UK APP Controller Limits

[Ed Hemsley 810446]

Perfect, thanks Ruth!

[Robert Bruce 825416]

I fear that the answer will not be precise enough for those here who seem most eager to know and that will probably translate to a potential problem when the ruling is more formally published.

 

I suggest a link to the ATSOCAS doc which should provide the level of detail required for those not fully conversant with those procedures.

[Daniel Finney 810884]

I agree with Robert - see that as a complaint or whinge as you wish.

I thought Barton and the likes of the smaller airfields would have been in the spotlight for encouraging more controllers to "have a go" at providing services. I honestly do not feel that it is very realistic for EGCC APP to be responsible for traffic movements out of EGCB - quite the opposite.

 

Just my 2p worth - for what its worth.

[Andy King-Magee 810722]

EGCC_APP's area of airspace is the Manchester CTR and CTA - only EGCC itself and Woodford (and Stretton and Warrington) actually lie within that airspace. Liverpool has its own CTR and Barton is in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G.

 

Unofficial reading of the regulations: CC_APP shouldn't really deal with traffic within other controlled airspace (which would include ATZs) but can give service to traffic departing another field in uncontrolled airspace if workload allows.

 

Woodford, lying within cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] D, falls under Manchester's responsibility. Local flying from woodford (within a local flying area 1.5nm radius, centred on the aerodrome) is subject to clearance from and restrictions which may be specified from, manchester approach.

FLights further afield than 1.5 miles will be in manchester CTR and are subject to the usual zone clearances from manchester approach. These would usually be obtained on the ground (but would not cover taxi/takeoff/cct type instructions.)

Woodford as an entry/exit lane and use is subject to clearance from Manchester Approach (Or woodford tower)

 

Barton is in cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G as stated earler. If departing traffic remains clear of CAS they don't need to talk to anybody, but Manc could give ATSOCAS to arrivals/departures outwith the ATZ if requested

 

For Hawarden, see Barton.

 

I think Robs post needs reading again as Barton is in Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] G like Hawarden is.

[Ruth McTighe 824054]

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.

[Robert Bruce 825416]

The other point that needs to be made clear is that a controller giving FIS/RIS/RAS (when that is not being given under the umbrella of top-down cover by an area controller) will not be giving ground handling instructions or permission to an aircraft receiving that service.

 

They can issue a zone clearance to an aircraft on the ground if the aircraft will, once airborne, will route through the zone. Some airfields are so close to CAS that 10nm/5 mins isn't an option once airborne.

 

ie, as an approach controller in Aberdeen I cannot give takeoff clearance to an aircraft at Insch, but if they call me when on the ground I can give them information (regional QNH, known observed winds, known traffic etc.) and ask them to call when airborne if they want a service. If that airfraft was also inbound to Aberdeen, I could p[Mod - Happy Thoughts] their zone clearance at the same time ("once airborne you are cleared to enter the zone via the Inverurie lane, VFR not above 2000', QNH 1013. Squawk 2611")

 

OK, so Aberdeen probably wouldn't hear a transmission from Insch - there is a huge lump of rock in the way called Bennachie. VATSIM doesn't account for rock.

[Chris Dobison 810929]

Having read through the above posts I feel it necessary to make a comment myself on the situation.

 

Not being a Manchester controller on Vatsim myself, I cannot comment on this specific scenario, but let me tell you my rule of thumb when controlling on Vatsim at Heathrow and when training C1s on Heathrow:

 

As Heathrow Director (EGLL_N_APP), I will only control at Heathrow, with the exception when TMA are busy and ask me to [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume responsibility for London City inbounds which I can give a more expeditious route through my airspace. 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?). I will offer a RAS/RIS to aircraft as in the real world, whereby it will be a full RAS/RIS as long as the aircraft is at least at a level x 100 to their distance (eg. 1000ft for 10nm, 2000ft for 20nm, 3000ft for 30nm, etc) to a maximum of 50nm - it would be a restricted service below those levels, and outside of that I would offer FIS only.

 

I find it totally unacceptable and grossly unprofessional (if I can use such a term for a hobby group), the slagging of UK Staff and fellow members by certain individuals in a public forum. This issue has been raised many times before, and I doubt sadly it will ever go away - but I fail to understand why some individuals feel the need to "score points" off fellow enthusiasts. I'm sure I do not need to remind members that if they have complaints (and that isn't directed at Andy for the initial post, I aim that at the bickering from members afterwards), then they should follow correct "protocol" by going first of all to the DCRM, then to the Divisional Director. Failing a satisfactory response from either of these parties (which you should get, otherwise these people would not be still holding their present positions), then I encourage you to email myself as the new Deputy European Region Director at [email protected] and I will personally respond. This email account is checked every 48 hours minimum unless I have pre-warned that I will be away.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Chris

[Ruth McTighe 824054]

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

[Daniel Finney 810884]

I find it totally unacceptable and grossly unprofessional (if I can use such a term for a hobby group), the slagging of UK Staff and fellow members by certain individuals in a public forum. This issue has been raised many times before, and I doubt sadly it will ever go away - but I fail to understand why some individuals feel the need to "score points" off fellow enthusiasts. I'm sure I do not need to remind members that if they have complaints (and that isn't directed at Andy for the initial post, I aim that at the bickering from members afterwards), then they should follow correct "protocol" by going first of all to the DCRM, then to the Divisional Director. Failing a satisfactory response from either of these parties (which you should get, otherwise these people would not be still holding their present positions), then I encourage you to email myself as the new Deputy European Region Director at [email protected] and I will personally respond. This email account is checked every 48 hours minimum unless I have pre-warned that I will be away.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Chris

 

Chris

 

Is this directed at myself. ?

If so, please be more specific. If it is, I shall no further take part in any open discussion on this forum. You really need to be more specific and direct your comments to the members that you feel are "having a go".

I am most certainly NOT a mind reader!

[Daniel Finney 810884]

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.

 

Ruth

 

Thanks for that. Your second post is a lot more clear.

Your first post led me to believe that EGCC APP was responsible for EGCB arrivals and departures.

[Chris Dobison 810929]

Is this directed at myself. ?

 

Dan,

 

My post was written after I'd looked through 4 pages of posts - the first one being pretty much a "staff bashing" one. The remaining three pages I feel provoked interesting discussion and points and I feel this is important for Vatsim, so no that shouldn't be stopped. What I am requesting to stop happening are the posts you can see on Page 1 after Andy's initial post and Neil's reply - I think everyone knows what I mean. If I have misinterpreted any posts on there as being malicious when they aren't however, then I stand corrected - that was just the way I viewed it at the time of reading.

 

 

Best,

 

 

Chris

[Daniel Finney 810884]

As I made three posts on the first page I will therefore withdraw from any further discussion on this forum.

 

I will instruct my VA pilots that in future, if they require any advice with regards to any VATSIM related procedure to contact the relevant staff member that they themselves see fit for answers via the email contact channels provided.

 

Dan Finney