I have had several Gatwick transits, 2500ft N-S through their overhead. They have plenty of low activity periods during the day. I suspect they won’t do it if they are busy, in case of a go-around. It was much simpler than in the video; I got a squawk, and when identified a DCT to Biggin Hill.
Funnily enough I visited the Farnborough “office” too.
The entire explanation for the weird UK system is in the way it is funded. And with NATS being a very political company (I realise NATS don’t do all of the UK) their employees are wary of commenting publicly on it. Also there is a strong ethos inside that if you don’t pay you should not get a service and of course GA mostly doesn’t pay.
Andy at the end of the OP video explains this very well.
Fortunately in France, ATCO’s unions will block any privatisation of ATC :)
For some comparison, look for “LA Mini Route Southbound” on Youtube.
Meanwhile on another planet
AdamFrisch wrote:
Never really understood AFIS either, but that’s not unique to the UK. We had it in Sweden as well when I got started, but think they might have gone by the wayside now.AFIS is alive and well in Sweden. What we don’t have anymore are ATS units that are sometimes TWR sometimes AFIS, depending on the time of day. Now they’re always TWR or always AFIS .
Mainly, Farnborough Radar could be called an ATP (Air traffic Police) unit. Their aim is to get a sqwak code to as many GA as they can, to identify any possible CAS intruder. Giving them a service is a secondary objective.
From this video, I understand why CAA support the listening sqwak procédure. They don’t care about giving anything to GA, they just want to be able to call you if give them any trouble.
Yes; that’s about it. It requires a lot less controller workload to do that than to provide a service.
OTOH I have to ask: what service do people want? For CAS you obviously need a transit clearance (France does this without using the words “cleared”, usually, which more careful visitors might regard as a hostage to fortune) but OCAS? A traffic service is good only for traffic which is transponding Mode C, which – in the relevant airspace where density is highest i.e. below say 2000ft – maybe only 50% are. A lot of people get a perverse pleasure from being invisible, and for those with a broken altitude encoder, or a transponder set to Mode A so there is no altitude readout, a traffic service just clutters the radio of the pilot getting the service (“traffic at 3 o’clock, 5 miles, altitude unknown”… incidentally traffic at 5 miles will not be visible unless it is a 737 but that’s another thing…).
Regarding the USA: pilots there are trained to ask for transits. Here in the UK, pilot training scares the hell out of pilots when it comes to CAS. The word “airways” (useless slang for UK Class A, basically) is used to generate horror and sleepless nights 
Peter wrote:
ICAO obligation to provide an FIS. The capabilities are defined in the air law exam which means I have long forgotten them but basically it is stuff like acting on a mayday call. There is no obligation to provide a radar service, or even to get you the taf and metar for some airport.
Actually, the capabilities go quite a bit beyond acting on mayday calls and they do include getting you the TAF and METAR for some airports. The full list, taken from ICAO Annex 11 is:
4.2 Scope of flight information service
4.2.1 Flight information service shall include the provision of pertinent:
a) SIGMET and AIRMET information;
b) information concerning pre-eruption volcanic activity, volcanic eruptions and volcanic ash clouds;
c) information concerning the release into the atmosphere of radioactive materials or toxic chemicals;
d) information on changes in the availability of radio navigation services;
e) information on changes in condition of aerodromes and associated facilities, including information on the state of the aerodrome movement areas when they are affected by snow, ice or significant depth of water;
f) information on unmanned free balloons;
and of any other information likely to affect safety.
4.2.2 Flight information service provided to flights shall include, in addition to that outlined in 4.2.1, the provision of information concerning:
a) weather conditions reported or forecast at departure, destination and alternate aerodromes;
b) collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G;
c) for flight over water areas, in so far as practicable and when requested by a pilot, any available information such as radio call sign, position, true track, speed, etc., of surface vessels in the area.
4.2.4 Flight information service provided to VFR flights shall include, in addition to that outlined in 4.2.1, the provision of available information concerning traffic and weather conditions along the route of flight that are likely to make operation under the visual flight rules impracticable
Of course 4.2.2a) can be given in VOLMET broadcasts, as long as they include the relevant airports and are within reception range of the aircraft.
Jujupilote wrote:
The second video made me laugh about as much as the US guys crossing the UK with their FPL lost. So much calls and air time for a simple transit ! I would love to read US posters’s reaction.
My reaction is no different, lots of words and theatre, not much effect
Re the LA Mini Route, it’s easier to transit the Special Flight Rules Area, on that one you don’t have to talk to anyone to get almost the same routing over LAX, except higher. Communication is pilot-to-pilot on a dedicated frequency. ATC mentions it in the video in reference to locating a Bonanza.
The difference isn’t so much between CAT and GA as between VFR GA, maybe IFR low-level GA, and the CAT/IFR GA with similar capabilities.
(I’ve seen a B757 GA at Inverness.)
Peter wrote:
You can get access to Class C under VFRHow would that be achieved? I sometimes do post-maintenance check flights around Norfolk, up to FL195, but no way can anyone give me higher. London Control once gave Norwich a bollocking for letting me go to FL200.
FL195 is the highest possibly allowed for VFR, Europe-wide, except when an exception is in place. This used to be mandated by “Commission Regulation (EC) No 730/2006”, but has now been integrated into SERA.5005.(d).(2)
lionel wrote:
Europe-wideWorld-wide, actually. The International Rules of the Air does say FL200, but as that is not a VFR cruising altitude it makes no difference in practise from FL195.
