[Andrew Sinclair]

I was asked by a poster above to try daytime VFR which I did and that was successful as well.

I know it is only anecdotal evidence and I don’t mean to prolong/inflame the thread unnecessarily but I said I would try and report back.

[Boxkite]

Not to pour cold water on......but to put things into perspective - especially for those reading who are unaware - am I correct in believing that you are an instructor, based at Bristol, and so is the aircraft?
(If I am wrong, I will delete this post).

[Andrew Sinclair]

Not to pour cold water on......but to put things into perspective - especially for those reading who are unaware - am I correct is believing that you are an instructor, based at Bristol, and so is the aircraft?
(If I am wrong, I will delete this post).

Regardless of my response below, I wouldn't suggest deleting your post as I believe it adds value.

To take each point in turn:
Yes, I am an instructor but as far as I am aware the only person who was aware that I was in the aircraft was the pilot flying, sat beside me;
I haven't been instructing at Bristol since March this year but do still fly from there very occasionally. It is because I don't fly from there that I have more reason to transit;
One of the aircraft used is based at Bristol and the other is not based at Bristol;

Irrespective, I would be surprised if NATS Bristol made an operational decision based solely on the aircraft, its occupants or their qualifications. My understanding is that there is a priority order and we're normally somewhere near or indeed at the bottom of the order.

That said, being familiar with Bristol airspace may help. Before making a request I listen to 125.650MHz (RADAR) and 136.080MHz (Director) to build my situational awareness of the number and relative aircraft positions and, more important, time between aircraft. This helps establish the likelihood of a successful transit request. If I hear a steady stream of CAT then I don't ask because I can take an educated guess what the answer might be, mea culpa on that point.

I think that is just part of understanding the system. I recently flew with a chap from Shoreham to Redhill and he suggested that we attempt a Gatwick transit. I haven't flown in the south east regularly for a number of years but I used the same procedure, tuned in to the appropriate frequencies to listen and guessed that we would not be successful. The pilot flying wanted to ask anyway and he did and our request was not successful.

[Boxkite]

Irrespective, I would be surprised if NATS Bristol made an operational decision based solely on the aircraft, its occupants or their qualifications.

I wouldn't be surprised myself, they're only human - they know the aircraft, it's based there, it booked out earlier, and it's likely on its way back.
Were they aware when you called up for transit that you would soon be requiring a rejoin?

[Andrew Sinclair]

During the night time transit we had indeed booked out and departed from Bristol although much earlier, some 4-5 hours previously and had landed away thus we were not rejoining as such and were going on down to the south coast.

We hadn't established inbound PPR with the handing agent either because they were closed. (anyway there is no mechanism that I am aware of for the GA handling agent to advise NATS Bristol about inbound light aircraft, the PPR is more a matter of space on the apron and parking and a matter for the two handling agent companies themselves) .

However, the ATCO did know that we were intending to complete our flight that evening and land at Bristol but that information was passed after we had transited and not before so couldn't have been factored in to the decision to grant a transit clearance. Once we had left CAS the ATCO asked if we were coming back later on. I interpreted this to mean were we returning to the airport that evening and we confirmed that; it could have meant were we coming back for another transit although that is less likely. I suppose that because we were flying an aircraft whose registration was familiar that may have made a difference but I am not convinced. Having listened to both RADAR and Director frequencies it didn't seem that busy and I am familiar that there is sometimes a period between around 19:00 and 21:00hrs when there are fewer inbound CAT so "Worth a punt!" at a transit.

During the day transit though the aircraft did not depart from Bristol, did not land at Bristol and, in fact, I don't believe has ever landed at Bristol.

This is only anecdotal I know and perhaps there is a view amongst Bristol controllers not to grant VFR clearances - I don't know the answer to that question.

[Full Metal Jackass]

Surely one person saying that they got a transit isn't evidence of that?

No, but an absence of reports of refusal, over the past few months, may be indicative?

People may have given up trying.... have to admit that I’ve had transits from Brizzle in the past and they were very helpful, but after reading reports of a few months ago, I probably wouldn’t have bothered trying if I’d been down that way.

I'm one of those who's given up trying to gain transits - if, when heading from north east to southwest, I aim slightly further south and skirt around their restricted airspace; if I do that from the word go, it might extend my flight by around 5 minutes but I'd rather have that than be faced with a choice, should they refuse a transit of either an additional 15 minute diversion or a drop to 1400 feet or so and risk Indian territory* over Avonmouth.

What surprised me is that in zastaph's report, he indicated that Bristol Radar gave him traffic information - when I've been on frequency, they typically offered nothing more than a 'basic service', - this was even when they did actually claim to offer LARS service....

*Cherokees everywhere...... other aircraft are also available

[Andrew Sinclair]

Was a great day today for requesting a Bristol transit, you could have done it inverted with an outside loop over the r/w for good measure!

I counted me, a couple of A320s and Citation all day long.

[kanga]

... Before making a request I listen to 125.650MHz (RADAR) and 136.080MHz (Director) to build my situational awareness ...

As a matter of interest, was this listening out on a 'Box 2', or 'listen on the Standby frequency' feature of a Comm Box with such a facility' ? And was the other pilot meanwhile tuned to some other apposite frequency ? These features are very nice to have, but for nearly all my ~50 year PPL time, when flying with a radio which was not always, I had only an old-fashioned single-channel box which required manual 'big knurled knobs' retune. This was true of our various syndicate aircraft until the necessary 8.33 upgrade. Obviously, for those regularly flying in areas where (in normal times) Class D/ATZ transits may be CAT-density dependent, this may be a reason to invest still more in avionics ..

[Andrew Sinclair]

@kanga

It hasn’t made any difference whether I have have one or two radios.

The transit request is made to Radar where during the quieter periods that’s where you’ll find inbound CAT. During busier periods, **** over to Director to listen in prior to making a request to Radar has helped me gauge the likelihood of success. Similarly when I used to operate out of Redhill/Biggin Hill listening to Gatwick built the awareness.

Or did I miss the point?

*quite why the forum doesn’t like the word f l i c k i n g is beyond me.

[Dave W]

*quite why the forum doesn’t like the word f l i c k i n g is beyond me.

It's because there's a software rule to auto-donk hillbilly words, including 'wildcard' letters that too many people have used in the past to get around the rule, and unfortunately that gets caught in it. The way the rule is implemented doesn't allow for "autodonk all words except these ones..." so the solution is to use a synonym!

[stevelup]

Just remove 'f l i c k' from the list then - it's absurd!

[Dave W]

There isn't such a list; the rule uses wildcards and unfortunately there isn't a simple function to say e.g. "allow this, but not those".

We've tried a few times to find a solution without drawbacks (in fact, Steve, ISTR you tried to suggest some solutions a while back), but did not manage it and frankly there are better things for us to spend our time on.

[stevelup]

flick F L I C K
**** F L I CK I N G
**** F E C K I N G
**** F O C K I N G
flicker F L I C K E R
lick L I C K
licking L I C K I N G
licker L I C K E R

So the wildcard is F * C K I N G?

Just get rid of it?! It's broken, not fit for purpose, not working. Delete it!

The auto-donk is stoopid anyway... So childish...

[Dave W]

Autodonk is not stupid, because history informs that without it people are stupid. We don't want the work, thanks.

Dealing with it is a long, long way down my priority list - dunno about other Mods.

[stevelup]

I'm on dozens of other forums. This is the only one with an auto-donk. So read into that what you like.

It is -so- easy to bypass anyway that the utility of it is totally negated.

Anyway, not looking for an argument, and this is ridiculously off topic.