The story I got was the new(ish) ‘electronic strip’ system used by many UK ATC units is quite cumbersome when it comes to a controller creating a new and unexpected strip on the fly. Presumably because it was designed with 100% IFR CAT in mind so no-one thought it would be necessary.
Probably if you file a flight plan their system automatically creates a strip and saves the controller that task.
I would question whether Bristol and others have any right to enforce such a system of requiring a filed flight plan. I may write to the CAA enquiring about it.
Farnborough try reasonably hard because eyes are on them after their relatively controversial airspace grab, which they got by promising they would accommodate GA. Even so, they under-staff their desks to save money and their controllers are frequently working too many frequencies at once (any combination of Zone, LARS West and Approach) to provide a really good service. They also use blunt tools to manage transits, like trying to keep you below 2,000ft. Numerous times I have been barreling towards the zone boundary at 2,400ft having been told to expect a late transit clearance, when with about half a mile to run they suddenly clear me not above 2,000ft. I fire straight back requesting 2,400ft and they say ok, but seem genuinely bemused as to why I should want it.
Off_Field wrote:
A helicopter called up for a basic service and a zone transit if it was possible. He was told there were a couple of aircraft to be inbound so no crossing and to remain outside.
Off_Field wrote:
He tried a last time then got a pretty aggressive response saying that it was a busy airfield, busy workload and not to ask again for a crossing.Had it been me receiving that on the radio I absolutely would have reported it.
Do you have to be a traffic that was affected to submit MOR?
I thought you could report it even if you’ve just witnessed it…
Excellent question arj1. I’m not sure. I assumed it had to be one of the parties in question.
It doesn’t really sit well with me getting involved in other peoples business.
Maybe worth saying “I am in good VMC with ground in-sight and happy to look for the traffic and separate myself, I will be flying cross runway at 1000ft agl over threshold, can I get my damn VFR transit please?”
I had my first transit refusal from Southampton’s Class D this afternoon in many years, despite there being little R/T traffic. It resulted in an uncomfortable low level trip round the CTR and below the CTA…it was +30C at ground level. When I got home I checked FR24 for Southampton traffic today, the one Commercial movement 25 minutes either side of my request departed 5 minutes after I called them, and had been given a Southampton squawk, by which time I could have been at 4000ft through their overhead.
I have always found them very helpful, not this time, so won’t raise an MOR. Maybe they are getting used to so little IFR traffic they are becoming over protective of the few movements they have?
Do you think they would not report your 100ft infringement on the basis that normally you stick to 200ft below the airspace base.
Do the FCS form at least.
I had a bookmark on FCS1521 which is still there.
It takes you to this online form.
Looks like FCS1522 combines the above.
Definitely report this, because this is not isolated. Solent has been getting much worse recently.
@marchettiman you need to report this. ALL transit requests that are denied should be reported by the online form linked above, or by MOR.
Marchettiman wrote:
so won’t raise an MOR
On a philosophical level – some parts of the airspace, which are a common good, have been fenced off by the airports, airlines and ATC so airports, airlines and ATC can make money. They absolutely should give access where they can, if they don’t they quite literally get away with theft.
This should be reported at every opportunity, and the long list of refusals should be cited whenever any application for new Class D airspace in the UK is made.
Cobalt wrote:
On a philosophical level – some parts of the airspace, which are a common good, have been fenced off by the airports, airlines and ATC so airports, airlines and ATC can make money. They absolutely should give access where they can, if they don’t they quite literally get away with theft.
On a philosophical level this is pretty BS.
It is absolutely common in all of our societies, that despite the fact that air, ground, water, etc. is in principle common good, part of that common good is is “fenced off” and only available for certain types of use. This has little to nothing to do with “making money” but a lot with safety and practicability.
It is not “theft” at all, that I can not have my children play on the next motorway, that I’m not allowed to swim in the entrance of the nearest port and that I must also not fly my RC-Drone through the ILS of Frankfurt airport.
