Chilli,

I think you might be being a little hard on David. I can certainly see why there would be mounting tention in a cockpit. If you are in unfamiliar terrain, and navigating using those methods taught at the PPL, you are unlikely be able to tell "exactly" where you are, just approximatly. As you approach the controlled airspace, you have to start thinking about when you need to start orbiting. Also you need to start getting your headings and timeing for your diversion around controlled airspace. All the while wondering if the controller has actually forgotten about you. Maybe tention was the wrong word, but workload has certainly increased.

I think David was also suggesting 'request zone penetration in x mins' instead of 'G-abcd request Matz pentration?'. I think you might have mistook him here.

I imagine that often when a controller tell you to standby, (s)he already knows if he can let you through or not, and just needs a minute to deal with another issue, or perhaps to figure out which way to send you. If am I am correct in this assumption, then a "G-xx remain clear of controlled airspace, and I'll be back to you in a minute with instructions for your transist" or "G-xx continue on heading, and I'll be back to you in a minute with further instructions" would be very helpful. At least you'd know your transit request is going to be approved.

Just a thought.

dp

dublinpilot

No - no misunderstanding with the phraseology - see barshaker's post above.

Standby tends to come in answer to the initial call - therefore how do you know you can approve a zone transit if you don't know that's what they want? In addition traffic levels around some of the busier, Class 'D' regionals around the UK, which aren't constant, often mean you don't know whether the transit will be approved until you've fully assessed the information (distance, speed, expected traffic etc etc etc).

Example 1 displays an assumption the aircraft wants a zone transit before they've asked for it - ATC is a game where assumption doesn't play a part.

Example 2 could never be used because if they were close to the zone boundary, and you told them to continue on their heading and got tied up with other things you leave another uncertainty factor in the cockpit "Do I continue on the heading and cross, or do I stay outside?". Also you don't give specific headings to VFR traffic unless you ask them first in case they enter IMC. inadvertantly.

As for the diversion scenario - there's nothing difficult about turning 90 degrees (if that's what's needed, it may not be that much) and then doing a quick map read v ground reference re-route to pick up your track on the other side. You don't need timings, you don't need to re-calculate, just basic map reading skills (which the PPL does learn during his course - or at least I did when I did mine, and have used when flying in unfamiliar countries, never mind areas of my own country).

Chilli,

I think you will find that David understands what the correct phraseology is. He was simply trying to suggest a new one which if accepted and approved, may prove to be more helpful. That is what I think you missed from his post.

Yes, I do accept that standby often comes from an initial call. However I had had a number of calls that went along the lines of :

"ZZZ Control EI-xxx "
"xx go ahead"
"ZZZ Control xx [speil]"
"XX can you confirm.......(possibly that I am currently sqwaking 7000, or some other info)"
"afirm xx"
"Ok xx, standby"

These are where I would see it being more helpful to indicate to a pilot that a transit would be forthcoming, but that the controller needs a little more time.

And yes, I accept that the controller can't tell someone to keep on their heading/track/route without giving a clearance to enter their airspace. However I think a form of wording can be found to indicate that a transit will be granted shortly.

Yes, I sure we can all manage to read a map, and make a diversion, but it's one extra task, that may be completely unnecessary if you knew that your transit was about to be granted.

Surely you can see the point I'm trying to get at? Or is there a reason you wouldn't want to let the pilot know that they'd have their transit clearance shortly?

Of course in this, I am assuming that it's relatively common that controller know they will be able to oblige with a transit, but have a more urgent task to deal with. I could be wrong with that.

dp

One system I have seen that tends to help is the establishment of a number of "corridors". For example, it is usually a safe bet that one can transit the Brize CTR through the overhead (well 1nm East or West) at 2000ft QFE or 8nm East or West not above 1500ft. Maybe this type of system could be explored to reduce R/T? I reiterate that stating time before crossing on initial contact may have some merits. At least this may assist the controller in assessing his priorities.

Nevertheless, we have to remember that for a controller to identify an aircraft (almost a necessity to guarantee a CTR transit nowadays), apply a service, allocate a route, issue a clearance and get an accurate readback all takes time, something that is often lacking.

Finally, I am not sure about the efficacy of giving an ac an indication of the possibility of transit on initial contact. With some of us, that may well lead to more infringements as we would blindly head off towards the boundary only to confirm the status of the (non) clearance on crossing the line.

Whipping Boy's SATCO said:

"This takes me back to my point that units must ensure they are properly resourced to meet the task."

It is what I thought may be the case so should we not be getting our respective organisations (AOPA etc. and of course the CAA) to put pressure on NATS?? to properly resource the ATC so that the terms of the CAS can be adhered to. Failure to apply ought to lead to sanctions in just the same way that unauthorised entry into CAS may lead to sanctions. Will it ever happen? Will ATC be properly resourced? Will profit be put before other considerations?

1) ATCO's don't grow on trees - there is a 20% shortfall of qualified radar controllers throughout Europe. If you can get the people to do the job you still can't train them up overnight

2) Not all CTR's are the responsibility of NATS (a common misconception)

Sumburgh
Prestwick
Newcastle
Tees-side
Ronaldsway
Liverpool
Leeds/Bradford
East Midlands
Bristol
Bournemouth

Are all non-NATS units

Lyneham
Brize Norton

Are, of course, Military.

Didn't the US ATCOs say that to Ronald Reagan? ;)

Given this, I find it odd that NATS have this under 30 rule for applicants. 30 is very young to exclude people; pilots have a chance of making it after this age. Reason for saying this is I know someone, 35, who became interested in becoming an ATCO (and, to me, it seemed he would be well-suited to the job) and was disappointed when he looked into the options for people that don't take the NATS or military route.

Chilli Monster - I was obviously a little hasty in just quoting NATS. yes of course ther are other authorities. My questions till hold good and so why do not the CAA for example get involved to enforce the terms of the "licence" as they would against any miscreant who was a pilot and broke the rules. Surely the "Controlling Authority" is breaking the rules by not having adequate staff to ensure equal access to the designated airspace they wish to control. Can any one give us a definitive answer please? I should stress that apart from one particular piece of CAS (which I simply avoid be it VFR or IFR) the UK has the best ATCOs anywhere in the world and they do a very good job so please dont let this degenerate into having a go at ATCOs.

Thanks for the clarification BEagle .. we are on the same hymn sheet after all. My apologies :ok:

"Given this, I find it odd that NATS have this under 30 rule for applicants"

Is that for qualified applicants or their training scheme? I'm sure that wouldn't apply to, say, an RAF ATCO leaving the service.

G

Hi Genghis,

OK, it's been a year since I went through this so I'm a bit hazy but from what I remember, yes, I think 30 is only the max for the training scheme, but unless you've come from the military (which presumably there's a cut off age for too) it's very tough to become a self-made ATCO and it's difficult to find work.

Just seems to eliminate a whole group of people who reach their mid-thirties, find they are a very different person from the one they were at 18 who set them on the path to their current career and are highly motivated to learn the trade.

If we're capable of working until 70, surely we're still capable of learning a demanding discipline at 31? Not that I know the slightest thing about this - I am mainly just a bit indignant on my friend's behalf. :(

Dusty_B, which version of CAP413 are you quoting as "the last ammendment"?

I've just downloaded the PDF version of CAP413 Edition 15 (Amendment 1 - 17 December 2004).

And in Chapter 6 on Page 24 it gives the example first call "Westbury Apporach G-ABCD request MATZ penetration", similarly on Page 25 "Westbury Approach G-ABCD request Radar Information Service".

RC

Rotorcraig:

OK. I remember haveing a huge debate about this just before Christmas, but all evidence seams to have been deleted from the known universe!! :uhoh:

I am not going mad. I am not going mad. I am not going mad.

Wibble?

This may explain an odd radio call I had from Luton. Routing CFD to BIG we asked for zone transit through Luton but were refused. I routed east making sure we were east of Stevenage and the 350 or 360 radial (I can't remember without looking at a map) to BKP to ensure we were clear.

The controller came onto us 3 times to request we stay clear of controlled airspace. I was sure we were clear but he did not seem to think so.

18 greens, it does happen...... :p

A clue to the problem? :}

Don't you hate Picky Pedants.