Jump to content

Ruth McTighe 824054

Members
  • Content Count

    413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ruth McTighe 824054

  1. Hi Charles.

     

    as you are posting in the UK forum I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume you are UK based? If you 'd like some online help, the Vatsim-UK "Getting Started nights" are on the first Wednesday of the month. For details of how to get involved see http://www.vatsim-uk.org/forum/index.php?topic=3127.0

     

    There is also a lot of useful information and online one-to-one help at Virtual pilot-UK. See this thread http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=175 in this forum.

     

    Ruth McTighe

    Deputy Director, Vatsim-UK

  2. there are indeed! it's not the same airport every night, but you will find Tuesdays are very popular with light aircraft, with Gloucestershire, andWellesbourne(EGBW - AFIS only) usually open. Hawarden (EGNR) is open most nights. There is frequent ATC which welcomes VFR at Bristol, Stansted (and sometimes Luton), Leeds, East Midlands, Southampton/Bournemouthand Biggin Hill. I've probably missed some. Just to confuse matters, if there's no TWR online, Stansted and Luton are covered by Essex Radar, and Biggin Hill by Thames Radar.

     

    The best source of information on events is http://www.vatsim-uk.org/forum/index.php?board=22.0 A new venture is the LARS/GA weekend promised for 18-20th March. There will be controller training for this event most Sunday evenings, so if you fancy coming to give the guys in the tower some practice, feel free. This starts on 23rd January at Biggin Hill, Further details at http://www.vatsim-uk.org/forum/index.php?topic=3381.0

     

    Ruth McTighe

    Deputy Director, Vatsim-UK

  3. welcome Terrence.

     

    Have a look at www.vatsim-uk.org for the UK stuff. Also, the CAA docomeent (CAP413) is the definitive guide for the UK, and we try to stick to it as far as possible. You will find it at http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/publicationdetails.asp?id=247

     

    If you are into VFR lfying, then there's some very nice training docuements at http://www.cixvfrclub.org.uk/training.htm

     

    see you online!

     

    Ruth McTighe

    Deputy Director, Vatsim-UK

  4. I also remember (although sadly cannot find reference to now), a statement saying APP controllers (in the absence of CTR/TMA), can control outbounds on SID routings until they are clear of inbound traffic - for example, I wouldn't want BPK departures just going own nav when I have inbounds through BNN at Heathrow (the two tracks cross), I would even say the same for London City - although I am not sure whether this is allowed (could I please have clarification from UK Staff?).

     

    Here is a copy of UK NOTAM 0104/3, published on 22nd April 2004, which is the one you are thinking of, Chris.

     

    3 [Discretion to handle area traffic]

    At aerodromes beneath or adjacent to TMA airspace where there is no Area Control online, an aerodrome unit which is qualified in APP control for controllers rated C1 or higher may [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume nominal control of arriving and departing aircraft in the TMA for their own airports traffic to a maximum of 40nm range for the purposes of avoiding traffic conflicts. If there is no likelihood of conflict aircraft should proceed own navigation in the usual manner, in accordance with the flight plan and be instructed to contact Unicom.

     

    In the same manner controllers who are operating approach facilities at S3 rated fields are permitted to monitor departures from their own field up until the final point of any instrument departure or reaching the final instrument departure altitude whichever occurs first. They are not permitted to give radar vectoring [Mod - Happy Thoughts]istance, buy may give traffic information without offering advisory headings. Aircraft handled in this way should not be ‘tracked’ using ASRC since this will make it difficult for Area Control to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume responsibility if they come online. Special exception is granted to Thames, Essex and Solent in that their responsibility by not being airport specific will extend to Thames( EGLC, EGKB and EGMC), Solent (EGHH and EGHI) and Essex ( EGSS and EGGW).

     

    This procedure is intended to prevent conflicts occurring in TMA airspace due to the lack of Area Control and allow controllers to give guidance to inbound flights at an early stage. It is not intended as a reduced area service and controllers must not attempt to control aircraft that are not directly interfering with their own inbounds or outbounds. In all cases such traffic must be handed off immediately to Area Control if they come online

     

    Ruth

    VATUK2

  5. OK, I'll try and be more precise. Barton is a AFIS airport in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G. The pilot has no need to talk to anyone, but if he wishes to and there isn't a Barton controller online, then EGCC_APP is the controller he will need to talk to. If he arrives or departs through the Manchester CTR then EGCC_APP will be providing the radar control service. I was trying to summarise a lengthy post on the staff group, which spelt out in detail that it is a radar control service to EGCC/EGCD, and a FIS/RIS/RAS outside CAS for the EGCB traffic.

     

    I had rather taken for granted that people were aware that Barton is AFIS only (moral: never [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume anything!). We certainly have no intention of discouraging controllers from manning Barton Information if that is what is wanted/needed - the purpose of the post was to clarify the area of coverage of EGCC_APP.

     

    Rob has actually put it very well.

  6. My apologies for the delay - I wanted to get confirmation at the staff meeting on Tuesday, and life got rather hectic after that!

    Some interesting stuff came up on investigating this one. Firstly, for most APP positions there isn't any published information on which airports APP controllers are responsible for besides their main ones. This is something we wil remedy as we revise each airport's procedures.

     

    Secondly, there were a number of different views on the answer to the question - it seemed to me they hinged on the interpretation of the 40 mile rule. It is now agreed that

    EGCC_APP will provide services to aircraft arriving and departing EGCC, EGCD (Woodford), and EGCB (Barton). A FIS/RIS/RAS may be provided to local traffic outside CAS at the pilots request, and subject to controller workload.

     

    I hope this answers the question

     

    Ruth McTighe

    Deputy Director, VATSIM-UK

  7. Indeed, the UK do not use "climb and maintain". I'm too am not sure why "maintain" is needed since the pilot knows he's not supposed to change level again without instruction. However in situations where level busts are common, and the pilot is on a standard instrument departure which has a stepped climb (e.g. from EGLC) you may hear

     

    Pilot: with you p[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ing 2000ft for 3000ft BPK3T departure

    ATC: squawk ident, maintain 3000ft on reaching

     

    which is done to make absolutely sure you don't climb into the path of one of the EGLL arrivals crossing above you at 4000ft.

     

    Ruth McTighe

    VATUK2

  8. My answer will be to Andy's original question ie which airports IS EGCC_APP allowed to provide a service to?

     

    Seems like it might be a good idea to extend your remit to cover ALL UK airports at some point in the not too distant future Ruth.

     

    Happy New Year.

     

    EH

     

    you read my mind, Ed! What I'd like to do is to add something to section 3 of the Vatsim-UK ATC manual to describe the general prinicples of how aerodrome coverage is determined, and then the specific details for each APP controller on the appropriate Vatsim-UK webpages.

     

    Ruth

  9. patience Jason - it's the Christmas hols and hardly anyone is around. The reply will be posted after the new year bank holiday.

     

    I will also remind you that this thread is not for complaining about a particular controller - if you wish to do that please e-mail me with the details. My answer will be to Andy's original question ie which airports IS EGCC_APP allowed to provide a service to?

  10. Since I am a long standing member of the UK division who also happens to hold a senior rating, I'd like to add my perspective to this thread.

     

    Will someone from the UK staff please clarify this situation for us all as soon as possible? There seems to be this air of secrecy about certain things. Questions such as this do not need to be addressed in private unless we're talking about a specific member. Nor do I really understand why no one seems to know the answer to such a basic policy question. Why does one person have to go away and ask another, who then has to ask someone else? I could understand that if it were some niggling point about an LOA - but we're talking really general stuff here. Can an APP controller ever be allowed to control other airports? Is CC_APP ever allowed to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume control for EGNM/EGNR/EGGP etc? Let's have an answer.

     

     

    .

     

    Thank you for your well thought out and written contribution Ed. As you will see form my previous posts, I do not currently know the answer to exactly which airfields EGCC_APP can control directly, and those to hich they can provide approach services,as I am not familiar with the area covered by EGCC_APP. As a lowly S3 in Essex and Capital, I know exactly what I can do in my own area, and yes, approach controllers often control more than one airport eg Essex controls Luton, Stansted and Cambridge, plus a number of small airfields. My personal view on the rules coincides with yours, but I have been unable to find a formal written policy and therefore need to go back to more knowledgeable staff on this one. I have publically undertaken on this thread to get a proper answer and report back, as this issue needs sorting out once and for all. However with the Christmas holidays, and people away I am unlikely to be able to provide an answer before the new year.

     

    I too have great concerns about the anger and distrust that is coming to light. I am grateful to Ed for offering to provide a private discussion for those who feel unable to speak to any member of the Vatsim-UK staff about their issues.

     

    Ruth

    Deputy Director, Vatsim-UK

  11. Jason, I suggest you read the thread again. The issue is about which airports a specific APP can control - many APP controllers are responsible for more than one airport. What you do on TWR is covered by a completely different set of rules, as I'm sure you know well. Please don't try to side-track the original point that Andy was making.

  12. Andy, I just said in my previous post that your question was a fair one and that I would go and find out the answer! I will post the answer as soon as I get it. If you want to use my response as a reason for another grumble so be it.

     

    You may not have raised a complaint on this thread, but Jason most certainly did. I will only action complaints about individual controllers if I receive an e-mail giving me the details of date, individual concerned and the issue. If any action needs to be taken, then I will do so, but not until then.

     

    I too like the idea of Confidential Reporting, and would be interested to know what other people think. I would agree with Rob that it would have to be factual, not opinions or whinging (you would be amazed how many complaints we get that sound as if the writer has a personal grudge). It would be confidential, but in my view it couldn't be entirely anonymous, otherwise it could be easily abused - perhaps the identity of the reporter should only be identifiable to the DCRM or someone equally senior.

     

    I have no problem with people bringing up issues, but what I do have a problem with is when a thread gets turned into yet another slanging match.

  13. I am sorry that yet another slanging match appears to be developing in this thread.

     

    There are several issues here:

    1. the rules about what airports EGCC_APP can provide ATC at.

    2. the way issues are raised on Vatsim-UK, whether or not they are complaints.

    3. the difference between healthy debate about an issue, and complaining about an individual controller

    4. dissatisfaction among some of the Vatsim-UK members with some of the Vatism-UK staff

     

    In the absence of VATUK1 I will contribute to this discussion as best I can.

     

    1. I am unable to comment on the rules about which airports come under the control of EGCC_APP, as I am still just a "southern" controller. I will undertake to find out from the FIR operations directors. (There may be a delay due to people being away at Christmas). In the meantime, only Robert and Dan have contributed to the discussion by saying what they feel should be the correct procedure. How about the rest of the "northerners" telling us what they think, rather than just asking questions?

     

    2 and 3. I am quite prepared to participate in any reasonable discussion, and will encourage the staff to do the same. The issue of clarifying rules about who can control what is by itself a fair question. However when it degenerates into a complaint that "this controller needs to be looked into" or asking "why?" a controller controlled in airspace that the poster clearly does not agree with, then neither is helpful. If this controller "needs to be looked into" then there are procedures to follow - not least of which is the controller needs to be identified by name outside a public forum. I haven't a clue why a particular controller chose to control particular airports - and won't be able to ask him or her unless I know who to ask. The complaints procedure is there for a reason - if you aren't happy with the response you get, then there are facilities to take it higher.

     

    4. It is always worrying when members of an organisation are dissatisifed with staff members. However shouting about it on here isn't going to make much difference. My personal aim for Vatsim-UK for 2005 is to make it the exciting and enjoyable place that people will want to control and fly in. My appeal to members therefore is to help me and the rest of the staff to do that. If you wish please contract me privately through the deputy director mailbox, and lets see what we can do to improve things. If you have problems over indidivdual members of staff, you can raise them with me in confidence. If you have problems with me or the whole of the Vatsim-UK staff, then you will need to take your issues higher.

     

    Ruth McTighe

    Deputy Director, VATSIM-UK

  14. Dear Lee,

     

    Ross Williamson had made a good start on developing a completely new Vatsim-UK website, but unfortunately due to other commitments has had to stand down. At present the web-team are working on a thorough revision of the current site.

     

    Ruth McTighe

    Deputy Director, Vatsim-UK

×
×
  • Create New...