Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By G-JWTP
#1771301
Serious question, I think a few of the ATC brigade may help.

I flew through CAS yesterday and the other owner today.
No problem in getting a transit, obviously.
But why did the ATCO go through the whole pa larva of squalk/ clearance/ readback/ radar control service etc.
When a simple ' cleared through CAS not above 2400' avoid the Gatwick and Redhill ATZ's ' would have sufficed.
It's only class D and we have to avoid each other.
I should add that there was absolutely no CAT anywhere.
It just seemed she was making unnecessary work for herself. ( couldn't think of a gender neutral word, itself didn't sound right!)

G-JWTP
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1771304
Just keeping in practice. They sounded bored rigid yesterday. One was even offering people low passes along the Gatwick runway. Though for some reason, not below 400'. Why would that be?
johnm, kanga liked this
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1771309
A lot of the items are mandatory (i,e, identify/validate SSR etc), so there’s no choice not to say them, also, you may have been on a squawk that would have set off automated infringement tools if you weren’t changed to a Gatwick zone code.

A low approach/go around must not be below height 400ft if the runway is occupied. By making this a minimum level, they don’t have to change things if a vehicle calls up to enter/cross the runway.
vintage ATCO, idlelayabout, ArthurG and 4 others liked this
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1771311
G-JWTP wrote:But why did the ATCO go through the whole pa larva of squalk/ clearance/ readback/ radar control service etc

SOP. Essential. More than her life is worth not to. Don't do it, a jobsworth will come down on her like a ton of bricks.

Edit: Gonz beat me to it, headset in a holster.

As he says, No Choice. Ridiculous suggesting that it was unnecessary work.
vintage ATCO, idlelayabout, G-JWTP and 2 others liked this
By Londlostdriver
#1771316
I believe that the 400ft restriction was introduced many years ago when a Trident (G-AWZA?) struck a Comet on the runway at Bedford during a go around or overshoot as it was then. I also recall that the controller involved may have subsequently risen through the ranks to become quite a senior rank within the CAA and, no, it wasn’t me.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1771317
Talkdownman wrote:Ridiculous suggesting that it was unnecessary work.

Not if you don't know, it isn't.

That sort of superior response is going to stop people asking questions in the future, and hence stop them learning.

What's "ridiculous" to some is an honest enquiry from others not in the same profession.

Have some empathy. :?
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1771318
Londlostdriver wrote:the controller involved may have subsequently risen through the ranks to become quite a senior rank within the CAA

Oh, what a surprise...
User avatar
By Talkdownman
#1771320
Dave W wrote:
Talkdownman wrote:Ridiculous suggesting that it was unnecessary work.

Not if you don't know, it isn't.

That sort of superior response is going to stop people asking questions in the future, and hence stop them learning.

What's "ridiculous" to some is an honest enquiry from others not in the same profession.

Have some empathy. :?

OK. I apologise. "Sorry JWTP".

David, it wasn't meant to be superior. Maybe you would be so kind as to ask yourself why I found it to be an annoying post.

I just don't see much gratitude there for such a unique experience.

A Learning Point: Controllers have no option but to 'tick all those boxes', otherwise they are in serious trouble. It's called 'Compliance'.
Last edited by Talkdownman on Thu May 21, 2020 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
vintage ATCO liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1771321
You are entirely missing the point.

Asking the question is wholly laudable: Something happened - don't understand it - seems OTT - must be a reason - I know somewhere to ask a question where people who will know hang out - so the question is asked.

Rather than a response acknowledging the educational value of the question, the post is branded "ridiculous".

That is extraordinarily unaware. Step back and look at the situation without your ATCO headset on.

People don't always know what you (we) know. There are options, which include explain or belittle.

I think explain is the more laudable option.
rikur_, AlanM, Jonzarno and 6 others liked this
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1771331
Standard phraseology is standard for a reason. Nobody (both pilots and controllers) should be using low traffic levels to justify lax RT.

And not saying you were, G-JWTP..

Also, bear in mind that although right now many radar and/or tower units seem quiet due to sparse RT, the controller’s workload might still be pretty high. The last time I was in work before furlough we had all of LHR Tower on one frequency (when it’s usually 2x runway freqs, 2x or 3x Ground freqs, and 1x Clearance Delivery freq).

In this config, the electronic display I have to use is a dog’s breakfast because I need the functions of all of the positions available, and there are probably more phone calls going on between controllers, and also to/from different agencies because everyone seems to think we’re really quiet and can accommodate lots of non-standard stuff like C-17s wanting to do doing circuits and drone surveys and perimeter security drills and Police driver training and so on and so on.
evanscm3, kanga, vintage ATCO and 1 others liked this
By chevvron
#1771360
G-JWTP wrote:I should add that there was absolutely no CAT anywhere.

G-JWTP

How do you know that?
Gatwick departures go straight to a London Control frequency from tower and if you were talking on Gatwick Approach frequency, it's possible that most arrivals would have been on Gatwick Director frequency hence you wouldn't have heard them either.
By G-JWTP
#1771363
Thanks to all.

I now know, that you have to do it, like it or not!

Please don't think that you will hurt my feelings, being a rugby referee for almost 30 years has removed most of them and given me a hide like an elephant.

:elephant: :elephant: :elephant:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

G-JWTP
AlanM, kanga, Stu B and 3 others liked this
By G-JWTP
#1771367
chevvron wrote:
G-JWTP wrote:I should add that there was absolutely no CAT anywhere.

G-JWTP

How do you know that?
Gatwick departures go straight to a London Control frequency from tower and if you were talking on Gatwick Approach frequency, it's possible that most arrivals would have been on Gatwick Director frequency hence you wouldn't have heard them either.


About 50 service vehicles parked all over the runway and taxiways with all their flashing lights at max, fences and lots of people in hi -vis kind of gave a big hint.
Thinking about it, hi-vis made the operatives visable from 1500' so they do have a use. :lol: :lol:

G-JWTP
mick w liked this
By Uptimist
#1771387
chevvron wrote:
G-JWTP wrote:I should add that there was absolutely no CAT anywhere.

G-JWTP

How do you know that?
Gatwick departures go straight to a London Control frequency from tower and if you were talking on Gatwick Approach frequency, it's possible that most arrivals would have been on Gatwick Director frequency hence you wouldn't have heard them either.


Gatwick is closed until 1300 each day, per NOTAM “Covid-19: information AD will only be operational during the period 1300-2100 daily.”

So mornings are a good time for tower-buzzing.
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1771389
G-JWTP wrote:
chevvron wrote:
G-JWTP wrote:I should add that there was absolutely no CAT anywhere.

G-JWTP

How do you know that?
Gatwick departures go straight to a London Control frequency from tower and if you were talking on Gatwick Approach frequency, it's possible that most arrivals would have been on Gatwick Director frequency hence you wouldn't have heard them either.


About 50 service vehicles parked all over the runway and taxiways with all their flashing lights at max, fences and lots of people in hi -vis kind of gave a big hint.
Thinking about it, hi-vis made the operatives visable from 1500' so they do have a use. :lol: :lol:

G-JWTP


Explains the not below 400ft!
G-JWTP liked this