Thanks Kevin. It was enjoyable to put the series together.

Appreciate it Tim. Thanks.

Greetings. Thank you.

Thanks Darren. I’m more inclined to try and fly in Europe as much as I can from now on.

Thanks Chris. It was amusing how it all fell apart as soon as we returned. It’s not usually that bad!

I don’t have any argument with controllers, they are working with what they have, but our airspace, ATS funding and provision outside controlled airspace is substandard in comparison to most other parts of the developed world, IMO.

When does it come into effect Marvin?

February 2020, to be fair to them they are sharing information really well. On first look at the ‘new’ chart It looks horrendous, as I say the general feeling is a narrow corridor will be the norm for most people with departing IFR traffic routing south in the centre of it as it ascends.

Thanks Peter.

That’s a worldwide problem.

France (and other EU members) encourage GA and aviation in general - the UK sees GA as a burden to be barely tolerated…….

Thanks. The NATS AUP does help the controller, they have a pre prepared strip, but as far as I can tell, that’s all it does for them/you. I’ve had it work, where They have my details, but they still check everything with you, so it doesn’t cut RT, just stops them from having to enter your details. Yes, transits are dependent on so many things in the UK, whereas in France, apart from the really busy airports, they can be virtually taken for granted.

Thanks David.

They make it so hard here in the UK. It depends on where. Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, expect to route overhead, at a restricted altitude. Elsewhere, its as you describe. They often like you routing via vrps, but not always. Ask for your route, and see what you get. Have a plan b.

Be confident on the radio. Avail yourself of the current information and pass that in your CARPACER spiel. Plan a route at right angles to the active runway and suggest an altitude to the controller “requesting a transit X to Y via the overhead at 2000ft on the [aerodrome qnh] of Xxxx” tee up the tower frequency so it doesn’t surprise you when radar hand you over for the actual aerodrome transit... be prepared to orbit :)

Hi. A) no requirement to. B) it’s more than 7 miles east or Shoreham, and they couldn’t really provide me with an effective service there, and C) At 4500ft, I’m unlikely to conflict with any of Shoreham’s traffic.

Further to that, on a sunny day Shoreham will be rammed. ATC really aren't interested in hearing someone's life story and providing a useless basic service to someone well outside and above the atz.

I think I made that point.

Transits across LAX, JFK or SFO are as easy as pie, and their airspace is at least as busy as southern England. You Brits should be more demanding. This is all very fixable, but you just kinda endure it.

Mark Newton airspace in southern England is by far busier than those airports you listed. From memory, 130 million passengers transit southern England where as LAX is nowhere near. You may not be aware but Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Standsted are very busy, especially LHR (as you know) are all within 50 miles of each other. It is crazy

Hmm depends on the airport or airspace. The london area or TMA is only 11% of Europe’s airspace but hosts 25% of the traffic. With the greatest respect it’s not worth a controllers time increasing their work load by getting a VFR Flight across

Thanks Sean. I suspect it was another OR on frequency...no harm done this time.

Hey Sean: Other ATC orgs manage to keep big jets safe AND make life easier for lighties. Indeed, having light aircraft “in the system” makes it easier to handle the big jets because ATC ends up with a fuller picture of who is where and doing what, and has 2-way contact with anyone who might need to be moved out of the way. UK’s ATC system just seems *weird*. Its procedures and limitations are spring-loaded for inefficiency and frequency congestion (eg lack of integration means every time you contact a new facility you need to read out your full flight details and routing and get a new transponder code) and that inefficiency increases controller workload to the point where they become too busy to work light aircraft. In the USA or Australia in a similar situation, Jon would have been given a transponder code on first contact which would be preserved for his entire flight, and a “flight following” service in class G which meant ATC would not only have their eyes on him, but would also tell him which freq he needed next and proactively offer clearances for any upcoming controlled airspace. As he’d cross from one airspace boundary to the next, the integrated radar system would ensure that all his details and routing data would already be on the screen of the next controller so he wouldn’t need to offer it again. Does “basic service” mean anything other than “we’ll give you QNH”? What is the point of it? Hard to see why the Uk’s system is so baroque. Choices, I guess.

@@MarkNewtonFlies ,100% agree with your comments as i have experienced ATC in both of those countries and others as well as a GA pilot.The only time i felt overloaded was in NYC just after 9 11,which is understandble as they were jumpy. I think probably because of three factors is why it works as it does; One is the crowded nature of our small island especially down south with all the airspace constraints. Two: i think our ATC system has evolved more from the military way of doing things as both sides work very closely together in the ATCC. Finally it is to do with money as commercial aviation definitely takes preceedence over here and GA is seen as more of a nuisance as it is seen 'to get in the way' somewhat. That all said our controllers are superb with what they have to deal with on a daily basis and are very helpful to GA which is growing but nothing like what you see in Aus etc where it is almost intergrated into the way of life due to the vastness of the landmass.

Sean McErlean I think you’re right about the military origins of ATC. Not the only country with that problem. The southern England airspace seems a lot more complicated than it needs to be, though. The big jets want to be in the flight levels as quickly as possible for fuel burn reasons; if it was going to be rationalized, I’d put a 5 nm radius class B around each major airline airport and RAAF base with a “ramp” of class C from each runway threshold up to an overlying ceiling above FL110, leaving most of what’s underneath reasonably clear of airspace hassles. Plenty of space above FL110 for A380s to fly holds waiting for their slots at Heathrow without being messed about by the non-pressurized traffic below. ATC and airspace are both things that evolve incrementally. If everyone had a chance to start again from scratch it could be made a lot better, but that’s a pipe dream. Meanwhile, come and fly in Australia. It’s nice down here :)

Thanks for your reply Mark and i think that the ' layered wedding cake principal' was one developed in the US after major terminal area crashes around San Diego and LAX. It seems to work well. We kind of have the same in the UK but being Class A rather than Class D for the most part prohibits efficient GA traffic routing as you need the IR to do pass through anything above Class D. The other thing is the Honeypot syndrome around VOR and NDB for the GA guys who all fly around the 2000 foot level and comgregate around the beacons because the airspace is so restricted either above or around. I have had the pleasure already of flying in your amazing country out of Bankstown,Tullamarine and Brisbane when on stopovers as Crew and very much look forward to returning some day. I folllow Stef drury as well down there. Just a shame it's a damn long way to get down there. Stay safe and who knows we may meet up one day to go explore Aus.

I know it's very confusing but that's the ICAO code for the Piper Cherokee Warrior 2 cfapp.icao.int/Doc8643/reports/Part1-By%20Manufacturer%20(Encode).pdf

should be PA28

Thanks Chris.

Not always, but our airspace system isn’t wonderful, and ATSOCAS are very hit and miss, disjointed, and uncoordinated. That’s the difference between the UK and the rest of Europe, and the point I wanted to make in the video.

Biggles would be aghast

You sound like an angry little Ga pilot John

@@benr970 Read the other comments Ben R. I fly in N America, yes, as a GA pilot. I can fly from Yellow Knife in the Yukon (Canada) to Cab San Lucas in Mexico on one flight plan with one seamless system (operated by three countries). In the UK, I can't fly over three counties without needing new requests for assistance and the type of assistance I require - from different operators. UK ATC is, as I said, utter rubbish by comparison. Oh, and Ben, you're just little.

@@johnvaleanbaily246 inclined to disagree I’m afraid, USA air traffic is completely ridiculous and inherently in safe. “You are number 5 cleared to land”. That’s just mental