Inverness ILS

[jack-oh]

With the introduction of ILS at Inverness, to come on line shortly, how many of those that regularly fly into the airport would prefer to receive vectors, to intercept the Localiser from Lossie Radar, rather than continue in the same procedural vain as the VOR/DME procedures?

[Tinstaafl]

I don't care. Which ever one gets me onto the approach the quickest. Sometimes that's pilot interpreted using backcourse/DME ARC/direct entry from a fix/whatever, other times radar vectored. Mind you, I come from a system where it's not necessary to have ATC in attendance to do an instrument approach - precision or otherwise - so that colours my opinion.

[Shed Driver]

I think jack-oh was hoping for comments from Pilots who actually operate into INV!

Vectors are always welcome, that extra set of eyes watching over us is much appreciated from you Lossie lot! I would much prefer safety over speed onto the approach anyday! :rolleyes:

[Tinstaafl]

re operate into INV. Yes, I do. INV is my usual alternate for Aberdeen. I said I come from somewhere etc etc. I did not say I'm still there. :rolleyes:

As for your supposed safety argument: No accident statistics I've seen, whether from Oz, USA, Canada or UK show a different safety outcome related to whether or not ATC is present (all other factors being equal ie traffic density). Thousands of unsupervised instrument approaches are flown every day. How many come crashing to the ground because ATC weren't there to clear you for a pilot interpreted? Similarly, how do you feel about operating in IMC in the G airspace in Scotland?

Also, if you consider getting from A --> B quickly to be detrimental to safety do you fly around at reduced speed? Or take a longer way round if it's not necessary?

[BIK_116.80]

Ahh Tinny, ya can't reason with em, mate.

They are brought up with this WW2-style "talk the pilot down" radar vectors non-sense and they feel naked without it. Most of em couldn't manage to find the ILS without vectors.

They are, in effect flying with a full-time navigator - a ground-based navigator on the end of the radio.

It's inefficient and anachronistic, but they love it. And it creates employment, so I can't see it changing anytime soon. :ugh:

In this day and age we should all be flying GPS arrivals to an ILS approach. This ground-based radar vectors stuff is past its use-by date.

[niknak]

It will probably be some time before that happens.
The CAA will have to approve any official procedures for vectoring on to the instrument approach at a civil airport by atcos who are not CAA licensed or validated at Inverness, and I'm not sure that as a fare paying passenger I would like to the aircraft I was flying in to take up that option just to save a few minutes.

I know that sometime ago, there was some talk of Lossi' providing "radar assistance" to aircraft operating in and out of INV, but thats a completely different matter to what's being discussed here.
The only real solution is for Inverness to install it's own radar and operate it with it's own staff, which is very unlikely.

[jack-oh]

I understand your point about licensing NikNak however Mil ATCOs provide an ever increasing amount of services to Civil aircraft making approaches to Mil airfields. The difference between that and providing vectors within a well thought out framework of procedures eludes me. Furthermore, it seems quite odd in this day and age that the CAA still only provide licenses to ATCOs who ostensibly work for private companies, who operate for the sake of making profit, rather than ones that work for a different government department. On the topic of Inverness getting its own radar; they have looked at it and the same problems come up repeatedly: cost and coverage. In order to get the second the first is horrendous. From our point of view, we see so many delays that could be averted with a turn to the left or the right earlier on. Equally, as all this is done in class G airspace we often see conflicting traffic appear once the aircraft have gone over to Inverness for their procedural approach. We often tell Inverness about the traffic but there is very little they can do about it. As a personnel view, it would seem much safer and more expeditious to provide vectors to the localiser than continue in the present vain.

On the point about pilots not being able to find their own way, this is obviously nonsense. However, I haven’t met one yet who would sequence themselves as number 4.

[Tinstaafl]

'Course we do. Happens a lot in Oz. An RPT Dash-8 inbound to Country Town, Oz, + their competition on a very similar timetable + a couple or few of charter a/c + an IFR training flight + departures etc etc.

We were all able to stack ourselves in the hold, adjust speed, wait for one guy to report departing to the south before departing to the north, set up on a DME arc while someone else took off etc etc.

ATC can make things more efficient. Not necessarily, but that's the intent, one hopes.

[OzExpat]

BIK mate... how many places in Oz have an ILS without an ATC presence? All of them? Not really. Coming into YSSY, I've always been given vectors to a pilot intercept, unless coming in from Bindook, of course! :D

[ecj]

In essence the answer is quite simple. The CAA [SRG] would have to approve the radar vectoring procedures in conjunction with the RAF.

A letter of agreement between Inverness and Lossiemouth would then be entered into.

The other solution would be to place civil approach radar controllers at Lossie, with ADC only at INV.

All this comes under the heading of Politics.

On over 50% of days into INV , I make a visual approach anyway.

[knobbygb]

I was recently flying from there as a PPL and was discussing this very subject with a couple of instructors.

During the "busy" period in the afternoon (7 or 8 movements per hour!) the procedural approaches seem to really tie things up. Due to lack of taxiways, nothing on the ground seems to be able to move between the time an inbound calls up approach and when it comes to rest on the apron. I'd have thought that if INV was to get much busier there would need to be some sort of radar service to relieve this pressure.

As I say, I'm just interested in this as an 'amatuer' with no IR and thus no real knowledge of procedural approaches, so feel free to put me right if required. Still, I enjoyed the novelty of sitting at the hold watching 737's join downwind rather than just suddenly 'appearing' on final.

[ecj]

A procedural approach service is slow due to the minimum separation required. [see Manual of Air Traffic Services part one]

There are however certain "tricks of the trade" which can be employed to increase the flow rate. VMC arrivals/departures. Visual approaches [still IFR], declaring VFR, when conditions permit.

Another factor is the way in which Lossie Radar operate as the quasi approach radar function. It is not all down to the ATC guys at Inverness.

Inverness in the main is quite, apart from the "teatime rush" which you have seen.

The timing of inbounds against outbounds is critical to the overall flow rate.

And finally, no question is stupid if it improves your understanding.
Keep asking - it is the only way you will learn. I am sure there are some excellent IMC rating books which will explain matters.
Please ask if you don't quite understand any matter. That is how I learnt. Next time you are in INV, ask if you can visit ATC.

[BIK_116.80]

G'day OzExpat,

"...how many places in Oz have an ILS without an ATC presence?"

Off the top of my head, and just for starters, Canberra, Essendon, Avalon, Tamworth, Richmond, Newcastle (Williamtown) - all during non-tower hours when they become MBZs.

[bookworm]

The Direct Arrival procedures at Inverness look pretty flexible and not significantly longer than radar vectors would be.

Is the issue the trajectory that has to be followed for a procedural approach, or is it separation in the procedure having to be one-at-a-time?

[mad_jock]

The rumour is there is going to be 16 new plates issued for the new approaches.

Also there is a problem with a sensitive zone at the end of 24 at 06 threshold so everything will need to remain in the stack until the current plane is on the apron.

So I should imagine the usual suspects will go for the VOR/DME approach so they can be cleared outbound faster.

To be honest I don't know if the ILS will make much difference to the airport remaining open. We have had maybe 10 days last year with Haar and as its only Cat 1 I can't see it helping in those conditions.

H'mm the politics of Lossie and INV ouch.

No doudt once the ILS is operational the controlled airspace debate will rear its ugly head again. (Which I am all in favour for BTW)


MJ

And also they will be redoing the Runway numbers as well so good bye 06-24

[ecj]

I would suggest that ILS availability will have a significant benefit to operators. Not a complete panacea, but certainty a major step forward when low cloud bases exist.

A reduction of about 50% in the decision altitude/height with the associated lower RVR minima is good news.

As for CAS, that is a separate issue all together.

[Spitoon]

I don't know much about the history of INV's ILS but globally the hazards of non-precision approaches, especially when there's high ground in the area, are a hot topic. Think back to ZRH.

In these days of safety management INV certainly has a few hazards that will be reduced by the installation of an ILS. It may not be a simple matter of 'keeping the airport open'.

[mad_jock]

I haven't seen the new minima so can't comment.

For those that don't know there is a huge amount of politics between Lossie and INV tower, rules for controlling RAF and rules for controlling for the Civi's.

And I presume if Lossie are aiming to get vectoring rights it will mean that the twr controllers will be grumpy feckers until its all sorted out.

MJ

[ecj]

The status quo is likely to be the best short term solution to this issue.

"Communication" however, is probably necessary in the medium/long term, between the interested parties to understand more fully the issues involved.

The bottom line? Simple - protect the traffic in the vicinity of Inverness.

[mad_jock]

I agree totally about protecting the IFR traffic.

But unfortunately its all class G.

I heared a EAZY skipper today enquire who was responsible for traffic seperation. After getting a bit nervous of a GA over the city.
And by the sounds of talking to the pilot of the GA he should have been.

A far better way to ensure the safety of traffic incoming into Inverness is not to vector it round the sky but organise some controlled airspace protecting the inbound routes and procedures. But of course the Mil dosen't like that idea.

MJ

[Spitoon]

No offence meant mad_j but i couldn't follow your last post.

Are you saying that the pilot of a commercial air transport aircraft didn't know what separation service he got from ATC and what he/she was responsible for in any particular piece of airspace??????

If so, makes you wonder a bit.

PS - agree completely that there should be controlled airspace wherever big pax carriers go regularly.

[ecj]

Just wait until Inverness increase 06/24 [05/23 shortly] by 1200m with PCN increase [eastwards] to 3048m+ for flights capable of operating to the US west coast.

CTR - Class D airspace would then be reasonable.

Easy drivers operate once in a blue moon into Inverness. They are use to a higher standard of service due to class A airspace + APR. No offence to EGPE/EPQS; horses for courses.

EGPE - category C airfield I suspect? Captains only to land the aircraft due to a short runway for a 737.

Above FL 250 class A : W3D class F: below ADR class G. Rule 39 in the ATZ. Wild west compared to down south. And, fast jet traffic in the vicinity of INV. See previous posts from Lossie radar ATCO.

It does not come as a total surprise that Easy drivers get concerned about flying in bandit country. The bundoo [sp?] can hold all sorts of unexpected entertainment for them which they can be doing without. The turning radius of a 73 is not exactly impressive. " if unsighted turn immediate right heading...."
Time is money. Save one minute per sector; it mounts up.

I can understand their caution, and wishing to adopt a belt and braces approach. When on rw 24, safest option is the IFR approach via the overhead.

And finally, according to MATS part one - you do not separate VFR and IFR traffic. Just pass traffic information.

TCAS is a god send.

I think a visit for Spitoon to ATC at Inverness & Lossie would be quite educational.

[JimNich]

Controlled airspace around Inverness would undoubtably make life a heck of a lot easier for the commercial traffic at Inverness I agree. It would also give Lossie more control over movements in the area which they've been whingeing on about for ages.

Unfortunately it doesn't leave the poor GA fecker (hopeless as he might be) anywhere to go. But then, between the JAA, commercial operators and military they've all done a pretty good job of squeezing GA out over the years.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Above FL 250 class A : W3D class F: below ADR class G

Actually Controlled Airspace starts above FL245 .. and it's Class B throughout the UK UIR ;)

[ecj]

Thanks for that PPRuNe Radar. I was getting confused in my old ago, and thinking about the HUTA [part of the old sector 26] which use to exist prior 1991 as rule 21 airspace.

Do you ever get GAT operating VFR in class B these days?

[jack-oh]

I have been busy with the JMC over the past week and have not been able to log on, I am glad to see so many posts to my original question. Can ecj tell us when such substantial upgrades to Inverness are going to take place? They would truly be a miracle considering Inverness cant even upgrade its existing taxiways or persuade the local council to close the road that will produce interference with the new ILS system. As for controlled airspace and the provision of separation between IFR and VFR ac, at present Inverness lies within class G airspace and technically under ICAO rules no separation between any ac is provided. However, within the UK these rules have been circumvented by the adoption of Air Traffic Control Radar Services Outside Controlled Airspace, i.e. RAS, RIS, and the provision of approach procedural services by non-radar units. Problems do exist when you try to marry these two different types of service together. Namely, a procedural controller will only take into account the separation of IFR ac talking to him at that moment in time or ones that have been pre-noted to him. Separation will not be given on VFR ac or any unknown ac. Radar controllers will take into consideration all ac that he can see and dependent on the type of service provide information or advice to remedy the situation. The radar services that Lossie provide to Inverness ac were specifically asked for by the CA community, in fact it was the chairman of BA that formally wrote to the head of the CAA that got the whole ball rolling. NATS pays for the services as it has, in essence, sub-contracted out the provision of radar services to ac operating on the advisory routes around Inverness to Lossiemouth. The service is only provided Mon to Fri, at the weekends the system reverts to a full procedural one. Many airlines have asked for the service to be extended, especially easy-jet. The AIRPROX board have also recommended that this be the case following an incident late last year.

As for the establishment of controlled airspace, it is my belief that in this instance it would have little effect on the overall situation, as the three airfields within the area cause all their own problems. GA ac would still operate from Inverness as they do now, therefore the most logical airspace classification for any CTA would be either E or D, within this type of airspace separation is not provided between IFR and VFR ac, which is exactly what happens now. Therefore, the only reason for the establishment of controlled airspace would be the exclusion of ac not operating to Inverness i.e. all the military and civil ac operating to Kinloss and Lossie. At present, there is on average five times the amount of ac operating to these two units as there are to Inverness, even more during frequent exercises. Due to the close proximity of all the airfields within the area, any CTA worth having to protect the approach and climb out lanes, would preclude the use of such airspace to all these other ac. Effectively meaning that instrument approaches to Kinloss RW 08 could not take place and having a dramatic effect on instrument approaches to Lossie RW 05. To remedy this situation Lossie could be given joint use of the controlled airspace however we are now back to the present situation i.e. the three units within the area cause all there own problems. Incidentally, the military do not like controlled airspace for two reasons: 1, military aircrew are apprehensive about it believing it too restrictive. 2, whilst receiving RAS outside controlled airspace they are provided with headings to avoid unknown ac and are separated from known IFR and VFR ac. In controlled airspace E and D they are not. So in essence, why have something that is overly restrictive, inflexible and ultimately provides less protection than owning your own ATC services that will separate you from everything when you want them to.

[ecj]

If controlled airspace was ever considered in the vicinity of Inverness, then class E would be a non-starter. It fails to protect the IFR traffic properly, since VFR traffic does not require a clearance to enter it, apart from the ATZ.
Class D would be the most likely, since all traffic which is within it, is known traffic, to the controlling authority.

With less than 10 Kms visibility, then SVFR & IFR replaces VFR, and at night as well, since VFR at night in the UK for civil operators is not permitted - you operate IFR maintaining VMC.

CTR without APR. Would this be unique in the UK? Perhaps an ATCO would provide the answer.

The bottom line is that:

1. It would increase the protection of the travelling public using Inverness.

2. It would restrict the freedom presently enjoyed by the military in the vicinity of the airport.

3. To provide real protection, then an airway replacing W3D to the south of the INS is also required, with stepped bases like exists to the SE of Talla.

Is it likely to happen ? I somehow doubt it, unless a "significant event" occurs in the vicinity of the airport to concentrate the mind of HMG.

[mainecoon]

originate from forres and now am an en-route nats controller at manchester

i've been here since 1991 (with a break due illness) and only now have newcastle got an airway north from cas at leeds so i would be very surprised if any form of cas gets established around the shneck in the near future

never new about the road and the ils till this thread and with no safeguarding available seems like a bit of a waste of money inho:confused:

[ecj]

I think they may well use the Sumburgh technique for road closure when required, until the local authority can formally approve closure.

[bad_influence]

Introduction of Inverness ILS now delayed till 1 Sept 2003

:uhoh:

[mad_jock]

Must be the road, calibrator was up a couple of months ago.

They are going to put a roundabout up on the A96, a bridge over the railway another couple of roundabouts to allow expansion of the industrial estates. And its all through the council.

My sneaky suspision is, the protestors suddenly realised that by putting in this road that they were opening up that whole area for industrial expansion. And as I know 2 of them were very active trying to stop Inverness medical getting its new warehouse in the industrial estate. So I presume that they are causing problems again.

I have my doudts it will all be sorted by Sept

MJ

[jack-oh]

It is definitely the road, when the calibrator carried out the inaugural flight check guards were hired to stop vehicles ignoring the traffic lights. I also note with interest that the new procedures for the ILS completely ignore the current letter of agreement between Lossie and Inverness.:hmm:

[mad_jock]

I also note with interest that the new procedures for the ILS completely ignore the current letter of agreement between Lossie and Inverness.

That really dosn't surprise me.

MJ

[ecj]

I presume that the existing letter of agreement was agreed sometime ago, & that a new LoA will only be required if a significant change in the way Lossie & Inverness will perform their tasks occur.

Since Lossie will not rv to the ILS, what has changed so far as Lossie is concerned?

How exactly is the LoA likely to be ignored with proposed ILS operations?