At least we now know for sure that DFC doesn't work for the CAA :O

jezbowman:- last time i checked the word "srcutinized" didn't mean criticised, mearly that the procedures were being examined...i certainly didn't take your comments as criticism sorry if it appeared that way.

There is much not done right at EMA in my opinion but also quite alot that is, and i think the way the VFR tarffic is handled in/out down the lanes is very tidy and seems to work very well.


almost profesional... is it true your colleagues put a local standby on when you work in tower??:ok:

And having just re-read that post I must apologise for the awful typo\'s!!!!

be nice to work the tower now and again-perhaps the young ones will let me in this PM!

Evil J - no worries, I was in a tetchy mood yesterday! :p

Yes, I'd agree the lanes do work rather well. The only fault that strikes me is when you're on 27, the LW departure or LE arrival puts you on the wrong side of the M1 which, as a line feature, should be kept to the left if following it. I appreciate there's not much you can do about this in terms of physical geographical layout. But has anyone ever considered using another form of seperation in that 'danger zone' between Trowell and the boundary (also Markfield and Shepshed for 09 days) like using different height clearences, eg inbound not above 1500ft, outbound not above 2000ft. Do you think that'd make the zone entry / exit any safer? Just curious.... :ok:

Jez: there is no separation requirement, you are VFR, and once clear of the zone at long eaton or shepshed u are in an unknown traffic environment, we may well tell u about known traffic if we have time, but don't bank on it!! Personally I think 1500 feet around MArkfield would be VERY iffy coz of the high ground up to 1100ft, not only that but clear of the zone we do not have the authority to restrict your level up to 2500 underneath the CTA so it could only ever be local agreement between the clubs

On 27 u would get a LW departure, and on 09 a LE departure, the reverse inbound-so not sure i get what u mean? Do u mean the wrong side with regard to the right hand side rule??

Either way it is, as i said above ,only a guide line feature for vfr traffic-if u want to leave/ join on another route, alternate lvel u only have to ask and we will if we can.

Oh, I'm aware there's no seperation requirement or that any can be enforced. I'm just thinking of general trends.

Yep.

I guess what I'm getting at is that most SEP aircraft want to be as high as possible at any given point so an aircraft outbound will be overhead Long Eaton at 2000ft, and an inbound one may just have dropped down to 2000ft to get in for his clearance. In that little bit of airspace just north of Long Eaton (and just south of Shepshed) there is opposite direction traffic at the same level (2000ft). Granted one is on the other side of the M1 to the other, but at what point a pilot following the M1 makes his decision to swap to the correct side of the motoway (right hand side rule) is an unknown.

Good point about the 1500ft over Markfield - even at 2000ft it feels like you could nearly reach out and touch those transmission towers. And I got my LW and LE's mixed up in the previous post - will go and correct that.

But then as you say this is VFR and seperation is the responsibility of the eyes in the aircraft!

Agreed, and our MATS Pt2 does mention that those departures don't follow the right hand rule...can't really see a way around it though...??

FYI if you wanna come in higher its rarely a problem especially from the south, from the north can be more tricky(on 27) as we drop the inbounds to 3 thousand as they are going north abeam.

Agreed about the Markfield masts too, that is why when I depart southbound, cloud base permitting, I ask for not about 3 thousand, also gives CAS protection for longer!!!

Lobby,

Here are the appropriate parts of the AIP and the Manual of ATC............both CAA documents which detail what pilots and ATC must do.

AIP ENR 1.10

1.2.2 Flight plans fall into three categories:
(a) Full flight plans: the information filed on Form CA48/RAF 2919;
(b) Repetitive Flight Plans (see paragraph 5);
(c) Abbreviated Flight Plans: the limited information required to obtain a clearance for a portion of flight (eg: flying in a Control
Zone, crossing an Airway) filed either by telephone prior to take-off or by RTF when airborne. The destination aerodrome
will be advised of the flight only if the flight plan information covers the whole route of the flight.

---

1.4.2 A flight plan must be filed for the following:
(a) for all flights within Class A Airspace;
(b) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in IMC or at night, except for those operating under SVFR;
(c) for all flights within any Controlled Airspace in VMC if the flight is to be conducted in accordance with IFR;
(d) for all flights within Class B - D Controlled Airspace irrespective of weather conditions;

---

1.6 Submission Time Parameters
1.6.1 Normally, flight plans should be filed on the ground at least 60 minutes before clearance to start up or taxi is requested;.....................Exceptionally, in cases where it is impossible to meet this requirement, operators should give as much notice as
possible and never less than thirty minutes. Otherwise, if this is not possible, a flight plan can be filed when airborne with any ATSU,
but normally with the FIR Controller responsible for the area in which the aircraft is flying. If the airborne flight plan contains an intention
to enter Controlled Airspace or certain Control Zones/Control Areas, at least 10 minutes prior warning of entry must be given.

---

ICAO Annex 2 describes when a pilot must tell ATS of changes to a flight plan.

------------

MATS 1

Section 5, Chapter 1;

3 Recognising an Emergency Situation
3.1 A controller may suspect that an aircraft is in an emergency situation when:
a) radio contact is not established at the time it is expected to be established;
b) radio contact is lost;...............

---

Section 5, Chapter 3;

Overdue Aircraft;

[I]1 Introduction
.............
Type of Aircraft
Strict adherence to the flight plan cannot always be
expected of a non-radio light aircraft.......

---

2 Aerodrome Procedure

2.3 Radio Equipped Aircraft – Preliminary Action
If an aircraft fails to make a position report when expected, the following preliminary
action shall be commenced not later than the estimated time for the reporting point
plus 30 minutes:
• Advise the ACC supervisor that the aircraft is overdue;
• Confirm ATD from departure aerodrome by quickest possible means;
• Ensure that an RQS message is sent.

---

The above clearly show what the requirements are in black and white.

I particuluarly like the one about flight plans being filed 1 hour prior to flight or exceptionally 30 minutes before or if that is not possible (how often would that be in the UK would that be in today's mobile phone world?) filed in the air! :)

While Vintage ATCO may describe the traditional method used by some units, it is not in compliance with ICAO or UK CAA procedures and requirements.

What seems to have happened is that ATS units have stopped fulfilling the alerting requirements because they fel that they can't trust pilots to keep to the filed flight plan or change the plan as required..........would it not be better to properly educate the pilots of their errors and retain the integrity of the system for those operators who comply with the requirements?

Would it not be better for an App unit to have some advance warning of how many VFR flights are going to call in the next hour for transit.........bit of planning perhaps so that a second position can be opened where necessary and available etc........providing the service to the customer?

Finally if one reads the AIP one will see that flights to/from Fairoaks and Blackbushe are required to address te plan to Farnborough........good idea because the first unit we will call will be Farnborough and often we will have a squalk from them prior to departure..........using Vintage ATCOs rules, farnborough should bin the plan and we should pass full details on departure!

Regards,

DFC

Well, it was a long post DFC, but I don't think that it proved your point. Enroute ATC units are under no obligation to do anything with flightplans they might receive (however filed) from aircraft that will primarily be operating outside controlled airspace and may simply call on the offchance for a transit.

It would be a mistake to confuse the general situation with a local arrangement between certain airfields in close proximity with one another.

2D

And which Flight Plans would these be? The ones not filed by 90% of GA flights?

And what customer would that be? The one that doesn't pay for the service provided?

And which Controller would you use? The one that's on a legally required break - thereby breaking the law?

As 2D's says - long post, proves nothing. All the above are probably catered for in the real world, just not in such laid down ICAO perfect ways that you seem to think everywhere should be working to. ( I really would love to work in this ideal world that you inhabit - please tell me which nirvana to move to to achieve it ;))

When you hold an ATC licence then feel feel to comment on the system and how we should be doing the job - until that happens F:mad:k O:mad:f

Now there's a good example of how to talk to those pesky users, or should I say, customers, since they pay their taxes (e.g. on AVGAS) to the government that franchises the system.

Actually - they don't! The ATC system in this country is not funded one jot by any hypothecation of Avgas duty. It is funded by en-rte IFR charges (part of which pays for LARS) and partially by the direct fees you wil pay to an airport operator in terms of landing and parking fees which go into his budget.

An old chestnut often stated - incorrectly as you can see.

Chilli,

Typical.

You can't counter the requirements that I have clearly copied from the AIP and MATS 1.

This obvously only applies to controllers who work within controlled airspace because You would be quite correct to say that those ATC units with no controlled airspace can not rely on flights bothering to call them.

If anyone thinks that the procedure in the AIP is unworkable or impracticable then rather than simply ignoring the standard would it not be correct to report the situation and try have the CAA change the AIP to reflect actual practice.

And which Flight Plans would these be? The ones not filed by 90% of GA flights?

In the UK, 75% of that 90% would not even know how to file a flight plan!. However you seem to justify total ignoring of Alerting requirements and the old "duty of care" to the 10% that actually read the AIP and do what it says.

As for being a customer............we are required to file a flight plan for anything more than a short flight as per the AIP........we don't pay tax on fuel.......but we pay dearly to land at your airport (not very often) even though we have to fly in Class G airspace and have no protection!

Never assume cause as the old saying goes it makes an ass of.........well you know the rest! :)

Were ATC licences issued by the Board of Trade or whever the name of the week was back then? :)

----
2 Donkeys,

I never mentioned "Enroute ATC".

I intentionally confined my quotes from the ATC manual to Aerodrome Units and Radio Equipped Aircraft.

The AIP clearly says that for a planned zone transit - the options are;

1. Full flight plan
2. Ring the ATC unit concerned prior to flight and pass an abreviated plan.
3. Abreviated plan in the air.

It is clear from Chilli's and Vintage ATCOs remarks that they will ignore option 1. I doubt if they would like lots of people taking option 2 cause this is posibly harder to deal with than option 1 and only gives them the same info........so they arbitarily force pilots to use option 3 despite what the AIP and the MATS says.

As I said....if the AIP procedure is unworkable the answer is to change the procedure. Not to ignore it!

This debate has ensured on thing - if expecting a zone transit from a UK ATC unit, I will;

a) file a full flight plan because that is our standard procedure and complies with the AIP; and (thanks to chilli)
b) ring the ATC unit concerned and either confirm that they have received and will retain my flight plan or if it is already in the bin - pass/fax the details again.

That seems to be the only way that we can get the alerting service that we are entitled to.

Does your unit have lots of ATSAs Chilli? ;)

Talk ta ya,

Regards,

DFC

1. Logistically impossible to deal with. Now, if we had a completely integrated ATC system like the U.S it would be a different matter - but we haven't. Moving into the 21st century would achieve this - but it isn't happening just yet. If it's any consolation the plans don't just end up in the bin - they are kept available, just no strip is produced. Effectively therefore you are getting what you want in the ATC unit fulfilling their responsibilities.

2. Feel free - though I suspect if you're going to do this and you get through to some people you're more likely to be told "Yes - thank you very much" without anything being done about it. You'll have achieved less than option 1 in that case.

3. Yes - you are forced down that avenue. Sorry, it's a fact of life and until we get the same processing and integration as airways flights for flights which transit outside CAS with the occasional zone transit then that's the way it's going to be. It might dent your thoughts on what the relevant ATC units should be doing. However, it's the only sensible way of approaching the problem within the current system.

Yes, the system is at fault. Yes, it does need changing. Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application. People on both sides of the fence may not like it, often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill!

If the ATCO uses the word "Cleared" then you are cleared and all you have to do is read back the clearance (CAP 413).

Not difficult, I think.

Chilli

I didn't say that the tax from AVGAS paid directly for the system, maybe you didn't read my post propoerly before replying ;)

You need to think outside the scope, sorry I mean the box, for a minute.

It is the tax on AVGAS that helps the government to balance the books and leave AVTUR tax free, that helps the airlines pay the nav charges that pay for the system that the government franchises.

If airliners with big round pistons and turbines competed for business, a clever lawyer would challenge this status quo under the EU legislation that makes discriminatory state aid unlawful, but obviously that is not the case.

So GA users do pay something for the system. Whether it is precisely hypothecated or not is irrelevant,in the same way that National Insurance is collected, but not hypothecated to a pension fund.

Geddit now?

DFC,

I see in your signature that you live in Euroland. Is that the same resort where my kiddies' esteemed friend M. Mouse lives.

Get real mate.

Your ability to cut and past from the AIP and MATS is second to none.

Your grasp of reality of ATC procedures in the UK is clearly non existent.

Do yourself and us a favour; get your Thomas the Tank Engine set out and go play with that.

It is clear from your postings that you have zilch experience of operating in this part of the real world. To argue with professionals who work in this environment and those of us who fly in it regularly by doing some cut and pasting is pathetic.

Take it you're now going to 'Miss' complaining that we don't take you serious. Or is it going to be an MOR?

Oh dear guys, brace yourself for a telling off.

:} :}

F3G
Sorry, but seeing as the CAA, NATS and all other sides of the aviation industry are self funded (no government assistance / subsidies) and haven't been since NATS was sold off your logic is flawed to put it mildly. My comprehension of your post was, therefore, correct.

If they have no input into government coffers then, by definition, they have no impact on balancing the books (AVTUR tax free is just that, it's not a subsidy, therefore it just means the government is looking elsewhere for financial input).

I'm not Gordon Brown, and I'm no economist. However, common sense dictates you can't include something you don't have in an equation. (Or maybe I'm getting it wrong and you can, hence the prevalence of the debt embracing society ;))

CM - the funds paid to some units for the provision of LARS (H/side I think is one such), where does that come from? General taxation, I believe, and as tax and duty from GA in all its forms be it Avgas or anything else goes into general taxation, then GA is paying quite a lot for the "service" it receives. Is this not so?

Working Hard

Again - another misapprehension.

LARS funding comes directly from IFR en-rte charges, NOT general taxation. So, it's being paid for by everyone who flies IFR and weighs more than 2000kg MTOW, whether they use the service or not.

And the amount of money units get for LARS doesn't even cover the cost of 1 ATCO (I know - I've just seen the letter from DAP that tells us how much we'll be getting!).

DFC,

I don't really see the point you are trying to make. but if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do. It's simple enough.

If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio. :p

DFC

You really do have to get a grip on yourself.

Your conception of the real world of aviation is far removed from mine, and I have been in it for many many years.

You are giving the impression of someone who likes to think that since you have the book of words you must be right. You are not and I am not going to justify that. Others have already done very well in telling you how it is.

If you just like to talk to ATC you are wasting their time. I know Vintage ATCO and to tell him that he not complying with ANYTHING connnected with his job is downright stupid. But then maybe you think that VFR, IFR this and that ATC is there just for your convenience. As I said before, it ain't, it never was and it never will be.

Now, maybe Flyin' Dutch has it right. You live in the M.Mouse world. Tellya what, don't ever go to him for a medical, when he tells you to cough you could be in big trouble.

Now give it a rest. Your pedantic views are out of place in the real world of ATC. They are brilliant at the job they do. Are you a brilliant pilot? I doubt it.

On the last proon Farnborough LARS visit (Cheers BRL) we were given a figure of £35k/annum. So yes, not even one controller is paid for inspite of it being one of the busiest stations.

Chilli

I'm not trying to start an argument, but your position is quite wrong on state aid, so I'll post a reply that you may find helpful in understanding the position. Note that I am not a lawyer, but I do work as a consultant pan Europe and believe that I have a reasonable grasp of the law.

This info is purely about tax incentives aka state aid, not about the rights and wrongs of who pays for the system or GA users being badly done to ;) Also, you may feel that the laws are more often observed in the breach!

Let's have another go. CAA, NATS et al exist because the UK government lets them act as franchises and like most franchises, they pay their own way.

However, the UK government chooses to collect no duty or tax on AVTUR and this provides an incentive to the airlines who pay the nav charges that pay for the services provided.

Other forms of transport, e.g. road hauliers, do pay tax and/or duty, so there is asymmetric treatment in place.

Taxing one group of people and not another is considered to be potentially providing unlawful state aid under EU rules, because an incentive is being offered.

I know from reading your posts on many threads that you understand the ATC rules and regs very well, but you don't know very much about the Free and Fair trade laws in the EU by the content of your replies, which I guess is understandable given your job.

Here's an extract from an official Maltese publication that states things simply, I have capitalised the key words.

"State Aid
State aid is financial support that is granted by governments to certain companies. We usually speak of “subsidies” which are direct grants. But there are other forms of state aid, such as TAX INCENTIVES, subsidised interest rates on loans or loan guarantees. EU law prohibits state aid because it gives an unfair competitive advantage to assisted companies over companies that are not assisted. However, not all types of state aid are prohibited. State aid is allowed if it is granted for justifiable reasons such as, to help small businesses, for restructuring, training, job creation or to help regional development. State aid which is limited in amount is also exempted from EU rules. "

F3G

I see your point - now. That's the danger with specialised knowledge. Often it's not readily apparent that 95% of the population won't have it and therefore won't think the same way.

Just think how simple it would have been to have pointed out such things beforehand ;)

Chilli,

Yes, some of what is written in the manuals when it is disected (as in forums like this) shows very large holes in the practical application..............often some of those people try to change things for the better, even when at times it seems like you're pushing sh1t uphill

No Sj1t. :)

---

Shy Thorque,

You have missed my points.

if you are concerned about an alerting service then just call the appropriate en route ATC unit like the rest of us do

That is what we do when we can. However, have you ever had any problem getting through to London info on a sunny summer Sunday Morning when the South of the UK leaves for France. Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination.

However, if we will transit a zone enroute then provided we don't change our flight plan, we will have to call that zone and as the top reason for suspecting an emergency is failure to call when expected, any ATC unit meeting CAA requirements will be in a position to make that alert if we don't call with 30 minutes of the expected time.

If your "system" of written flight plans for every VFR flight were to be brought into force it would make the job totally impractical. Keep the freedom we have in the UK, get airborne and get on the radio

It isn't "my" system. It is the UK CAA system.
I never said that written flight plans should be required for anything more than they are required already.
Keep the freedoms.......show me where they are written down :D

Look at it like this;

1. If I am going to stick to my route and transit a zone then as per the AIP, it makes sense to file in advance.

2. If on the otherhand, I intend to simply have a bimble and perchance call for a zone transit then it would be better to simply file an abreviated plan in flight ( again as per the AIP).

In 1 above, I am already known to the ATC system and the ATC unit concerned is responsible for initiating overdue action if I fail to turn up (They have no get out clause because it is in the AIP and MATS 1). I in turn am required to notify any changes to my flight plan to avoid unnecessary overdue action.

In 2, I can't really predict exactly what I am going to do so it would be too cumbersome to file a written plan (although I could but it isn't worth while addressing various zones that may or may not be transited) and because of the random nature of my flight it would be unreasonable to expect ATC to provide any form of alerting other than when I am in contact with that unit.

Thus I hope you can see that I am not trying to change any requirement for flight plans, I am merely trying to make the point that since pilots are legally required to comply with the AIP then ATC should coinsidder themselves under the same legal requirement...........not to mention duty of care.

You still have the opotion to simply call on the radio.

---

CaptainFillosan,

If you could counter the argument then perhaps you would have. In the absence of any counter argument you resort to the personal attack. Feel free to say that what the AIP says is wrong.

At least Chilli had the balls to say that!

ATC is there just for your convenience

Close - see the objectives of ATC............all of which are about providing services to flights.

There are only two services provided to every flight regardless of what ATS unit they talk to..........Flight Information and Alerting.

There is only one service provided by ATS units to flights in which they have no contact - Alerting Service.

Are you a brilliant pilot?

I doubt it to.............but I have survived thus far.

As I said previously - 75% of UK pilots can not file a written flight plan without help. A similar percentage of active pilots when asked admitt to not haing read the AIP in the last year................does that not tell the CAA something about the standard of the UK GA pilot?

Let's all take your line.

The AIP and the ANO are far too pedantic.........forget licences and medicals and calling ATC......simply fly for the hell of it.........and see how we get on.

I await the moaning about European regulations when the one sky enforces filed plans for everything above 3000ft!

regards,

DFC

DFC,

"Furthermore, there is no requirement to call anyone while in Class G.........and if that is the choice we make then we miss that oportunity for an alerting service and the only one going to alert anyone is the person awaiting our arrival at destination."

Are you saying that you would rather file a paper flight plan before you go and rely solely on that, rather than make en route radio calls? I must have missed your point again because I can't believe anyone would. Far better to be in real time r/t contact with a ground unit if you have an emergency, rather than rely on a filed piece of paper when you aren't. It doesn't have to be London, just the nearest airfield.

Or are you just angry because in practice ATC doesn't work like you think it ought to? :confused:

DFC, your persistent view - despite being repeatedly told otherwise by those who intimately aware of the practical application of the rules that you quote - appears, on the face of it, to be a matter of differing interpretations of the rules. In reality, filed flight plans are normally addressed by ATS/AIS staff and not by pilots. Things are changing because pilots, for a variety of reasons, can now have access to the ATN messaging systems. ATS /AIS staff address FPL messages according to well defined rules and pilots should do the same. These rules DO NOT include addressing FPLs to units that you may just happen to be passing by.

In years gone by these rules were included in CAP493 MATS Part 1 but for some reason they were removed a long time ago. I guess if they were still there you'd be able to read them and quote them in forums like Pprune. As it is, I dont think they're published in any UK document and the only place you'll find them is in an ICAO doc - the reference for which escapes me at this time on a Sunday morning. But I'm sure you'll be able to find it!

If, after you've read it, you still think you're right, please tell us all why.

If you're right and I'm wrong, I apologise. If I'm right and you're wrong, don't worry about apologising, just learn that despite what you think, if everyone else who know what they're talking about is telling you you're wrong - then you probably are!

Folks,

Last time I was in Disneyland I did not see any pedantic Rhinos.

I will have a closer look next time.

:}

I am afraid that as with any 'rule', there is never black and white, even if asserted as so by DFC.

In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established (which negates point [a] above). The interpretation of many ATC units (and mine) is that radio contact would only be expected if the pilot had made an initial call and a follow up call had not been made when expected (asked to report passing a position, for example), or if the aircraft had been subject to a co-ordination message from another ATSU and then did not call on the frequency at the expected time. If it was otherwise, then the chasing around of people who didn't turn up (and were not obliged to in any case) would keep the Rescue Co-ordination Centres very busy indeed. Mmmm, now there's a thought. Bring that in and charge them all for wasted time. We could probably fund the whole ATC system .. and the NHS :)

If we do follow DFCs interpretation however, then there is also an onus placed on the pilot to contact each and every ATC unit on their Flight Plan every time their estimate changes by -/+ 3 minutes. These are the tolerances. Is that really what pilots (not to mention ATC) want ??

Again, this down to interpretation. When do ATC expect a pilot to make a position report ?

Well, one scenario is 'when requested'. But you'd need to be in contact already for that, or asked to do so by another ATC unit. So in that case we already know you are in the system and have a firm idea of what you are actually doing.

Another is if it is a mandatory reporting point. But then you'd be on a published ATS route .. and have a clearance, and be in contact, etc, etc.

Bottom line is that for aircraft outside CAS, position reports are only expected by ATC in a limited set of circumstances. Hence our wide held interpretation that a pilot who simply files a flight plan for a transit and then is not subject to any communication with ATC (either directly or through another ATSU) is not expected to make a position report and thus cannot be overdue in making said report. That's why we as a system take no action on flight planned aircraft which don't turn up for a transit.

The entire responsibility in this case lies with the arrival airfield or the 'responsible person'.

Thanks for all that Guys.

So basically we have the AIP saying one thing but ATC are doing something different and everyone has absolutely no problem with that.

Furthermore to Quote PPrune Radar;

In this case, even in the event of the receipt of a Flight Plan by a transit unit, it does not automatically follow that they expect radio contact to be established

So I tell you that I am going to pass straight across your zone through your overhead and you don't expect me to call?

If that is the case then where is the problem with this pilot who called, passed details of the flight and then it was later claimed that he infringed the zone.

Have you cake and eat it!

Regards,

DFC

PS. Radar - 30 minutes is the threshold for alerting action. 3 minutes applies to aircraft subject to ATC clearance.

Spitoon - Random address book (can remember the CAP) and AIP....only limit is on the likes of BAWYWY company addresses.

Shy Torque,

Yes you got it all wrong again!

Dutch,

Sorry did you make an input? - No?

Come now DFC, the book is always open to interpretation. You believe it says something which others believe it doesn't. It would need someone from the CAA to make the ruling on whose semantics are correct. Do you see that ever happening ?? ;)

There are times when I wouldn't. ATC clearances can be relayed by another agency or obtained prior to departure. Executive control can be delegated by way of Letters of Agreement to another agency. And so on and so forth.

The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP. :ok: ENR 1.1.2 Paragraph 1.4 covers it nicely.

Acceptance of a request for clearance does not imply that a clearance to enter Controlled Airspace has been given or will be granted.

The 30 minutes has a baseline which is calculated as the estimated time for a position report (as per your MATS Part 1 entry). A Flight Plan with elapsed times is NOT a position report. The circumstances where you are required to make a position report are again contained in the UK AIP within ENR 1.1.3 Paragraph 1. In all the cases where a report is required, the pilot will be in communication with ATC. So we know for definite you are in the system, we know where you are (or were), and we have a relatively accurate ETA for the reporting point. And so we would take the appropriate Alerting Action if required.

A Flight Plan is of course only a statement of intent, and may not be adhered to, as we all know. In terms of transit ATSUs, I think the following AIP entry also lends support to the fact that there is no onus on them to take any action if an aircraft doesn't appear looking to transit their zone. In this specific case it is talking about diversions.

If a pilot lands at an aerodrome other than the destination specified in the flight plan, he must ensure that the ATSU at the original destination is informed within 30 minutes of his flight planned ETA, to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services.

Now if your interpretation is correct .... don't you think it would also place an onus on the pilot to make sure that each transit ATSU was also informed within 30 minutes of the expected transit time to avoid unecessary action being taken by the Alerting Services. ?????? :}

Maybe time for a bit of selfreflection on your part.

Or are you stuck on broadcasting only?

PPRuNe Radar,

The problem is that he is ignoring the UK AIP

That is exactly my point.........when is it OK for ATC to ignore the AIP and not for the pilot to do the same?

You are quite correct, radio equipped aircraft are required to inform ATS of changes to a flight plan to avoid unnecessary alerting action. That is why radio equipped aircraft are treated differently to non-radio in the MATS 1.

Put yourself in somewhere like Alaska with the UK AIP and ATS system. Would you treat flight plans in the same way?........ignoring flights wo depart but don't turn up?

Regards,

DFC

DFC

No sh1t sherlock! We're not in Alaska, we're in the UK. The procedures work in the UK, they wouldn't in Alaska.

I believe that's why they're published as NATIONAL procedures ;)

Much as you love hammering on about the 'interpreted' fallacies of the UK may I suggest a look across the water at a certain gallic country twice as large. Much of what you say over there would be greeted by the delightful phrase "fous le camp" ;)

Arrange these two words in a well known saying - "life" and "get".

DFC,

UK AIP in Alaska? WTHAYOA? :rolleyes:

Now I understand your problem. Seen it before in the military when everyone on parade was out of step except one bloke.... ;)

P.S. Suggest you contact the CAA immediately.

Wow.

This is what PPRUNE is all about - A topic called Zone Infringements with someone who lives in dream world bitching on about overdue action, FPL's and All things Alaskan!

Way to go DFC. I am with ShyTorque and others here. Come and live in the real world.

(P.S. It also says in the Highway Code that the motorway speed limit is 70mph, that people must always indicate at roundabouts and people shouldn't drive in the bus lane.

How do you survive day to day life when you have your head stuck up your ar$e>?)

In the ideal world, we'd have US style VFR flight following in the UK, then we wouldn't need to worry about busting airspace ;)

Too right Englishal. Pilots navigating for themselves would be too horrible to imagine :D

Perhaps Pprune should be rebranded as thed Twilight Zone.... and here is your host..... DFC :D

Slagging episodes over matters like this are just counter productive.

DFC, seriously, I think you do have a point BUT the written word obviously leaves some ambiguity in your mind. If the CAA were unhappy with it, they have had many years to do something about it and they haven't. I don't think you will ever change it and there is no reason to do so because the system works! Your best option is to just accept the way it is.