Heathrow Zone Infringement
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying that everyone around the LTMA should be talking to a controller? I can't wait for all the glider/microlight pilots to complain about mandated radios 
Guest
Posts: n/a
I totally agree. I spent last week flying around LA, where GA is encouraged to talk to ATC ang given an equal service to CAT - well almost, commercial pressures will mean YOU will go-around not the Airbus. Even so it is no big deal to get a clearance through the LA class B airspace, while being controlled by controllers who are handling the CAT. Safer for all.
No doubt someone will harp on about "too busy", "not enough time", "too much traffic". Well if zone infringements really ARE a safety hazard, then more ATCOs should be employed, and GA traffic should be encouraged to talk to these controllers - make it madatory around London if you want ("Contact London Approach within 30nm" etc ). Had the chap in the video been talking to ATC the bust would never have happened, ATC could have given avoiding vectors which obviously would have jogged the pilots mind that he had f**ked up his navigation.
I also agree that Mode C vales should be incorporated around all major airfields, whether in CAS or not.
No doubt someone will harp on about "too busy", "not enough time", "too much traffic". Well if zone infringements really ARE a safety hazard, then more ATCOs should be employed, and GA traffic should be encouraged to talk to these controllers - make it madatory around London if you want ("Contact London Approach within 30nm" etc ). Had the chap in the video been talking to ATC the bust would never have happened, ATC could have given avoiding vectors which obviously would have jogged the pilots mind that he had f**ked up his navigation.
I also agree that Mode C vales should be incorporated around all major airfields, whether in CAS or not.
Great, employ more ATCOs here and then talk to them but it always boils down to who is going to contribute towards paying the costs and GA stating that it should be anyone but them.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great, employ more ATCOs here and then talk to them but it always boils down to who is going to contribute towards paying the costs and GA stating that it should be anyone but them.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a quick look at the Budgets for European ATC and FAA land and the FAA cost about 1/2 the amount per IFR flight or per IFR flight mile as Europe (and the UK costs on the high end of Europe). Within that cost FAA land provides the 'free' flight following service.
A key difference in the 'Free' concept is that in the US the fuel tax is hypothecated to aviation where as it is viewed as general revenue raising not related to the activity in the UK - So the only thing that is viewed as 'paying' is a direct invoice to the end user. (I know NATS and all other ATC service providers don't get a pound from the fuel tax). In addition, WP is correct that the US government views an element of ATC and airport infrastructure as a Public Good that should be paid for through general taxation - so to that extent is subsidised.
A key difference in the 'Free' concept is that in the US the fuel tax is hypothecated to aviation where as it is viewed as general revenue raising not related to the activity in the UK - So the only thing that is viewed as 'paying' is a direct invoice to the end user. (I know NATS and all other ATC service providers don't get a pound from the fuel tax). In addition, WP is correct that the US government views an element of ATC and airport infrastructure as a Public Good that should be paid for through general taxation - so to that extent is subsidised.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not really.
We are fortunate in having a system that accommodates everybody on an equal footing. The airspace around LA is some of the busiest in the country with numerous airports all within just a few miles of each other.
I fly through the Class B on a regular basis. It all works fine and without any trouble. When you get within 30 miles of the Class B airport (LAX) you require Mode C , whether you are talking to SoCal or not. However, it is generally better to talk to them for traffic advisories.
However, if you wish, you can fly from the north into the Mode C veil over the top of Santa Monica and into the LAX Special Flight Rules Area directly over LAX at 3500 and pop out on the south side WITHOUT talking to a sole.
Try that over LHR.
We are fortunate in having a system that accommodates everybody on an equal footing. The airspace around LA is some of the busiest in the country with numerous airports all within just a few miles of each other.
I fly through the Class B on a regular basis. It all works fine and without any trouble. When you get within 30 miles of the Class B airport (LAX) you require Mode C , whether you are talking to SoCal or not. However, it is generally better to talk to them for traffic advisories.
However, if you wish, you can fly from the north into the Mode C veil over the top of Santa Monica and into the LAX Special Flight Rules Area directly over LAX at 3500 and pop out on the south side WITHOUT talking to a sole.
Try that over LHR.
That said though I very rarely hear of anyone saying they're refused permission to transit the London Zone (bearing in mind its airspace classification and that much of it is a very built up area and the issues these bring with them) so it's not as if you can say that the airspace around LHR is some sort of total no-go area to GA.
Originally Posted by englishal
Use government employed ATCOs then....i.e. military, seeing as our tax pounds go towards their salaries. You would only need 10 or so to cover the entire UK, and it would probably be a cushy posting for them for a few years, so I doub't they'd complain too much
Originally Posted by mm_flynn
I had a quick look at the Budgets for European ATC and FAA land and the FAA cost about 1/2 the amount per IFR flight or per IFR flight mile as Europe (and the UK costs on the high end of Europe). Within that cost FAA land provides the 'free' flight following service.
The UK appears expensive in European terms but factor things such as airspace complexity in and even the airlines are starting to accept that just looking at the basic charge doesn't actually reveal the whole picture.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several factors. The most important is probably the design and regulatory philosphies. Others are that 'everything' in the US costs less, that there is one integrated service provider (vs. the European segmentation). While London/UK should have local scale economy over the average of the US, the US certainly has scale economy over Europe. The UK shouldn't be 'complex' relative to NY/LA, although from published data I can't tell if NY/LA benefit from scale (so have a low cost per IFR flight) or are adversely impacted by complexity (so have higher than average costs)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, magic gps to keep people out of trouble
Don't know if an equivalent exists in the UK
Not enough paperwork you see.Actually the UK has something equally as good in most parts. It is the magic "I'm VFR....oh no I'm not, I'm now IFR......oops, VFR again". Not much good for Class A and airways , but they are inaccessible to all but the "right stuff" anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Popham
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry it's taken me such a long time to spot this thread - I've been in headless chicken mode for a while. A lot of work goes into making the infringement radar replays available, so thanks to the NATS people involved - everyone I've been in contact with has been very supportive since I made a formal 'request' for the replays and the infringement stats earlier in the year as an education channel of 'what really happens'.
re: the comments earlier about the first aircraft on Heathrow 09L approach being broken off 'too late' - if you watch the altitude on the first aircraft being broken off, the descent is arrested a little while BEFORE it is 'broken away' in direction. In other words, the aircraft is 'broken off' the approach by the controller arresting the descent, then LATER it is vectored off to the south as it can no longer land. The 'labelling' only happens when it is vectored off in direction, giving the false impression that it could have continued, but the approach has already been thrown away - in other words, the labelling is too late, not the controller!
I've put a new infringement replay up for Xmas - Stansted CTA, and a lack of Mode C.... see FlyOnTrack but note that you can still play the Heathrow 'bust' (the subject of this thread) by going to latest Stansted infringement 'description' and working down to the bottom of the Stansted 'bust' page, where you will find a link to the first replay, the Heathrow one.
I'm hoping to get a new radar replay for Flyontrack every few weeks.
edited to say: The latest NATS infringements stats are there too - latest are up to end of Nov 2006 - these should be updated every month, 2 - 3 weeks after month end.
re: the comments earlier about the first aircraft on Heathrow 09L approach being broken off 'too late' - if you watch the altitude on the first aircraft being broken off, the descent is arrested a little while BEFORE it is 'broken away' in direction. In other words, the aircraft is 'broken off' the approach by the controller arresting the descent, then LATER it is vectored off to the south as it can no longer land. The 'labelling' only happens when it is vectored off in direction, giving the false impression that it could have continued, but the approach has already been thrown away - in other words, the labelling is too late, not the controller!
I've put a new infringement replay up for Xmas - Stansted CTA, and a lack of Mode C.... see FlyOnTrack but note that you can still play the Heathrow 'bust' (the subject of this thread) by going to latest Stansted infringement 'description' and working down to the bottom of the Stansted 'bust' page, where you will find a link to the first replay, the Heathrow one.
I'm hoping to get a new radar replay for Flyontrack every few weeks.
edited to say: The latest NATS infringements stats are there too - latest are up to end of Nov 2006 - these should be updated every month, 2 - 3 weeks after month end.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UNFAZED said "I was castigated by heathrow ATC for an alleged zone infringement, they called up and bollocked me for flying through Northolt whilst en route to Denham. The guy was very insistent that it was me and became very aggressive and threathening when I said it wasn't."
This happened to me also a while ago. Any lessons to be learnt please from the ATC amongst us? How do we respond to such enquiries?
This happened to me also a while ago. Any lessons to be learnt please from the ATC amongst us? How do we respond to such enquiries?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bonny Scotland
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irv, shurely you should be hopeing not to have a new radar replay of an infringement every few weeks
any one of these incidents where a commercial ac is put off an approach to their destination could result in a diversion to their alternate if they do not have sufficient fuel to reposition for another approach to their destination so in cost terms it could be a lot more than few minutes flight time.
Merry Xmas,
Straightlevel
any one of these incidents where a commercial ac is put off an approach to their destination could result in a diversion to their alternate if they do not have sufficient fuel to reposition for another approach to their destination so in cost terms it could be a lot more than few minutes flight time.
Merry Xmas,
Straightlevel
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found this thread today, and feel it is worth a reply.
While many of you have made valid points about the continuity of ATC following through both VFR and IFR traffic may help smooth things through and improve safety, I feel this is not the real issue of this thread. Indeed I would almost go as far as to say, some posters may even be attempting to pass the buck-"I'll improve my safetly if....."
My own response would be to use this as a learning tool. If your flying is perfect and you have never came close to a zone bust and are always talking to the right people at the right time-excellant. For those other mortals out there, how has this affected your decisions in flight and what else has it made you think about?
Use this to improve flight safety for all. As has been said already, controllers do not HAVE to give VFR a clearence to enter a control zone-however it does help us if they do. We can only improve relations (and our use of airspace) by keeping our end of the bargain and doing things correctly. After all, if you are a contoller, given the choice do you allow a competant VFR pilot a further clearance-or one who is already pushing the limits of their clearance.
No, you do not have to talk to them, no you do not have to swqk mode c. Does it help? Well obvioulsy yes it does. Stop passing the buck and take some individual responsiblilty.
rant over,
c99
While many of you have made valid points about the continuity of ATC following through both VFR and IFR traffic may help smooth things through and improve safety, I feel this is not the real issue of this thread. Indeed I would almost go as far as to say, some posters may even be attempting to pass the buck-"I'll improve my safetly if....."
My own response would be to use this as a learning tool. If your flying is perfect and you have never came close to a zone bust and are always talking to the right people at the right time-excellant. For those other mortals out there, how has this affected your decisions in flight and what else has it made you think about?
Use this to improve flight safety for all. As has been said already, controllers do not HAVE to give VFR a clearence to enter a control zone-however it does help us if they do. We can only improve relations (and our use of airspace) by keeping our end of the bargain and doing things correctly. After all, if you are a contoller, given the choice do you allow a competant VFR pilot a further clearance-or one who is already pushing the limits of their clearance.
No, you do not have to talk to them, no you do not have to swqk mode c. Does it help? Well obvioulsy yes it does. Stop passing the buck and take some individual responsiblilty.
rant over,
c99
