Originally Posted by
Gonzo
Not sure that would work, as those airfields will have to downgrade to FIS only, if remaining in Class G.
The options are basically either downgrade to FIS and therefore all traffic has to self position to airports in Class G, or if vectoring/sequencing is required, establish CAS.
Yep, spot on those are the only choices. But just to clarify what you said: "if vectoring/sequencing is required" - or ANY other approach service which includes Procedural Control. There is no reason why APP cannot be provided inside CAS. Indeed, to my mind it makes more sense than doing it outside CAS IF (and only if...) there is a known traffic environment. This of course is a re-hash of the old argument as to whether providing an Approach service without surveillance equipment and only to KNOWN - or participating - aircraft is "safe". Or safe enough. The CAA by allowing APP in uncontrolled airspace believe that it is. I know of several instances where airlines carrying out their own risk assessments have concluded that it is not and have insisted on a radar service when operating in class G. So for both categories of airports - radar and non-radar - they will have to pay a lot of money to establish CAS or risk airlines getting pretty touchy about "only" being provided with a FIS. Given the reluctance of the regulator to sanction class D then this CAS they could establish will have to be E. The radar units can then carry on doing exactly what they are currently doing but pleasing EASA by calling it an ATC Control service. Ditto the procedural units but one might add that they might have missed an opportunity to have a more "known" traffic environment. If the class E route is taken, call it what you will but I see very little real change to the reality of the services currently being provided by what the UK chooses to call ATSOCAS. What am I missing - where is the real difference? Big winners? The consultancy firms carrying out the ACP's...…….