Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:26 pm
#1707070
Who did the RT? You or the student?
Never criticise a man until you’ve flown a mile in his loafers.
AlanM wrote:So, using the vast evidence of The Flyer Forum, the shocking news is;
No units offer a 100% success rate.
No units offer a 0% success rate.
As most ATCOs will tell you, there are 1001 factors that impact on allowing access to a CTR.
Imagine my surprise!?
AlanM wrote:No units offer a 0% success rate.
Full Metal Jackass wrote:AlanM wrote:So, using the vast evidence of The Flyer Forum, the shocking news is;
No units offer a 100% success rate.
No units offer a 0% success rate.
As most ATCOs will tell you, there are 1001 factors that impact on allowing access to a CTR.
Imagine my surprise!?
Yes but there’s a difference between a nearly 100% success rate and an apologetic controller and a nearly 100% failure rate where the controller is only too eager to make his distaste with GA clear - wouldn’t you agree?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stevelup wrote:AlanM wrote:No units offer a 0% success rate.
Bristol might be getting close to that...
TheFarmer wrote:Who did the RT? You or the student?
The student. We even got 2 x clearances from Bristol although I admit one was a departure clearance and the other a join.
AlanM wrote:So, using the vast evidence of The Flyer Forum, the shocking news is;
No units offer a 100% success rate.
No units offer a 0% success rate.
As most ATCOs will tell you, there are 1001 factors that impact on allowing access to a CTR.
Imagine my surprise!?
chevvron wrote:defcribed wrote:Delta_Wing wrote:the tower was "far too busy" for a route overhead the field and to remain outside controlled airspace
I guess they have a different concept of 'busy'. Gatwick do it routinely while operating at full capacity with a constant stream of approaches.
The main problem of course is missed approaches by IFR traffic. If the missed approach, which may be because of a radio failure so ATC cannot 'modify' the standard procedure, involves a climb to the level you are requesting to transit at, that may be the reason for refusal.
defcribed wrote:I still don't get why Gatwick can do it routinely with a much higher traffic density but Bristol cannot.
AlanM wrote:defcribed wrote:I still don't get why Gatwick can do it routinely with a much higher traffic density but Bristol cannot.
Maybe, just maybe, the perceived traffic intensity is a red herring.
Maybe, there are two or three radar controllers on LGW and one on BRS.
Maybe, there are three tower controllers at LGW and one on BRS.
Maybe, the lack of GA in the CCT and VFR departures/inbounds at LGW makes it less complicated and time consuming.
Trust me; just IFR traffic into/out of an airport is an absolute breeze compared to integrating IFR and VFR.
defcribed wrote:Then Bristol should employ as many controllers as are necessary to do the job properly and facilitate crossings. Unless we start from the premise that non-commercial aircraft do not have equal rights to use that airspace then it isn't acceptable to effectively close the airspace to transiting aircraft on the basis of not having enough staff.
Is there any significant VFR/CCT traffic at Bristol? I thought the charges were prohibitive.