Gawd, you do love banging on about our unions and the like don't you
I have no idea who you are, except that you make no contribution to the debate here, yet somehow manage to surface every time the subject comes up and have a shot at the writer.

Are you by any chance somebody I know from elsewhere, but posting under a duplicate ID?

The stuff about "unions" has been pretty well aired at another forum a while ago, where a bunch of ATCOs vigorously demolished various proposals, on the usual basis of circular arguments based on regulations and ... wait for it ... working practices.

Union rules will always be wrapped up with the job description; if they were significantly different the whole lot would be out on strike ;)

Spitoon -

I too am a controller, with a bit more than 15 yrs in the job. Whilst yes, I'm sure the FYY guys @ LPL have some general knowledge of the area, they will be missing the depth of local knowledge that aids the pilots of light a/c. How can you describe the shape of a hill you've not seen?

It's not a criticism of the ATCOs and, after all, some radar is better than none. The benefits do outweigh the negatives but you still need to be aware of th limitations.

ap

So the 'government' has created a system where it is in many cases cheaper to install your own SSR interrogator than to buy into the existing infrastructure. This can only be a bad thing for the total cost and the amount of RF pollution. I wonder if this is part of the reason that RF pollution is alleged to be so much worse in the UK than the US (a deduction from one of the key needs to rapidly move to mode S).
There seems to be a fundamental regulatory/cultural problem with organising how to provide a reasonably cost/safety balanced service to the GA community. Having watched various controllers in action and visioning a bit into the Mode S world - It seems what the average GA aircraft would like is a radar FIS where the FIS provider is prompted using something akin to the short term conflict alert and the airspace intrusion predictor to provide information. Using the mode S data you can even imagine a tele-prompter type script (i.e. G-BBBB - twin traffic 2 o'clock 3 miles crossing left to right 300 feet below, unverified, or on your course you will enter CAS in three miles)
There are a range of these, but you are probably talking about the Ryan 9900B (or possibly one of the range and altitude only ones for about $1k)

To instal/operate your own interrogator would need CAA approval, which is unlikely in the south east due to problems of 'over' interrogation causing fruiting; might be possible oop norf though.
Farnborough already provides the service you describe; STCA? Watch this space.

I suspect the southeast already has too many interrogators and that if approval were available to use the mosaic data, and it was provided economically, the total cost of the system could be reduced and improve the RF environment as well! My (limited) understanding is this is basically what happens in the US.

Farnborough do provide a fantastic service. However, if someday they get class D, I suspect the LARS service will fall by the way as 'too expensive and GA don't pay'. My vision was for how one might cost effectively provide a service tailored to the needs of GA, at a price GA can afford, rather than what CAT operators need (and not requiring the installation of TIS software)

What are the chances of Farnborough getting Class D?

The # of movements there is severely limited.

If they can get Class D then Deanland will be getting one too :)

IO540, I don't believe we've ever met and I only bring the subject up when I see misguided statements being made but you obviously know best so will leave it there :rolleyes:

Now, if you're an airfield controlling traffic in the immediate vicinity then the best solution may well be a primary and co-located secondary feed at the airfield itself rather than getting a remote feed in from somewhere else.

The further away from the area one is looking at the worse the low level coverage will be. Thames, for example, suffers from this as it is forced to use both both primary and secondary feeds that are some distance from its area of operation.

A name and shame campaign has been suggested, well what exactly does one think it will achieve? Aside from Farnborough none of the London area airfields mentioned are in any way obliged to provide services outside CAS so in what way are they being shamed? In most cases though a service is provided if capacity allows, if it doesn't then no service may be provided. In other words you often get more than the service provider is strictly required to provide.

The decision was effectively taken at government level to turn NATS in to a commercial organisation and in the last few years the management have embraced that challenge with relish. But it's has also bitten the company in one or two areas, think infringements perhaps, and the disengagement from the light end of the customer base that had taken place over the last few years.

That disengagement though is hopefully now being addressed to some degree. Don't expect radical changes overnight but there are moves afoot that should ultimately provide better services outside CAS in the busy SE.

You mean this? http://www.kinetic-avionics.co.uk/sbs-1.php

I recall that for many years class D transits were difficult to obtain. In many cases that has changed since a "name and shame" scheme was introduced.

Of course true, however many do. Moreover, there seems to be no correlation between those that do, and their workload. Perhaps some more subtle forces are at work.

You will hardly ever get a service from Solent outside CAS (shame on you with the amount of transit traffic through the solent) and the service on offer from both Stansted and Thames is shocking. In contrast Gatwick does an excellent job. I wonder why the variation? I wonder who is determining the policy?

After my experience there we all go for the grace of God.

Do not believe however good your scan, you will spot conflicting traffic. The evidence is not good that you will.

I find myself pondering whether the great unwashed realise we are flying without some form of radar service for most of the time. God forbid, but I also ponder the fallout from a mid air over one of the nice towns in London surbia. I hope GA will not get the blame if the press get to grips with the reluctance of NATS to provide a NATIONAL service and their insistance on charging for the data they collect, when it could be cheaply distributed to those that are willing and able to provide a service, but cannot afford to do so.

Me thinks I would not want to be the press officer for NATS.

Personally, I would also not wish to be the Stansted controller who refused me a service around their zone when I was in IMC had I been unfortunate enough to run into some one else doing the same thing - but that is just my opinion you understand.

I'm not sure what effect said name and shame scheme had, but there was never anything pointed in our (ATCs) direction saying we had to change the way we operated.

Some statistics were collected but no directives ever came down from the CAA. A lot of the transit issue is subjective. Those that don't have an issue tend not to say anything, those that do have an issue tend to shout loudest and a picture is painted that perhaps doesn't always reflect reality.

What about the reluctance of many, many pilots out there to fitting radios, transponders or making use of the ATC services that are available? Even when operating beside and below this country's busiest airspace.

No point blaming an ATC provider for failing to provide a service to those that might want it when many others don't, it's not mandatory anyway and they are reluctant to fit equipment that would greatly increase the available safety net coverage now for those operating both inside and outside CAS.

Bit of pot/kettle syndrome there.

Oh, the N in NATS doesn't stand for "National" any more by the way. We were rebranded. Maybe that helps explain a little the company/management ethos these days.

The Stansted controller's, like all the approach controllers working the various London airport positions, primary responsibilty is to traffic operating in and out of the airport concerned <full stop>

Personally I'd hate to be the Stansted controller who screwed up inside CAS because he/she was at the time distracted by providing a service to traffic outside CAS.

As for saying Thames is shocking, all I can say is you don't know the issues they have with regards equipment and procedures. They have a hard enough time dealing with what they have inside CAS without going outside their prime operational remit.

Don't jump to conclusions when you don't really know the full story.

What about the reluctance of many, many pilots out there to fitting radios, transponders or making use of the ATC services that are available?
I am not sure if you fly, Roffa, but the problem is this:

If you are flying VFR, or the non-Eurocontrol OCAS IFR which is common in UK Class G, then you have to have

Plan A - the route you would like, and

Plan B - the (longer) route you fly if you don't get the transit(s) for A)

So everybody (with a brain) has to have a plan based on not getting a transit - because sometimes they don't get it. And if you have that plan, loaded into your GPS, why not save yourself the extra workload of doing the radio and just fly Plan B, non-radio? My radio is actually pretty good; after nearly 800hrs it's better than many I hear, yet I prefer to go around e.g. LCY airspace quietly because it's less work for me. I might call up Southend instead but they don't have SSR - presumably because they don't want to pay the going rate for the feed.

So one can't blame pilots for not talking to ATC. One can get transits but it's sporadic, I guess depending a lot on the controller on duty, and after a while most people don't bother to ask.

Thames Radar are the losers here because they might be vectoring traffic to Biggin's ILS in Class G, yet the inability to provide a universal service to Class G in their area means that they will have nontransponding contacts in the same place. They probably get away with it because when the weather is OVC010 or worse the sky is relatively devoid of GA and there won't be many non-C contacts in the ALKIN area to start with.

Biggin pay for the Thames Radar service, I gather.

Don't jump to conclusions when you don't really know the full story.

I doubt many private pilots know even a bit of the story. But here's your chance to set the record straight. Why not tell us all about it?

In all honesty I would love to write more than I do here on some subjects but even under the veil of anonymity that PPRuNe does, to a degree, provide there's only so far one can go before the breaching of one's conditions of service is a significant issue. Delving deeply into operational procedures from the MATS Pt 2 is a bit too far.

The bottom line, when it comes to transits, is that UK Class D is often over controlled when you apply the strict definitions of the level of service/separation between IFR and VFR that is actually required by the rules.

There are also good reasons why it's over controlled that have been explored here more than once before. In short "duty of care" and also the need to provide avoiding action to the IFR traffic against any VFR traffic if it should request it, not tenable in busy airspace.

With a PPL hat on I might feel hard done by, with an ATPL hat or commercial pax hat on I might be more understanding. To go back to one of Fuji's posts, the great unwashed might not be too impressed to know exactly what separation, or lack thereof, is actually required between their B7** and a passing Cherokee inside what is meant to be controlled airspace.

Whatever, the "but I was only following the rules" defence probably wouldn't stand up very well in court.

When it comes to transits I'm actually quite sympathetic really, but I'm also realistic. Many times the difference in track miles/time is minimal between increasing your own and ATC's workload by requesting transit compared to routing round the outside. If there's a major saving to be had, of course. If not, why bother?

I also have certain other opinions relating to our performance/attitudes as a company but, due to their nature they're not ones that I'm going to go in to on this particular forum. Rather I need to progress them internaly within the company.

Isn't the MATS document public domain?

IMHO you are right about transits not usually saving a lot of time. It's probably the lack of a service to the pilot that is a bigger problem. You have to remember that in PPL training one is taught to reveal one's inside leg measurement to every possible frequency along the route. Couple this with another old time PPL favourite - dead reckoning - and you have a recipe for plenty of CAS busts.

The more long-distance pilots just load up the GPS and fly with a listening watch. Unless they make a fairly obscure c0ckup, they should not bust airspace, and they don't ask for a service unless it's radar.

The French have it more right. They don't have an RIS/RAS to VFR traffic, but it's fairly obvious that everybody on the radio has a radar screen in front of them, and they will pass you traffic info if they think it's worth doing.

It's easy enough to criticise ATC in frustration about not getting a transit service, or being otherwise inconvenienced, but many has been the time I have listened to the workload of the ATCO (and had a good idea what else was going on, behind the scenes / off air) and was glad I've only got one aircraft to worry about.
Plans A & B - yes, from experience its a very good idea.
For example, transitting the Luton zone through the overhead without a delay may well be possible, 8 or 9 times out of ten. On my regular run, this saves me about 3 miles distance, actually less than two minutes flying; however, the law of sod determines that the one time I really want this I won't get it, or will get held. One rate one orbit will take two minutes and causes my pax to worry about his meeting, so I would have been better off not asking for such a crossing in those circumstances.
I therefore plan to go via a route that is more likely to be available and call that 'plan A'. Plan B is the shortcut, if available. By listening out for a short while before making my initial call I try to get a mental picture of which might be the best request.
I also have plan C, which involves not actually having to talk to ATC at all and hopefully will not cause ATC any concern if I can't actually get a word in. I transit 'round and under' and make sure I'm clear of the airspace base by at least a couple of hundred of feet, rather than just on the base.

Mandatory transponders, IMHO, for aircraft able to carry them, are a good idea. In my case it means I have a better chance of becoming aware of a possible confliction with other traffic before it becomes critical because I can often do something about it myself, using the TCAS / TAS fitted to my aircraft, in the absence of a full service from ATC. If transponders have to be updated to mode S, so be it. Having said that, I might feel slightly different (but only slightly different), if I had to pay for it myself.

As the sponsor of this thread it was not about zone transits. I only introduced zone transits in relationship to the improvement in the service which has taken place since zone transit denials were reportable. My perception is the approval of zone transits has improved immeasurably, but I am not aware of any quantitative study (the sort of thing AOPA do in the States, but mores the pity not here). Frankly most of the time I couldn’t give a damn about zone transits from the view point of saving time - when it suites me I will ask for them but am equally happy to go round if needs me. As others have said it rarely adds significantly to the journey.

However, the safety aspect with which this thread started is a different issue.

The problem with controllers denying zone transits is that an increasing number route around the edge of the zone. Rightly or wrongly with GPS they are also inclined to route close to the zone boundary. If you have ever spent some time watching the radar display you will know what I mean. So in consequence you now end up with traffic being constrained in corridors around the zone and often into other corridors between the zone. Add to that the consequence of the London TMA in the south and you have relatively high speed traffic operating within a vertical ceiling of no more than 900 feet. (The London TMA is 2,500, no one wants to be exactly at 2,500 so the highest level is 2,400 and you hardly want to be running around at less than 1,500 en route if you can avoid it).

For that reason if I am not airways personally I will go for a zone transit every time, not to save time, but because it places me in a “protected environment”.

You can imagine that I am slightly p**£”! when the transit is refused, AND the controller refuses a RIS and I have no other available service and, as I now know, I might well have got an alternative service but for the fact that NATS price everyone else out of the market.

NEMA will continue its policy of providing a crossing service to aircraft requiring to transit Class D Airspace and an appropriate level of service to traffic flying in the vicinity of Class D Airspace.

This was what NEMA said when they requested and got an airspace increase. I hope they will not forget their policy and will not interpret the part emphasised (my emphasis) in another way. I wonder what other assurances were given with other changes in airspace policy in the South. When I get a moment I will have a look.

Roffa you seem to be very hung up on the personal criticism of controllers - I fully appreciate you are one, and want to protect your integrity. This is not my case. The purpose of the example of a mid air around Stanstead after the refusal of a controller to provide a RIS is not to discuss whether avoiding the loss of life of 200 passengers in some LoCo is more or less valuable than 8 passengers in a twin, but to raise the issue that NATS and the Government's policy has increased the risk of a mid air collision outside CAS in the south. NATS in particular are guilty of not providing data already within their remit and at marginal cost to other services providers who would be only to happy to try and redress that balance.

If you allow people to walk across a bridge that is ten feet wide with railings down each side you are entitled to be surprised when the fall off the edge, but if you allow people to walk across a bridge that is two feet wide with no railings dont be too surprised when they fall off. Tell the judge that you could have fitted a safety net to catch them at next to no cost, but thought you would add to your shareholders profits by not doing so, and you had better look out.

Fuji, I'm quite open to criticism where valid. If you were talking of LARS units willfully refusing to provide a service outside CAS then valid point, but you're not.

Resources are finite and for non-LARS approach units providing services outside CAS to traffic that is not inbound or outbound is way down there at the bottom of the pecking order. Unfortunate but that's the way it is.

Services will be provided if capacity allows but won't be when/if it doesn't. If you want more than that then resources are going to have to be found and paid for or something else is going to need to happen. I've already alluded to the latter...

IO540, the MATS Pt 1, general instructions relating to all ATC units, is in the public domain and can be downloaded from the CAA web site.

The MATS Pt 2, which all units also have, is the book of local instructions/procedures relating to that particualr unit. In the case of NATS units all the Pt 2s are "NATS Commercial in Confidence" so one would be taking a bit of a risk if going in to them too deeply in a forum such as this.

Honestly, I really have got to grip with this usual mantra.

If you read all my posts the thrust of my argument was not this.

Let me summarise for you.

In my opinion CAS (particularly in the south) has, as it has increased, constricted OCAS traffic in to ever smaller corridors in terms of both lateral and vertical seperation. Transit reusals add to the problem.

In at least some cases when CAS is enlarged assurances have been given that an appropriate service WILL be given to OCAS traffic.

and finally NATS could provide the data to enable others to provide the service they dont at marginal costs to them, but it would seem are unwilling to do so.

Yes, and we know, thats the way it is .. .. ..

but sometimes the way it is, is not a good thing, and when you have just missed another aircraft by 50 feet it brings it home to you thats not the answer to a few dead people if it could be avoided.

... .. .. time for things to change, me thinks.

Roffa, why is Pt 2 confidential? It's not as if somebody is going to set up down the road in competition ;)

It's so that if there is a change to ATS provider, the new one can't just copy the old procedures and they have to provide their own safety case to prove to the CAA that they are capable of taking over the task.

Chevron,

It's so that if there is a change to ATS provider, the new one can't just copy the old procedures and they have to provide their own safety case to prove to the CAA that they are capable of taking over the task

I am sorry but I don't understand that at all.

Surely, NATS didn't pay for this work in the first place; it goes back to the days when it was nationalised.

Also, how can the ATS provider be changed?