Glasgow ATC to ban zone transits in July and August

[GLA]

Hi,

Has anyone more information on what is happening at Glasgow ATC?

It appears they won't be giving zone transits for GA over the summer due to staff shortages.

Have also hear the based GA activity is being seriously limited.

Was there any consultation over this?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Is this geniunely new?, or just an announcement of reality?

In my recent experience, anywhere near Glasgow you go over or round - transits did not seem to be obtainable anyhow.

G

[dont overfil]

Is this geniunely new?, or just an announcement of reality?

In my recent experience, anywhere near Glasgow you go over or round - transits did not seem to be obtainable anyhow.

G
They certainly seem to be permanently short of controllers judging by the longstanding NOTAM.

However, I've never been refused a transit at Glasgow in 29 years and many dozens of occasions. Even managed to get ad hoc practice ILS's. They have been unfailingly helpful.

I hope for the sake of the recently opened flight school and the UAS the problems are short lived.

[TelsBoy]

It's been a number of years since I flew around the Central Belt but Glasgow were always helpful whenever I was in that area, did a few zone transits and one low approach/GA and never had any trouble. Most of the time I just went around though.


Can be common at airfields to have operational compromises due to ATC staffing issues. Can be caused by Annual Leave, sickness etc.

[NorthSouth]

Also never been refused a transit of Glasgow in many years flying. And they have typically been more flexible than some other zones I could mention, offering direct routings without prompting etc.
I fear this is the future, with fewer ATCOs and ever-declining experience of how to handle IFR/VFR mix. But the UAS and based civils must surely have some say?

[chevvron]

According to the Airspace Charter, airfields which manage their own controlled airspace MUST allow access by other traffic as far as operationally possible and should keep a record of refusals.
If the ATC unit has a staffing issue and continually refuses transits without reasonable cause, complain to the CAA.

[good egg]

What does the NOTAM say? (Forgive me, not from those parts)

[piperboy84]

It's nice to get a transit if you need one and I've never been refused on the very few times I've requested one but using the VFR alley running north/south on a listening squad covers most of the routes I need for Cumbernauld Strathaven etc. , and if coming back up the road from Engurland to anywhere in the North/Notheast skirting the east side of the Edinburgh zone is the most direct route for transiting the central belt and is pretty scenic ride. I suppose the new club at Glasgow would be most affected.

[Dave Clarke Fife]

What does the NOTAM say? (Forgive me, not from those parts)

Words to this effect........

EGPF-A1962/17
From: 19/06/2017 00:01 UTC
To: PERM
LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, 1 AIRPORT REGULATIONS.
CHANGE PARAGRAPH C TO READ
ALL PLEASURE, TRAINING AND NON-BUSINESS GENERAL AVIATION TRAFFIC IS
SUBJECT TO PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, VIA AFPEX OR
ALTERNATIVE FLIGHT PLANNING SYSTEMS. THE FILING OF A FLIGHT PLAN
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PERMISSION TO USE GLASGOW AIRPORT.
ADD NEW PARAGRAPH 1.J
MICROLIGHTS AND GYROCOPTERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE AERODROME
UNLESS IN EMERGENCY.
EGPF AD 2.20 REFERS

[chevvron]

Can't see anything in that which implies no zone transits.

[piperboy84]

Is it possible the airport is having a bit buyers remorse about trying to get their movement numbers up now that those additional GA movements are mixing it up in the circuit with the CAT?

[good egg]

Can't see anything in that which implies no zone transits.

My thoughts exactly

[FullWings]

Similar. The NOTAM is talking about the airport, not all the airspace around it.

My personal experience has been of friendly cooperation by ATC when transiting Glasgow and Edinburgh zones. Last time I was in a glider and even then they were cool about it.

[xrayalpha]

What I have heard is that Glasgow's watches should have six people covering four positions. But there are now only four staff to cover the four positions, so things will be getting very very busy when staff take their mandatory breaks.

The result of that, we have been told - unofficially - is that it will be very unlikely that any GA will get permission for zone transits.

Now, this may have been a polite, behind the scenes, request from individual controllers who come to Strathaven - we had the Large Model Association's airshow here last weekend and there was a lot of talking and not much flying due to the wind! - because they can see what is bound to happen next month.

There has certainly been nothing official - or unofficial - in terms of discussion with NATS about how to make the most of this supposed situation with local airfields such as Cumbernauld and Strathaven.

As for the NOTAM:

I wonder when the last time was that a microlight landed at Glasgow? I was responsible for Glasgow's ban on microlights in their entire airspace being lifted about 10 years ago. When we asked to land during the ash-cloud shutdown, the fees totalled £140! So Strathaven pilots just flew down the main runway at 20ft for free! Have never heard of any microlights landing at Glasgow!

There is one gyro who has been going in to Leading Edge on a regular basis, so I suppose this has been targeted at him.

(Was talking to Alan at LE last week and he said he was about to add another aircraft to his fleet, so Glasgow-based GA must be OK)

Not sure what the rest of the NOTAM means - you have to file a flight plan to access Class D anyway, don't you? Traditionally, a radio request for a zone transit was regarded as such, but over the past few years with the introduction of electronic strips - and the loss of assistants! - Glasgow and Edinburgh have asked that people call up beforehand to set up their route.

Obviously, Strathaven has not got an ICAO code - and has been refused one by the allocation authorities - so our flight plans are XXXX to XXXX ! Not too helpful!

[dont overfil]

What does the NOTAM say? (Forgive me, not from those parts)

The NOTAM I was referring to has now been replaced with the one above.

It previously asked that outbounds use TWR frequency and inbounds and transits use approach. ATC would be tactically manned at night due to staff shortages.

That NOTAM had been in place for about a year.

[chevvron]

Is it possible the airport is having a bit buyers remorse about trying to get their movement numbers up now that those additional GA movements are mixing it up in the circuit with the CAT?

I was there for most of 1972 training as an ATCO Cadet in the tower; GMC opened part way through this. It was 'normal' to have up to 6 in the circuit (mix of Cherokee/C150/Chipmunk) as well as IFR arrivals and departures in those days. The Aer lingus 737 from Dublin and most BEA Viscounts (from Stornoway, Islay, Campbelltown etc) also chose to join visually slotting in with the light aircraft in the circuit.
Is it any different now?

[chevvron]

They used to join downwind right hand for 24(23). On one occasion, a Viscount called downwind and we couldn't see it - until it climbed to go over the Erskine Bridge!!

[TelsBoy]

If my experience at other ATSUs is comparable to operating at GLA it will depend on traffic, Wx and various other circumstances, including individual ATCO judgment.

[Forfoxake]

I operated from farm fields within the Glasgow zone for many years and I still regularly get VFR clearances through the Glasgow zone. During all this time, I have found Glasgow ATC almost unfailingly helpful and have almost never been refused a clearance.

I appreciate that they are currently short staffed and that this might restrict VFR clearances at busy times but hopefully these will still be available most of the time, especially if you phone a little in advance. Time will tell......

[TelsBoy]

I think people might be reading too much into this and jumping to conclusions.


From the NOTAM there's nothing implying that zone transits will be banned, however due to the extra workload on ATCOs there will be the slight possibility of restrictions operationally. As is normal with any operating environment.


Probably nothing to see here, move along, unless there's the odd bad day when Fred McController phones in sick, traffic gets busy, GMC and TWR are combined, a foreign pilot who's never visited GLA before can't understand a readback and blocks the frequency for 5 minutes trying to readback a clearance multiple times and someone declares an emergency, in which case Joe Bloggs in his C152 will be politely told to go around the zone or asked to orbit for a wee while. Any of which can happen at a normal day at any unit with a Class D zone.

[helicopter-redeye]

Wick have a notamed closure of the field/ATZ for the week due lack of controllers (this is a combined tower/approach with no radar). Perhaps everybody has been reassigned to support the bigger sites?

[Maoraigh1]

What will be the Wick situation for Far North fuel customers during that week?

[Gonzo]

Wick have a notamed closure of the field/ATZ for the week due lack of controllers (this is a combined tower/approach with no radar). Perhaps everybody has been reassigned to support the bigger sites?

You can't just move controllers from airport to airport that are controlled by the same ANSP (edit to add........without them having to train and validate at that new unit), let alone someone from Wick (HIAL) to Glasgow (NATS).

Before someone could control 'solo' at Glasgow would probably take six months (I'm guessing here) of training, possibly more.

[Toadpool]

Wick have a notamed closure of the field/ATZ for the week due lack of controllers
The NOTAM specifies 2 x 30 minute and 1 40 minute closure on two days over a 5 day period. Not a complete closure for all of the 5 days! :ugh:

[chevvron]

You can't just move controllers from airport to airport that are controlled by the same ANSP,
SERCO used to. When they got the contract for Oxford, SATCO Cranfield suddenly found he had a second job.

[Crazy Voyager]

I think Gonzo's post is missing a negative. Wick is controlled by HIAL (I think?), Glasgow is controlled by NATS. It is definitly not the same ANSP at the two.

Although controllers could move between the two, it would be the "old fashioned" way of resigning at Wick and starting a new job with a new employer at Glasgow, or the other way around.

[chevvron]

I think Gonzo's post is missing a negative. Wick is controlled by HIAL (I think?), Glasgow is controlled by NATS. It is definitly not the same ANSP at the two.

Although controllers could move between the two, it would be the "old fashioned" way of resigning at Wick and starting a new job with a new employer at Glasgow, or the other way around.
No.
When NATS still owned the H & I Airports, they naturally provided ATC at all of them too and 'leave reliefs' were assigned to each airport from the larger NATS units in Scotland eg Glasgow did Stornoway, Aberdeen did Sumburgh and I dare say a relief was assigned to Wick too. Additionally under the 'old' ATCO Cadet training system, cadets who had qualified at a 'major' unit in Scotland whether airport or control centre/radar unit were sent on 4 week detachments to H & I airports; when I 'validated' at Glasgow on a monday, I was told 'pack your bags, here is a travel warrant, report to Sumburgh on Wednesday'. Yeah, 2 days notice, sort of initiative test!
Of course this 'pool' of controllers is not available to HIAL since they and NATS 'divorced' so other means of coping with staff shortages such as short term closures or downgrade to AFIS must be resorted to.
NATS controllers down south also did leave reliefs eg LATCC controllers did Kent Radar (Manston) and Farnborough controllers did Llanbedr.

[Gonzo]

Sorry, I should have added a bit more clarity to my post.

The post I was quoting seemed to imply that it was possbile for controllers working for one ANSP (HIAL) to be 'redeployed' to Glasgow (NATS) to address what is claimed (even though the NOTAM makes no reference to it) to be a shortage of staff.

This wouldn't address any shortage in the short to medium term as any Wick controller would have to be trained to validation at Glasgow. One just can't turn up at a brand new airport and start controlling.

It's the same as thinking an ATPL with experience on Twin Otters can jump straight into a 787 and start flying it with no further training.

My post was trying to articulate that this redeployment en mass wouldn't happen now between two airports of the same ANSP company, let alone between two of different ANSP companies.

The only way a Wick ATCO would end up at Glasgow is if they resigned and applied to a vacancy within NATS.

[Captain37]

Funny that LAX Tower with only 40 qualified guys still accepts hundreds of VFR operations in one the busiest airspace in the world. Glasgow ATC on the learning path ? Take a trip to America and learn the job !

[xrayalpha]

Closure confirmed.

Here is aletter from Glasgow ATC received this morning.

I have quite a few comments to make on this, but will refrain from posting here until I make an official reply on behalf of Strathaven Airfield.



Dear all,

At Glasgow, we have always been supportive of the need to provide the best service we can to users within and around our airspace. Although we would like that to continue the priority for ATC at Glasgow must be to provide a safe and effective service to commercial flights into or outbound from Glasgow airport, the number of which has grown steadily over the past few years.

This summer ATC at Glasgow has lost several key members of the ATC team and, although we have recruited replacements, the training required to achieve the required level of competence will take time. As a result of this we have fewer controllers than required and will not be able to open as many operational positions.

What this means to you, is that you may not get the service you are used to from Glasgow or any service at all in some instances. You can help us to help you by…

Planning to fly around the Glasgow Control Zone, squawking 2620, and listening out on 119.1Mhz , any aircraft requesting a zone transit must call ATC on 0141 840 8029 at least 30 minutes before departure , and pass details of the flight, but it is unlikely that we will be able to accommodate your request, alternatively you can contact Scottish FIR on 119.875Mhz for a Basic Service.

We understand that this will not be great news for you to read, but we believe that being open and up front about the challenges that we face will help you to plan your excursions and get the most out your aircraft.

I wish you a summer of good flying.

Regards…




Tom Kirkhope

General Manager ATS (Glasgow)

[chevvron]

Funny that LAX Tower with only 40 qualified guys still accepts hundreds of VFR operations in one the busiest airspace in the world. Glasgow ATC on the learning path ? Take a trip to America and learn the job !
Totally irrelevant.
LAX controllers only do tower and GMC, radar approach control for the 4 runways being done from South California Terminal Control whereas Glasgow controllers do Approach and approach radar as well as tower and GMC.
There are also established 'victor' routes which can be used by transits at LAX.
I don't know what operational hours US controllers are allowed to work; controllers in the UK can work a maximum 10 hours operational duty and must take a minimum 30 min break for every 2 hours of operational duty hence to keep 4 control positions open needs 6 controllers.

[riverrock83]

So they normally need 6 people to keep 4 positions open?
Positions being: Ground; Tower; Approach/Radar; and an assistant?

I'm guessing that on reduced staff they combine ground and tower (like they do at night normally anyway) so the tower controller no longer has capacity to fill in the electronic board when you call up "blind" (watching them do this is painful - based GA traffic have their own "shortcuts" on the board but it takes time and is distracting to use a pen to select in all the details of new traffic) while if you phone an assistant can have the virtual "strip" ready to go.

I wonder how long it takes the assistant to fill in the details - I wonder if I could phone up while airborne. I also wonder if they could hook the board into Mode-S, so the board could be ready with a shortcut for any detected aircraft?

Glasgow has (in the past) been great for me too - I've had no issue with previous transits.

[CloudHound]

I know this is a very serious matter for GA in the vicinity, but my dyslexia saw ".....plan your incursion...!:O

On a broader note I detect a theme repeated across a number of ATSUs not having sufficient staff to provide the levels of service previously given.

I wonder if a new thread about the national situation might prove enlightening?

[NorthSouth]

Strange isn't it how we managed several decades ago to have enough ATCOs at regional airports to provide a service to lots of GA as well as commercial services. Of course in those days the ATC provider was a public body. Now it's effectively run by the airlines.
Time to question the philosophy that every human activity should pay for itself and there's no room for non-commercial activity?

[gasax]

The cost of these airport having controlled airspace and restricting access has to be set at a level where it is much cheaper for them to provide ATC services rather than pay the bill.......

[ericsson16]

Negative Waves ! www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ

[airpolice]

Closure confirmed.

Here is aletter from Glasgow ATC received this morning.

I have quite a few comments to make on this, but will refrain from posting here until I make an official reply on behalf of Strathaven Airfield.



Dear all,

At Glasgow, we have always been supportive of the need to provide the best service we can to users within and around our airspace. Although we would like that to continue the priority for ATC at Glasgow must be to provide a safe and effective service to commercial flights into or outbound from Glasgow airport, the number of which has grown steadily over the past few years.

This summer ATC at Glasgow has lost several key members of the ATC team and, although we have recruited replacements, the training required to achieve the required level of competence will take time. As a result of this we have fewer controllers than required and will not be able to open as many operational positions.

What this means to you, is that you may not get the service you are used to from Glasgow or any service at all in some instances. You can help us to help you by…

Planning to fly around the Glasgow Control Zone, squawking 2620, and listening out on 119.1Mhz , any aircraft requesting a zone transit must call ATC on 0141 840 8029 at least 30 minutes before departure , and pass details of the flight, but it is unlikely that we will be able to accommodate your request, alternatively you can contact Scottish FIR on 119.875Mhz for a Basic Service.

We understand that this will not be great news for you to read, but we believe that being open and up front about the challenges that we face will help you to plan your excursions and get the most out your aircraft.

I wish you a summer of good flying.

Regards…




Tom Kirkhope

General Manager ATS (Glasgow)



you may not get the service you are used to from Glasgow or any service at all in some instances.


I don't see a closure there. He is just saying that things will be tight, so cut them some slack. You MAY not get what you are used to. He's not suggested that they are closing the airspace to puddle jumpers!

[aligee]

I regularly around the the Glasgow zone and fail to understand their request to squawk 2620 when I have never been transponder equipped and am flying within the vfr corridor outside their airspace.Are glasgow now asking that all aircraft be transponder capable to. Fly round airspace they do not control.I prefer to fly round their zone on a listening watch and without requesting a service in order to reduce their workload but I'll draw the line at fitting a transponder to accommodate their Atc inadequancies.I will continue to fly in uncontrolled airspace around the zone within the already onerous restrictions placed on a simple vfr pilot.I feel for the brilliant controllers at Glasgow and Scottish who face an ever increasing workload but loathe the financially motivated leaders who allow this to happen.

[Forfoxake]

.



Dear all,

At Glasgow, we have always been supportive of the need to provide the best service we can to users within and around our airspace. Although we would like that to continue the priority for ATC at Glasgow must be to provide a safe and effective service to commercial flights into or outbound from Glasgow airport, the number of which has grown steadily over the past few years.

This summer ATC at Glasgow has lost several key members of the ATC team and, although we have recruited replacements, the training required to achieve the required level of competence will take time. As a result of this we have fewer controllers than required and will not be able to open as many operational positions.

What this means to you, is that you may not get the service you are used to from Glasgow or any service at all in some instances. You can help us to help you by…

Planning to fly around the Glasgow Control Zone, squawking 2620, and listening out on 119.1Mhz , any aircraft requesting a zone transit must call ATC on 0141 840 8029 at least 30 minutes before departure , and pass details of the flight, but it is unlikely that we will be able to accommodate your request, alternatively you can contact Scottish FIR on 119.875Mhz for a Basic Service.

We understand that this will not be great news for you to read, but we believe that being open and up front about the challenges that we face will help you to plan your excursions and get the most out your aircraft.

I wish you a summer of good flying.

Regards…




Tom Kirkhope

General Manager ATS (Glasgow)

This is bad news. Firstly, I must point out that although it is true that traffic has grown steadily over the past few years, according to CAA figures the number of movements at Glasgow Airport last year only just got back to 1997 levels- see table below:


Number of Movements
1997 98,204
1998 100,942
1999 101,608
2000 104,929
2001 110,408
2002 104,393
2003 105,597
2004 107,885
2005 110,581
2006 110,034
2007 108,305
2008 100,087
2009 85,281
2010 77,755
2011 78,111
2012 80,472
2013 79,520
2014 84,000
2015 90,790
2016 98,217
Source: United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Standard_Content/Data_and_analysis/Datasets/Airport_stats/Airport_data_2016_annual/Table_01_Size_of_UK_Airports.pdf)

Secondly, although it is reasonable to ask that "any aircraft requesting a zone transit must call ATC on 0141 840 8029 at least 30 minutes before departure, and pass details of the flight", it is not reasonable to go on to state that "it is unlikely that we will be able to accommodate your request". Surely this should depend on how busy ATC is at the time of the requested zone transit and should only be refused when workload is high ie for Traffic reasons as has always been the case in the past?

Hopefully, these restrictions are only very temporary. If not, I think they need to be strongly challenged by local GA.

PS I urge local pilots to continue to monitor 119.10 and squawk 2620 (if transponder equipped) even if refused a zone transit but I fear some may not.....

[BossEyed]

I regularly around the the Glasgow zone and fail to understand their request to squawk 2620 when I have never been transponder equipped and am flying within the vfr corridor outside their airspace.

It's a request!

If you can do it, then why wouldn't you? If you can't then apply airmanship accordingly.

There's no reason to give them a hard time on here - they are trying to help everyone by asking everyone to help them so far as is individually possible.

[xrayalpha]

Dear all,

Through the BMAA, Strathaven Airfield has now started what I hope will be a dialogue with Glasgow ATC to see how we can best mitigate any safety aspects of this.

I would ask three things - I can only ask, we are a small airfield in uncontrolled airspace not far outside Glasgow's zone:

The first is to remember that we are at 847ft amsl. Our circuit height is 1,000ft and so the downwind leg is at 1,847ft amsl. I know a typical Glasgow request has been, in the past, remain clear of controlled airspace and not above 2,000ft on the QNH.

THIS WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH OUR CIRCUIT!

The second is that we use Safety.com - 135.475 - as our frequency. It is for aircraft to aircraft use, so do not expect a reply from the ground. And we may have non-radio aircraft operating here. So no reply does not mean no traffic!

(as a suggestion, while the approved format is to start with the airfield name and then add message, we would suggest ending with the airfield name too - because people often don't hear the first word)

The third one is for those going through the corridor between Prestwick and Hunterston. Please keep a very very good lookout. This is obviously going to be a much busier piece of airspace than usual.

Hopefully we will all have a happy summer and Glasgow's six new recruits will settle in well.

[Forfoxake]

Dear all,

Through the BMAA, Strathaven Airfield has now started what I hope will be a dialogue with Glasgow ATC to see how we can best mitigate any safety aspects of this.

I would ask three things - I can only ask, we are a small airfield in uncontrolled airspace not far outside Glasgow's zone:

The first is to remember that we are at 847ft amsl. Our circuit height is 1,000ft and so the downwind leg is at 1,847ft amsl. I know a typical Glasgow request has been, in the past, remain clear of controlled airspace and not above 2,000ft on the QNH.

THIS WILL TAKE YOU THROUGH OUR CIRCUIT!

The second is that we use Safety.com - 135.475 - as our frequency. It is for aircraft to aircraft use, so do not expect a reply from the ground. And we may have non-radio aircraft operating here. So no reply does not mean no traffic!

(as a suggestion, while the approved format is to start with the airfield name and then add message, we would suggest ending with the airfield name too - because people often don't hear the first word)

The third one is for those going through the corridor between Prestwick and Hunterston. Please keep a very very good lookout. This is obviously going to be a much busier piece of airspace than usual.

Hopefully we will all have a happy summer and Glasgow's six new recruits will settle in well.

Whilst I do not disagree with any of this advice, I must point out that while Glasgow ATC has the authority to ask you to remain outside controlled airspace, it has no authority to ask you to remain below 2000ft QNH in the immediate vicinity of Strathaven. The base of controlled airspace above and to the south of the airfield is 4500ft and just to the north it is 3500ft.

Regarding the area around Hunterston, there is a real problem here if the couldbase does not allow you to fly over 2000ft. There is effectively no gap between the Hunterston restricted zone and the Glasgow zone to the NE so if no clearance is given by Glasgow, you will be forced to fly out to sea to the west- not an enviable place to be in a single engined aircraft.

Finally, I agree that the uncontrolled airspace between Prestwick and Glasgow will become busier in the absence of Glasgow clearances. So as well as keeping a good lookout could I ask all pilots to switch on any lights/strobes they have and transponders or other electronic conspicuity devices- more and more aircraft are beng fitted with FLARM, PilotAware etc.

[aligee]

It's a request!

If you can do it, then why wouldn't you? If you can't then apply airmanship accordingly.

There's no reason to give them a hard time on here - they are trying to help everyone by asking everyone to help them so far as is individually possible.

Sorry for the slow reply.I fail to see where I gave the " brilliant glasgow and Scottish controllers" a hard time.My post was directed at the atc management inadequancies and the resultant increased risk of collision due to a a higher volume of traffic being funelled into a very narrow corridor and in indeed our Strathaven circuit as already pointed out by X-ray alpha.I hold the controllers at Glasgow and Scottish in the highest regard and really feel for their increased workload and know they will still help us humble vfr pilots when we really need them.

[JOE-FBS]

Refusals of transit can (and I am beginning to think, should) be reported by pilots here:

https://apply.caa.co.uk/CAAPortal/servlet/SmartForm.html?formCode=qau2

I am not some sort of militant right-to-roam pilot, indeed I have on more than one occasion cancelled a transit request after listening to how hard a controller is working, but I did make my first refusal report recently when a previously helpful controlling airport refused me (and to my mind considerably reduced the safety of my flight) when their frequency was not busy. I have had a lot more transits granted than refused (up the Solent is a favourite when I take friends down that way, thank you the ever helpful Southampton controllers for always saying yes) but it does feel that service levels are deteriorating. In this Glasgow case (where I recently had a very simple overhead transit at 5500 which made my flight quicker and safer) where they say "our airspace" rather than national airspace over which we have been granted the privilege of controlling for the safety of our customers but not their exclusive use.

Anyway, use the link, report your refusals.

It's all a great pity, I know that controllers are good people who will work hard to help us in a crisis but the national disease of trebles all round for the bosses and damn the rest of you makes me ever more reluctant to talk to ATC. On my most recent flight around north and east London, it sounded more like Farnborough Radar were acting as traffic police than as aids to safe and expeditious flight (I think that was the phrase when I did Air Law).

[Johnm]

To openly declare that we are second class citizens is frankly outrageous. We spend a fortune on kit so we can comply with rules in controlled airspace, we pay a fortune in VAT and fuel duty and we're entitled to airspace access if we want it. Raise a MOR if it's refused.

[helicopter-redeye]

This sounds like a job for AOPA.

[good egg]

Crikey, all getting a bit militant here...
By all means file whatever you want to file. I really do get your wish to access/transit controlled airspace safely. Realistically you know when the airspace is busy though and ought to expect a delay if you want a safe transit (or route around). Fast jets, even some of the faster turboprops versus relatively slow props/helis is not a great mix on conflicting tracks. It's about your safety too after all.
Yes ATC likes to "push tin", but they like doing it safely.

[Johnm]

Crikey, all getting a bit militant here...
By all means file whatever you want to file. I really do get your wish to access/transit controlled airspace safely. Realistically you know when the airspace is busy though and ought to expect a delay if you want a safe transit (or route around). Fast jets, even some of the faster turboprops versus relatively slow props/helis is not a great mix on conflicting tracks. It's about your safety too after all.
Yes ATC likes to "push tin", but they like doing it safely.

Why would I expect a delay? I'll accept a level and vectors and that should easily keep me out of the path of arriving and departing traffic. As it happens I can transit Glasgow area above their airspace flying IFR under Scottish service, always excellent, but that's not really the point.

[good egg]

Why would I expect a delay? I'll accept a level and vectors and that should easily keep me out of the path of arriving and departing traffic. As it happens I can transit Glasgow area above their airspace flying IFR under Scottish service, always excellent, but that's not really the point.

A level and vectors? Are you IFR then?

Forgive me, I'm not familiar with the Glasgow CTR...what's the standard missed approach procedure there and what's the vertical limit of the CTR?

[Forfoxake]

Glasgow CTR is Surface to 6000ft and above that (to FL 195) is the Scottish TMA- also Class D. I do not think I have ever asked for or needed a clearance into the Scottish TMA but perhaps I should now give it a try! A bit excessive on the way from Strathaven to Bute but maybe worth a try to/from Oban or Glenforsa. Would need to climb to the south of Strathaven though to avoid the Glasgow CTA to the north (3500-6000ft).

I am not being entirely serious about this but, despite the fact that I have almost always found Glasgow controllers very helpful (and not asked for a clearance if they are clearly very busy), the management need to be reminded that the ATSU is there to provide a service to all pilots. And as was suggested by JOE-FBS, it is not their airspace but a public asset.

[bad bear]

One of the big problems is that there is a lot of CAS around Glasgow/Edinburgh that is no longer used/ needed and should have been released to class "G" a long time ago. Since the removal of the cross runway the airspace associated with that has been wasted for years and caused controllers work load to increase by controlling something the really didn't need to.
Also, the rules of class "D" are quite clear IFR is separated from IFR and traffic information is given on VFR with heading to avid given on request, i suspect these rules are not being complied with.

Lets have a NOTAM temporarily and immediately releasing blocks of unused airspace to allow recreational fliers to go about their business in safety.

bb

[Skydiver666]

I fly regularly (few times weekly) as a GA pilot from Glasgow, I’m aware of the current difficulties NATS Glasgow are experiencing. I’m happy to assist and work with them regarding their restrictions of flying times. It’s short term pain for long term gain. I believe the majority of GA aviation at EGPF have a fantastic working relationship with Glasgow ATC and continue to work with them during these difficulties, I’m convinced this will pay dividends long term. I personally think it’s wrong and childish to post private correspondence on forums such as this.

Very happy aviator from EGPF

[gasax]

I recall from the last extension of controlled airspace around the central zone that Glasgow had the largest and statistically emptiest Class D airspace in the UK. And yet they are not prepare to provide sufficient resources to staff it?

There really needs to be some level of sanction to ensure this wonderfully British incompetence is suitably punished.

[fisbangwollop]

Being one of the voices of "Scottish Information" 119.875 for the past 21 years I can highly recomend the friendly and efficient service that we can provide you with whilst flying around Glasgow's controlled airspace. Whilst talking to us and if transponder equiped you will be asked to squawk 7401. This will identify to both Glasgow and Edinburgh ATC that you are recieving a "Basic service" from Scottish info. We are here to help and hopefully smooth your flight. We work very closely with both Glasgow and Edinburgh ATC and often coordinate flights that we think may be an issue to them. The service is friendly and free so next time you are transiting the airspace try giving us a call.

[Skydiver666]

I recall from the last extension of controlled airspace around the central zone that Glasgow had the largest and statistically emptiest Class D airspace in the UK. And yet they are not prepare to provide sufficient resources to staff it?

There really needs to be some level of sanction to ensure this wonderfully British incompetence is suitably punished.

As far as I’m aware, the class D boundary around Glasgow was extended after either a microlight or glider nearly bumped into an inbound B757, the aforementioned “bogey” wasn’t communicating with ATC at all. I understand when challenged he declared its class E therefore no requirement. With poor airmanship like that it’s no wonder the boundary is expanded to keep them out.

With regards to ATC manpower to facilitate the “large” airspace, I think you’ll find the remit of NATS Glasgow is to facilitate traffic in and out of EGPF, any work for GA is a courtesy, let’s not jeopardise that kindness by slating them on public forums! Show a bit of common sense please!

[fisbangwollop]

119.875 is a service that can't be beat! Still frequent it now even when flying something bigger when I need a friendly voice and some weather ;)

Thanks for your kind words TangoAlpha :ok:

[xrayalpha]

FBW,

Good point, well made!

119.875 and 7401 are the numbers.

Skydiver666,

The change from Class E to D was well-planned long before the airprox. The person in charge at Glasgow who was driving the change, moved jobs and airport and the change proposal lost a little momentum.

Unfortunately, it took an airprox to re-energise the change proposal, and that change was rushed and the opportunity to properly examine Glasgow's airspace needs was missed.

(The airprox was between a glider and the 757. Glider pilot was on Cumbernauld's frequency and had been on Glasgow's radar until shortly before the incident. As a Glasgow-based pilot flying two or three times a week from there, you will be aware that there are several places where the choice of frequency is not obvious, to say the least. The professionals on the airprox board reported that the glider pilot had right-of-way and that all parties had "fully discharged their responsibilities". So no "bogeys" or "poor airmanship". )

Board's report is here: https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2011/Airprox%20Report%202011085.pdf

Lots of things have changed since then: some further changes to Glasgow's airspace over Whitelee Windfarm, the introduction of listening squawks, the annotation "area of intense microlight activity" near Strathaven, etc.

But reading the report, it does mention that Glasgow ATC strongly suspected there was an aircraft in the area, had re-routed CAT and warned them to lookout. The key, to me, re-reading it after all these years and changes, is that Glasgow ATC also contacted Scottish FIR to check if they were in communication with the aircraft.

So hence my first point here: 119.875 and 7401 are now the key numbers when near Glasgow this summer.

I fully agree with you that the Glasgow controllers are top-notch professionals. We are lucky to have them. And no-one was luckier that day than the occupants of that 757 that such a capable controller was on duty that day to use their training, experience and instinct.

The problem we are now seeing at Glasgow is due to a whole range of factors outside the control of Glasgow ATC. Much of it, I suspect caused by "head office".

And if the root cause is with "head office", there is a risk that similar traffic restrictions may be on their way to other ATC ops nationwide. This goes completely against the perceived wisdom that an Air Navigation Service Provider has an obligation to make its services widely available, not - as you suggest - as a "courtesy".

[chevvron]

119.875 is a service that can't be beat! Still frequent it now even when flying something bigger when I need a friendly voice and some weather ;)

But please remember 'Scottish Info' is done by FISOs most of the time so don't get annoyed if they can't provide a radar service if you request it.