200th infringement
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE DON'T REFUSE GA WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE... We just don't have the TIME to deal with everyone outside CAS.
Can I ask you if you have the TIME to deal with everyone who wants to go into CAS?
I ask because some of the comments here seem to suggest that the constraint is controller workload rather than not enough free airspace. I may have picked that up wrong, but I'd be interested in the answer.
If the airspace is full, that's one thing. But if it's simply a case of too few controllers that's a different thing.
I wouldn't blame any ATCer for refusing a transit of the CAS under their control because they don't have time. I can imagine that if I were to become an ATCer I'd have great intentions of helping GA across 'my' CAS, but after my boss had asked me to explain a couple of times why an inbound airliner was slightly delayed when I rerouted them to accommodate a transit, I know my great intentions would disappear and I'd gradually become very familiar with the phrase "Remain outside controlled airspace".
The fast that you manage to accommodate most of your airspace transit requests is of great credit to you.
I can also understand the airport manager ringing the ATC manager to find out why an airliner was delayed. After all he's going to be sitting around a board room table trying to explain to an airline why they should expand services at his airport, when they experience less delays at the airport next door. Not an easy job either. In his position I've little doubt I'd be insisting to my ATC manager that he minimise delays anyway possible.
Is there a counter balance to these commercial pressures? Is there someone in the CAA or DAP who must inspect each unit to ensure that they are sufficiently staffed, and that transits are not regularly refuses because of controller workload? That's not something I know anything about, and I would be interested in the answer, and in knowing if there is such an agency have they got teeth, and do they use them?
After all, if an airport was looking to get CAS, and in their proposal they said we'll have enough controllers to control all inbound and outbound aircraft, and 60% of those wanting to transit the airspace (even though there is enough airspace to accommodate 100% of the requested transits) then they would be unlikely to be successful. Rightly so in my opinion.
I see a similar situation in my own professions. I am an accountant and as such regularly am engaged in audit work. My clients pay the bills, so when they want something I must try my best to ensure that they are happy. Occasionally they would see something in a light that I would not consider acceptable within the rules in which we operate. In a purely commercial world, this can bring significant pressure on an auditor. The counter balance is the fact that if I bend those rules, my professional body may pick up on it in one of their inspections, and I could loose my practicing certificate and my livelihood. That helps significantly to keep the commercial pressures in check
Is there something similar in the ATC world, and does it work? Or is it a case that (as it would seem from anecdotal evidence only) that workload and commercial pressures play a big part in refused airspace transits, rather than simply airspace congestion?
dp
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the poor b*gg*r who clipped Luton when my GPS packed up in IMC under IFR(and who was referred to about page 3 of this thread), I feel I can comment with some authority.
I ALWAYS call the nearest ATCU when I'm passing nearby or want transit, unless I truly can't get word in edgewise and I like the muppets who recite their life stories as much as AlanM does. Usually I'll request FIS, but I'll ask for and get RIS if I'm IMC because strangely enough controllers aren't usually very busy when the weather's crap. I'll plan on transit and ask for it (and usually get it) if the route round is significant, otherwise I'll route clear.
In the case of my own infringment I was talking to the unit in question (Luton are unfailingly helpful) and my error was to forget that steam driven navigation is significantly less accurate than GPS. Otherwise I'd have routed five degrees North and never entered the zone. As it was I maintained my original track with steam aids and ended up half a mile in the zone. Whereupon the kind controller tactfully mentioned the fact to me and gave me a vector for my destination.
I ALWAYS call the nearest ATCU when I'm passing nearby or want transit, unless I truly can't get word in edgewise and I like the muppets who recite their life stories as much as AlanM does. Usually I'll request FIS, but I'll ask for and get RIS if I'm IMC because strangely enough controllers aren't usually very busy when the weather's crap. I'll plan on transit and ask for it (and usually get it) if the route round is significant, otherwise I'll route clear.
In the case of my own infringment I was talking to the unit in question (Luton are unfailingly helpful) and my error was to forget that steam driven navigation is significantly less accurate than GPS. Otherwise I'd have routed five degrees North and never entered the zone. As it was I maintained my original track with steam aids and ended up half a mile in the zone. Whereupon the kind controller tactfully mentioned the fact to me and gave me a vector for my destination.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble with being perfect is that lots of other people spend an inordinate amount of time either trying to prove you are not perfect or simply relishing the day when the inevitable 'fall from grace' exposes one's fallibilities. Fortunately, I am incapable of sitting myself on quite such a high pedestal and find some solace in that my regularly exposed failings are generally tolerated by friends, colleagues and casual observers because I am prepared to listen and learn from others.
I am sorry but where did I claim to be perfect or put myself on a pedastal? I stated that I was striving to learn as much as possible about the subject to ensure I did not become one of the airspace busts you despise so much.
I think if you are going to try and make me look like a stupid ego maniac you might want to actually read the post otherwise you run the risk of making yourself look stupid......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - the fact that 38 times in 2005 an infringing aircraft was within 5000 feet and 5 miles of an IFR flight being controlled by NATS
2 - That on 12 of those occasions it was 'close'
3 - A trawl of the airprox reports which seems to tells me most risk bearing incidents are outside of controlled airspace
4 - No joy yet in finding a match of an airprox against the 12 ocasions of SSE 1 or 2 - so no insight into the circumstances
5 - Some howling examples of poor airmanship, but not clearly linked to the 38 high/medium risk incidents.
Finally, I am pretty sure that there isn't public access to the MOR data - is that true? has anyone filed a FOIA request for this information to place it in the public domain?
Finally, the output from the flyontrack project seems to indicate there are a multitude of causes well beyond PPLs have gotten worse at navigation (which may well be true!). This implies public education campaigns will do little to address the problem and that improvements to 'the system' need to be made. But without the data, we are not really in a position to make constructive comments.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dp - no we don't have the time to speak to everyone who wants to enter the zone immediately. However, they are more likely to accept a hold outside if we are too busy. We do of course try to make time.
90% of the transits through the LCY zone for instance need to work LCY tower as therer is almost always a police helicopter or helimed or non-standard flight in the zone that they are working against the IFRs. Therefore, we hae to pass the full details of your flight over the phone (just because the RT is busy it doesn't mean that there is nothing going on!) We may also need to co-ordinate your flights with Heathrow SVFR as you may be routeing near their traffic. And guess what, the other people are busy too with traffic and quite often it can take 60 seconds to pass the details as I tell aircraft to standby, and the tower controller tells traffic to standby.
It doesn't make it impossible, just time consuming as another 3 call to tell you their life story, that they are at Rochester going North East bound.
Time is of the essence, so the more RT/Phone time wasted means less aircraft get a service. I can sit and collect callsigns on a FIS all day, but then the chances of getting through the zone diminish as separating IFR traffic is my priority.
Of course, if we had more staff EVERYWHERE it would help.
Not sure it would help zone infringements though. As I said yesterday we often get traffic in the zone which can be followed for 80 miles and calls no-one. Not even the two LARS units or D&D.
90% of the transits through the LCY zone for instance need to work LCY tower as therer is almost always a police helicopter or helimed or non-standard flight in the zone that they are working against the IFRs. Therefore, we hae to pass the full details of your flight over the phone (just because the RT is busy it doesn't mean that there is nothing going on!) We may also need to co-ordinate your flights with Heathrow SVFR as you may be routeing near their traffic. And guess what, the other people are busy too with traffic and quite often it can take 60 seconds to pass the details as I tell aircraft to standby, and the tower controller tells traffic to standby.
It doesn't make it impossible, just time consuming as another 3 call to tell you their life story, that they are at Rochester going North East bound.
Time is of the essence, so the more RT/Phone time wasted means less aircraft get a service. I can sit and collect callsigns on a FIS all day, but then the chances of getting through the zone diminish as separating IFR traffic is my priority.
Of course, if we had more staff EVERYWHERE it would help.
Not sure it would help zone infringements though. As I said yesterday we often get traffic in the zone which can be followed for 80 miles and calls no-one. Not even the two LARS units or D&D.
I believe the 5000ft for vertical separation dates back to the days of height finder radars (the nodding ones not the T82 stacked beam and similar radars); the blips were so big that you had to take 5000ft on whatever height was indicated to make sure of vertical separation, and this was simply carried over with no form of scientific proof when mode C became widely available.
Last edited by chevvron; 6th Sep 2006 at 19:41.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM FLYNN
AIRPROX reports do indeed show more risk bearing incidents outside CAS. But an AIRPROX report is not necessarily filed for the most serious losses of separation because the definition of an AIRPROX is so subjective (go to the UKAB website to check)
There is no separation criteria for an AIRPROX. That said I am pretty sure that the 757 pilot who had a close encounter with a glider in the Birmingham zone thought his aircraft was at risk - ATC didn't see it, the pilot only saw it fill his windscreen!
Also for most AIRPROX in CAS one or both aircraft have TCAS and if it activates 9 times out of 10 the board will decide that there was no risk as TCAS stopped the possibility of a collision. This of course would not be the case if one aircraft did not have MODE "A" or "C"...
All losses of separation at NATS units are investigated on behalf of SRG by the NATS investigation departments. Their reports are all forwarded to SRG. I am sure that if you requested information from SRG they would answer your questions!
For a little more info - in 2006 so far there have been double the reported losses of separation compared with the total of 2005. Probably not because there are more infringements but more reporting. This is happening so that NATS knows the full problem
AIRPROX reports do indeed show more risk bearing incidents outside CAS. But an AIRPROX report is not necessarily filed for the most serious losses of separation because the definition of an AIRPROX is so subjective (go to the UKAB website to check)
There is no separation criteria for an AIRPROX. That said I am pretty sure that the 757 pilot who had a close encounter with a glider in the Birmingham zone thought his aircraft was at risk - ATC didn't see it, the pilot only saw it fill his windscreen!
Also for most AIRPROX in CAS one or both aircraft have TCAS and if it activates 9 times out of 10 the board will decide that there was no risk as TCAS stopped the possibility of a collision. This of course would not be the case if one aircraft did not have MODE "A" or "C"...
All losses of separation at NATS units are investigated on behalf of SRG by the NATS investigation departments. Their reports are all forwarded to SRG. I am sure that if you requested information from SRG they would answer your questions!
For a little more info - in 2006 so far there have been double the reported losses of separation compared with the total of 2005. Probably not because there are more infringements but more reporting. This is happening so that NATS knows the full problem
I think the key is that if the details of all 200 infringements are published, we can all learn from them and take steps to avoid infringements in the future. If you merely chalk up statistics, it gives the impression that NATS is trying to make a case without proper analysis.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AlanM
So since this thread has become a general debate about CAS clearances, controller work load etc I would be grateful for an answer to the question asked in my earlier post .. .. ..
so why is it too many controllers (when need arises) simply say remain outside of CAS rather than "remain outside of CAS, you can expect clearance in x minutes". As I said earlier, when a CAS transit is refused we have to make a decision whether to route around or orbit, and a simple remain outside is of little help.
It should also be born in mind that for some (including me) I expect to be given a transit (and indeed in my experience it is a long time since one was refused). Given the expectation this naturally positions the aircraft close to CAS. A transit refusal inevitably will result in the aircraft routing close but around CAS. I make no excuses for pilots who then inadvertently infringe but offer this as an explanation as to why if more transits are refused more aircraft end up routing around but close to the edge of CAS. Moreover, these aircraft are potentially not receiving a service, but the consequence of the refusal is to channel aircraft into narrow corridors increasing the risk of collision and therefore increasing their need for a RIS, which some will request but also will find refused.
I accept the argument that aircraft in these situations could elect to avoid the edges of CAS by a greater margin, but all this argument achieves is to effectively increase the size of CAS. Moreover it is human nature if you are operating to a schedule, to take the shortest route between two points.
My point therefore is to illustrate why CAS clearances are so important, why if they cannot be offered immediately an indication of how long the delay will be, and why if a refusal is given the chances of an infringement increases because pilots will be tempted to “hug” the edge of CAS and finally why the risk of collision increases outside of CAS following a clearance refusal particularly if a RIS is also refused.
In terms of the debate on the confidential recording of infringements both the freedom of information and the data protection act spring to mind. Moreover I do not think there is a great deal of public, never mind professional sympathy for any organisation that collates information of this type which clearly has a vital impact on safety and yet is not prepared to publish the information. If I were involved in such a dubious practice I suspect I would not be “boasting” about my having the statistical data at the same time as declaring my unwillingness to reveal the same!
So since this thread has become a general debate about CAS clearances, controller work load etc I would be grateful for an answer to the question asked in my earlier post .. .. ..
so why is it too many controllers (when need arises) simply say remain outside of CAS rather than "remain outside of CAS, you can expect clearance in x minutes". As I said earlier, when a CAS transit is refused we have to make a decision whether to route around or orbit, and a simple remain outside is of little help.
It should also be born in mind that for some (including me) I expect to be given a transit (and indeed in my experience it is a long time since one was refused). Given the expectation this naturally positions the aircraft close to CAS. A transit refusal inevitably will result in the aircraft routing close but around CAS. I make no excuses for pilots who then inadvertently infringe but offer this as an explanation as to why if more transits are refused more aircraft end up routing around but close to the edge of CAS. Moreover, these aircraft are potentially not receiving a service, but the consequence of the refusal is to channel aircraft into narrow corridors increasing the risk of collision and therefore increasing their need for a RIS, which some will request but also will find refused.
I accept the argument that aircraft in these situations could elect to avoid the edges of CAS by a greater margin, but all this argument achieves is to effectively increase the size of CAS. Moreover it is human nature if you are operating to a schedule, to take the shortest route between two points.
My point therefore is to illustrate why CAS clearances are so important, why if they cannot be offered immediately an indication of how long the delay will be, and why if a refusal is given the chances of an infringement increases because pilots will be tempted to “hug” the edge of CAS and finally why the risk of collision increases outside of CAS following a clearance refusal particularly if a RIS is also refused.
In terms of the debate on the confidential recording of infringements both the freedom of information and the data protection act spring to mind. Moreover I do not think there is a great deal of public, never mind professional sympathy for any organisation that collates information of this type which clearly has a vital impact on safety and yet is not prepared to publish the information. If I were involved in such a dubious practice I suspect I would not be “boasting” about my having the statistical data at the same time as declaring my unwillingness to reveal the same!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the poor b*gg*r who clipped Luton when my GPS packed up in IMC under IFR(and who was referred to about page 3 of this thread), I feel I can comment with some authority.
Anyone STUPID ENOUGH to be flying IMC in that area and relying solely on a GPS cannot speak with any authority whatsoever. Is it any wonder that infringements are up given this sort of nonsense and complete lack of flying ability.
NATS needs to take a much firmer stance with this sort of incident. I am not anti GA, I have been flying all types of GA aircrfat for over 20 years. However standards have been slipping for some time now and I feel that all such incidents as this should be filed and then let the courts take the appropriate action. It is the only way certain sectors of the GA community will learn.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So flying in IMC and relying on a single VOR is OK then.
No difference; just that GPS is the work of the devil and a VOR receiver can never go wrong.
One should always back up any nav method with a different one (and I personally always do that) but that doesn't change the fact that if one's VOR receiver packed up it would never get the emphasis which a duff GPS (which is much less common) gets routinely.
No difference; just that GPS is the work of the devil and a VOR receiver can never go wrong.
One should always back up any nav method with a different one (and I personally always do that) but that doesn't change the fact that if one's VOR receiver packed up it would never get the emphasis which a duff GPS (which is much less common) gets routinely.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comments.
I'm really concerned with some of the attitudes being expressed between ATC and GA pilots, seems to be very much a them and us.
I've been flying now for about 4 years and have been very impressed with ATC.
Infringements can obviosuly occur for a number of reasons , I infringed once , a height bust while being distracted on the radio trying to get a RIS from a military LARS unit and being given a strange frequency , when I eventually contacted them on my original freqency I had in advertantly climbed up into the LTMA buy about 400ft. Was told to descend immedialty which i did and spoke to Heathrow later that day to apoligise. luckily no incident as a result.
Since passing my PPL, I have not used GPS but use Radio navigation instead. To be honest I find dead reckoning difficult, as an example, if you were to fly from around farnbough through Biggin Hill and out the other side looking outside using DR only, that would be quite difficult as the features are quite hard to distinguish in my opinion.(May be I'm just not good at it but I feel mistakes could easily be made on this example route)
Obviosly using VORs, it is easier and that does allow you to tick off features enroute to confirm that your route is ok.
I also think a London LARS would be a very good idea, I know pilots are reponsible for their navigation but a polite tap on the shoulder if you are veirying of course would be good, also the ability to fly IFR in IMC around London would also be of use for those of us that have IMC ratings.
I thought the training I had as a PPL was very good, my instructure was not someone who was doing his 2 years before going inot the airline business, he had been teaching PPLs for quite some time so felt very comfortable with him, he taought a very common sense approach.
I also feel that I got a good appreciation of who and when to speak to in ATC.
I have only ever once been refused a (IFR)Zone transit and that was becasue they only had primary radar working at the time and were busy. I had already preplanned a route around the CAS using otehr nav aids so this was no big deal, just added anotehr 10 minutes or so to the route.
All otehr VFR and IFR zone transits have been met, the key though I think (and perhaps the IMC rating helps here) is to ask for a resonable route and height. Askign for a VFR route at 2000 ft through an instrument approach is unliekly to be met unless they are particualry quiet.
PPLs who have not got a IMC rating may not realise where the instrument traffic is going to go as the procedures are not shown on the VFR maps, and practially speaking, they can't really.
I'm really concerned with some of the attitudes being expressed between ATC and GA pilots, seems to be very much a them and us.
I've been flying now for about 4 years and have been very impressed with ATC.
Infringements can obviosuly occur for a number of reasons , I infringed once , a height bust while being distracted on the radio trying to get a RIS from a military LARS unit and being given a strange frequency , when I eventually contacted them on my original freqency I had in advertantly climbed up into the LTMA buy about 400ft. Was told to descend immedialty which i did and spoke to Heathrow later that day to apoligise. luckily no incident as a result.
Since passing my PPL, I have not used GPS but use Radio navigation instead. To be honest I find dead reckoning difficult, as an example, if you were to fly from around farnbough through Biggin Hill and out the other side looking outside using DR only, that would be quite difficult as the features are quite hard to distinguish in my opinion.(May be I'm just not good at it but I feel mistakes could easily be made on this example route)
Obviosly using VORs, it is easier and that does allow you to tick off features enroute to confirm that your route is ok.
I also think a London LARS would be a very good idea, I know pilots are reponsible for their navigation but a polite tap on the shoulder if you are veirying of course would be good, also the ability to fly IFR in IMC around London would also be of use for those of us that have IMC ratings.
I thought the training I had as a PPL was very good, my instructure was not someone who was doing his 2 years before going inot the airline business, he had been teaching PPLs for quite some time so felt very comfortable with him, he taought a very common sense approach.
I also feel that I got a good appreciation of who and when to speak to in ATC.
I have only ever once been refused a (IFR)Zone transit and that was becasue they only had primary radar working at the time and were busy. I had already preplanned a route around the CAS using otehr nav aids so this was no big deal, just added anotehr 10 minutes or so to the route.
All otehr VFR and IFR zone transits have been met, the key though I think (and perhaps the IMC rating helps here) is to ask for a resonable route and height. Askign for a VFR route at 2000 ft through an instrument approach is unliekly to be met unless they are particualry quiet.
PPLs who have not got a IMC rating may not realise where the instrument traffic is going to go as the procedures are not shown on the VFR maps, and practially speaking, they can't really.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, if i had time on the Rt to make a long winded transmission explaining why I am unable to give you clearance, when it is likely I would do so.
Sadly I do not have time. Maybe we should have time. But we don't. (Oh and I normally say "Remain Outside I will call you back if I have time") which hopefully you will see as me beingvery busy (as most fail to correlate the 120 secs of solid headings/levels as being busy)
What makes me really laugh, is why no-one calls up Heathrow and insists that they be allowed to transit the field overhead. No-one seems to bitch about that but they bitch about crossing Stansted! (and LHR has a dedicated frequency!!!)
Very bizarre.
Sadly I do not have time. Maybe we should have time. But we don't. (Oh and I normally say "Remain Outside I will call you back if I have time") which hopefully you will see as me beingvery busy (as most fail to correlate the 120 secs of solid headings/levels as being busy)
What makes me really laugh, is why no-one calls up Heathrow and insists that they be allowed to transit the field overhead. No-one seems to bitch about that but they bitch about crossing Stansted! (and LHR has a dedicated frequency!!!)
Very bizarre.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm,
I am not sure who you are getting at here. NATS is recording and investigating all reports on infringements and all other reports as required by the MOR scheme. This Scheme is administered by the CAA and regular bulletins are published on all MORs. NATS is concerned about infringements because they are recognised as a risk to safety and is in regular contact with SRG, airlines, General aviation bodies, Magazines, aeroclubs and flying schools. What more do you think NATS should be doing to raise the profile?
Unfortunately as has been said before LARS does not pay and NATS is required by law to reduce costs to users but not make a loss. Other pilots on this forum don't believe that LARS is the panacea to this problem.
when it comes down to it, all it will take to change things in the UK will be one midair with an infringing aircraft - no one wants that.
So what do you think can be done to reduce the risk?
I am not sure who you are getting at here. NATS is recording and investigating all reports on infringements and all other reports as required by the MOR scheme. This Scheme is administered by the CAA and regular bulletins are published on all MORs. NATS is concerned about infringements because they are recognised as a risk to safety and is in regular contact with SRG, airlines, General aviation bodies, Magazines, aeroclubs and flying schools. What more do you think NATS should be doing to raise the profile?
Unfortunately as has been said before LARS does not pay and NATS is required by law to reduce costs to users but not make a loss. Other pilots on this forum don't believe that LARS is the panacea to this problem.
when it comes down to it, all it will take to change things in the UK will be one midair with an infringing aircraft - no one wants that.
So what do you think can be done to reduce the risk?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Fuji, if i had time on the Rt to make a long winded transmission explaining why I am unable to give you clearance, when it is likely I would do so."
That is not what I said.
There are three alternatives in response to a request for zone transit:
"remain outside of CAS"
"remain outside of CAS, onward clearance expected in x minutes"
"remain ourside of CAS, clearance will not be given".
Long winded - no - five or six extra words.
After all transit has been requested, remain outside is not an answer. Being provocative the pilot is entitled to say I asked for transit, is it going to be given in due course and if so when, all of which takes up more of your time and his. Rightly or wrongly I will always ask the question if I get the first response becasue I need to decide whether to orbit and wait or route around.
In so far as Heathrow transits are concerned they provide an excellent SVFR service via the recognised corridors which I have never had refused. An overhead transit is not really relevant unless in a twin because it does not lead from or to anywhere of practical or legal use.
That is not what I said.
There are three alternatives in response to a request for zone transit:
"remain outside of CAS"
"remain outside of CAS, onward clearance expected in x minutes"
"remain ourside of CAS, clearance will not be given".
Long winded - no - five or six extra words.
After all transit has been requested, remain outside is not an answer. Being provocative the pilot is entitled to say I asked for transit, is it going to be given in due course and if so when, all of which takes up more of your time and his. Rightly or wrongly I will always ask the question if I get the first response becasue I need to decide whether to orbit and wait or route around.
In so far as Heathrow transits are concerned they provide an excellent SVFR service via the recognised corridors which I have never had refused. An overhead transit is not really relevant unless in a twin because it does not lead from or to anywhere of practical or legal use.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 6th Sep 2006 at 21:40.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,597
Received 450 Likes
on
239 Posts
AlanM is, in my experience, one of the more helpful ATCOs. We transit his part of the world quite often; he always tries his best to accommodate all of us and works damned hard to do so when he might well be justified in saying he couldn't provide a service due to controller workload.
Not surprisingly, he (and all of his colleagues) do have some bad days due to factors "beyond his control", he's only human after all (well, almost - he is ATC, after all 
).
We try to listen out for a while to assess the controller's workload before transmitting for a service or crossing. If it's busy (for example, a previous caller told to "stand by") and where there is an alternative we sometimes just opt for "plan B" and go round the outside of the airspace without calling, gleaning what we can from r/t calls of others. It's surprising that many pilots don't listen and think before asking. For example, someone said that Luton controllers are particularly unhelpful. In my experience they certainly aren't unhelpful - but it's not advisable to request a crossing of the centreline at a height/distance that will conflict with ILS traffic, especially at busy times. Some do ask, even when it's so busy on the frequency that it's very difficult to get a word in edgeways. Common sense says that they aren't likely to get their clearance, epecially if the r/t sounds a little hesitant when asked for their present position....
BTW, Anyone else notice it's often those with a sticky plummy accent and who insist on saying "over"?
Not surprisingly, he (and all of his colleagues) do have some bad days due to factors "beyond his control", he's only human after all (well, almost
- he is ATC, after all ).We try to listen out for a while to assess the controller's workload before transmitting for a service or crossing. If it's busy (for example, a previous caller told to "stand by") and where there is an alternative we sometimes just opt for "plan B" and go round the outside of the airspace without calling, gleaning what we can from r/t calls of others. It's surprising that many pilots don't listen and think before asking. For example, someone said that Luton controllers are particularly unhelpful. In my experience they certainly aren't unhelpful - but it's not advisable to request a crossing of the centreline at a height/distance that will conflict with ILS traffic, especially at busy times. Some do ask, even when it's so busy on the frequency that it's very difficult to get a word in edgeways. Common sense says that they aren't likely to get their clearance, epecially if the r/t sounds a little hesitant when asked for their present position....
BTW, Anyone else notice it's often those with a sticky plummy accent and who insist on saying "over"?
Guest
Posts: n/a
In terms of the debate on the confidential recording of infringements both the freedom of information and the data protection act spring to mind. Moreover I do not think there is a great deal of public, never mind professional sympathy for any organisation that collates information of this type which clearly has a vital impact on safety and yet is not prepared to publish the information. If I were involved in such a dubious practice I suspect I would not be “boasting” about my having the statistical data at the same time as declaring my unwillingness to reveal the same!
As has been mentioned already infringements are reported by NATS to the CAA under the MOR scheme and that information is published by the CAA so why should NATS also have to publish the same information a second time?
WF.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know where anyone is boasting about having the data but keeping it a secret.
The scale goes in to far greater detail than posted in Rustle's brief synopsis so don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum
As has been mentioned already infringements are reported by NATS to the CAA under the MOR scheme and that information is published by the CAA so why should NATS also have to publish the same information a second time?
If the CAA are publishing the same statistical information as NATS are recording then you are correct.
I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!
The scale goes in to far greater detail than posted in Rustle's brief synopsis so don't make too many assumptions based on the very brief details you've seen here and don't assume I or anyone else is going to go into any greater detail on an internal NATS system on this forum
As has been mentioned already infringements are reported by NATS to the CAA under the MOR scheme and that information is published by the CAA so why should NATS also have to publish the same information a second time?
If the CAA are publishing the same statistical information as NATS are recording then you are correct.
I took the implication to be that NATS are recording additional information that they are not willing to publish and which is recorded using a "secret" set of codes know only to them and their employees. For what purpose - well who knows, perhaps only they and their employees!!