I wonder how these control freaks (not necessarily controllers) will react when free flight is finally introduced. It might take another 20 yrs but it will increase capacity by 10 fold with a concurrent reduction in ground based systems and its costs.
Today the capacity problem is not with airspace but its with limited airport capacity.
I think there are many specific differences in operating procedures, which give the US a lot more flexibility.
Europe has a tendency to take US rules and tighten them up.
Peter wrote:
In one NATS presentation they said they had a visit to some US ATC tower and they described the procedures there as “absolute rubbish”
Well they would say that, wouldn’t they ?
Depressing how arrogant the clowns managing NATS are if they honestly think they do a better job than the FAA.
In one NATS presentation they said they had a visit to some US ATC tower and they described the procedures there as “absolute rubbish” 
I can’t add more detail, though it is clear that US ATC sometimes uses much more casual terminology than the “ultra proper” UK IFR controllers. We had a thread on this recently, here. And I can fully see that assessment. I would not be able to understand a lot of it.
I think however there are many specific operational differences e.g. in parallel runway operations.
There seems to be a “slag off all the non professionals” approach in the NATS presentations. Some airlines (names omitted) get a roasting… well, that will surprise nobody … and bizjets get it too for producing 2.5x more level busts than the major airlines (hardly surprising). I had not seen IFR light GA get a roasting (presumably because there is almost none of it flying in Europe) but some VFR-bimbling CAS busts always make nice videos to show everyone (with a request to not post the regs on a well known uk aviation chat / beat-up-everyone site ). One gets the clear impression of a feeling of great superiority.
Mind you, I went to one Eurocontrol “navigation workshop” in 2008 in Brussels. My notes are still somewhere and they make hilarious reading. I don’t think I can post them since they are less than complimentary about some of the speakers, especially those who said one thing privately and then washed their hands of it in their speech So I think there is a lot of personality-based recruitment going on in these bodies.
Peter wrote:
172driver, I belive your flight was a VFR bimble.
Nope @Peter, it was practice instrument approaches into Class C and D airports. At some point the approach controller came on and said something to the effect of ‘guys, it’s getting too crazy out there, cannot accept more practice approaches into Burbank, say intentions’. No problem, broke off the ILS and asked for – and immediately received – an IFR clearance to a nearby Class D airport and flew an approach there. Btw, the main issue last night were pretty crazy winds were they had to vector CAT around to a different runway at KBUR after the ILS. (ILS goes to rwy 8, but winds were 340 @ 15 or so and their rwy 33 doesn’t have an IAP)
Two days ago had to go down to San Diego, VFR on that occasion and got cleared through the LAX Class B, then the KSNA Cass C, then the KSAN Class B. Same on return, ending with another practice instrument approach. No problems.
That’s what I call ‘providing a service’.
The problem is with NATS – the subject of this topic. If you go to one of their presentations (and I have done a number of these) you need to bring some razor blades with you. They are utterly depressing, in the totally superior arrogant tone. They do a good job overall but I think this is because they have lots of competent people lower down, at the “coalface”, if not at the top management.
The overall presentation of NATS can be found on their website and clearly states their “corporate mission” and priorities.
I did visit NATS at Swanwick this year and my general impression matches that of Peter’s. NATS are clearly extremely focussed on airline traffic management and saw GA as annoying to have to fit in. Infringements (and reduction thereof) were their top priority for VFR GA. I sensed that fitting in an IFR flight through southern UK airspace at or below FL100 is awkward for them (at least as mentioned by senior management).
The other major annoyance for NATS seemed to be the archaic state of airspace around London and how that makes it difficult to manage efficiently. I didn’t quite understand the constraints, but it seems well over 90% of all flights have to be tactically controlled (i.e. vectored on radar headings). I agree the controllers themselves at the coal face do a tremendous job.
This is such a contrast with FAA operations that still rely on older Mode C transponders.
NATS revenue is £913 million, with a net profit of £132 million
Approx 75% of that is from NERL which operates ATC in the UK including North Atlantic co-ordination. So let’s say around £700 million
Swanwick handles 2,300 flights per day, while Prestwick (covering North Atlantic) handles 4,300.
I’d guess that with the highly developed procedures and systems are in place, handling the north atlantic operations requires less controller time/expertise per flight – no pesky VFR infringers to worry about – so the cost per flight could be fairly low compared to London TMA.
FAA budget is $16 billion. of which about $7.5 billion is for ATO = £6 billion
The FAA provides service to 43,000 flights per day
So a very rough comparison suggests that controlled traffic in the US is about 10-20x that of the UK with a budget of about 10×.
As a GA pilot, the service received is radically different.
arj1 wrote:
Now after your IR(R) you can fly IFR in the UK and after gaining 50 hrs PIC XC post PPL, of which 30 hrs under IFR, you can go for just 10 hrs for your CB/IR to ATO.
But this has been more of a help to CPL/IR wannabes. In my case the ATO requirement still means a 104 mile round trip. And yet my local RTF has 3 IRI’s on staff and an IRE.
Yes; I did say it changed, just not enough.
Actually the audiogram requirement was changed some years ago. There was a back door route before that, via an ICAO CPL/ATPL, but now it is official; you can get the EASA IR with one deaf ear. You have to do an annual check with an FI who fills in a form saying you can hear him, ATC, etc. This is for private flying only, with headsets; you would never be able to function in a multi pilot cockpit like that, because they don’t wear headsets when enroute, and due to the high noise level.
There are just too many other things which limit IR takeup…
