Stampe wrote:Ratman I take no issue with the two pre notified RA(T) periods disruptive though they were to the UKs most congested class G airspace.However by operating outside the published times and the protection so offered the flight was put into direct conflict with the inevitable surge of GA flights having delayed their essential transport ,training and aerial work flights to accommodate the RA(T).This was clearly recognised by someone in authority as my local AFISO unit was instructed (“asked”) not to allow movements until well after the last RA(T) expired.By which time many aircraft were legitimately going about their essential business in the open FIR.A whole afternoons business lost.As for your lack of input from from GA operators I think we have all given up dialogue with the authority too difficult and the same old line aggressively trotted out if you are lucky enough to get a reply.Many years ago I sat on the CAA standing advisory group on Pilot Licensing as the BALPA representative. I observed the authority change from consultation and input to the current no worthwhile dialogue allowed.However on a positive note thank you for coming on here and engaging with your customers.The current highly aggressive stance by the current CAA GA unit and NATS is making operating in the South East much more stressful than it was in the past and far less safe.Worthwhile dialogue with the authority has ceased and not helped by the ineffective alphabet organisations of which I am a member.
I would ask how can we break this decline and return to sensible dialogue between regulator and regulated?Regards Stampe
Sadly, a handful of those pilots you mention seemed to have urgent business in a specific area on a narrow line NNE/SSW over Beachy Head. This caused quite a few issues to both the radar unit and the Daks that were being worked by it. It’s a shame that the delay was seen by some as an opportunity to get close, rather than to respect the intention behind the establishment of the RA(T).
My closing post, and most certainly not a rant, on this but just to add to Gonzo's post.
As the RA(T) collapsed ahead of the formation due to timing issues at Duxford, more than a few pilots must have thought that safety mitigation measures were no longer required. To watch aircraft join the formation on the left and climb over by a matter of a couple of hundred feet to rejoin on the right shows scant regard for the formation. In addition other aircraft were flying on a reciprocal course to the trail.
What airmanship exists in some pilots' minds? What consideration for the air traffic controllers having to provide constantly changing traffic situation in what should have been segregated airspace? Why?
I know the answer I would get if asked those pilots flying the 'too many aircraft that I noted' but I'd like to think that over a cuppa back at the club house many of them might like to reflect on the what the other people involved in that formation, in the air and on the ground, were doing when the Cessna, Piper, 'whatever type' was 'mixing it' with the Dakotas.
I have to ask........
"Airmanship is the consistent use of good judgment and well-developed skills to accomplish flight objectives. This consistency is founded on a cornerstone of uncompromising flight discipline and is developed through systematic skill acquisition and proficiency. A high state of situational awareness completes the airmanship picture and is obtained through knowledge of one’s self, aircraft, environment, team and risk."
Definition: Redefining Airmanship. Tony Kern. 1996.