Or to put in another way, the controller used a term which, strictly speaking, he should not have used in the case of BS traffic - unless, of course, he was implying that the aircraft could transit the ATZ if required? The implication might well have been, I suggest, that there was no traffic problem in directly overflying the airport, whether through the ATZ or just above it, and that no co-ordinated specific level or route was required to avoid confliction with circuit or PS/DS traffic. Also, the OP knew the procedures and his rights - good for him - so what was the practical problem?

How does this then deteriorate into accusations of "airspace grabs"? - a ridiculous term that does not exactly suggest reasoned argument or promote the case for the opposition!

2 s

Exactly ... the controller could have spelt all that out in words of one syllable (apart from the liberally scattered two syllable "request") and kept the OP happy ... at the expense of pissing off everyone else who was trying to get a word in on a busy frequency.

It's historical.

In the same way as Stanstead would grab the whole runway and create $350+ fees to kick light airplanes outta there, NATS would grab as much Rule 21 or Class A airspace designed to deliberately exclude VFR flights, and then add a $170+ navigation service charge for an approach into Stanstead.

If it ain't a grab then what is it?

A minor phraseology discussion point, perhaps - blown out of all proportion by a few with a tired old axe to grind?


And by the way, the spelling is Stansted.


2 s

I've not had a problem with Stansted, never been charged a navigation service fee, and been allowed to orbit over their runway with some WW2 aircrew. They've been nothing but polite.

If when I listen they are frenetically busy, then I go round the outside with their listening squawk on.

Elsewhere I've been asked, in Class G on a basic service, if I could maintain X feet or Y track because of an incoming 747. I was happy to comply: it was all done politely.

If the argument is about which word the ATCO used, well....

And Stansted controllers, like Cambridge, Gatwick, Luton, Oxford, Exeter, Bristol, Farnborough and anywhere else that handles volume IFR traffic really appreciate a call as early as possible to negotiate your crossing. You may be legally allowed to cross the Cambridge ATZ at 3500, VFR without chatting, but you would look a tad daft if you collected a Gulfstream, AirBus or Hercules through your windscreen, who was holding, also perfectly legally at 3500' IFR. Perhaps a very hard working controller used the wrong phraseology at a busy time, we all do it, it certainly isn't worth a lot of angst.

What worries me for my private flying is that late calls about overhead transits, no calls at all about transits, people switching off transponders and flying an ILS to 2 miles (outside the ATZ, so what the heck) and then turning away and switching them on again, people who fly through instrument approaches in Class G without talking (lets face it, its' class G so the big jet on a stable approach with a crew concentrating on the approach they are flying will have to give way to my PA28 because I'm on their right) are all arguments the airport operators use to get CAS, and they work, with CAA, councils, and residents associations (lets face it get the noise whiners on side and its' game, set and match to CAS). Just for info I have seen each one of the forgoing list in the last 12 months at my home base. (and the bright spark flying the ILS IMC without talking, with his transponder off really spilt the gin in the back, and the go-round back into the procedure cost 54 quid a minute)

As GA we bleat about CAS, but I wonder if we really help ourselves. I spent most of my day job in CAS and there is quite a lot around, I'd really rather do my fun flying in Class G while we have some left.

SND

Isn't that worth an "endangering" charge if caught?

Must be if he flew below MSA - that's an infringement of the ANO.

Speaking personally, I don't find limited radio mandatory zones or reasonably sized chunks of airspace to be unreasonable requests. It's things like the Farnborough proposal that are bothersome.

Gertrude/Tmmorris;

You are both right, the difficult bit is pinning down who he was and where from to be able to file on him. It was a monumentally silly thing to do, and I doubt he saw us in his six o'clock at very close followed by a full power pull up over him climbing like a dingbat. I saw enough to realise he was a 182 and that was it.

If I had caught him wing tip to wing tip I doubt I would have felt more than a thump and seen some witness marks on the winglet after landing, as it was he was about to come through the windscreen at around 1700' in solid cloud, I got a view of about two seconds as I hit the TOGA buttons and pulled the stick back. I had no idea my heart rate could go so high!

Basically it was poor airmanship, if he had spoken ATC they would have happily taken him for a practise ILS and we could have ensured separation and that is what ATC is really all about, keeping us apart in the air, it is so much easier for them to do it if we talk early and arrange the ATC/Pilot "contract" that they discuss so much in MATS part one.

Just my thoughts.

SND

Excuse me, but if airports and airspace is being used to kick out light airplanes then this certainly ain't 'minor' in any shape or form.

It's an extremely major point of discussion.

sh650


I really do not follow the logic. The OP was making a point, which to a degree was justified, about the precise phraseology. He was obviously well aware of the rules of engagement and furthermore was voluntarily opting for a Basic Service from Cambridge Approach. And had there been any more significant factor involved in ATC exceeding the terms of a BS, I am sure that he would have made this clear to the controller.


With the controller - possibly - very slightly exceeding the terms of a BS (but in practical terms, being more helpful), how does this suddenly become "airports and airspace...being used to kick out light airplanes"?


2 s

You said an "airspace grab" was a ridiculous term.

I explained where the term came from and said if it ain't a grab then what is it?

You replied and said it was a "minor phraseology discussion point".

I replied and said it's not minor.

Do you follow now?

Nope! The subject matter was a relatively minor and debatable phraseology/terminogy issue which was then alleged to be "evidence" that Cambridge ATC was attempting to take control of airspace outside their ATZ in Class G airspace. I do not understand how that might help to achieve Class D status for them.

2 s

As I said earlier, I'm based at Cambridge. As far as I know, Cambridge has no ambition to establish Class D airspace. For one thing, I believe it would require them to staff the radar full time which would be expensive and not justified by the traffic they have.

Last I heard (and as a then councillor I did get invited to things that weren't open to the public) they were, in fact, thinking about it. But that was over a year ago, and there have been several changes of airline using the airport since then, or at least that's what it feels like, and the views may change with the customers.

Okay I wasn't quoting in the context of previous posts but I see your point now. You should see mine too.

Thanks for posting this. That is interesting:I hadn't realised.

I think the basic point remains though: in order for them to want class D, they would need a volume of commercial traffic sufficient to justify employing sufficient radar controllers to man the radar during all opening hours; and I can't see that happening at current levels.

In the USA you don't need radar or commercial traffic to justify class D. If the FAA determines that an airport requires a tower controller then you automatically get it.

And in the UK the airport applies for it, there is a stonking great consultation process with everyone invited to comment, PPrune lights up with indignation and they still may not get it.


Its' one of the joys of UK/EASA aviation.