Cambridge "Airspace"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cambridge "Airspace"
A few times over the past several weeks my routing has taken me directly through the Cambridge overhead - in the Class G airspace above the Cambridge ATZ but below the base of the overlying Class A airspace.
I'm aware of the instrument holding procedure above the airfield and always call Cambridge approach for at least a basic service (and to let them know I will be transiting overhead).
Recently, Cambridge approach has taken to "clearing" me for the transit, implying that they have some formal authority over an overflight outside the bounds of their ATZ. Yesterday, having made contact with Cambridge asap after leaving the Duxford frequency, the controller sounded annoyed that I had not called with regard to my (above ATZ) overflight much sooner.
Clearly I want to know if someone is holding in an area I am transiting and, appreciating that such person may be conducting instrument training, etc, I am happy to climb, deviate, etc in order not to impact their activities (and have often done so). However, it does feel like Cambridge ATC has been slightly overstepping their authority - especially since one can, quite legally, albeit foolishly, fly through that airspace all day without talking to anyone.
Hopefully this is not the start of Cambridge making a play for an necessary Class D airspace grab like Southend...
I'm aware of the instrument holding procedure above the airfield and always call Cambridge approach for at least a basic service (and to let them know I will be transiting overhead).
Recently, Cambridge approach has taken to "clearing" me for the transit, implying that they have some formal authority over an overflight outside the bounds of their ATZ. Yesterday, having made contact with Cambridge asap after leaving the Duxford frequency, the controller sounded annoyed that I had not called with regard to my (above ATZ) overflight much sooner.
Clearly I want to know if someone is holding in an area I am transiting and, appreciating that such person may be conducting instrument training, etc, I am happy to climb, deviate, etc in order not to impact their activities (and have often done so). However, it does feel like Cambridge ATC has been slightly overstepping their authority - especially since one can, quite legally, albeit foolishly, fly through that airspace all day without talking to anyone.
Hopefully this is not the start of Cambridge making a play for an necessary Class D airspace grab like Southend...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC in Class G?
That's ain't possible.
You either make airspace controlled so you can control the traffic.
If the airspace is uncontrolled you have no authority over it.
Hopefully this is the start of Cambridge and others wanting their much needed Class D airspace.
That's ain't possible.
You either make airspace controlled so you can control the traffic.
If the airspace is uncontrolled you have no authority over it.
fly through that airspace all day without talking to anyone
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No different to Farnboro's constant "clearances" through their overhead at 2400' and "transit" approved while outside their ATZ. Cambridge is pretty well out there on it's own and there isn't a really good reason to overfly it, but, if that's your want, so-be it your in class G and have every right to do so. Making the calls you have is more than sufficient to assess the traffic, so why do these airfields have to assert their non existent "authority" all the time. When I was working the old adages of "custom & practice" soon became accepted as the norm and then became "the Rule" this is what they try to instill into everyone.
You do say some strange things don't you?
Hopefully this is the start of Cambridge and others wanting their much needed Class D airspace.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if their choice of language is upsetting you, why don't you just listen on their frequency without calling them? You'd know about instrument traffic they were working and could make your own mind up as to whether to avoid or carry on.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if their choice of language is upsetting you, why don't you just listen on their frequency without calling them?
So blundering across an ATZ irrespective of the "right & wrong" in class G argument at an airfield that does have a good mix of traffic on all sorts of approaches is not the best way. As I said before there is enough room around Cambridge to avoid it anyway but it's the OP's choice and lets not give these airfields the encouragement to apply for unneeded class D.
Heliplane
Why not address the perceived problem at the time? Having received a "clearance", respond with "no clearance required - remaining above the ATZ".
If the point is not taken, write to the unit Satco and raise it with him/her. Or, of course, it might have been a simple misunderstanding that you wished to transit the ATZ.
2 s
Why not address the perceived problem at the time? Having received a "clearance", respond with "no clearance required - remaining above the ATZ".
If the point is not taken, write to the unit Satco and raise it with him/her. Or, of course, it might have been a simple misunderstanding that you wished to transit the ATZ.
2 s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not address the perceived problem at the time? Having received a "clearance", respond with "no clearance required - remaining above the ATZ".
Seems to be spreading. I was working a certain ATSU with a basic service in Class G and called to say I was squawking 7000 and changing to XXXX for MATZ penetration. The reply was "If you receive no reply return to this frequency" - ok maybe it was trying to be helpful but at the time I thought under what authority they were they instructing me to do so?
I appreciate that a controllers job at somewhere like Cambridge can be challenging but we've stopped sending student cross countries there after they started getting picky about visitors at the weekend and appeared to be playing "airports".
I appreciate that a controllers job at somewhere like Cambridge can be challenging but we've stopped sending student cross countries there after they started getting picky about visitors at the weekend and appeared to be playing "airports".
Last edited by fireflybob; 6th Jun 2015 at 19:44.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: British Isles
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with flying "around" such places is the instrument approach traffic may well be 10 miles + from the field, so how much do you avoid?
Perhaps better to talk to them and route overhead, at least they know where you are and can negotiate safe transit.
If they get silly, ask for the SATCO's telephone number and talk to them on the ground about it, worked for me on the few occasions it has been required.
Perhaps better to talk to them and route overhead, at least they know where you are and can negotiate safe transit.
If they get silly, ask for the SATCO's telephone number and talk to them on the ground about it, worked for me on the few occasions it has been required.
Last edited by arelix; 26th May 2015 at 17:02.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Perhaps better to talk to them and route overhead, at least they know where you are and can negotiate safe transit.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such posturing doesn't just affect passing aviators. It can affect nearby ATSUs. We are an autonomous radar unit operating in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. On Jan 23rd this year I reported for TRUCE with a live target, only to find everybody from the previous TRUCE session still sitting around twiddling their thumbs. When I asked what the problem was I was told that the adjacent autonomous radar unit (which similarly operates in Class G uncontrolled airspace) had directed us to keep our target aircraft on the ground until advised solely in the interest of their own operation. Once I had climbed down from the ceiling I insisted that we launch our target, but our manager declined in the interest of inter-unit relations.
The aforementioned adjacent unit has absolutely no authority at all to restrict our, or anyone else's, operation outside regulated airspace. We have a business to run. Such restriction is nothing short of illegal.
The aforementioned adjacent unit has absolutely no authority at all to restrict our, or anyone else's, operation outside regulated airspace. We have a business to run. Such restriction is nothing short of illegal.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not address the perceived problem at the time? Having received a "clearance", respond with "no clearance required - remaining above the ATZ".
If the point is not taken, write to the unit Satco and raise it with him/her. Or, of course, it might have been a simple misunderstanding that you wished to transit the ATZ.
If the point is not taken, write to the unit Satco and raise it with him/her. Or, of course, it might have been a simple misunderstanding that you wished to transit the ATZ.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
A part of the ATZ for our local 'big' aerodrome (in Class G) juts out over the sea. One of our residents thinks it is clever to fly UNDER the ATZ (quite legal but very silly).
Generally, if I am able, I will go along with a 'clearance' issued to route above the ATZ, even though we both know such a 'clearance' isn't really valid with a Basic service. I do this on the basis that
a) tomorrow I might be in the overhead myself doing instrument training and appreciate the co-ordination with other traffic
b) I might need to descend into the ATZ to avoid weather etc.
We have regular liaison meetings between all the local airfields and the ATC unit where we can talk about these things over a cuppa. Don't Cambridge do the same thing?
TOO
Generally, if I am able, I will go along with a 'clearance' issued to route above the ATZ, even though we both know such a 'clearance' isn't really valid with a Basic service. I do this on the basis that
a) tomorrow I might be in the overhead myself doing instrument training and appreciate the co-ordination with other traffic
b) I might need to descend into the ATZ to avoid weather etc.
We have regular liaison meetings between all the local airfields and the ATC unit where we can talk about these things over a cuppa. Don't Cambridge do the same thing?
TOO
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
It's pretty crazy that the instrument approach for Cambridge isn't protected airspace, considering that reasonable numbers of heavy airliners / C130s / bizjets etc all use it on a pretty regular basis.
I know it's "legal"
to do so, but it's not really common sense. If I was a controller and I had a B747 or a Herc on 4 mile final in IMC, and then a PPL made a "courtesy" contact call just to let me know that he was transiting the overhead, I'd be annoyed too. If the big guy made a go around for whatever reason, you'd be in prime position to go straight through his intakes.
I know it's "legal"
to do so, but it's not really common sense. If I was a controller and I had a B747 or a Herc on 4 mile final in IMC, and then a PPL made a "courtesy" contact call just to let me know that he was transiting the overhead, I'd be annoyed too. If the big guy made a go around for whatever reason, you'd be in prime position to go straight through his intakes.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If I was a controller and I had a B747 or a Herc on 4 mile final in IMC, and then a PPL made a "courtesy" contact call just to let me know that he was transiting the overhead, I'd be annoyed too.
If the transit is at 4,000' he can be asked politely not to go any lower until clear, and the airliner can be told "not above 3,000'" on the go-around.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A part of the ATZ for our local 'big' aerodrome (in Class G) juts out over the sea. One of our residents thinks it is clever to fly UNDER the ATZ (quite legal but very silly).
Do you mean under the stub of a MATZ?
Warton?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of our residents thinks it is clever to fly UNDER the ATZ (quite legal but very silly)
No "clearance" required to transit an ATZ.
Correct if the atsu is AFIS or just A/G
Incorrect if ATC
Correct if the atsu is AFIS or just A/G
Incorrect if ATC
A "clearance" is a somewhat more formal contract with ATC. When used in it's purest sense (as in the US system) it promises some level of separation in return for agreeing to fly a specified trajectory. I would concede that in UK usage for class D, it has become little more than a "permission".
On that basis, Cambridge (who are normally pretty good at asking what service is required) should not provide a clearance if you're on a Basic Service, though it would be entirely appropriate if you agree a Procedural Service with them.
the controller sounded annoyed that I had not called with regard to my (above ATZ) overflight much sooner