Heathrow was a Class A CTR through which SVFR transits were allowed; SVFR transits through CTA/TMA have never been permitted in the UK irrespective of airspace classification.
The Heathrow CTR is now Class D not Class C.

pb84,

Not sure about that. My main recollection was that I didn't have much shoulder-room and that the Scottish helmsman was dying for a smoke when we landed at Fullerton. ;)

n5296s,

Although I believe there are "wave-blocks" where non-IR glider pilots can fly above 18,000. We have one in Alberta that we can open on demand up to FL280 and higher on request.

The Farborough LARS is funded by NATS En-Route Ltd and TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd. If they decide to produce a guide it is up to them to decide where to publish it. They chose to put it on the Fly-on-Track website, which has a wide audience.

The guide is not found in the AIP, because it does not conform to the ICAO format and CAP 1504.

Why do you expect to find guides to fly through other bits of UK airspace?
I am not surprised you are disappointed with the service you received from the CAA, but the FAA website today reads: "We are currently processing permanent Airmen Certificates for temporary certificates that were issued approximately November 15, 2016." Yes, I know you can fly on the temporary certificate. That would solve a lot of problem if adopted by the CAA.

Well only because it would make life easier for everyone, and it would also be a major safety advantage to have pilots understand the airspace that they are or will be flying through. If all pilots understood the airspace, understand the services provided, understand the boundaries and limitations of services and/or airspace in complex/congested airspace. It would also make people who are not familiar with the airspace more confident of what they should expect, it would make general aviation in complex airspace more accessible to all.

Having detailed / photographed instructions for using various "corridors" around the London TMA for instance would also greatly reduce the number of airspace incursions, and pilots would spend more time looking out for one another rather than figuring out how close they are to class A or D airspace.

This would, at least in my mind, open a lot of possibilities to both new and old pilots who fear the more complicated airspace. The few I met who have let their licences / ratings lapse has been due to the lack of excitement, fear of exploring further afield, and the obvious lack of funds. Surprisingly however, the former 2 seemed quite prominent in various airfields I have been to. I do believe that offering more humanly understandable information would definitely help keep general aviation more accessible.

You say they chose to publish there - why would they choose to publish their guide on a third party's website? I don't understand the logic... Don't you wish to have a full resource of the ATS that NATS provides general aviation in a single place, owned by NATS so that users are sure that they have the latest version of the guide?

I agree with that statement entirely, the UK CAA allowed some completion certificates to be issued but not for initial licence issue (I believe).

For a start, it's riddled with unnecessary apostophes (apostophe's... :=), and is a rather amateurish publication which, in turn, demeans its credibility as a Nats official document.

alex90,

Fly on Track is run on behalf of GASCo and is part of the Airspace & Safety Initiative. It is a gateway to a wealth of information, including a video guide to flying around the London TMA.

As I tried to explain, the NATS AIS website must follow the ICAO standard, designed for ease of use by pilots across the world. Check out some others out here.

It is good that you want to understand the airspace you intend to operate in and I am sure you will soon find your way around the various sources of information available. As a last resort, there is always Pprune, but I wouldn't believe all you read there. :)

No! Just LARS West. East and North are funded by the NATS Services Ltd contingency fund.

If so, they need to amend their guide: "This service is jointly funded, with NATS En-Route Ltd funding LARS North & East and TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd funding LARS West."

I had never heard of Fly On Track before you mentioned it. I did hear of On Track Aviation (which has a similar name) but that is a training organisation. It does look like there is substantial information on there which is good to see!

I do understand that - and was not advocating to "just put it in the AIP", I was suggesting having a new tab on the same website (NATS | AIS - Home) entitled "Pilot Guides" (or words to that effect) where you could host NATS guides to airspace and UK CAA safety leaflets / guides / airprox issues / other related documents to increase pilot knowledge, updated periodically to ensure publication currency.

As you need to go to that website for airport charts, instrument approach plates, notams etc... All sorts of pilot information prior to flight (unless of course you have Skydemon or other electronic system that fetches them from there); It could be the one stop shop for all your requirements as a pilot.

I found it particularly important in NZ to be able to know the airspace before flight. Especially in the Auckland area, and the Queenstown area where there are particularly complicated bits of airspace, low VFR transit routes, particular mountain passes to clear with safety altitudes, particular blind frequencies in various zones... Etc... And it did make me think about how much easier it would have been to be able to read these guides prior to embarking on a flight to unknown territory in the UK.

Having learnt to fly at Biggin, and it being under the London TMA did make some aspects of learning to fly more complicated, albeit perhaps I am now more prepared for controlled environments. Had I not done some flying in NZ, I probably would not have been as comfortable in uncontrolled environments as I am now. This did not stop me from exploring uncontrolled environments before then at all but the guides published by the NZ CAA with regards to both controlled and uncontrolled environments for instance, do make you feel more prepared for the various environments. They remind you of the importance of clearly stating your position, rights of way, and particular calls that do help other pilots in the area visualise where you are and what you are doing, which I seldom hear on the radio in the UK. This in my mind would greatly improve safety should all pilots at least be able to access the same information about what is to be expected on route, and what is expected of you as a pilot.

This of course doesn't make it foolproof, but at least would be an easy recommendation to any new and old pilot should they make a mistake or should they have a close call. We all know as pilots that we need to keep learning, or else get out of flying - and for good reason too. Why make it so hard for people to find up to date, accurate information? But more importantly than anything - the SAME information - as instructors teach different methods, teach different requirements etc... If there were to be a single guide, would it not make everyone have the same basic knowledge and hence make us all more safe in the air?

Variety is the spice of life. :) The CAA Safety Sense leaflets are here.

:ooh: okay - my mind is blown! I design & build apps, software and websites for a living - and yet, i have never found this page, despite having spent a substantial amount of time searching! Thank you for the link!

Am I the only one that found it difficult to find these publications?

I do agree that variety is important, but perhaps in terms of procedures it might be beneficial to unifying it a little more?

Thanks for the link Patowalker - much appreciated!