned alike. We might be in contact with one service or another, but rarely both. We are often lulled into a sense of false security communicating with a service, when the service doesn't have all the info.
Finally, I am torn between the views of ATCOs and "non-radio" pilots. I don't agree that the commercial imperative necessarily should take priority.
Having been held in the circuit at EGTE for what seems like hours, orbiting while the wake turbulence decays, just in time for the next holiday jet to arrive, I think they have it a bit too much their own way. Even worse, the ATCOs there are on duty well past the published hours, yet, GA pilots here have to pay a hefty, 'after hours' fee for attempting to land a few minutes after 7pm on a Saturday. Not the ATCOs fault, of course.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer the original question - because if being outside the ATZ isn't working then the ATZ needs to be bigger or some other regulated airspace needs to be provided.
Lots of people say - the UK has large chunks of Class G airspace. Yes it does. But it also has possibly the most regulated class G airspace that I have come across outside the USSR and east bloc countries during the cold war.
Much of the "problems" encountered is that the UK tries to turn large parts of Class G into pseudo controlled airspace. At times this controlled class G can be more restrictive than class D with VFR flights being restricted and IFR flights being even more restricted.
Class G - no separation, no clearance for both IFR flights and VFR flights. Stick to that and everything is simple.
If there are a small number of IFR flights to and from your regional airport then the only simple answer is Class E. Places like Farnborough, Bristol (both of them) should have Class E airspace out to say 30nm. In that case, any flight not talking to them, in that area will have to be VFR and in VMC and thus no separation from IFR is required..........OK - ATC probably won't let the blips merge but they are no longer required to provide 5nm / 3000ft separation.
The CAA's recomendation regarding passing close to regulated airspace is to plan to miss by 5nm. While the GPS may have caused people who navigate visually to track ever closer to airspace boundaries, few such operators are aware that even the approved BRNAV units are only certified to keep the aircraft within 5nm of track.........hence the idea to plan a 5nm miss unless the mark 1 eyeball can be sure that the aircraft is outside the airspace.
Finally regarding a busy circuit extending outside the ATZ at a controlled aerodrome - now IMHO that is both poor airmanship and poor controlling combined........when will pilots start flying a standard circuit and if the circuit is too busy, hold overhead until one can fit into the pattern rather than simply making the pattern bigger. The same could be said of the controller who overloads the circuit.
There are few pilots around who remember the use of light signals with no radio and thus the whole idea of what is meant by the signal do not land continue to circle means or the return for landing signal means.............could we start having the same signals by radio please at controlled aerodromes rather than everyone come in at once and make a big big circle (circuit) so thay you can all land!
I well know the situation where IFR flights depart from aerodromes in the UK with nothing more than an ATZ - not ideal but somthing the UK thinks is a good idea - why?.........what VFR fligts are disadvantaged by Clas E airspace? - none!
Regards,
DFC
Lots of people say - the UK has large chunks of Class G airspace. Yes it does. But it also has possibly the most regulated class G airspace that I have come across outside the USSR and east bloc countries during the cold war.
Much of the "problems" encountered is that the UK tries to turn large parts of Class G into pseudo controlled airspace. At times this controlled class G can be more restrictive than class D with VFR flights being restricted and IFR flights being even more restricted.
Class G - no separation, no clearance for both IFR flights and VFR flights. Stick to that and everything is simple.
If there are a small number of IFR flights to and from your regional airport then the only simple answer is Class E. Places like Farnborough, Bristol (both of them) should have Class E airspace out to say 30nm. In that case, any flight not talking to them, in that area will have to be VFR and in VMC and thus no separation from IFR is required..........OK - ATC probably won't let the blips merge but they are no longer required to provide 5nm / 3000ft separation.
The CAA's recomendation regarding passing close to regulated airspace is to plan to miss by 5nm. While the GPS may have caused people who navigate visually to track ever closer to airspace boundaries, few such operators are aware that even the approved BRNAV units are only certified to keep the aircraft within 5nm of track.........hence the idea to plan a 5nm miss unless the mark 1 eyeball can be sure that the aircraft is outside the airspace.
Finally regarding a busy circuit extending outside the ATZ at a controlled aerodrome - now IMHO that is both poor airmanship and poor controlling combined........when will pilots start flying a standard circuit and if the circuit is too busy, hold overhead until one can fit into the pattern rather than simply making the pattern bigger. The same could be said of the controller who overloads the circuit.
There are few pilots around who remember the use of light signals with no radio and thus the whole idea of what is meant by the signal do not land continue to circle means or the return for landing signal means.............could we start having the same signals by radio please at controlled aerodromes rather than everyone come in at once and make a big big circle (circuit) so thay you can all land!
I well know the situation where IFR flights depart from aerodromes in the UK with nothing more than an ATZ - not ideal but somthing the UK thinks is a good idea - why?.........what VFR fligts are disadvantaged by Clas E airspace? - none!
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I like your ideas... separation against IFR traffic only and let the VFR traffic get on with it sounds great and I'd like to think it would work, but regretably I am sure that some pilots supposedly flying VFR in the UK cannot be "trusted".
I was in group conversation at a local flying clubs when one pilot said "I was flying along VFR, into and out of cloud..." I asked him to repeat, and he said the same.
When challenged, others in the roup recounted similar experiences, until told that if entering cloud you can't be VMC, therefore you cannot be VFR!
There was an embarassing silence. All seemed to have missed the point of what VFR really means, and none were doing anything about their responsibility to avoid other aircraft other than rely on the big sky theory and trusting to luck?
I like your ideas... separation against IFR traffic only and let the VFR traffic get on with it sounds great and I'd like to think it would work, but regretably I am sure that some pilots supposedly flying VFR in the UK cannot be "trusted".
I was in group conversation at a local flying clubs when one pilot said "I was flying along VFR, into and out of cloud..." I asked him to repeat, and he said the same.
When challenged, others in the roup recounted similar experiences, until told that if entering cloud you can't be VMC, therefore you cannot be VFR!
There was an embarassing silence. All seemed to have missed the point of what VFR really means, and none were doing anything about their responsibility to avoid other aircraft other than rely on the big sky theory and trusting to luck?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that is needed with regard to Matz and ATZs is a Little common sense. As most will do spend time on educating the pilots not opening even more restrictions. The last thing we need is the whole of UK a controlled airspace. Or is Piere just angling for more controller jobs.
As for the VFR comment above the phrase "Nobody likes a smart ar$£" comes to mind
Wide
As for the VFR comment above the phrase "Nobody likes a smart ar$£" comes to mind
Wide
Last edited by Wide-Body; 23rd Jun 2005 at 07:57.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire
Age: 55
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATZ/MATZ STUFF
I can see both points of view, being a Military controller and also a PPL-IMC holder. As a controller it is good to have a picture of known traffic, ie if traffic tells you what he/she is doing you can attempt if required to keep your possible military IFR traffic away and get some separation. Would you in your PA28 cross say just outside a fast jet unit ATZ? Is that safe? although your quite within your rights wouldn't you rather know about and have traffic info on the 4 ship fast jet departure? Yes its see and avoid Glass G but surely for flight safety its not much of a hassle to give a call. We do provide LARS/Zone transits to many a/c and these days thats most of our workload which we do happily(well most of the time)! We are there to assist, Ive helped numerous of GA traffic whether they are diverting to my unit, temp unsure of posn and in emergency. Is it too much to ask in return to give us an info call? Ive held a C17 on the ground due to unknown MATZ crossing traffic, not for my benefit but the GA pilot would have got a hell of a fright if I sent it climbing towards him/her. I agree though sometimes freqs are just to busy and its mayhem and you can't call that I guess is sods law(if you know its a busy unit maybe try an early call)? proves GA is popular though 
One member suggests its added workload calling, I was taught the basic 3: aviate, navigate and communicate. If operating a radio is too much workload may I suggest you stay on the ground.
If in open FIR yep change on route no problem, only thing I would say if you have been asked under a FIS for co-ordination can u maintain ----ft and you agree, by going on route sqwk 7000 you will stuff the controller who is working the other traffic and he would have to avoid 5nm/3000ft. In that instance he may ask can you maintain this freq for X amount of miles. But your within ur rights to go en route....... just don\'t expect a happy controller !
One member suggests its added workload calling, I was taught the basic 3: aviate, navigate and communicate. If operating a radio is too much workload may I suggest you stay on the ground.If in open FIR yep change on route no problem, only thing I would say if you have been asked under a FIS for co-ordination can u maintain ----ft and you agree, by going on route sqwk 7000 you will stuff the controller who is working the other traffic and he would have to avoid 5nm/3000ft. In that instance he may ask can you maintain this freq for X amount of miles. But your within ur rights to go en route....... just don\'t expect a happy controller !
Guest
Posts: n/a
If operating a radio is too much workload may I suggest you stay on the ground.
The point is that workload is context variable and aviating and navigating and communicating are done in that sequence when the pressure is on. Good airmanship means taking decisions like that from time to time. IMCR Holder??? DOH! Perhaps the display of this level of thinking could explain why it is nor recognised outside the UK. :-)
I am a little concerned about controllers pontificating about what should be on this thread.
Whilst pilots should use courtesy, common sense and consideration, controllers should control their airspace and not whinge about what happens outside it.
This country has seen restriction after restriction piled on on recent years, in the interests of "safety" or "security", not just in the aviation sector. It's time to strat pushing back
Although most people try to co-ordinate, sometimes Air Traffickers need putting firmly back in their box. Fortunately, this is an exceptionally rare event.
Once upon a time I had to do my routine 'high-rot spin' exercise in one of HM's Bulldogs as part of routine recency requirements. Part of the requirement was that it was mandatory to enter at FL100. To climb the mighty 'dog to that level takes quite a while though. Thus after thundering off from Benson and climbing through FL60, I advised Cartoontown Radar that I'd be climbing from South to North over their CTR (top is 3500 QNH) in the climb to FL100 as I had planned my exercise in a nice clear bit of airspace near Moreton-in-Marsh. "Stop climb at FL65" said the voice at the other end. "Negative, I will be climbing to FL100", I answered. "I SAY AGAIN, NOT ABOVE FL65" she repeated, somewhat tersely. "Look, I tried to be helpful by calling you, I am already nearly 3000 ft above your airspace, I am now going to squawk 7000A and change to en-route frequency. Whilst climbing to FL100! Good day to you!" was the response she got....
That's the sort of thing which causes many of us not to use the radio more than is strictly necessary.
Once upon a time I had to do my routine 'high-rot spin' exercise in one of HM's Bulldogs as part of routine recency requirements. Part of the requirement was that it was mandatory to enter at FL100. To climb the mighty 'dog to that level takes quite a while though. Thus after thundering off from Benson and climbing through FL60, I advised Cartoontown Radar that I'd be climbing from South to North over their CTR (top is 3500 QNH) in the climb to FL100 as I had planned my exercise in a nice clear bit of airspace near Moreton-in-Marsh. "Stop climb at FL65" said the voice at the other end. "Negative, I will be climbing to FL100", I answered. "I SAY AGAIN, NOT ABOVE FL65" she repeated, somewhat tersely. "Look, I tried to be helpful by calling you, I am already nearly 3000 ft above your airspace, I am now going to squawk 7000A and change to en-route frequency. Whilst climbing to FL100! Good day to you!" was the response she got....
That's the sort of thing which causes many of us not to use the radio more than is strictly necessary.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well, that's that then.
If anyone wants me I'm retreating to the ATC Home forum where all us whinging controllers hang out.
Alternatively try and call me when the big fan on the front stops.
I wasn't ordering anyone to do anything.... just asking for a courtesy call if possible. I happen to like working in Class G; I have a PPL, checked out on tailwheel yadda yadda yadda.
And DFC..... low hour students extending the downwind leg happens. We can only try and reel them in once it has happened, not before. You explain how that can be blamed on the long-suffering tower ATCO, not either the instructor or student themselves.
Ever tried controlling a circuit with a flexwing, pa38, navajo and a light jet all at the same time? It can be done safely but the speed differential dictates that the circuit will be a little wide and often extends out of the ATZ. It happens. If you intend to exercise your god-given right to skirt tight in against an ATZ boundary, be prepared, either with or without a radio call.
Happy (and safe) flying everyone.
If anyone wants me I'm retreating to the ATC Home forum where all us whinging controllers hang out.
Alternatively try and call me when the big fan on the front stops.
I wasn't ordering anyone to do anything.... just asking for a courtesy call if possible. I happen to like working in Class G; I have a PPL, checked out on tailwheel yadda yadda yadda.
And DFC..... low hour students extending the downwind leg happens. We can only try and reel them in once it has happened, not before. You explain how that can be blamed on the long-suffering tower ATCO, not either the instructor or student themselves.
Ever tried controlling a circuit with a flexwing, pa38, navajo and a light jet all at the same time? It can be done safely but the speed differential dictates that the circuit will be a little wide and often extends out of the ATZ. It happens. If you intend to exercise your god-given right to skirt tight in against an ATZ boundary, be prepared, either with or without a radio call.
Happy (and safe) flying everyone.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I and others have said here, it is a very small minority of controllers (in the widest context) who do a lot of harm to relations between pilots and ATSUs. "illigal" airmanship is reported so why are "illegal" ATC instructions not reported? We would all benefit.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cambridgeshire
Age: 55
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATZ/MATZ !!
Finals 3 Greens-
Yes indeed workload is variable I agree, you quote 'good airmanship' wouldn't that be under the bracket of giving a busy unit a call just outside their MATZ/ATZ? I quoted the known traffic enviroment in my last comment which helps controllers out . Some pilots and ive done this myself , why are ATC restricting me? Its an easy answer......the big picture other peeps fly as well, though under a FIS of course u don't need to comply. My unit has had a/c come on freq saying they have had an airprox and pass their details and all the time your thinking well an info call to us and we would have told you about the traffic, thus avoiding the blood pressure rise! RPMMcfly makes some very good points about ATC workload. A call transitting close to an ATZ/MATZ surely is worthwhile. So in my last comment the example of a GA a/c passing say just outside a fast jet unit ATZ.........what situation would you rather be in, knowing about the traffic or getting bounced by say 4 Tornados doing 400kts, bearing in mind reaction time for scanning/lookout Maybe you should visit a busy ATC unit and see all the different situations that can develop. Being both a GA flyer and a controller gives me a little look at both sides of the coin, which I believe gives me(maybe)? a reasonable understanding.
Happy and safe flying to all
Yes indeed workload is variable I agree, you quote 'good airmanship' wouldn't that be under the bracket of giving a busy unit a call just outside their MATZ/ATZ? I quoted the known traffic enviroment in my last comment which helps controllers out . Some pilots and ive done this myself , why are ATC restricting me? Its an easy answer......the big picture other peeps fly as well, though under a FIS of course u don't need to comply. My unit has had a/c come on freq saying they have had an airprox and pass their details and all the time your thinking well an info call to us and we would have told you about the traffic, thus avoiding the blood pressure rise! RPMMcfly makes some very good points about ATC workload. A call transitting close to an ATZ/MATZ surely is worthwhile. So in my last comment the example of a GA a/c passing say just outside a fast jet unit ATZ.........what situation would you rather be in, knowing about the traffic or getting bounced by say 4 Tornados doing 400kts, bearing in mind reaction time for scanning/lookout Maybe you should visit a busy ATC unit and see all the different situations that can develop. Being both a GA flyer and a controller gives me a little look at both sides of the coin, which I believe gives me(maybe)? a reasonable understanding.
Happy and safe flying to all
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I consider NOT calling a busy ATC unit when you don't have to good airmanship.
If you are listening in on the frequency you think you are the 'unknown traffic' being reported to another aircraft then this is the time to pipe up.
Non-reliance on radio is the key to good airmanship. As pointed out earlier, it is the lowest priority of the three 8's.
If you are listening in on the frequency you think you are the 'unknown traffic' being reported to another aircraft then this is the time to pipe up.
Non-reliance on radio is the key to good airmanship. As pointed out earlier, it is the lowest priority of the three 8's.