Class D crossings!

[chrisN]

OVC, my impression of Stansted (Essex Radar) is that they are usually so busy with traffic they have to talk to, that they have little opportunity to talk to people outside the CTA who have the option of going round or staying outside.

If they do talk to power GA outside the CTA, it is usually to tell them to stay outside CAS. They may pass traffic info, if they have time.

Gliders (like me) get lowest priority - usually just a brusque "standby and stay outside CAS" followed by a long wait is usual.

I actually feel sorry for the ATCOs on Essex - Stansted Director and Tower seem much less busy (I sometimes monitor them just out of interest - I fly a lot near the CTA). And we only hear their RT - I gather they have to use the phone too at times, which sounds like silence on RT.

Chris N.

[PPRuNe Radar]

OVC002

If some can all get over the self righteous, unjustified, posturing over pistongone, for following his clearance, we might get back to the point of the thread. To wit:

So you endorse this part of the posters statement then ??

That one was in a C150 out of Lt Gransden and they asked us to climb to 4500' on the QNH to cross the runway We blagged it by going mode "A" and crossed at about 3700' and were well clear of anything at that height.

In which case you are as silly as he/she was. It's people like you that will one day have the unfortunate accident that kills it all for everyone of us in GA. Do us all a favour, stay on the ground, or obey the rules.

[PPRuNe Radar]

PS Have flown in Scotland a few times in the last week and Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Prestwick have all given me pretty much unrestricted clearances through their Class D. The only hardship was to orbit once at the Bridges in the Edinburgh Control Zone, until I spotted the Airbus at 4 mile final. Once spotted, my clearance was to transit above and behind, duly complied with

[Twiddle]

I've been cleared over stansted almost everytime i've asked, in both helis and fixed wing, they seem pretty obliging.

There have been a couple of times when I've not even bothered calling due to their RT workload.

I'm not sure why they get the bad rep, they don't deserve it...

[Aunt Rimmer]

Glasgow are great. Never had a problem. Edinburgh likewise, occasionally held at the bridges but then usually cleared through the overhead. Prestwick good too, they just seem to prefer a wee bit more notice if you can give it.

All in all a good experience in Scotland.

Just remember, if you sound confident and is if you know what you're doing you'll generally get what you want.

If you umm and errr and think with the mike open, you immediately raise suspicion that you migth be a potential idiot.

[englishal]

For once I find myself in agreement with DFC!

Blimmin 'eck, me too

Only once have I had problems. I wasn't refused as such but told to remain clear of CAS and orbit. After orbiting a while I got bored and decided to skirt the zone, and just as I started skirting, I was cleared through. I'm sure they were taking bets on how long I would orbit for

Actually a related question (don't have a chart to hand, so forgive me if it is obvious):

If I wanted to transit Bournemouth at 3000' who would I call? Solents' CTA overlays Bournemouth, yet in the past when I have been in CAS above Bournemouth for instrument training at FL50 or so, I have been talking to Bournemouth. Also, if it is Solent I talk to (which is who I assume I should call), is the terminology still a "zone transit" seeing as it is a CTA?

Ta.

[RAC/OPS]

Just to add my bit from an ATC point of view... Pistongone, a VFR clearance is usually "not above XXXXft", so if the controller gave you a specific level, you'd better believe there was a good reason for it! As others have said, if you can't accept the terms of the clearance tell us and you might just get another clearance which is less restrictive.

And everyone, PLEASE do not tell us your heading when giving your initial call. It is superfluous. Type, route, destination and level is all that's basically required. If we want to know heading, persons on board, what you had for lunch etc, we'll ask!!

[OVC002]

PPRUNE Radar

Your post is as ignorant as it is offensive. pistongone had already corrected his original statement.

Which bit of :

Originally Posted by pistongone

I see your point Radar, but we did advise we couldnt make the level, hence the offer to orbit. We kept the controller informed of our flight status, and were told to continue even though we said we wouldnt reach the assigned level.

did you not understand?

piston gone followed his clearance and kept ATC advised of his inability to reach the assigned level. For this we have been pilloried by you and others. The abuse is unjustified based upon the stated facts.

The decision to turn off the mode 'C' was eyebrow raising admittedly.

Contrary to your advice I shall continue to fly, and follow my clearance, to the best of my ability. I will also continue to make comments here based upon all of the facts, and not twist them by selectively ignoring previously clarified statements.

I would ask that you "do us all a favour" by doing the same.

[Final 3 Greens]

PPrune Radar

You're out of line.

The WHOLE episode, as told, was stupid and all involved come out of it badly, including the controller.

Remember that pilots usually die in a middair, but the controller doesn't.

[PPRuNe Radar]

OVC002

Your post is as ignorant as it is offensive. pistongone had already corrected his original statement.

Dear Indignant of PPRuNe, I think you doth protest too much. PPRuNe has always been about robust debate and comment. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. pistongone corrected twice, adding a bit more each time. Important issues were aired and points made on both sides.

We declared that level was going to be a push and were told to continue

To a controller this implies that the level will probably be made, but only just. It is not the same as saying 'unable' which leaves no leeway for interpretation.

but we did advise we couldnt make the level, hence the offer to orbit. We kept the controller informed of our flight status, and were told to continue even though we said we wouldnt reach the assigned level.

That is a totally different circumstance, and the controller can then amend a clearance based upon it. So which was it ??

Notice that pistongone never retracted the fact that Mode C was switched off (deliberately) to hide a possible non compliance with a clearance, which has been the main thing most people raised their eyebrows at.

Looking back on it i admit it was a stupid thing to do

Lesson learned and good to see pistongone understands why there was concern. I give him/her great credit for that statement and for bringing up the discussion point. On that basis I have absolutely no beef with pistongone. We all make mistakes in aviation. We all learn and move on, as better pilots hopefully.

Contrary to your advice I shall continue to fly, and follow my clearance, to the best of my ability. I will also continue to make comments here based upon all of the facts, and not twist them by selectively ignoring previously clarified statements.

Glad to hear it GA needs all the people it can muster to help support it. All I would say on the above is that following your clearance to the best of your ability is laudable, but if the best of your ability means that you can't comply with it (for whatever reason), then you need to shout up and let ATC know so we can come up with a safe alternative. Switching off Mode C and 'blagging it' is hopefully now fully recognised as not being a safe alternative

Final 3 Greens

You're out of line.

I like being out of line ... especially when it comes to things like railing against Mode S which the CAA want to impose. Although if it allows monitoring compliance to clearances by GA guys to be easier, maybe I should move across to the dark side and embrace it ??

The WHOLE episode, as told, was stupid and all involved come out of it badly, including the controller.

In what way does the controller come out badly ?? From what was said, they gave a clearance which was initially safe, although possibly unachievable. But that's for the pilot to decide, not ATC, who would excpect compliance unless told otherwise. pistongone told us subsequently that they told ATC it would be difficult to make, and an amended clearance to continue seems to have been issued.

Remember that pilots usually die in a middair, but the controller doesn't.

True as a general statement, but the family of controller Peter Nielsen might beg to differ.

[Final 3 Greens]

What did the controller do wrong?

Well based on the data supplied by pistongone, they were allowed to continue crossing class A airspace, without charlie, on what I would call a "non clearance", since they were cleared to 4,000 or 4,500', declared they wouldn't make it and were told told continue without being assigned a new clearance level.

If they had received a new clearance saying "not below 3,500 feet" or similar, that would make sense, but no reaction other than "continue" when climbing through class A airspace?

I find this unbelievable to be honest and wonder whether pistongone's memory is correct, but on those facts I would say that the controller could not ensure separation where there was such uncertainty about the crossing level of the traffic.

Peter Nielsen

Pieter Nielsen did not die in a middair accident, he was brutally murdered on the ground, a crime for which the perpetrator was subsequently convicted.

That is a fact, your comment is a cheap shot that this man and his family do not deserve and I do not respect you for making such a comment.

[Three Blades]

Lyneham are very helpful.
(fun flying over a circuit of C130s)

[Pudnucker]

Worth remembering chaps that recently the PFA/AOPA have asked VFR pilots to report to them when Class D transits are denied. If I recall correctly, this is because when Class D airspace allocation is granted, it's usually promised that the effect on GA will be minimal.

Apparantly, if a transit is refused, the PFA/AOPA get involved, the controller has to write a report, which eventually should mean that it's easier for them to provide a clearance rather than bluntly deny one due to the paperwork.

[Chilli Monster]

Originally Posted by Pudnucker

Apparantly, if a transit is refused, the PFA/AOPA get involved, the controller has to write a report, which eventually should mean that it's easier for them to provide a clearance rather than bluntly deny one due to the paperwork.

Er - wrong.

If it's too busy to issue a safe crossing clearance due to the "main customer" (the airports arrivals / departures), you aint going to get a transit clearance - period. No amount of complaining from anyone is going to change that.

You can report a refusal if you want - but if it transpires that it's one of the 5-10% that gets refused when the rest get approved it's just going to prove that the Class 'D' is actually doing what it's meant to be doing - protecting Public Transport operations.

[robin]

Originally Posted by Three Blades

Lyneham are very helpful.
(fun flying over a circuit of C130s)

Lyneham are one of the stations that always tell me to stay outside CAS and hand me on as soon as possible. Not the most friendly of operators

Essex Radar seem to be having constant rows with Ryanair pilots - the last time the jet apeared to be ignoring ATC instructions - so by the time they get back to me I've long gone

But on a slightly different issue, I spoke to a couple of CAA types who were lecturing me on always using a radar service or LARS. They seemed to have no idea that LARS is not always available (Yeovilton has been notamed as closed).

Are there any CAA employees out there that understand how gliders, microlights and Permit aircraft operate in Class G??

[DFC]

Originally Posted by robin

how gliders, microlights and Permit aircraft operate in Class G??

Visually and carefully!!!

Regards,

DFC

[robin]

That goes without saying, as far as pilots are concerned. My issue is that the CAA seem to assume that all of us are always in touch with a radar service.

Speak to one of these 'high priests of aviation' and their mouths drop open when you tell them that LARS are not a 24/7 service or that some of us operate non-radio

[BEagle]

"If it's too busy to issue a safe crossing clearance due to the "main customer" (the airports arrivals / departures), you aint going to get a transit clearance - period. No amount of complaining from anyone is going to change that."

This is the CAA's view:

There is no formal requirement for controllers to explain why a zone crossing clearance has been refused. Any such requirement would have significant R/T workload implications. It is considered preferable for refusals to be pursued after the event. Controlling authorities of new controlled airspace structures are now required to record refusals; pilots may in turn submit refusal reports in accordance with the procedure devised by Peter Skinner (AOPA/GASCo) or submit an occurrence report (CA1261).