The importance of a full initial call to an ATCU
Guest
Posts: n/a
The importance of a full initial call to an ATCU
Hi everyone,
I thought it was about time I got some answers to a niggly little question thats been on my mind for quite a while.
I'm well aware that the full initial call when passing your details to a unit are generally taught along the TR PACER lines. However, I'm nearly at QXC stage and have all along been taught to use a slightly abbreviated form which was highly advocated by my school.
Say on a flight from Filton to Shobdon, it would be something like this:
'G-BRBB is a PA28 out of Filton inbound to Shobdon, currently overhead Hereford, at 2700ft on 1011, request join information'
I've flown all around Bristol class D airspace, up to Coventry, Shobdon, Brize Norton etc and it seems to work fine. Is it really necessary to include your flight rules and heading (which should be obvious from your routing information and position report).
Particularly on a busy frequency, it seems to me that controllers prefer the concise form, and it certainly suits me as a solo student pilot where a long winded, planned out call can take my attention away from more important things (ie maintaining lift :0)
Happy flying,
BirdSeed22
I thought it was about time I got some answers to a niggly little question thats been on my mind for quite a while.
I'm well aware that the full initial call when passing your details to a unit are generally taught along the TR PACER lines. However, I'm nearly at QXC stage and have all along been taught to use a slightly abbreviated form which was highly advocated by my school.
Say on a flight from Filton to Shobdon, it would be something like this:
'G-BRBB is a PA28 out of Filton inbound to Shobdon, currently overhead Hereford, at 2700ft on 1011, request join information'
I've flown all around Bristol class D airspace, up to Coventry, Shobdon, Brize Norton etc and it seems to work fine. Is it really necessary to include your flight rules and heading (which should be obvious from your routing information and position report).
Particularly on a busy frequency, it seems to me that controllers prefer the concise form, and it certainly suits me as a solo student pilot where a long winded, planned out call can take my attention away from more important things (ie maintaining lift :0)
Happy flying,
BirdSeed22
Guest
Posts: n/a
TRPACER is really a guide, irrespective of what CAP 413 might say, to let you know what information to pass. It is a good starting point and the mil seem to stick by it more than us civvies. With experience from both sides of the fence, I would suggest all we ATCOs need to know is:
WHO you are
WHERE you are
WHAT you want.
Quite how you get that out is up to you. The basic framework of TRPACER is a good start, but I wonder whether the A/G operator you call as you approach is ATZ to overfly is really interested in your flight conditions or your estimate for some place 50 miles on that he's never heard of.
As an instructor, I would suggest your example call does the job perfectly, and as someone said to me the other day: 'If they want any more info, they'll ask!'
With my ATC hat back on, I would comment that there is nothing more annoying when you've got someone barrelling down final waiting for a landing clearance than an overflying pilot giving you his life history while trying to remember what comes after A in TRPACER!
Be clear and concise and you won't go far wrong.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
WHO you are
WHERE you are
WHAT you want.
Quite how you get that out is up to you. The basic framework of TRPACER is a good start, but I wonder whether the A/G operator you call as you approach is ATZ to overfly is really interested in your flight conditions or your estimate for some place 50 miles on that he's never heard of.
As an instructor, I would suggest your example call does the job perfectly, and as someone said to me the other day: 'If they want any more info, they'll ask!'
With my ATC hat back on, I would comment that there is nothing more annoying when you've got someone barrelling down final waiting for a landing clearance than an overflying pilot giving you his life history while trying to remember what comes after A in TRPACER!
Be clear and concise and you won't go far wrong.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cheers - good to have a little reassurance!!
Would it make any difference to a controller to know more info if an aircraft is in or around controlled airspace?? I have been frequently reminded to stay VMC....so is the situation slightly different to that of an A/G station??
SB22
Would it make any difference to a controller to know more info if an aircraft is in or around controlled airspace?? I have been frequently reminded to stay VMC....so is the situation slightly different to that of an A/G station??
SB22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps I could suggest the following:
'G-BRBB PA28 Filton to Shobdon, overhead Hereford, 2700ft on 1011, request airfield information'
Shobdon has an AFIS. They only pass information to enable you to conduct your flight safely within the ATZ. How you join is up to the pilot in accordance with the rules of the air, not the AFIS.
'G-BRBB PA28 Filton to Shobdon, overhead Hereford, 2700ft on 1011, request airfield information'
Shobdon has an AFIS. They only pass information to enable you to conduct your flight safely within the ATZ. How you join is up to the pilot in accordance with the rules of the air, not the AFIS.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Noggin,
You're correct that Shobdon has an AFIS, but this is only at weekends. Most of the time it only has an A/G.
I think its slightly picky to distinguish between 'request joining information' and 'request airfield information'. They are both the same thing and the reply will always be the same - runway, circuit direction, other traffic etc etc.
You seem to be suggesting I'm asking for joining INSTRUCTIONS but instead I'm merely looking for information to help me in making a safe join of my choosing keeping in mind the information given.
SpeedBird22
You're correct that Shobdon has an AFIS, but this is only at weekends. Most of the time it only has an A/G.
I think its slightly picky to distinguish between 'request joining information' and 'request airfield information'. They are both the same thing and the reply will always be the same - runway, circuit direction, other traffic etc etc.
You seem to be suggesting I'm asking for joining INSTRUCTIONS but instead I'm merely looking for information to help me in making a safe join of my choosing keeping in mind the information given.
SpeedBird22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ref your question regarding controlled airspace.
I suppose knowing your flight conditions is important then. The reason is that ATC have a duty to 'give instructions to aircraft to help prevent collisions in the air' (as the MATS would have it). In Class D airspace (which covers most airports) we are required to separate IFR traffic from IFR traffic, but only to pass traffic info to IFR on VFR or to VFR on VFR. Therefore our ability to prevent collisions etc relies upon you remaining VMC so you don't bump into someone. Out in Class G if you want to go IMC when you're supposed to be VFR and then find a cloud with a plane in it then that's your lookout (or it isn't, you might say!!).
'Remain VMC in the zone' is therefore your life preserver, and I'm sure your instructor has told you that if in complying with an ATC clearance you are unable to maintain VMC, tell them and get the clearance changed!!
Good luck!
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
I suppose knowing your flight conditions is important then. The reason is that ATC have a duty to 'give instructions to aircraft to help prevent collisions in the air' (as the MATS would have it). In Class D airspace (which covers most airports) we are required to separate IFR traffic from IFR traffic, but only to pass traffic info to IFR on VFR or to VFR on VFR. Therefore our ability to prevent collisions etc relies upon you remaining VMC so you don't bump into someone. Out in Class G if you want to go IMC when you're supposed to be VFR and then find a cloud with a plane in it then that's your lookout (or it isn't, you might say!!).
'Remain VMC in the zone' is therefore your life preserver, and I'm sure your instructor has told you that if in complying with an ATC clearance you are unable to maintain VMC, tell them and get the clearance changed!!
Good luck!
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
DOC,
Yup thats a good point....but I suppose it backs up the phraseology I used in the original example call. 'joining info' would be my choice of words - I was merely arguing that there isn't a great difference.
Cheers,
SpeedBird22
**Edited for spelling likely to reveal my TRUE intelligence**
[This message has been edited by SpeedBird22 (edited 11 March 2001).]
Yup thats a good point....but I suppose it backs up the phraseology I used in the original example call. 'joining info' would be my choice of words - I was merely arguing that there isn't a great difference.
Cheers,
SpeedBird22 **Edited for spelling likely to reveal my TRUE intelligence
**[This message has been edited by SpeedBird22 (edited 11 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To request "joining information" invites the A/G operator or FISO to tell you how or where to join. They are not permitted to do this as it constitutes Control. You should ask for what you want "Airfield Informnation". As Shobdon has a private aerodrome licence, you should have obtained permission before you go there, in which case they will be expecting you.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The key is to provide pertinent information to the type of unit and service you are requesting.
An A/G operator is not interested in much info, just your reg, type, and where you're inbound from. It is, however, good Airmanship to include more info for the benefit of other aircraft listening on the frequency. Be aware that some A/G operators try to offer more of a service than they are supposed to - I've had more than one 'heated exchange' with them after they've tried to issue instructions!
AFISO's and ATCO's need more info. If you are joining they (in theory at least) need to know where you are coming from so that they can pass traffic information to other aircraft participating in the Flight Information Service. This means that at least they will need to know which direction you are arriving from - current position is of course the way to do this.
For enroute Flight Information / ATZ Transit / CTR transit they will need to know your current position and any salient turning points that will affect their traffic ie. any turning points in or close to their zone, and the next turning point after you have left the area. This means that they have the full picture of where you are going.
"Luton Appraoch Good Afternoon G-ABCD for Zone Transit"
"G-ABCD, Luton, pass your message"
"G-ABCD a Cherokee, Biggin to Cranfield routing Brookmans Park, your overhead to Woburn, overhead Brookmans Park 2400ft on 1011 request VFR zone transit".
Another thing that I personally do often when talking to an airfield for enroute Flight Information is I say 'will remain clear of your zone' - I'm basically trying to convey the message 'I know what I'm up to and I'm not going to bother you much'. Might be useful to the ATCO/AFISO or maybe I'm just clogging the R/T - dunno - any AFISOs/ATCOs out there can comment?
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
An A/G operator is not interested in much info, just your reg, type, and where you're inbound from. It is, however, good Airmanship to include more info for the benefit of other aircraft listening on the frequency. Be aware that some A/G operators try to offer more of a service than they are supposed to - I've had more than one 'heated exchange' with them after they've tried to issue instructions!
AFISO's and ATCO's need more info. If you are joining they (in theory at least) need to know where you are coming from so that they can pass traffic information to other aircraft participating in the Flight Information Service. This means that at least they will need to know which direction you are arriving from - current position is of course the way to do this.
For enroute Flight Information / ATZ Transit / CTR transit they will need to know your current position and any salient turning points that will affect their traffic ie. any turning points in or close to their zone, and the next turning point after you have left the area. This means that they have the full picture of where you are going.
"Luton Appraoch Good Afternoon G-ABCD for Zone Transit"
"G-ABCD, Luton, pass your message"
"G-ABCD a Cherokee, Biggin to Cranfield routing Brookmans Park, your overhead to Woburn, overhead Brookmans Park 2400ft on 1011 request VFR zone transit".
Another thing that I personally do often when talking to an airfield for enroute Flight Information is I say 'will remain clear of your zone' - I'm basically trying to convey the message 'I know what I'm up to and I'm not going to bother you much'. Might be useful to the ATCO/AFISO or maybe I'm just clogging the R/T - dunno - any AFISOs/ATCOs out there can comment?
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lots of comments here:
Speedbird22, I think that the abbreviated call that you have been taught is about right. You can always argue with individual words, but the basic structure is fine. Much better the the full TR PACER
Secondly, the word "Inbound" is very useful. If you call a potentially busy field, particularly if there is IFR traffic around as well, the controller doesn't want your full (even abbreviated) call first time he hears from you. Instead try "Leeds Approach G-ABCD inbound". The controller will then grab a strip and a pen and call you back for "your details", at a time which is good for him, and you won't end up repeating yourself or blocking that 757 from establishing on the Localiser.
Inbound also gets around the uncertainty as to whether you need landing/airfield or other details, so works well for FISOs and A/Gs
Foghorn: The initial Call for transit is a good idea that seems to work well at Luton. The fact that 9 times out of 10, they route you through the overhead does not mean that you should necessarily anticipate that in your call. I would just stick to telling them that you want "VFR" or "IFR" transit enroute to Cranfield because then they know what they are dealing with. As an additional stylistic point, you and I both know that WOBURN is a VRP for Cranfield. Now that Luton approach are in West Drayton, the chances of finding anybody who knows or cares what Woburn is are becoming more remote.Too much information is a bad thing. Just let them clear you enroute once you've left the zone. They don't care whether enroute means to WOBURN, STEWARTBY or the CIT.
Incidently, watch that you don't bust Stansted's airspace or Panshangers ATZ as you route direct LAM to Luton's overhead. This is a common enough error to be worth pointing out
-2Donkeys
Speedbird22, I think that the abbreviated call that you have been taught is about right. You can always argue with individual words, but the basic structure is fine. Much better the the full TR PACER
Secondly, the word "Inbound" is very useful. If you call a potentially busy field, particularly if there is IFR traffic around as well, the controller doesn't want your full (even abbreviated) call first time he hears from you. Instead try "Leeds Approach G-ABCD inbound". The controller will then grab a strip and a pen and call you back for "your details", at a time which is good for him, and you won't end up repeating yourself or blocking that 757 from establishing on the Localiser.
Inbound also gets around the uncertainty as to whether you need landing/airfield or other details, so works well for FISOs and A/Gs
Foghorn: The initial Call for transit is a good idea that seems to work well at Luton. The fact that 9 times out of 10, they route you through the overhead does not mean that you should necessarily anticipate that in your call. I would just stick to telling them that you want "VFR" or "IFR" transit enroute to Cranfield because then they know what they are dealing with. As an additional stylistic point, you and I both know that WOBURN is a VRP for Cranfield. Now that Luton approach are in West Drayton, the chances of finding anybody who knows or cares what Woburn is are becoming more remote.Too much information is a bad thing. Just let them clear you enroute once you've left the zone. They don't care whether enroute means to WOBURN, STEWARTBY or the CIT.
Incidently, watch that you don't bust Stansted's airspace or Panshangers ATZ as you route direct LAM to Luton's overhead. This is a common enough error to be worth pointing out
-2Donkeys
Guest
Posts: n/a
I got BPK and LAM the wrong way round in my head.. duh... edited!
Foghorn repeat after me ten times 'I must look at the map whilst posting routes to pprune'....
As for the call at Luton, I find that calling with your route as BPK, the overhead and Woburn increases your chance of getting an on-track transit as this is exactly where ATC wants you - out of the way of their instrument approach and missed approach. If you draw a line from BPK to Woburn it goes straight through the Luton overhead. This trick to increase your chances of an on-track transit came from various Cranfield-based instructors.
Sometimes when I've not made this explicit call I've been unnecessarily (IMHO) routed to the E/E lane at Hemel.
Anyway I hope that LATCC controllers know where WOBUN is!
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
Foghorn repeat after me ten times 'I must look at the map whilst posting routes to pprune'....
As for the call at Luton, I find that calling with your route as BPK, the overhead and Woburn increases your chance of getting an on-track transit as this is exactly where ATC wants you - out of the way of their instrument approach and missed approach. If you draw a line from BPK to Woburn it goes straight through the Luton overhead. This trick to increase your chances of an on-track transit came from various Cranfield-based instructors.
Sometimes when I've not made this explicit call I've been unnecessarily (IMHO) routed to the E/E lane at Hemel.
Anyway I hope that LATCC controllers know where WOBUN is!
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Foghorn, my point was not that you shouldn't plan to go through the overhead, rather, that there is no particular value in *actually saying it* in your RT call. If the overhead is available, for the very reasons you state, you will be asked to route there. If it isn't available, you wasted your breath and airtime even saying it.
9/10 times you will be routed through the overhead via the touchdown threshold. The option of a more direct transit will only normally be offered if there is no IFR traffic current or anticipated.
The Entry/Exit lanes you refer to are a hangover from the distant days when Luton was a rather unique combined CTR/SRZ and provided an SVFR lane for those without instrument ratings in poor weather. In practice you are the first person outside Luton ATC I have heard talk about them in a long time. It is unusual for them to be used now at all, except in very marginal weather with a pilot who is unable to accept an IFR transit. They really died with the arrival of the Class D categorisation and the associated relaxation of rules relating to the IMC rating.
On the WOBUN point, a note of caution. WOBUN and the Woburn VRP are not the same place, even though they are close.
On a more anal point, the predominant runway at Cranfield is 22, making Stewartby a much better VRP to head towards. From Stewartby, you invariably get a left base join, from WOBURN you end up on Downwind...
[This message has been edited by 2Donkeys (edited 15 March 2001).]
9/10 times you will be routed through the overhead via the touchdown threshold. The option of a more direct transit will only normally be offered if there is no IFR traffic current or anticipated.
The Entry/Exit lanes you refer to are a hangover from the distant days when Luton was a rather unique combined CTR/SRZ and provided an SVFR lane for those without instrument ratings in poor weather. In practice you are the first person outside Luton ATC I have heard talk about them in a long time. It is unusual for them to be used now at all, except in very marginal weather with a pilot who is unable to accept an IFR transit. They really died with the arrival of the Class D categorisation and the associated relaxation of rules relating to the IMC rating.
On the WOBUN point, a note of caution. WOBUN and the Woburn VRP are not the same place, even though they are close.
On a more anal point, the predominant runway at Cranfield is 22, making Stewartby a much better VRP to head towards. From Stewartby, you invariably get a left base join, from WOBURN you end up on Downwind...
[This message has been edited by 2Donkeys (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I take your point about airtime, but I'm not quite sure that you're getting mine.
That's my point. BPK-Woburn is a straight line that goes through the EGGW overhead. By giving the full route I'm basically implying "I know what I'm doing, I've done this many times before and I've planned to give you, the ATCO, minumum hassle but still get a direct transit." It may seem redundant, but, in my opinion and experience, it increases your chances of an on-track transit.
Of course on a westerly day I'll break off for Stewartby once north of the EGGW zone. It's even more important the other way round, as a 22 VFR departure is likely to put you in the Woburn area.
As I said, in my experience when I have just called 'BPK 2400ft inbound cranfield...' I have got 'route via Hemel Hempstead and the overhead'. Now that may be coincidence, but I was told this trick by Cranfield instructors as a way of almost guarateeing an on-track transit (subject to traffic of course), and it has worked every time for me.
Now I have to admit that I haven't been through Luton recently, I understand that their missed app procedures have changed and they may be more reticent for VFR transit in future...
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">9/10 times you will be routed through the overhead via the touchdown threshold. The option of a more direct transit will only normally be offered if there is no IFR traffic current or anticipated.</font>
Of course on a westerly day I'll break off for Stewartby once north of the EGGW zone. It's even more important the other way round, as a 22 VFR departure is likely to put you in the Woburn area.
As I said, in my experience when I have just called 'BPK 2400ft inbound cranfield...' I have got 'route via Hemel Hempstead and the overhead'. Now that may be coincidence, but I was told this trick by Cranfield instructors as a way of almost guarateeing an on-track transit (subject to traffic of course), and it has worked every time for me.
Now I have to admit that I haven't been through Luton recently, I understand that their missed app procedures have changed and they may be more reticent for VFR transit in future...
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"That's my point. BPK-Woburn is a straight line that goes through the EGGW overhead. By giving the full route I'm basically implying "I know what I'm doing, I've done this many times before and I've planned to give you, the ATCO, minumum hassle but still get a direct transit." It may seem redundant, but, in my opinion and experience, it increases your chances of an on-track transit."
It may even be that if you look at the map BPK-WAL is a straight line going through the Luton overhead, but I will guarantee you that it will not change the transit clearance you receive. For the reasons you gave before:
"this is exactly where ATC wants you - out of the way of their instrument approach and missed approach."
... a clearance through the overhead is *the* clearance that you will receive if it is at all possible. The only reason for a Luton ATCO making you route differently is the presence of other conflicting traffic. This may be missed approach IFR traffic, or, more likely somebody else transitting in the opposite direction. In this case, whatever route you request, you will not get the transit.
Your HEMEL routing is more likely to have been as a result of the need to waste a little time before clearing you into the zone. ATCOs are normally not keen to hold VFR traffic outside their zone, in close proximity to another ATZ (ie Panshanger)
Under those circumstances, I am not sure why you wouldn't simply cancel the request and route up the eastern edge of the zone towards Baldock and Stewartby, it would be much faster...and a a habit well worth developing, given the recent change of ownership of 129.55
[This message has been edited by 2Donkeys (edited 15 March 2001).]
It may even be that if you look at the map BPK-WAL is a straight line going through the Luton overhead, but I will guarantee you that it will not change the transit clearance you receive. For the reasons you gave before:
"this is exactly where ATC wants you - out of the way of their instrument approach and missed approach."
... a clearance through the overhead is *the* clearance that you will receive if it is at all possible. The only reason for a Luton ATCO making you route differently is the presence of other conflicting traffic. This may be missed approach IFR traffic, or, more likely somebody else transitting in the opposite direction. In this case, whatever route you request, you will not get the transit.
Your HEMEL routing is more likely to have been as a result of the need to waste a little time before clearing you into the zone. ATCOs are normally not keen to hold VFR traffic outside their zone, in close proximity to another ATZ (ie Panshanger)
Under those circumstances, I am not sure why you wouldn't simply cancel the request and route up the eastern edge of the zone towards Baldock and Stewartby, it would be much faster...and a a habit well worth developing, given the recent change of ownership of 129.55
[This message has been edited by 2Donkeys (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a Luton ATCO, I'm enjoying this exchange!
I think you've said most of it. Yes, the Luton g/a procedures changed last year and now go to 3000ft QNH. Whereas we were happy to put VFR traffic over the landing threshold at 2500ft (when the g/a's went to 2000ft), it's not done now if there is traffic on the approach. This does limit the opportunities of getting VFR traffic through.
2donkeys is right. If you're at BPK and want to go to Cranfield, just say, let us decide the route. It will either be via the overhead or 8nm east, I would suggest, depending on what is happening. Of course, if we have no traffic then you'll be cleared direct, I think this would very slight east of the overhead (I type this without a map!)
I'm amazed that you were asked to route BPK to Hemel for a transit to Cranfield. Why would we want to do that? The route Hemel-overhead looks up the 26 climbout! Perhaps they were on rwy 08 that day, or there was another reason we don't know about.
Luton Approach moved to LATCC on 22 Feb. I've stayed with the Tower so it's not my dulcet tones you'll hear on 129.55!
[Edioted for the inevitable spulling mistook!]
[This message has been edited by Lew Ton (edited 15 March 2001).]
I think you've said most of it. Yes, the Luton g/a procedures changed last year and now go to 3000ft QNH. Whereas we were happy to put VFR traffic over the landing threshold at 2500ft (when the g/a's went to 2000ft), it's not done now if there is traffic on the approach. This does limit the opportunities of getting VFR traffic through.
2donkeys is right. If you're at BPK and want to go to Cranfield, just say, let us decide the route. It will either be via the overhead or 8nm east, I would suggest, depending on what is happening. Of course, if we have no traffic then you'll be cleared direct, I think this would very slight east of the overhead (I type this without a map!)
I'm amazed that you were asked to route BPK to Hemel for a transit to Cranfield. Why would we want to do that? The route Hemel-overhead looks up the 26 climbout! Perhaps they were on rwy 08 that day, or there was another reason we don't know about.
Luton Approach moved to LATCC on 22 Feb. I've stayed with the Tower so it's not my dulcet tones you'll hear on 129.55!
[Edioted for the inevitable spulling mistook!]
[This message has been edited by Lew Ton (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lew,
It's happened a couple of times to me, when calling up just before BPK for transit inbound Cranfield. I am fairly sure that at least one of the days was a westerly day.
OK, so we need to be correcting instructors at a certain large commercial school at Cranfield, because, as I said, I got that trick as 'received wisdom' from there. Just goes to show not to trust everything your instructor says....
Basically the 'wisdom' was: call for transit this way, you'll increase your chances of an on-track routing, don't and you stand more of a chance of being told to route to the E/E lanes or even worse to go away. As I said my experience seemed to bear this out, but it was obviously co-incidence, and anyway I haven't been that way for a while.
As for the diversion via Baldock, given the number of airspace busts in that area, especially if I'm hastily planning a diversion in-flight, I think I'd take the Hemel routing anyday. Call me a wimp
foggy
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 16 March 2001).]
It's happened a couple of times to me, when calling up just before BPK for transit inbound Cranfield. I am fairly sure that at least one of the days was a westerly day.
OK, so we need to be correcting instructors at a certain large commercial school at Cranfield, because, as I said, I got that trick as 'received wisdom' from there. Just goes to show not to trust everything your instructor says....
Basically the 'wisdom' was: call for transit this way, you'll increase your chances of an on-track routing, don't and you stand more of a chance of being told to route to the E/E lanes or even worse to go away. As I said my experience seemed to bear this out, but it was obviously co-incidence, and anyway I haven't been that way for a while.
As for the diversion via Baldock, given the number of airspace busts in that area, especially if I'm hastily planning a diversion in-flight, I think I'd take the Hemel routing anyday. Call me a wimp
foggy
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 16 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the experience with Stansted (now Essex) radar is anything to go by, it seems the days of zone transits are numbered now that Luton Approach are integrated into LATCC. Far too busy to let bug smashers get in the way of the vast numbers of IFR aircraft hurtling down the ILS...
On a related note to the way this thread has gone, does anyone else think that the withdrawal of any form of radar service between the LL and GW zone is an accident waiting to happen? At the very least I bet the number of zone busts will increase. London Info, hard though it tries, cannot possibly be an effective provider of an info service in this narrow, altitude-restricted area. As an ATCO, I for one would rather have an a/c on freqency even if I'm not giving him anything other than a FIS rather than have him bumbling about on the edge of my zone not talking to anyone. The other day I was flying around the Hatfield area and was monitoring Luton APP (having been refused a service on contact) and heard them passing traffic info to a helicopter on 'unknown traffic manoeuvring in the Hatfield area'. I piped up with the fact that it was me (to Luton's apparent disapproval), and the heli pilot and I were able to help each other. My point is that had they accepted my details on first call, even if I wasn't going to transit the zone, then their and our lives would have been a bit easier.
It all seems very short sighted on the part of the decision makers. No criticism of the ATCOs involved is implied. I know they are only following instructions.
Comments?
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
On a related note to the way this thread has gone, does anyone else think that the withdrawal of any form of radar service between the LL and GW zone is an accident waiting to happen? At the very least I bet the number of zone busts will increase. London Info, hard though it tries, cannot possibly be an effective provider of an info service in this narrow, altitude-restricted area. As an ATCO, I for one would rather have an a/c on freqency even if I'm not giving him anything other than a FIS rather than have him bumbling about on the edge of my zone not talking to anyone. The other day I was flying around the Hatfield area and was monitoring Luton APP (having been refused a service on contact) and heard them passing traffic info to a helicopter on 'unknown traffic manoeuvring in the Hatfield area'. I piped up with the fact that it was me (to Luton's apparent disapproval), and the heli pilot and I were able to help each other. My point is that had they accepted my details on first call, even if I wasn't going to transit the zone, then their and our lives would have been a bit easier.
It all seems very short sighted on the part of the decision makers. No criticism of the ATCOs involved is implied. I know they are only following instructions.
Comments?
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Absolutely. There is a strong need for a dedicated LARS unit to cover the Open FIR below 2,500ft underneath the TMA North and East of the Heathrow and City CTRs
This is made all the more important by the presence of Biggin Hill's instrument approach and the fact that the ALKIN hold extends below CAS.
But of course with privatisation we ain't gonna get it. At least until there is a spectacular mid-air and the press starts asking 'why weren't they talking to a radar controller?'. Because Thames Radar, Heathrow Radar, Essex Radar and Luton Approach can't provide LARS anymore.
This is made all the more important by the presence of Biggin Hill's instrument approach and the fact that the ALKIN hold extends below CAS.
But of course with privatisation we ain't gonna get it. At least until there is a spectacular mid-air and the press starts asking 'why weren't they talking to a radar controller?'. Because Thames Radar, Heathrow Radar, Essex Radar and Luton Approach can't provide LARS anymore.