ATC with a problem!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,692
Likes: 3
From: Escrick York england
rodan
which CAA map are these fanlines on and how do you know they are there if you are a non instrument piot or even a non instrument helicopter pilot ?
Crossing an instrument approach in Class G without speaking to the ATC unit concerned is legal, but it is also poor airmanship and potentially unsafe (in my opinion, of course).
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
From: London
I took an ILS into Southend on New Years Day on my way back from Guernsey because I couldn't get back into the place I'd taken off from.
Although I felt that the landing / overnight parking fees were a bit on the steep side, one of the controllers very kindly offered to drive me to the railway station during his break!
I'd suggest that IF there are issues with SOME of the controllers there, it is most certainly not all of them. The fellow that took me to the station was an all round nice chap
Although I felt that the landing / overnight parking fees were a bit on the steep side, one of the controllers very kindly offered to drive me to the railway station during his break!
I'd suggest that IF there are issues with SOME of the controllers there, it is most certainly not all of them. The fellow that took me to the station was an all round nice chap
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
MD600 driver raises a fair point in that a VFR pilot would not necessarily be familiar with any particular instrument approach procedure (nor indeed an instrument pilot for that matter) and therefore a degree of common sense is required when crossing the feathers. Whilst theoretically crossing them at 3000 feet ten miles out or at 600 feet two miles out might pose the same risky strategy, crossing ten miles out at 600 feet poses no IAP risk at all.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: UK
flybymike
I was a little surprised that any pilot of any experience wouldn't know what the fan lines meant (or where to find out - there's all sorts of interesting stuff on the legend of the quarter and half mil charts!!)
The point you make about crossing at 10 miles at 600ft is valid, but because Southend is primary only, they would have no way of knowing your level, unless you were talking to them. Under these circumstances and certain types of service, the ATCO would be duty bound to 'avoid' the unknown contact and possibly having to break off the ILS approach.
I struggle to see the logic of intentionally not using the services of a nearby ATC unit, particularly in a busy bit of sky, bounded to the east by a Danger Area, to the west and vertically by CAS. What's more, that service is free of charge!!
I was a little surprised that any pilot of any experience wouldn't know what the fan lines meant (or where to find out - there's all sorts of interesting stuff on the legend of the quarter and half mil charts!!)
The point you make about crossing at 10 miles at 600ft is valid, but because Southend is primary only, they would have no way of knowing your level, unless you were talking to them. Under these circumstances and certain types of service, the ATCO would be duty bound to 'avoid' the unknown contact and possibly having to break off the ILS approach.
I struggle to see the logic of intentionally not using the services of a nearby ATC unit, particularly in a busy bit of sky, bounded to the east by a Danger Area, to the west and vertically by CAS. What's more, that service is free of charge!!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
I struggle to see the logic of intentionally not using the services of a nearby ATC unit
And to be honest its not really the problem of the pilot if the unit is too tight to provide a secondary radar feed.
And how the hell is a pilot meant to know what type of sodding radar the unit he is talking to is using? especially a VFR spam can or plastic pig. VFR pilots won't have a clue about the decent profiles on various approaches or for that matter what it actually means. For all I know the 600ft AGL at 10 miles could still be inside the theoretical "danger area" of a none precision approach. Again the pilot wouldn't know which procedures are being used unless they speak to the unit.
This all sounds quite unsafe to me especially if there are lots of microlights kicking around with dodgy primary returns.
I had in the past a similar problem with a Mil radar unit and more by luck than judgement I was chatting to a SRG controller inspector type person who had thought that the GA service in the area was fine and working well (as he had been told by that unit). When he found out what was really going on it was sorted pretty quick. Neither side got what they really wanted but it was a hellava lot safer for all concerned afterwards.
I would get a group of you and contact the SRG and arrange a meeting. You will have to give something's away maybe standard joining routes etc but if its as bad as you say you can't let it continue until god forbid there is a fatality or fatality's (you choose the number, whats the largest CAT going in there?).
The unit manager will be fuming anyway as he will be reading this, so if there was bad feeling before it sure as hell won't be any better after publicly broadcasting his units dirty washing.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
And to be honest its not really the problem of the pilot if the unit is too tight to provide a secondary radar feed
Mad Jock and others raise a good point regarding secondary radar and safety. I fly to Southend a lot and my own opinion is that most of them are very obliging and do a good job with the tools that they have.
They don't have any information about aircraft heights though which is not conducive to situational awareness or flight safety. As they are working traffic on instrument approaches outside of controlled airspace this is an accident waiting to happen.
Many times traffic is called for example "crossing left to right 1 mile no height information" - "further traffic 12 o'clock no height - slow moving"
They would like to setup some software on their PC for a total cost of £50 - £100 which would show mode c aircraft in the area but as this is "NOT OFFICIALLY APPROVED" they must keep their (and our) blindfolds on. Farnboro do have secondary radar so if you can talk to them the service is safer.
Good job Southend ATC - Hope you get some software soon !
Mad Jock and others raise a good point regarding secondary radar and safety. I fly to Southend a lot and my own opinion is that most of them are very obliging and do a good job with the tools that they have.
They don't have any information about aircraft heights though which is not conducive to situational awareness or flight safety. As they are working traffic on instrument approaches outside of controlled airspace this is an accident waiting to happen.
Many times traffic is called for example "crossing left to right 1 mile no height information" - "further traffic 12 o'clock no height - slow moving"
They would like to setup some software on their PC for a total cost of £50 - £100 which would show mode c aircraft in the area but as this is "NOT OFFICIALLY APPROVED" they must keep their (and our) blindfolds on. Farnboro do have secondary radar so if you can talk to them the service is safer.
Good job Southend ATC - Hope you get some software soon !
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
For a secondary radar your talking a major infrastructure capital purchase or if they go for a feed an equipment upgrade and continuing payment every month for the feed ( tens of thousands per month).
The computer option apart from not being approved requires every aircraft to have a mode S transponder fitted. The problem traffic I suspect are not required or can't fit one.
I can actually see the problem from Southends point of view. They have a heap of traffic which they have to work or would like to work to get there revenue paying flights in. If the traffic doesn't speak to them it can make it almost impossible to get an IFR flight in with the required separation. They probably work there nuts off with GA traffic for no revenue gain.
If it does all come to a head and the CAA decides they need a secondary radar they will have to find a whole heap of cash for again no revenue increase in a time of decreasing traffic into regional airports. But you can guarantee that if they do have to get a secondary radar service the application for controlled airspace will be getting fired in.
I presume the controllers at Southend are like most airports in class G with CAT operating they pray for the days with the cloud base of 600ft and a viz of 900 meters.
They have now got to the point where there is a stand off between GA pilots not wanting to talk to them and not talking to them. And the need of the unit to speak to them to be able to function properly.
The MOR game is never going to work, SATCO's have tried it in the past, to much amusement of the pilots. After the initial shock of getting filed upon, after the first few which nothing ever happens about they just ignore them. Then daft competitions start with who has had the most filed on them. And god forbid the pilots start MOR's back, with a concerted effort you can shut the airport down through lack of controllers and have the SATCO knee deep in report writing and sick fed up of going to the tape library to pull tapes.
THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY EITHER PARTY.
The computer option apart from not being approved requires every aircraft to have a mode S transponder fitted. The problem traffic I suspect are not required or can't fit one.
I can actually see the problem from Southends point of view. They have a heap of traffic which they have to work or would like to work to get there revenue paying flights in. If the traffic doesn't speak to them it can make it almost impossible to get an IFR flight in with the required separation. They probably work there nuts off with GA traffic for no revenue gain.
If it does all come to a head and the CAA decides they need a secondary radar they will have to find a whole heap of cash for again no revenue increase in a time of decreasing traffic into regional airports. But you can guarantee that if they do have to get a secondary radar service the application for controlled airspace will be getting fired in.
I presume the controllers at Southend are like most airports in class G with CAT operating they pray for the days with the cloud base of 600ft and a viz of 900 meters.
They have now got to the point where there is a stand off between GA pilots not wanting to talk to them and not talking to them. And the need of the unit to speak to them to be able to function properly.
The MOR game is never going to work, SATCO's have tried it in the past, to much amusement of the pilots. After the initial shock of getting filed upon, after the first few which nothing ever happens about they just ignore them. Then daft competitions start with who has had the most filed on them. And god forbid the pilots start MOR's back, with a concerted effort you can shut the airport down through lack of controllers and have the SATCO knee deep in report writing and sick fed up of going to the tape library to pull tapes.
THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT THE WAY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY EITHER PARTY.
