Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1639909
I fly to Waltham a lot from Sywell. Once or twice a week for many years. Usually the same process. Leave Sywell info 10 miles south, short gap in cover then Farnborough North as I’m passing WCO. Same thing every time. I usually stay with North until Waltham’s November reporting point and change to Waltham Radio. Yesterday however was a rainy day and I think I heard one other aircraft on frequency all the way down. Called at WCO as usual to be told to call back in five miles. Fair enough, I was given a service all the way to November. On the way back, called North passing Henley as usual to be given a Squawk and QNH the told call back as you are passing the M40. I asked where their service finished and they said Thame. Usually you get a service from Henley to WCO. It’s only basic after all. Seems those lines on the chart were being more strictly observed yesterday so for four minutes on that route there is definitely little point in taking a service other than to hear the QNH or indeed from West as you’re likely to be with them for an even shorter time .
By chevvron
#1639912
Probably had a short range selected on their display and for some reason couldn't/wouldn't change.
The Heathrow 10cm and the Debden 23cm both have good coverage as far as Sywell; the new Bovingdon 23cm probably does too.
By Stampe
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1639933
I run through the various mig alleys a lot usually obtaining a basic from Farnborough.One of the young male controllers is particularly pedantic as to when he will provide a service I recognise his voice and am well aware of where the various areas of coverage are situated.Once this year I did a complete run Henlow to north Kent including a TMZ2 transit unable to get a service from this gentleman who was not at all busy.Generally the service provided is good given the very limited nature of basic service.I like the reassurance of them spotting any course deviation likely to lead to an infringement.Never fly above 1200 feet under the 1500 feet veil given NATS unwillingness to recognise txpdr tolerances they really are working against our safety with that.I certainly agree there is a more pedantic approach to coverage showing itself.I understand from ATCO friends that the job is regarded as the least desirable radar position in the U.K. that is a great pity they deserve to be well rewarded and paid for by NATS and the airlines as the price of having stolen so much public airspace.Regards Stampe
T67M, ivor.phillips liked this
By chevvron
#1639943
Stamp wrote: I understand from ATCO friends that the job is regarded as the least desirable radar position in the U.K. that is a great pity they deserve to be well rewarded and paid for by NATS and the airlines as the price of having stolen so much public airspace.Regards Stampe

Probably 'least desirable' because it involves operations in Class G airspace and newbie NATS controllers aren't taught this at the college, plus it's one of the lowest paid jobs in NATS.

I personally found it very interesting and enjoyed doing it but then it only started up in the last 12 months before I retired.
I admit I didn't care too much about the 'official' boundaries provided I didn't 'tread on the toes' of another radar unit; if someone was going north to Sywell f'rinstance and there wasn't a lot of other traffic on frequency I wouldn't just 'dump' them at the boundary but just keep on with generic traffic info (eg 'several aircraft operating west of Cranfield indicating altitude xxx' ) until they were happy to go en-route, similarly with traffic northbound and east of Luton where I often kept TS traffic (RIS in those days) until they were past the Wyton area then handed them direct to Cottesmore (if they were open). Worked the other way too; Cottesmore phoned with a handover on a pair of Tornados going into Northolt which I happily accepted and took them down past Barkway , frightening the Luton Director as they approached the low base of the TMA (I had already got them descending of course but they were doing over 400kts) before handing them to Northolt.
I did the same when I operated LARS East; it's a long way over water between SFD or LYD and the French coast so why not let you stay on frequency until you either got to the FIR boundary or I lost you on radar instead of doing what they do now ie 'terminating service good day' at the LARS boundary.
User avatar
By BEX
#1639949
Stampe wrote:
Never fly above 1200 feet under the 1500 feet veil given NATS unwillingness to recognise txpdr tolerances they really are working against our safety with that.

I'm curious. In what way do you think NATS are unwilling?

BEX
By force8
#1639953
I used to travel WW to Sherburn and back every week. Southbound, I used to call Farnborough from vicinity of Silverstone. Most of the time there was no problem - they could hear me and I could hear them, but every now and again I would be told to call again south of WCO. It seemed it depended on the controller. Some seemed happy I wasn't yet on the radar but could communicate fine, others weren't. I could never see the problem about being on frequency whilst out of radar range, very comforting in marginal conditions. I once had a very belligerent young man who made it very clear he would not communicate with me until I was south of WCO and then was terse to say the least. I rang Farnborough later to try and find out what the issues were but just got a polite but firm brush off. The controller was, needless to say unavailable. Surely, 'out of radar range, no service available, but stay on frequency and will identify when you are in range' should be the response?
By Stampe
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1639959
Bex the CAA and NATS do not not give you the benefit of the +/- 200ft tolerance on your transponder (which in ICAO is actually+/-300) unless your squawk is verified.So flying along quite legally at 1300 foot and your txpdr rings up 1500 on CAIT and your on the course no mercy shown.Vertically the CAA and NATS are persecuting the innocent absolutely no doubt about it .I have assisted ex students who have been in this position but fortunately had Skydemon traces that proved their innocence.When sent the evidence the disgraceful CAA have not even bothered to reply to the letter pointing out their “error”.The current situation is actively working against safety of the GA fleet for the benefit of CAA and NATS targets.Regards Stampe
T67M, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Flying_john
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1639963
The Skydemon traces that prove the innocence of a NATS accusation, how do they compare the GPS altitude recorded on SD to the barometric altitude on the day the accusation is made ?

I other words if you fly along at 1450 GPS altitude, on any particular value of QNH day, how does one know if you are in or out of a 1500' bit of controlled airspace just by reference to SD ?
By chevvron
#1639964
BEX wrote:Stampe wrote:
Never fly above 1200 feet under the 1500 feet veil given NATS unwillingness to recognise txpdr tolerances they really are working against our safety with that.

I'm curious. In what way do you think NATS are unwilling?

BEX

Only a guess but maybe in the south west SS TMZ, if your transponder is showing 1,500ft or higher but you are actually indicating 1,400ft so within tolerance, then Stansted or Essex drop a 04 inbound to 2,000ft for the ILS, that inbound will possibly get an RA as it descends to 2,000ft; if the inbound was already level at 2,000ft it probably wouldn't happen 'cos the TCAS will give an RA based on vertical speed.
Even so, you shouldn't (in my opinion) be told off if your transponder indicates 200ft high and you are on the correct pressure setting showing 1400 or even 1450ft.
Last edited by chevvron on Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Stampe
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1639977
John I do not know anyone who flies on gps altitude.Altitude should be flown on the correct QNH on the altimeter.Skydemon shows a close approximation to altitude and my research tells me can generally be considered +/-70ft.In the cases I mentioned the suits dropped any action when confronted with a GPS trace.I would not dream of flying in London area without Skydemon tracking to counter any false accusations from CAIT.I have no doubt many have been falsely accused by CAIT in the marginal vertical plane and incurred the cost and inconvenience of attending the airspace awareness course.In motoring terms they have been found guilty electronically of doing 28mph in a 30 zone.The CAA and NATS do not care they are solely concerned at reducing the number CAIT vents even if erroneous.GA is being forced to fly lower noisier and through even more restricted choke points due to this. CAA and NATS actively working against our safety!
T67M, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By BEX
#1639978
Stampe, I fear there is some confusion and urban myth here and unfortunately you aren't alone in your thinking.

CAA and NATS do not not give you the benefit of the +/- 200ft tolerance on your transponder (which in ICAO is actually+/-300) unless your squawk is verified.


CAP 493 MATS part 1 is the "rule book" that all ATC in the UK operates under. It's published by the UK CAA. NATS ATCOsand all other ANSP's ATCOs are required to apply the rules within (unless there are local procedures approved by the CAA in a unit's MATS part2).

MATS Part 1 has this to say
10B. Verification of Mode C
10B.1 Controllers are to verify the accuracy of Mode C data, once the aircraft has been identified and the Mode A validated, by checking that the readout indicates 200 feet or less from the level reported by the pilot. If the aircraft is climbing or descending, the pilot is to be instructed to give a precise report as the aircraft passes through a level.


So, to be of any use, your MODE-C has to be verified after you have been identified. If you are on a basic service, being formally identified as per MATS part1 is unlikely.

So flying along quite legally at 1300 foot and your txpdr rings up 1500 on CAIT
If the base is 1500, CAIT will not activate because you aren't inside CAS.

The CAA and NATS are persecuting the innocent absolutely no doubt about it
. CAA persecute? I doubt it, but I do know that they very rarely prosecute. NATS cannot persecute (or prosecute) anyone. It's an ANSP, not a regulator.

The CAA and NATS are commonly confused as one and they same. They aren't.

Skydemon traces that proved their innocence.
. I'd be a bit careful here.
The Skydemon manual says
altitude is derived from GPS, which means it will not normally be as accurate as a properly-set pressure altimeter.
.

Funnily enough, lower vertical airspace boundaries (bases) are based on pressure altitude or FLs, not GPS derived heights.

The current situation is actively working against safety of the GA fleet for the benefit of CAA and NATS targets.
Where can I find these targets ? (and again, NATS isn't the CAA).

Regards
BEX
By Stampe
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1639982
Bex I have friends who are current controllers at a major London Airport as well as being experienced light aircraft pilots.They have confirmed my opinion of the current state of affairs and indeed tried to bring this problem to the blinkered NATS staff involved.I am well aware having been a professional pilot operating large airliners from the London area airports as well as owning and instructing/examining on light aircraft for the past 40 years of the difference between the CAA and NATS.Neither organisation listens to or accepts input from those working at the coal face!A shocking state of affairs.
By matspart3
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1639984
chevvron wrote:
Stamp wrote: I understand from ATCO friends that the job is regarded as the least desirable radar position in the U.K. that is a great pity they deserve to be well rewarded and paid for by NATS and the airlines as the price of having stolen so much public airspace.Regards Stampe


Probably 'least desirable' because it involves operations in Class G airspace and newbie NATS controllers aren't taught this at the college....


Well I was teaching it last week! It is now part of the syllabus along with duty of care, safety management and standard operating procedures, which probably explains why some controllers won’t provide a service outside their designated area of responsibility as published in their MATS Part 2 and the UK AIP.
GonzoEGLL, James Chan, kanga liked this