The French always appear to be very angry – its just their way.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
It is interesting that the system has potentially skewed the relationship so much in favour of the controller
Has it? Since I got my PPL in 1992, controlled airspace has always been controlled airspace, and it hasn’t changed (for all practical purposes). Today there is more of it, and we have got this little bureaucratic devil on our backs, called “infringement”. IMO, the focus on it causes more harm than good. It increases insecurity to greater or larger extent for 95% of the pilots, while fail to address the 5% who actually do infringe due to carelessness or ignorance or whatever. Infringement as a thing has very little to do with the behavior/communication ATC vs pilots as such. My experience is that as long as I stay in contact with ATC/information (also outside controlled space) there are no problems whatsoever. I hear about “impossible” ATC from time to time, but have never experienced it myself (from what I can recall at the moment, other than obvious misunderstandings), and the ones I have heard, I have only heard one side of the story. What I do hear form time to time on the radio while instructing, is private GA pilots form elsewhere that simply fail to follow simple ATC instructions for whatever reason. They therefore end up in a situation where ATC gets a tad less friendly (to put it mildly 
)
I think maybe the reason why there is a perceived skewed relationship is that more and more of private GA is trained at desolate places with no ATC, or at least very little traffic. It’s very much in the pilot’s head. Most GA pilots prefer not to get in contact at all most of the time, and you can certainly do that. But the few times you do get in contact, it feels odd and not very “natural” perhaps? I don’t know. I have not seen that things has been skewed over the years.
How someone sound on RT has nothing to do with his real life character, sometimes talking angry and fast is just a way to cope with stress…
As long as I get what I want, I don’t care how I get there or how pilot/atc speak (usually I am not sure who is having a bad day)
LeSving – I think that is a different point, albeit perfectly valid.
My point was more one of perception. The controller is perceived as being in “control”, “total control”, perhaps another way of puting it woule be a little like some people’s perception of a police office, they are an authority figure and they should never be questioned, just obeyed, almost blindly.
Graham wrote:
I have never really understood how any pilot could be scared of ATC.
The trouble is people get themselves the idea that ATC is “police in the sky”, and PPL instructors don’t seem to be correcting this idea.
In reality, ATC and the pilot are part of a team. We both want the same outcome – we want to get from one place in space to another without banging into another aircraft or into terrain or get exposed to undue hazards. Sometimes it can fall apart (controllers are after all human too) but if you approach it as if we are working on a team rather than a “them and us” attitude, it becomes a lot less stressful (for both sides, I suspect – I would imagine a controller would rather promptly know of a potential problem from an aircraft before it becomes an actual last minute problem, and fear of ATC probably means some pilots say nothing until they absolutely can’t any more).
JasonC wrote:
Steve6443 wrote:
I think you’re missing the point. I knew that the weather south of the Alps was CAVOK. Over the Alps was a pretty much solid layer of cloud from around 6500 feet to FL 120. I was VFR on top. Why should I turn around just because Padova wanted me to descend below FL115 due to Class D airspace? Or do you think instead of saying ‘unable’, I should have just flown back to Innsbrück, there descended under the layer and flown along the Brenner at 6000 feet AGL, ignoring the request from ATC to avoid the area of Bolzano due to IFR procedures?
I am just saying that you don’t know why they wanted you to descend and an automatic view that you should continue may not perhaps always be correct. My point is you were not unable to remain outside, you chose not to.
No, what happened is that I asked for confirmation that I was cleared into the class Delta airspace before blundering in – Padova had cleared me first to FL 120, then secondly direct VIC but without expressly clearing me into the Class D airspace hence I proactively asked. My plan B would have been to propose to either circle outside CAS until I could proceed on a direct track to VIC and start my descent once I could spot a hole in the clouds past the Alps or wait until the IFR procedure had completed over Bolzano and head there to descend into a valley without clouds. I had sufficient fuel to do either. When I replied that I was unable to descend due to IMC conditions in the Alps below me, the controller didn’t ask for a Plan B, which Belgium Controllers have previously done, but simply said ‘ok, we will work around you’.
Maybe I am a bit too simplistic, but I view the situation with two simple rules:
1. They are there to help me, not the other way around.
2. Inside CAS their instructions must be complied with but only if it is safe to do so – and I decide whether it is safe, not them.
Only once have I had to invoke the safety get-out on rule 2, and that was a few weeks ago when Guernsey Approach asked me to start out across the channel at 2,000ft and I told them unable as (IMHO) it’s unsafe in an SEP. I asked for an orbit over the island while they coordinated for higher. I was a bit disappointed with the obvious reluctance with which they allowed the orbit, and had they refused and instructed me to continue I would have taken up the orbit anyway and left the ball in their court.
The obvious other side to this is that one must not falsely invoke the safety get-out to try an obtain a shortcut or whatever.
Graham wrote:
Only once have I had to invoke the safety get-out on rule 2, and that was a few weeks ago when Guernsey Approach asked me to start out across the channel at 2,000ft and I told them unable as (IMHO) it’s unsafe in an SEP. I asked for an orbit over the island while they coordinated for higher. I was a bit disappointed with the obvious reluctance with which they allowed the orbit, and had they refused and instructed me to continue I would have taken up the orbit anyway and left the ball in their court.
I always think this is an interesting one.
Guernsey, Jersey and Aldrney will “always” give you an initial clearance not above 2,000 or sometimes 2,500 VFR and then on hand over to Jersey Zone usually with a restriction of 5,500 feet to the zone boundary. IFR obvioulsy this is not the case.
I understand that in a SEP for some this is unsatisfactory.
On the other hand, to be fair with both an Easterly and Westerly departures from Guernsey you would probably make either Guernsey or Alderney from 2,000 feet, and you can pretty much guarantee a further climb by midway between Guernsey and Alderney.
I think you have less options with Jersey when a return to Jersey may be more unlikely before a further climb is negotiated.
I am not sure about the rights or wrongs of this and can understand your reluctance, but I think from Guernsey it is probably not unreasonable as long as a further climb is granted en route ORTAC or the Cap. Of course if you are going direct Guernsey in the Exeter direction it seems to me possibly all semantics because even if you were to be given an intial climb higher and earlier should the worst happen you will not make land anyway unless you have a very exceptional climb performance.
You might therefore become more reluctant with Jersey Zone if you are not given a further climb by Alderney, always with the possibility of orbiting Alderney.
Graham wrote:
The obvious other side to this is that one must not falsely invoke the safety get-out to try an obtain a shortcut or whatever.
I think it’s funny this one – ATC are a service – they sometimes forget that, but they are a service. Air Traffic Control Service and The primary purpose of ATC worldwide is to prevent collisions, organize and expedite the flow of air traffic, and provide information and other support for pilots. Nothing more. The world Control is only there to make them feel better :-)
All jokes aside, they screw up, they get in trouble. You screw up – you die…
Fuji_Abound wrote:
you will not make land anyway unless you have a very exceptional climb performance.
For me it is not about ‘making land’. It’s about how long you have to prepare for ditching if you have an engine failure at a given height. From 2,000ft, in an aeroplane with relatively poor glide performance (TB10 in my case) my bet is that you would not even get a very useful Mayday call out and there will be almost zero chance of having time for any words to your passengers, probably no time for trying a restart either. You will lose 15-30 seconds to the startle factor (WTF is going on?!?!) then you have to set your glide up, then decide if you’re going to turn or not (can you get close to land, or close to a boat, what is the swell direction and where is the wind?) Stow loose items, who’s got a hand on the raft, headsets off and unplugged to avoid entanglements, doors cracked open, and by the time all that has happened the ocean is getting very close and you’re preparing to flare. If someone is giving their life story on the active frequency during the five seconds you get to think about making a Mayday call, then that’s it – you’re probably going down unannounced.
From a sensible altitude (say 5,000 feet or above) all this changes – you have plenty of time to take care of everything that you can control. So I’m afraid I disagree that’s it’s reasonable to keep us that low.
Yes the initial VFR clearance always seems to be not above 2,000 feet, although I normally tell Tower on receiving this that I will require higher and they say that’s no problem you’ll get it as soon as you go to Approach – and it happens. On this occasion I said it as usual, Tower indicated it would be fine on handover as usual, and then when handed over Approach refused higher twice – the second time approaching Fort Le Marchant so that is where I told them I wasn’t going any further at that height. I do always request IFR into the zone when arriving to avoid being stuffed down low on entering.
