No idea why
They definitely have a radar rated & equipped FISO…
On my most recent Farnborough transit they definitely noticed I had been IFR OCAS as they said my previous squawk had been 2000 when asking if I wanted IFR or VFR through the class D. I took VFR as it was VMC and they indicated that would avoid holding.
Anecdotal but I have (so far) always been able to get a traffic service IFR OCAS where I sometimes didn’t get it VFR at similar altitudes (4-8kft). Certainly were it refused I would re-request and tell them if I were IMC.
Winston wrote:
On my most recent Farnborough transit they definitely noticed I had been IFR OCAS as they said my previous squawk had been 2000
They have Echo airspace and they will CAIT+MOR 2000 on it 
UK IFR OCAS is practically same as VFR. You can drill holes in clouds (if you have the IMCR or IR) non-radio, non-TXP. No ATC service obligation whatever. No clearance to enter any CAS, and no assurance of getting one whether you file a flight plan or not.
In reality (and ATC have always denied this, of course) calling yourself “IFR” does improve your chances of a transit (of Class D; Class A transits are generally much harder, plus they need the full IR). Why? One would think the opposite should be the case because IFR traffic requires more separation (I think?). It could be that if you call up “IFR” you sound better and ATC will click that you are less likely to give them hassle and suddenly drop by 500ft onto a FlyBe, etc.
ATC have always denied that better radio = more likely to get a transit, but they would say that because it would be entirely improper to admit it.
Also aircraft types affect it. If you turn up in an Aztec, or even a TB20, you are more likely to get it than in a C152, or especially in a UL which, in ATC folklore, is simply expected to fly completely randomly, laterally and vertically
The new dimension, as mentioned above, is that Class E is CAS for IFR, so in the Farnborough area, if you let it be known you are IFR (on the radio, or by setting 2000) you can bust CAS! This is one reason I never set 2000. There is absolutely zero advantage.
Ibra wrote:
CAIT+MOR 2000
Sorry but would you translate please?
CAIT is the software NATS use to detect infringements. It almost certainly works by comparing TXP codes, TXP altitude, and airspace class. For example
It might be more clever e.g. one of the Solent codes in the LTMA = bust.
MOR is a mandatory occurence report, mandatory on ATC on any bust (no discretion permitted).
https://peter2000.co.uk/aviation/intro/uk-infringements-policy.html
2000 I have no idea but presumably refers to the 2000 TXP code.
I keep telling Ibra to write more clearly
Sorry but would you translate please?
If you enter Echo airspace in UK with 2000 transponder code it gets flagged by software and controllers as bust, more seriously it may also result in loss of IFR/IFR separation
Doing the same on 7000 code is not an issue…plus sometimes Echo is not visible on VFR maps (no clearance and no separation)
Worth mentioning that UK ATCOs all sign the Official Secrets Act and nobody will comment on this openly, so all the above is speculation.
However, it is reasonable speculation. The MORs are published to a restricted list under an NDA but I get most of them passed to me, and they make interesting reading, especially collectively.
Peter wrote:
In reality (and ATC have always denied this, of course) calling yourself “IFR” does improve your chances of a transit
ATC have always denied that better radio = more likely to get a transit, but they would say that because it would be entirely improper to admit it.
Over 22 years of flying in 14 countries, in my experience both of these are pretty much universally true. Competence = less headache for ATC, and being correct and concise on the radio demonstrates competence that often translates to more disciplined flying. Obtaining an IR requires that one demonstrate a higher level of competence in the areas that matter to ATC (following procedures, RT, holding altitude and heading, etc.), so it’s only logical that they would give more deference to IFR traffic.
I learned to fly in a busy area with lots of rapid-fire radio chatter that required following precise procedures and demonstrating generally a high level of competence. In that environment I found that getting what I wanted meant efficient comms and being positioned such that granting my request was the easiest and most logical course of action for ATC. Also, as mentioned above, combining competence with confidence in your request is also more likely to result in success.
Ibra wrote:
They definitely have a radar rated & equipped FISO…
I don’t want to de-rail this into a “does Info secretly have radar?” thread (I am aware of the rumours) – but on a recent trip north I heard Scottish Info controlling various bits of commercial traffic with assigned levels, routes etc. (not just passing details of a clearance). It sounded a lot like it involved a radar rather than just procedural. Just quickly googling, I see that CAP1434 mentions:
“callsign “Scottish Information” or “London Information” and provide Basic Service only. Traffic Service and Deconfliction Service are available from controllers at the Prestwick ACC in many parts of the Scottish FIR, subject to controller workload
Does anyone know any more about this? Just curious; it was only my second time in Scottish airspace.
