Zone Infringements
 

I overheard an interesting conversation on the airwaves a few days ago.

Chappie in a helicopter asks for a direct routing from point A to point B when asked for point of origin and destination. ATCO notes his message and he trundles on his way. A few minutes later the ATCO calls him up and informs him that he has clipped the edge of the Zone. He apologises profusely and the ATCO basically says no problem we were watching you on radar and there was no conflict. Great methinks, error pointed out in friendly manner, apologies made, lesson learned, happy ending to story.

Wrong. Two or three minutes later, extremely agitated Senior ATCO gets on radio and proceeds to tear into the helo pilot and spends a good three or four minutes berating him while a succession of 737's and 757's are waiting to get a word in edgewise on a busy frequency. Why did he bother? I've heard that this is not the first time that this has happened. Not a problem for me but I'm sure it is a concern for the people flying for a living who have to fanny around while this chap vents his spleen.

Any comments peeps?

You might be better off asking this in the ATC forum.... if you dare :D

2D

Does the granting of a request to route from A to B at level C amount to a transit of controlled airspace on that route?

(without asking for a CAS transit explicitly)

I hope so... It's a really stupid question but I DO wonder whether the ATCO is really going to hold a ruler against the chart to see what the pilot is talking about.

For obvious reasons, that is not a question that can be answered without knowing the precise phraseology used on both sides of the conversation.

Generally speaking though, a pilot is required to know and understand whether or not he can legally execute an instruction or clearance. That is not the ATCO's responsibility. If in doubt, ask.

2D

Hmm, sounds like a Jobsworth to me ;)

On the subject of Zone infringements, I flew to L2K a while back from EGHH which took me out to the south then along the coast Another aircraft also went a few minutes behine us. We both had RIS from Solent as the weather was not too good, we stayed at 1900 ' to stay below the Solent Class D north of the Isle Of Wight, yet we heard the other aircraft ask for RIS at 2100'. When we got to L2K we asked the other pilot what altitude they were at and they confirmed 2100', and when we mentioned that that had put them into Solent Class D they went white as a sheet.....

Solent didn't say anything, it was almost as if a clearance had been implied and they obviously didn't care. It would almost be better if when receiving a service from a zone controlling unit, you are either expressly told to "remain clear of controlled airspace" if thats what they want to avoid any ambiguity. I suspect that the chap you heard had assumed he had been cleared to cut the corner of the zone.If they are watching on radar and if it looks like you will be busting CAS without permission, wouldn't it be better if they called up / gave vectors rather than wait to an imfringement and they issue a bollocking?

Another slightly abiguous one happened a few weeks ago. Coming back to Bournemouth with a FIS from Solent, and was told to contact Bournemouth, who gave us weather and which runway to expect, and told us to contact the tower who told us to "report final". No "clearance" into their zone was given, though it was implied and interpreted as so. Is two way Comms now enough to be cleared into Class D airspace?

There's two ways this can happen, I'd venture.

If you ask for a routing, that takes you through airspace, and the routing is granted, I'd take that as permission.

If, on the other hand, you simply inform an air-trafficker of your route, and have only asked for a service (RIS/FIR/RAS), then no permission has been granted, and therefore I'd venture that you need crossing clearance separately.

I can recall an occasion when I fell foul of this, I was working service A, with a RIS, who had my height and routing. They eventually handed me over to service B, whose first call after identifying me was to inform me that I was already 10 miles or 1000ft (depending upon how you look at it) inside their class D airspace without permission. I apologised, and they clearly had better things to do than worry about it - but I was almost certainly at fault since no specific clearance had been requested or given.

In an ideal world, ATC will identify that you will need a clearance, and sort it out before you need to ask for it. But, they are busy folks, and you can't assume that'll happen.

G

In the UK two way comms is not sufficient to enter or transit Class D, a specific clearance is required.

Technically unless the atco specifically clears you through, if you've said you're going A to B which would take you through the Class D the atco is working in, then you should not assume you've been cleared and remain outside.

It's very sloppy controlling if the controller thinks they have cleared you through just by acknowledging your route, and if I was the pilot I'd be getting back on the r/t and clearing up the ambiguity by asking something along the lines of "confirm I am cleared to transit the Class D". Hopefully a proper clearance would then be forthcoming.

As for issuing a bollocking on the r/t, whether deserved or not that sort of thing gets me very wound up as it is totally indefensible. The last thing a possibly new or low hours pilot needs, for the controller won't know the experience level of the person he's having a go at, is for his confidence to be shot to h*ll while he's in the air. If something needs to be said, give a phone number to call after landing, that's all that is needed. If I knew who the "senior atco" was at the start of the thread I'd quite happily go and give him a serious bollocking.

I will hold my hand up and will admit that I've made a control zone airspace bust.

Was departing out of Bembridge enroute to Cardiff via the coastline along Bournemouth.

Climbed up to 3000' and when I called Solent they were waiting for me to call... I was 1000' into their zone but there was no problem and I was cleared through the zone at that altitude anyway, beats asking for it.

They didn't report me, or even ask me to call them on the telephone as when they told me I was in their airspace and I was cleared through I did sound rather suprised (which in fact I was!), looked at my chart and explained what I thought happened - only took twenty seconds or so and the frequency was quiet.

So I am very thankful to the controller who was on duty on Solent Radar that day a few years ago. Never done the same thing again.

On the subject of Solent they have always cleared me into their airspace at various levels, both before and after the incident, usually via SAM without any delay whatsoever. I have nothing but good praise for them... never had to duck under their airspace but have had a plan of action ready anyway. Staying above 3000' does help though, it seems.

On a purely private note, and particularly in case there are any Solent controllers reading this - I've never yet found Solent less than 150% helpful with zone crossings (planned or inadvertent). A few other LARS providers in the south of England could do worse than emulate them, they do a good job - and it's certainly not because they have nothing else to do, the frequency is often very busy.

G

You must obtain a crossing / joining clearance to cross / join controlled airspace - PERIOD!!

Advising a controller of your intended route thru controlled airspace and assuming an acknowledgement is a clearance just isn't good enough I'm afraid.

This sort of thing happens a lot:

XXX this is G-XXXX, PA28 routing EGXX to EGXX VFR looking to cross your zone routing XXX DCT XXX at 2000'.

G-XX XXX Radar, roger FIS QNH xxxx squawk xxxx.

ATCO then turns his attention to something else and when complete notices G-XXXX trundling thru the zone minus a clearance.

G-xx XXX Radar, you have entered controlled airspace without a clearance.

XXX Radar G-XX, sorry I thought you'd cleared us in.

Negative G-XX an acknowledgement of a request to transit controlled airspace does not constitute a clearance.

G-XX roger XXX, sorry about that.

Okay G-XX continue VFR through the zone not above 2000' (in a voice which suggests the pilot had better learn from this because next time......:ouch: !)

Bit of a generalisation but it does happen.

Without the words "Cleared to enter" or "Cleared to transit / cross" you can't come in! Any ATCO who just says "approved" or "roger" and lets you through is just plain sloppy and/or crap in my book.

ATCOs can do their bit too, such as "Expect to transit as requested but ROCAS for the moment, I will call you back" etc

The key here is if in doubt, ASK!!

As for the highly excitable SATCO jumping on the frequency, if the SATCO here tried that with me in the chair he would be politely told to f:mad:k off :E

Clearance v cleared
 

Two words that are a real problem.

Some years ago following a serious accident the use of the word "take-off" was restricted to a specific occasion and in its application.

It is time for the two very similar; "cleared" and "clearance", but very different words to be revised.

Perhaps the phrase; "expect your routing to be" and "you are cleared to" would be less ambiguous. It would also then become; "after departure your routing will be" followed by; "you are cleared to take-off".

I agree with the many comments that ATC do not always bother to issue a formal clearance once the routing is agreed. In fact i have on occasion experienced a degree of irritation from ATC when i have insisted that a formal "cleared to..." is given.

IMHO, the whole thing is indeed very sloppy.

Route clearances are supposed to be issued with the complete callsign. (CAP413, ss 1.13 refers). Any time a controller uses your complete callsign you are supposed to use it also, so the complete callsign should be used for readback too.

TPK:ok:

englishal
The chap in the helo actually did say that and the response wasn't very friendly! 2Donkeys, squibbler and Warped Factor are completely correct in what they are saying as was the Senior ATCO afterwards, it was a) the fact he decided to comment after the previous ATCO had cleared up the matter and b) the ferocity of his attitude that made me take notice of the exchange.

IO540 I assume that they do tend to watch that corner of the Zone as there are two strips, three airfields and an airport within 30 miles of it

As Homeguard says, I have experienced considerable irritation from ATC when I have asked for formal conformation on clearance. It is a problem, which has got a lot more common in the last few years.

Rod1

Homeguard, I'm not entirely sure of your point. Isn't this thread about Zone infringements? You seem to be referring to take off clearances :confused:

How can "G-xx cleared for take off wind 240/12?" be ambiguous?

Are you referring to clearances on the ground or in the air?? Or both......can you be a little less ambiguous ;) ??

Rod - I have experienced considerable irritation from Pilots when I try to get a formal readback!! Clearances are supposed to be read back in full (including the full callsign as ThePirateKing correctly points out). The most common omissions are usually the level restriction (VFR) and the QNH. If I don't get a decent readback I threaten to cancel their clearance - it usually has the desired effect :}

It should be remembered that all ATCOs are professionals, and conduct their roles every day. Not all pilots are professionals, and not all fly every day.

Although I expect amateur pilots to do the best they can, and indeed expect them to avoid controlled airspace unless in receipt of the appropriate clearance, I do not always assume that they can exhibit the same levels of experience as an ATCO in terms of using the correct phraseology. The omission of a QNH or VFR term should not deserve a threatened refusal of a clearance.
A gentle reminder might be more appropriate.

Also, any kind of "b0ll0cking" over the airwaves is not conducive to good relations between pilots and ATCOs.

I never said I threatened to refuse a clearance due to a pilot omitting the QNH or VFR term. I quoted those as common ommissions from a readback. If you re-read my post again I was referring to pilots becoming irritated because I insist on a full readback. If such a basic function of airmanship causes them irritation to the point where I am unable to obtain a correct readback they can contemplate things whilst they route around the zone. Of course they may have omitted the QNH or whatever in the readback in error and naturally I would prompt them for it (hey but thanks for the advice :rolleyes: ).

I am not referring to Pilots with poor R/T who struggle to readback clearances (although they can be a pain in their own right.....but that's for another thread). I am referring to experienced and in some cases professional GA pilots who can't manage a correct readback on occassion and by their very tone of voice consider it extremely demeaning to be told by ATC to "readback the full clearance".

You can call me pedantic if you like but I have a licence to maintain so I go by the book and the book says this:

4.6 Acknowledgement of Messages
Pilots are expected to acknowledge all messages. In some cases the sole use of the aircraft’s callsign is sufficient. However, an acknowledgement only is not acceptable when a complete or abbreviated read back is required.

4.7 Pilot Read Back of RTF Messages
4.7.1 Pilots are required to read back in full messages containing any of the following items:
• Taxi instructions
• Level instructions
• Heading instructions
• Speed instructions
• Airways or route clearances
• Approach clearances
• Runway-in-use
• Clearance to enter, land on, take-off, backtrack, cross or hold short of any active runway
• SSR operating instructions
• Altimeter settings
• VDF information
• Frequency changes
• Type of radar service
• Transition levels

4.7.2 Controllers are to prompt a pilot if a read back is not immediately forthcoming.

4.7.3 Errors in a read back must be corrected by the controller until the pilot gives an accurate read back.

4.7.4 Items which do not appear in the list above may be acknowledged with an abbreviated read back..........

:ok:

DubTrub,

Anybody not reading back the QNH should be immediately grounded! :ooh:

Somebody with a single digit error in their QNH setting (say, 1003 instead of 1013) is 300ft adrift of where they think they are. Not good when most VFR pilots seem to fly around at either 2000, 2300 or 2500 feet...

TPK:ok:

clearances
 

squibbler

I'm talking about all clearances but also give an example of how i think the other clearances such as departure clearances also regularly cause problems, which are fixable.

As for controllers picking up on improper or incomplete readbacks, i'm all for it. I'm always grateful when a controller does so it relieves me from nagging the student over yet another point - and its also how they learn.

I recall reading somewhere or being told to look upon a clearance as a contract. There are two parties to a contract and each has to EXPLICITLY acknowledged their acceptance of the contract.

In other words G- is Cleared to enter controlled airspace etc, and the acceptance of the contract, G- is cleared to etc.

Nothing else will do, because this avoids any doubt about whether a specific contract has been agreed to enter controlled airspace.

I have tried "G- wishes to route X to X, request zone transit through controlled airspace" and the reply "G- is cleared to route towards X, not above 1,500 feet". There is clearly doubt whether a clearance has been given, whatever might be intended. Why not ensure the position is clear - "Is G- cleared to enter controlled airspace .. .. .."

It seems to me simple, be clear whatever words you use, that a contract been EXPLICITLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY reached between the two parties for you to enter controlled airspace.

When a request for a clearance is made (10 minutes+ before the airspace boundary and more if a flight plan is not filed), ATC either issue the clearance or tell the pilot to "remain outside controlled airapace" and pass an expect onward clearance time. That was the system the last time I checked.

In many places outside the UK if you request a routing from a to b to c where b is within controlled airspace, you will either get a clearance or be clearly told to remain outside. a simple roger is not enough.

I find it very common especially round Odiham that when a MATZ transit is requested the atco merely acknowledges the call and must be pressed in order to get the words "MATZ transit approved" - of course when VFR we are usually going throgh anyway but it did make me laugh when 10 minutes after requesting a MATZ transit VFR we told ATC that we had the traffic on final approach 12 O'clock .5nm in sight............lots of eh em eh eh roger!!!

Even better is the MATZ transit approved remain outside the ATZ...........followed by GXXXX confirm remaining outside the ATZ.............followed by GXXXX you were told to remain outside the ATZ you are directly over XYZ airfield.......to which the reply is "GXXXX is 2500ft above XYZ airfield we are overhead and outside the ATZ.

Face it......the system isn't perfect on both the ATC side and the Pilot side.......I wait the time when a pilot chews out an ATCO for something as keeps their licence!

:D :D :D

Regards,

DFC

You mean "I look forward to the time....etc" don't you DFC :E

MATZs are slightly odd concepts. You're daft if you enter one without "permission" but as they're class G.......;)

A typical zone D airport joining goes like this in my experience:

"XYZ radar, GABCD 5 east of <VRP> 2000 landing with Xray"
"GABCD QNH 1020 expect runway AB report field in sight"
"1020 wilco GABCD"
"field in sight ABCD"
"ABCD contact XYZ tower now on 123.45"
"tower on 123.45 GABCD"
"XYZ tower, GABCD inbound"
"GABCD XYZ tower, roger, join left base for AB, wind 270 at 10"
" left base for AB GABCD"
"GABCD cleared to land, where will you be parking"
"cleared to land parking at handling ABCD"
"GABCD take the next left, taxy to handling via bravo"
"left and via bravo to handling, ABCD"

I stress this is typical, only occasionally have I been asked to "remain outside CAS", and virtually never have I been given an EXPRESS CLEARANCE to enter CAS. I have queried this in the past "XYZ radar confirm GABCD is cleared into ABCD delta" but as I always have been, I've stopped now.....?

At East Mids the clearance is rarely (if ever) confusing. Particularly with regards to entering the zone - if they can't offer you a clearance straight away they usually tell you that you're not yet cleared. It typically goes like this:

"G-ABCD is at Markfield, request re-join"
"G-CD route towards the southern zone boundary, runway 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, you're not yet cleared to enter the zone"
"G-CD wilco, 27, QNH 1013, QFE 1003, not yet cleared into the zone."

"G-CD is cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above 2000ft VFR, report the southern zone boundary"
"G-CD cleared Sierra Echo not above 2000ft, wilco."

"G-CD zone in Shepshed" <Shepshed is the town on the zone boundary>
"G-CD roger, contact tower 124.0"
"Tower 124.0, G-CD"

"East Mids Tower, G-ABCD zone in Shepshed"
"G-CD report left base for 27, number one"

englishal

What you descibe above is more like what happens (to me anyway!) when I've been into places like Coventry and Cambridge - not class D. However, it was also quite similar to the crossing clearance I got from Luton once. I.e. they did not use the words 'cleared to enter', nor did I. All quite informal and I didn't see that as a problem. But I guess the words "you are cleared" were never spoken - therefore was I really 'cleared'?

In any half decent SEP, you might have problems contacting the ATCU from 10 minutes out :O

Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP.

I think ATCOs could be slightly more explicit in an effort to assist the eductaion of pilots to this end.

The issue is most pronounced on joining the airways system from outside controlled airspace, where routings are issued with a clearance implied. For example, on coming down from Carlisle:

"G-ABCD route MCT, HON for Cambridge"

was what I got from Manch by way of clearance. Similar often happens outbound from Cambridge to the south, with no explicit clearance given, but instructions that clearly require me to enter controlled airspace.

I don't think it's a big deal, but if ATCOs got into to the same trouble every time that they failed to issue an explicit clearance for an aircraft they expected to enter controlled airspace as pilots do if they enter without a clearance, the world would be a different place.

IO540,

In any half decent SEP, you might have problems contacting the ATCU from 10 minutes out

If you had a half decent radio you would have a range of over 30nm at 1000ft. Takes 10 minutes at 180Kt GS. Good speed for an SEP.

Of course the 10 minutes counts back from the time at which you want the clearance. You can still keep your dodgy radio and be willing to hold outside for up to 10 minutes (if they will give a clearance with such a radio - the receiver site could be the best part of 20nm from you when at the zone boundary in some cases!)

Incidentally I don't see why a flight plan necessarily comes into it. A FP is distributed only to departure, destination, and perhaps a regional info service. One might be crossing some Class D on the way but they won't get the FP

Check out the AIP for the times when a flight plan is required.

You can either plan ahead and ensure that the unit gets a copy of a filed flight plan if you made one (include their address in the required place) or pass the details (file a plan) by R/T.

Basically the system says that if your plan to transit controlled airspace you should file a flight plan prior to the flight. If you file in the air (pass the details to the ATC unit) you could be further delayed while the plan is processed.

Regards,

DFC

DFC

You seem to have some odd ideas about UK ATC.

It is pointless sending a copy of a FPL to an en-route aerodrome whose Class D CAS you wish to cross. The vast majority wouldn't do anything with the information as you are never sure if the acft would call you or route elsewhere; there is little advantage in having a strip prepared. This certainly was the case at Luton when we had the APP function there. Indeed, once we had automatic data processing we would not have even known such a FPL had been sent as the system only dealt with FPLs where we were the destination or point of departure.

An acft calls for transit (thereby passing an 'abbreviated FPL'), you write it on a strip and you deal with it. Simply. You seem to imply there is a delay whilst the details are entered into a 'system'. There isn't. No is no 'system' into which transit acft details are entered.

Earlier you said if CAS transit was refused an onward clearance time would be issued. If you mean a simply Class D transit then I have never known such a time to be given where I have operated. I might have said 'remain outside controlled airsapce, I'll get back to you in a few minutes' but not issue a specific time. This implies, in the event of radio failure, the acft could then transit the Class D. Wouldn't want that.

jezbowman in every dealing I've had with Luton Approach they have been very specific with the "remain outside controlled airspace" and "G-ABCD is cleared to enter / leave the zone" statements. I have always found Luton App to be considerate and helpful personally. Shame they are actually located in West Drayton rather than Luton itself.

Vintage ATCO,

If I addressed a copy of my flight plan to any ATC unit and subsequently found that they had ignored both the flight plan and the departure time I would considder that an MOR could be appropriate.

The UK has no differences filed to ICAO ALerting Service requirements when ATC units are concerned. (The only difference applies when the destination has no ATS).

You are required to initiate the "uncertainty" phase when no communication has been receved from an aircraft within a period of 30 minutes after the time a communication should have been received.

The MATS Part 1 does quite correctly point out that strict compliance with a flight plan can not be expected of non-radio aircraft.

However aircraft with radio who make in-flight changes to flight plans are required to notify those changes to the appropriate agency. Since you will rarely issue a clearance for a non-radio aircraft to transit Class D zones these days I think we can assume that transit aircraft are going to be radio equipped.

For aircraft who sufer radio failure in flight - the procedures are well documented.

Thus we have the situation where you recive a flight plan and a departure message but ignore them and will be unable to determine that an aircraft is in need of alerting service.

If your argument for ignoring my flight plan messages are that radio equipped VFR flights bimble all over the place and often don't bother to call or go elsewhere.........are you in a position to provide figures for the number of flight plans addressed to you who have a departure time and who subsequently do not turn up without telling you first?........doubt it since you discard them.

Perhaps the answer is not to arbitarily reduce the alerting service you are required to provide but to ensure that pilots who file a flight plan comply with the requirements to stick to that plan as much as possible unless they pass changes.

I can understand why units in Class G such as London info do not refer to any flight plans..........there is no requirement to call them. However if my route is clearly through the controlled airspace overhead your airport then the only option I have following my filed route is to call you and the least you could do after I have warned you in advance of my impending request is to be ready when I call on time and on route.

If on the other hand you see a 7600 passing round the zone at about the time I told you I would be there then you might like to pass on the posibility that I have had a radio failure!

Throw the flight plans in the bin and some day the question will be.........You got the flight plan but ignored it and after a surviveable accident, the pilot died of Hypothermia in a field 20nm from you but you never did what you are requirted to do..........provide an alerting service when the radio equipped flight failed to show up...........Can you honestly say that in that case you met your responsibilities?

Regards,

DFC

And to add my 2 penneth as our procedures are being scrutinized!!

jezbowman:- refers to the phrase "...not yet cleared to enter" which i personally do not use as it would only take a slight break up in the transmision or interference for that to be heard as "....cleared to enter"

in the situation that jezbowman refers my reaction would be "continue towards the zone boundary, standby for zone entry" thereby avoiding the words "cleared" and "to enter" without actually using them in the act of clearing someone in. I don't think my phrase is perfect but its the best i've been able to come up with over the years!!

and FYI jezbowman:- as a matter of interest unless you are using the lanes Special VFR it is not actually in our rules that VFR must be specified in the clearance so "cleared for a Sierra Echo arrival not above altitude two thousand feet" is all that is required...not sure if that is an ommision in our Manual of air traffic services or not but thats what the book says so thats what i use!! (if you were special VFR then it would obviously be "sierra echo not above altitude 2000 feer special vfr")

And for all those wondering, a "sierra echo" (etc) is a local procedure only used by the based schools so if you are visiting don't expect to be expected to be familiar with it!!

I was actually trying to praise EMA appr but then people don't seem to be able to spot praise on these forums. Really, regardless of what phrase is used, my point was that aircraft requesting to enter the zone for whatever reason are usually made quite clear that they should "await zone clearance" or are "not yet cleared to enter". I've not hear this elsewhere and in the context of the original thread topic it's a feather in the cap for East Mids.

You are of course correct with regards the VFR term - I've not flown during the day yet this year so all I've had recently have been Special VFR.

So have I. And did I say they weren't?

DFC

Your expectations of ATC when conducting a VFR (or IFR for that matter) flight outside the airways system are dramatically out of line with the actual situation.

Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?

2D

Jez- he needs all the praise he can get!
agree with EvilJ about possiblity of clipping leading to problems with certain phrases(but then I did help train him) and he is right technically about dropping the VFR but you will find that some of the older ones still insist on clarifying the flight rules on issuing an entry clearance(old habits die hard!)

DFC, you must file a lot of MORs.

Your perception of off-route ATC in the UK is devoid of reality. Just what is your ATC experience?

DFC, I agree with Vintage ATCO.

And with an attitude like yours you need to take lessons on what is reality in the real world.

You certainly won't get anywhere looking at all the laws and expecting everything to be exactly as it is written. It ain't, it never has been and it never will be.

But.............you might care to learn this little lesson. ATC is your mate, your friend in the sky. You don't have another - who knows as much who sees as much and gives as much. Never take them for granted and always let them help you. Remember, they help EVERYONE along the way - it seems you need some help anyway.

In my experience the poorest response to requests for clearance tends to come from military class D (two near me!); several times with one of them I've had to say 'Confirm G-ABCD cleared to transit zone' and they've sounded rather narked, as if that was obvious, yet they'd never used the word 'cleared'. Yet at the mil airfield I now fly from they routinely issue 'departure clearances' to depart their (class G) MATZ. I think there is still plenty of confusion in the military ATCO mind about airspace classes and air traffic services...

Tim

Vintage ATCO,

If I am required by the AIP to file a flight plan proir to requesting a clearance to enter controlled airspace and I choose to do so by filing a full flight plan prior to flight (ensuring that all appropriate ATC units get a copy as per ICAO and UK AIP procedures), is it not wrong for such an ATC unit to discard that flight plan and later require me to re-file that plan over the R/T despte no changes?

Does this not unnecessarily increase R/T loading, cockpit workload and ATCO workload?

As I said, MATS 1 is clear regarding the responsibilities of ATC with regard to over due action on radio equipped aircraft who have filed a flight plan.

Remember that I am talking about ATC within controlled airspace which is where the flight will be during a zone transit. I am not talking about flights that choose to file a flight plan that will remain in class G for the whole flight.

As for MORs - feel free to MOR me if I file a flight plan and transmut a departure message but fail to turn up at your zone on time without good reason.

---

2 Donkeys,

Did I understand you to suggest that you would MOR a enroute unit that showed no particular interest in your transit request, simply because you had copied them in on a flightplan?

Absolutely not.

ATC units can quite rightly refuse a transit request because of traffic or other reasons. No problem there.

However, the flight plan required to be passed to such a unit can be passed either;

1. Abrieviated flight plan in flight direct to that unit on R/T.
2. Full airbourne flight plan filed with say London Info and with the ATC unit concerned in the list of addressees.
3. Full flight plan filed before departure.

Either of those are valid messages conveying essential information regarding the flight.

What an ATC unit is required to do is initiate overdue action when no communication has been received within 30 minutes from the time that it was expected. That is a UK and ICAO standard. Thus if you have told ATC that you will be at their zone boundary at say 1000 and have not shown up by 1030, they are required to initiate overdue action unless they know that you are safe. That is one of the most basic concepts of the alerting service.

Where I would have a problem is if ATC discarded a flight plan and were thus unable to provide the required alerting service.

As for IFR - when flying IFR and expecting to transit controlled airspace, we are required to file a flight plan in advance becauseof flow control measures which can affect airfield units as well as enroute units. We address the plan to all appropriate units and the CAA are clear as to what the extra addresses are when IFR off airways or for mixed VFR and IFR flights.

Would you not find something wrong with writing a letter to your bank manager only to be told that as a matter of policy they bin all customer letters and require them to repeat the full info verbally when the arrive at the bank.....same thing but not as serious!

---

We are legally required to file an MOR for any situation covered by the MOR system. Failure of the flight planning system would I believe be a reportable occurance.

Unless someone reports these "traditions" we don't know if they can be or need to be changed because no data exists. That is what MORs are for isn't it?

Regards,

DFC

S3 C1 suggests that an Approach Control Unit provides ATS (including an Alerting Service) outside controlled airspace when:

overflying aircraft place themselves under the control of approach control until they are clear of the approach pattern and either no longer wish to receive a service or are 10 minutes flying time away from the aerodrome, whichever is the sooner.

and within controlled airspace when:

overflying aircraft are within the relevant controlled airspace.

What leads you to believe that an Approach Control Unit owes you an Alerting Service merely because you send them a FPL?

DFC, Vintage ATCO is correct. 99% of airfields will either not receive or take any action for an en-route flight plan. So many pilots change there routing, i.e route around CAS without talking to the ATSU most airfields would have to have someone on the phone all the time taking overdue action.

However, you destination should alway action your FPL. When you depart they should receive a departure message from your origin if your flight is outside CAS. Your ETA is then calculated from this and overdue action is taken from this time.