Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852932
Last week I was with a student flying a cross-country that involved transiting a block of controlled airspace (Class D). I'd warned the student that it was quite possible that that particular ATC might not let us through (separate issue) and that he should have a Plan B to route around.

As we approached he called them up on cue requesting a transit VFR. The lady's answer came back "can't give you a VFR transit, can you take an IFR transit?" We replied in the negative and, reverting to Plan B, stated that he would route to the east (implicitly remaining clear of controlled airspace).

Her subsequent response was puzzling on a number of levels (as an aside, I really wish I'd recorded it). The lady said words to the effect "Oh, if you're routing to the east then that's OK, you just need to remain clear of our ATZ [sic]."

I thought about this for a few seconds, trying to unpack what she actually meant by that. Mindful of the whole infringement hysteria I really didn't want there to be any ambiguity. So I called her and explicitly asked her to confirm that we were cleared through controlled airspace (CTA) on track to our destination not above 2000'. She said "Yeah, that's OK" or words to that effect. So, still scratching my head slightly, on we went and all was well.

OK, you could say, what's the problem? Well, from my perspective the problem is trying to unpack and explain this to the student (who might in the near future be flying the same trip on his own) in a way that equips him to deal with transits of controlled airspace in the future - and avoid infringing.

After all:
Although he made the correct initial call, at no stage did we have a specific clearance given to us in any recognisable format. I had to deduce it and then wring confirmation out of the controller. The outcome was a long way short of a standard-format clearance.
At no stage did we have a "you've entered controlled airspace, Radar Control Service." Yet we were definitely inside controlled airpace, I checked the Skydemon logs.
And the use of the term ATZ when I'm sure she meant CTR made me wonder if the good lady knew what either actually are.

There is part of me doesn't particularly mind this more casual approach to clearances. After all, on the continent they manage the whole process of GA in controlled airspace without making such a song-and-dance about it. But given all the hooohah about infringements in the UK I do think it's less than helpful if controllers don't play their part properly.

Anyone else had similar experiences?
User avatar
By Irv Lee
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852934
Yes - controlled 'argument' whilst under foggles on my IRR revalidation.... all would have been simply solved by an 'affirm' or 'negative' to my first request to confirm or deny that I had clearance to enter the CTR when in fact all I had been give was a radar heading in Class G under a traffic service - which is not in any way a clearance. I had enough to do without a discussion and without a clear answer - I eventually turned away at the last minute and got an extra 'discussion' about me doing that, as apparently I was supposed to continue on that heading, (don't try that anywhere else, you'll end up reported!!) and when finally we agreed I could proceed, onto the first approach, when quite close in on Final, another exchange easily solved by a two word clarification about a change to go-around instructions, but again, I got a conversation that I didn't want. FUnnily enough when I went around, I got a different voice answering....
Bet it wasn't NATS, was it?
User avatar
By JonathanB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852938
You definitely should follow up with the unit as they should be issuing a proper and unambiguous clearance using the words “cleared to…”. They also should be changing the service appropriately on entering and leaving CAS so you are left under no illusions as to your obligations, particularly in terms of yours vs their responsibilities (e.g your own lookout or theirs).
Ben K, Andrew Sinclair, Mike Tango and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852942
Back in the day when I was based at Cardiff, on rejoining you were told how to rejoin and the clearance into the airspace was implicit. That went away when everything became a bit more formal in the 2000s.

I once had a clearance through Lyneham on a weekend in a similar fashion. "Yeah, no problem." I poked the controller a little by asking the question as to whether I was cleared and he then realised that I wanted the official wording to cover both our backsides. He came back and gave the official wording, I did the official read back followed by a "Cheers, thank you!".
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852950
Last week had,

'G-ABCD cleared through Stansted controlled airspace not above 2400'. Route via the Northern threshold, ( pause ), Err, or the Southern threshold ( pause) in fact take any route you like.'

Now not saying they weren't busy but!

I like these clearances.

:D

G-JWTP
kanga liked this
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852956
Pete L wrote:Luton seems to be the same at the moment - controllers are being extra helpful.


Luton has always been good.

G-JWTP
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1852957
David Wood wrote:"Oh, if you're routing to the east then that's OK, you just need to remain clear of our ATZ [sic]."
...
And the use of the term ATZ when I'm sure she meant CTR made me wonder if the good lady knew what either actually are.
...


Why do you specifically question ATZ/CTR confusion? I am interested because a fortnight ago I got a clearance to "cross Southend, Gateway Port to Northey Island, remaining clear of the ATZ". The ATZ is no longer marked on the 500k chart, nor on any of the airfield plates, and I had assumed it no longer formally existed. I had to rely on its depiction on SD which DOES display it but has no legal standing.

I have had vague clearances, more recently than I have in the past. I'd put it down to increased controller workload as they bandbox away.
User avatar
By xtophe
#1852958
SkyDaemon is as legal as the 500k chart and it has the benefit of not requiring manual updates.
The "legal" one is the AIP, SUP, AIC and Notams. All the aifield with a CTR still have an ATZ. See AD2.17.

It might be the case that if you stay outside of the ATZ you don't have to be transferred to the Tower controller and so it's easier for everybody.
T67M liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1852961
Yes, I’ve also had clearances through the CTR “remaining clear of the ATZ.”
I’ve also received instructions to report at a specific point inside the CTR without first having been formally cleared to enter it.
User avatar
By akg1486
#1852962
David Wood wrote:There is part of me doesn't particularly mind this more casual approach to clearances. After all, on the continent they manage the whole process of GA in controlled airspace without making such a song-and-dance about it. But given all the hooohah about infringements in the UK I do think it's less than helpful if controllers don't play their part properly.

Anyone else had similar experiences?

Absolutely. I've had "clearances" that didn't include the word "clearance" or "clear". When I get then, I ask for confirmation. But it's not nearly in a majority of cases.

ATC workload is kind of a bad excuse: it doesn't take longer to include one of the magic words. If ATC really has too high workload they should just decline the request and I'll happily continue with my plan B through uncontrolled airspace, just like the OP had prepared. In the area around our base (say an hour or two from home) I know pretty well where I can expect clearance all the time, where I'll get it now and then and where I have to be really lucky.

There's a separate thread about VFR Flight Plans. I don't want to get mixed up in that, but suffice it to say that my experience is that when an ATS unit knows that you're coming and the route you're planning, it helps them a lot. I once met an ATS person (from "Sweden Control") on a skiing holiday. The first thing she said after we established that I was a PPL and she was an ATS was "I hope you file flight plans: that helps us so much!"
User avatar
By matthew_w100
#1852966
xtophe wrote:The "legal" one is the AIP, SUP, AIC and Notams. All the aifield with a CTR still have an ATZ. See AD2.17.
.


The AIP image:

Image

The text in AD2.17 doesn't really help navigation.
By Ibra
#1852969
My understanding VFR clerances under Radar Control Service to CTR, CTA & TMA do not allow one to enter ATZ, most Radar ATC or Procedural Approache ATC will ask you to switch to Tower ATC for further ATZ clearance

The tower guys are most likely "visual controllers" with Procedural Control Service inside ATZ (cleared to cross runway axiss or report downwind, final, overhead) then reverting back to Radar Control Service in CTR, CTA, TMA...

You are most likely to cross the ATZ (runway axis, glide path, visual circuit) under VFR transits not above 2000ft than under IFR transit on higher crossing above 3000ft
matthew_w100 liked this