Stansted need to do better
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli - good question.
I would also liek someone to answer my first question.
In short if you are not going to give a transit say so straight away, and if you are or might assign a squawk straight away - am I missing some good reason for not doing this - however busy you are!
I would also liek someone to answer my first question.
In short if you are not going to give a transit say so straight away, and if you are or might assign a squawk straight away - am I missing some good reason for not doing this - however busy you are!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that Stanstead are the Kings of shoddy service, they make Solent look like sweethearts. I rarely transit through VFR and even IFR the reluctance to accept me is pretty obvious.
Makes you realise the gulf between GA and CAT when you talk to that shoddy lot.
Then they wonder why they get there airspace busted all the time. Well let me tell you..... Because you are in one of the busiest transit corridors between north and south and do squat all to support the people who make an effort to contact you for a service and then wonder why no one bothers and the inexperienced end up infringing.
No doubt DFC will be along in a few seconds to quote some ANO or dogma to me to say why I am wrong......
Makes you realise the gulf between GA and CAT when you talk to that shoddy lot.
Then they wonder why they get there airspace busted all the time. Well let me tell you..... Because you are in one of the busiest transit corridors between north and south and do squat all to support the people who make an effort to contact you for a service and then wonder why no one bothers and the inexperienced end up infringing.
No doubt DFC will be along in a few seconds to quote some ANO or dogma to me to say why I am wrong......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short if you are not going to give a transit say so straight away, and if you are or might assign a squawk straight away - am I missing some good reason for not doing this - however busy you are!
I think Bose may have it.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, you've missed the point and if you'd bother to go and see you'd know why.
Some of the posts posts on here reflect very badly on G/A as a whole, CAS is there for everyone who is capable of using it in a professional manner, but priorities will always exist.
It's an incredibly busy and complex piece of airspace, so before accusing Essex Radar and Stansted Tower of providing a "shoddy" service, go and have a look, then you can come back and admit that you were wrong.
Some of the posts posts on here reflect very badly on G/A as a whole, CAS is there for everyone who is capable of using it in a professional manner, but priorities will always exist.
It's an incredibly busy and complex piece of airspace, so before accusing Essex Radar and Stansted Tower of providing a "shoddy" service, go and have a look, then you can come back and admit that you were wrong.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And aside from the u/t who pitched up a day or two ago, what makes you think Essex atcos are queuing up to read this and respond anyway? Not everyone reads PPRuNe you know, it's not in the contract.
bose, just curious, when you talk about an IFR transit do you mean an ad-hoc request or do you mean trying to join airways with a flight plan already in the system?
bose, just curious, when you talk about an IFR transit do you mean an ad-hoc request or do you mean trying to join airways with a flight plan already in the system?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, you've missed the point and if you'd bother to go and see you'd know why.
Mind you I have no idea what the point I have missed is?
It requires zero intelligence and even less time to respond to a request for transit with I am sorry it is not possible today or to assign a squawk if it might be possible.
I have politely asked for a reason if there is one why this is not possible.
I suspect the absence of an explanation is explanation enough.
Not everyone reads PPRuNe you know, it's not in the contract.
What is in the "contract" is to facilitate a transit if at all possible. The moment the relationship breaks down between GA and CAS controllers things have gone badly wrong. It doesnt happen anywhere else in my experience but Stansted controllers are dangerously close to being as unhelpful as possible - not because of their regular refusals to give transit but because of the way they handle transit requests.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep it simple - why not straight over the landing threshold at 2000ft?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: united kingdom
Age: 63
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be of interest to know that I believe, two AIRPROX have been filed in the last three weeks, by civil airliners at an airfield in class "D" airspace against VFR transits across the airfield that passed a little close to them while VFR.
Perhaps that could be part of the problem, combined with the fact that if a pilot gets a TCAS RA he will respond to it, even if the other aircraft is VFR and providing separation against the IFR aircraft. This means that the IFR aircraft inevitably files a MOR and usually has to be repositioned.
When the airspace is as busy as Stansted perhaps the controllers don't want to take the risk?
Perhaps that could be part of the problem, combined with the fact that if a pilot gets a TCAS RA he will respond to it, even if the other aircraft is VFR and providing separation against the IFR aircraft. This means that the IFR aircraft inevitably files a MOR and usually has to be repositioned.
When the airspace is as busy as Stansted perhaps the controllers don't want to take the risk?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a professional pilot I do not want UK Pilots transiting UK class D airspace while I am in there in IMC. I am happy in other places but not the UK. Why? - check the UK difference in how close a VFR flight can be to the cloud base in the UK compared to the ICAO standard! The requirment to keep away from could was put there for a reason and it was not to help the bimbling ppl/cpl out of IMC.
When flying fur fun of course I want to fly as efficiently as possible (reduce carbon footprint etc) and want to safely cross class D when possible however, one must apply a bit of common sense to such requests
The filing of an airprox or even an MOR does not say that safety was not ensured. Each are simply personal opinions regarding the situation. It is the subsequent investigation and discussion that determines if safety was not ensured and then makes proposals to ensure that in future the same should not happen again.
I have yet to see an airprox or incident final report that recomended controllers should refuse access to certain airspace.
Before going down the TCAS route, everyone should refresh the parameters for an RA and the levels at which RAs are inhibited. If I remember correctly, TCAS only tries to ensure 300ft vertical separation below 20000ft. The worst one should get against an intruder in level flight 500ft above one's level is "monitor vertical speed" - no big problem when one is descending or about to.
I can see both sides of the argument here.
How many pilots want their request for transit (no flight plan in the system) to be told hold at (VRP) expect onward clearance at (1 hour from now). Or how about being brought into the zone and held and held and held and held and standby and standby and held and held.
Or even be taken into the zone and vectored all the way round just 2nm inside the edge with a 20 minute hold before crossing the final approach track.
Lets have a complaint from the B757 drivers that on departing Stansted for say Gatwick have to fly north of the field before going north of Luton, overhad Benson, 15 miles west of White Waltham, overhead Odiham and almost all the way to Shoreham before beign vectored some 50 track miles into Gatwick. Do they complain, No. Why? because their exprience and airmanship tells them that with the London area, that is actually not a bad routing even if they would prefer to depart 23 at Stansted and join straight onto right base for 26L at Gatwick. Meanwhile the PPL doing the same in a C182 VFR could probably land before them if City give a VFR crossing with little delay!
How much extra time for having to go round the Stansted CTR 5? 10 minutes?. Even if it is 20 mnutes then it is probably quicker than having to hold for a gap in the flghts that have alrady filed a flight plan in the normal way.
The problem with Stansted unlike Solent is that in terms of VFR transits, they are very limited vertically and have much more traffic.
Regards,
DFC
When flying fur fun of course I want to fly as efficiently as possible (reduce carbon footprint etc) and want to safely cross class D when possible however, one must apply a bit of common sense to such requests
The filing of an airprox or even an MOR does not say that safety was not ensured. Each are simply personal opinions regarding the situation. It is the subsequent investigation and discussion that determines if safety was not ensured and then makes proposals to ensure that in future the same should not happen again.
I have yet to see an airprox or incident final report that recomended controllers should refuse access to certain airspace.
Before going down the TCAS route, everyone should refresh the parameters for an RA and the levels at which RAs are inhibited. If I remember correctly, TCAS only tries to ensure 300ft vertical separation below 20000ft. The worst one should get against an intruder in level flight 500ft above one's level is "monitor vertical speed" - no big problem when one is descending or about to.
I can see both sides of the argument here.
How many pilots want their request for transit (no flight plan in the system) to be told hold at (VRP) expect onward clearance at (1 hour from now). Or how about being brought into the zone and held and held and held and held and standby and standby and held and held.
Or even be taken into the zone and vectored all the way round just 2nm inside the edge with a 20 minute hold before crossing the final approach track.
Lets have a complaint from the B757 drivers that on departing Stansted for say Gatwick have to fly north of the field before going north of Luton, overhad Benson, 15 miles west of White Waltham, overhead Odiham and almost all the way to Shoreham before beign vectored some 50 track miles into Gatwick. Do they complain, No. Why? because their exprience and airmanship tells them that with the London area, that is actually not a bad routing even if they would prefer to depart 23 at Stansted and join straight onto right base for 26L at Gatwick. Meanwhile the PPL doing the same in a C182 VFR could probably land before them if City give a VFR crossing with little delay!
How much extra time for having to go round the Stansted CTR 5? 10 minutes?. Even if it is 20 mnutes then it is probably quicker than having to hold for a gap in the flghts that have alrady filed a flight plan in the normal way.
The problem with Stansted unlike Solent is that in terms of VFR transits, they are very limited vertically and have much more traffic.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
The issue is not about transit procedures, but efficiently dealing with requests.
The reason I call up with loads of time before reaching class D is so that I can take an alternative route without adding greatly to the flight time.
If I have the courtesy to do so, then I think the controllers can have the courtesy to indicate whether a transit will be likely, and if they want to ascertain early how I might fit in with their arrivals, assign a squawk.
At Stansted there must be many occasions when the controller has no intention of giving a transit. Fine. Own up and do so before we are left having to follow the edge of the zone because we thought a transit might be given.
Not only does that create a problem for the controller but also for the inbounds if you end up routing around the zone directly under the inbounds at top of class G.
Stansted is also the exception when on a number of occasiosn I have been offered a transit, having routed half way around the zone because it took that long plus the distance inbound to the edge of the zone before the controller could get his act together. Personally I would have been far to embarassed to have offered the transit by then. You might well imagine it was curtly refused on more than one occasion.
In short at the moment I stand by my original comment - pathetic.
Come on Stansted you need to do a whole lot better. I dont have a problem anywhere else including SVFR through Heathrow who are superb!
Please sort yourselves out.
The issue is not about transit procedures, but efficiently dealing with requests.
The reason I call up with loads of time before reaching class D is so that I can take an alternative route without adding greatly to the flight time.
If I have the courtesy to do so, then I think the controllers can have the courtesy to indicate whether a transit will be likely, and if they want to ascertain early how I might fit in with their arrivals, assign a squawk.
At Stansted there must be many occasions when the controller has no intention of giving a transit. Fine. Own up and do so before we are left having to follow the edge of the zone because we thought a transit might be given.
Not only does that create a problem for the controller but also for the inbounds if you end up routing around the zone directly under the inbounds at top of class G.
Stansted is also the exception when on a number of occasiosn I have been offered a transit, having routed half way around the zone because it took that long plus the distance inbound to the edge of the zone before the controller could get his act together. Personally I would have been far to embarassed to have offered the transit by then. You might well imagine it was curtly refused on more than one occasion.
In short at the moment I stand by my original comment - pathetic.
Come on Stansted you need to do a whole lot better. I dont have a problem anywhere else including SVFR through Heathrow who are superb!
Please sort yourselves out.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal wrote:
90 degrees to the threshold is the simplest way, the debate would be what is a safe altitude?
The safest altitude would be 1,000ft above the missed approach altitude, though at places like Stansted that would put the transit traffic in Class A, so not an option.
So, instead, you'd probably be cleared at a lower altitude and held if necessary such that at the time you're crossing the threshold there isn't IFR traffic on a shortish final that would conflict in the event of a go-around.
I await the armchair experts' views on this with interest
I have often wondered that myself (from a pilot perspective)...? Surely it must be pretty easy to allow zone transits 90° across the field over the landing threshold at a safe height? Most, if not all IFR traffic in and out will be on known or predictable arrivals or departures....
The safest altitude would be 1,000ft above the missed approach altitude, though at places like Stansted that would put the transit traffic in Class A, so not an option.
So, instead, you'd probably be cleared at a lower altitude and held if necessary such that at the time you're crossing the threshold there isn't IFR traffic on a shortish final that would conflict in the event of a go-around.
I await the armchair experts' views on this with interest
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with being sent over the threshold is in case of a missed approach. You could be right in the way....
However. Other airports seem to manage it with no loss of seperation. LAX for example.
It is a British disease that tries to seperate GA and CAT. Many other parts of the world seem to be able to combine all types of air user without too much difficulty. In just as busy airspace as we get here.
I'm in no way saying that it is easy to do it, but here in the U.K you can often say that nobody even tries. That is what I find hard to swallow.
However. Other airports seem to manage it with no loss of seperation. LAX for example.
It is a British disease that tries to seperate GA and CAT. Many other parts of the world seem to be able to combine all types of air user without too much difficulty. In just as busy airspace as we get here.
I'm in no way saying that it is easy to do it, but here in the U.K you can often say that nobody even tries. That is what I find hard to swallow.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused
Guys & Girls,
I am newbie PPL and my first contribution to PPRUNE, If you are still tracking this thread CHEVVRON can you or anyone else clarify the reference to Farnborough LARS and the area around the Luton CTR. I would have assumed Farnborough would not provide a service that far north? If I'm being particularly stupid let me down gently! Still very much at the bottom of the learning curve!!!
Many Thanks
Mal S
I am newbie PPL and my first contribution to PPRUNE, If you are still tracking this thread CHEVVRON can you or anyone else clarify the reference to Farnborough LARS and the area around the Luton CTR. I would have assumed Farnborough would not provide a service that far north? If I'm being particularly stupid let me down gently! Still very much at the bottom of the learning curve!!!
Many Thanks
Mal S
Mal,
Welcome to PPRuNe.
It might be better if you either post your query on an existing Farnborough LARS thread or start a new thread.
This thread is specifically about transits through the Stansted zone.
HTH
Welcome to PPRuNe.
It might be better if you either post your query on an existing Farnborough LARS thread or start a new thread.
This thread is specifically about transits through the Stansted zone.
HTH
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sas wrote:
I stand to be corrected but I think you'll probably find the LAX VFR corridor is vertically separated from LAX departures/missed approaches, so no issues there. If it's not then it would surprise me greatly.
It's not a case of applying IFR separation standards to VFR/IFR traffic mixes, rather just making sure that they don't bump into each other.
The rules say only traffic info is necessary in Class D here, no atco that values their licence in the UK is probably just going to leave it at that. Irrespective of what the rules say it wouldn't be very defensible in court. "Yes I could see the returns about to merge, but hey, I've done my bit".
I'm sure that would be seen as a rather pathetic defense
However. Other airports seem to manage it with no loss of seperation. LAX for example.
It is a British disease that tries to seperate GA and CAT.
The rules say only traffic info is necessary in Class D here, no atco that values their licence in the UK is probably just going to leave it at that. Irrespective of what the rules say it wouldn't be very defensible in court. "Yes I could see the returns about to merge, but hey, I've done my bit".
I'm sure that would be seen as a rather pathetic defense
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roffa
The safest altitude would be 1,000ft above the missed approach altitude, though at places like Stansted that would put the transit traffic in Class A, so not an option.
So, instead, you'd probably be cleared at a lower altitude and held if necessary such that at the time you're crossing the threshold there isn't IFR traffic on a shortish final that would conflict in the event of a go-around.
I await the armchair experts' views on this with interest
So, instead, you'd probably be cleared at a lower altitude and held if necessary such that at the time you're crossing the threshold there isn't IFR traffic on a shortish final that would conflict in the event of a go-around.
I await the armchair experts' views on this with interest
How many go-arounds does Stansted have as a percentage of their total movements?
How many go-arounds does Stansted have, again as a percentage, when the weather is good enough to allow 2000ft VFR transits via the landing threshold?
I would suspect the percentage is miniscule. So on that basis, why deny a procedure that is probably safe 99.9999% of the time, and easily solved the other 0.0001% of the time by the VFR doing what they're meant to be doing and avoiding the IFR go-around visually? (Which is why you pass traffic information to VFR's on IFR's).
Or - another solution. How many IFR's go around outside of 2 miles final? Even less of a percentage. So transit crosses 2000ft a mile or two downwind of the threshold - aircraft go-around commences go around inside them (between them and the threshold). No conflict, no workload.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno, don't do Essex, was just making a general point.
Traffic information is two way though, I guess the heavy driver as he hits TOGA won't mind being told that he's got a Cherokee coming in to his 12 o'clock at half a mile one thousand feet above. Of course he won't be thinking "shut the **** up I'm busy enough and why have you put conflicting traffic right in front of me anyway?".
Okay so it may not be a regular scenario but that is not in itself justification for setting it up. Would you give VFR traffic a transit through your final at 4nm and 1,200ft, or 6nm and 1,800ft, if there were a steady stream of IFR arrivals and just rely on traffic info? What happens when one of the IFR arrivals justifiably asks for traffic avoidance and screws your sequence?
Traffic information is two way though, I guess the heavy driver as he hits TOGA won't mind being told that he's got a Cherokee coming in to his 12 o'clock at half a mile one thousand feet above. Of course he won't be thinking "shut the **** up I'm busy enough and why have you put conflicting traffic right in front of me anyway?".
Okay so it may not be a regular scenario but that is not in itself justification for setting it up. Would you give VFR traffic a transit through your final at 4nm and 1,200ft, or 6nm and 1,800ft, if there were a steady stream of IFR arrivals and just rely on traffic info? What happens when one of the IFR arrivals justifiably asks for traffic avoidance and screws your sequence?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norf West by West
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a leaf out of Lutons Book
Chilli - Your suggestion is fine, that is just how Ludon do their North Sourth transits and it works very well.
With Luton you know on initial call whether a transits is likely to be available - not of the Stansted "Standby" and you wait for the rest of the day!
TWTDI
With Luton you know on initial call whether a transits is likely to be available - not of the Stansted "Standby" and you wait for the rest of the day!
TWTDI
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe (but haven't checked) places like LAX require the IFR to follow the approach to the MAP or DH (or for an ILS thrown away early) to proceed to the localizer MDA and then the MAP. All of this so that the VFR transit IS separated even on a go around and the transit would typically be around 1000 feet above the MDA.
Roffa - It does seem, as an end user, that some ATCOs try to apply IFR standard separation for VFR/IFR (RAS seems even more conservative - However in Class G you never can tell if the non-participating is IFR or VFR
). Even in Cowboy Land (USA) the controllers aren't supposed to let an IFR and VFR blip merge, which seems a reasonable compromise on workload, following the airspace rules, and Duty of Care.
Roffa - It does seem, as an end user, that some ATCOs try to apply IFR standard separation for VFR/IFR (RAS seems even more conservative - However in Class G you never can tell if the non-participating is IFR or VFR
). Even in Cowboy Land (USA) the controllers aren't supposed to let an IFR and VFR blip merge, which seems a reasonable compromise on workload, following the airspace rules, and Duty of Care.