DFC
Here we go again. But it is fun
Anyway, I had heard that everyone validates at ScOACC - that is why they send all the failures from LACC, LTCC and MACC there.
If you heard it, then it must be right. Except for those who unfortunately didn't make it of course. And the failures from LACC, MACC, and LTCC who weren't sent here. Maybe they could all appeal based on the fact that DFC says they should all validate at ScOACC ??
NATS is not a PLC as far as I am aware.
The important part is the 'as far as I am aware'. Unfortunately you aren't aware are you ?? Have a look on the CAA website. It will show you lots of documents, etc, concerning NATS (Holdings) LTD AND the subsiduaries including NATS (En Route) PLC. Being a Limited company (LTD) does NOT mean that the public can buy any part of you. You have to be floated on the stock exchange for that as well as being a PLC. Ho hum. Ever tried to buy shares in British Midland Airways Ltd ? You can't. You could however be offered shares in the subsiduaries of NATS, however NATS (Holdings) Ltd would have to offer them for sale through the Stock Exchange. It could not do so directly.
Haven't had anyone say that the service provided will be worse than currently available.
And nor will you. We have respect for our IAA colleagues and know they provide a professional service. There is no reason the service would get worse, nor proof until it operates that it will be better. But that is not the issue. The issues are political and financial. Most of the anguish is caused by a UK Government who stated clearly at the outset that they would not be involved in the operational aspects of NATS and its airspace. And here they are turning around and dictating that we need to bring in these operational changes. But then we've heard their words before and know they are worthless, we shouldn't be surprised. (Our sky is not for sale ... there are WMDs which could be launched quickly ... Gerry Adams is a nice guy, etc, etc, etc.)
Join NOTA and SOTA and push west using ADS etc and from a pilot's point of view, ScACC having handed the O to Shannon will have a few more ATCO's available for domestic re-sectorisation.
You might have something there. Perhaps the UK should have just passed it to Ireland and given them the short revocation of licence period required to get it all up and running
(Revocation of licence by the UK Secretary of State would free NATS from service provision responsibilities) Alternatively, the NATS (En Route) Licence which specifies the airspace within which NATS is licenced by the UK CAA and Government to provide Air Traffic Services could be disputed in court as it lays down a term of 10 years for provision in the airspace contained within the UK AIP at the time the licence came in to force. But then I'm not a lawyer
The Irish to patrol in much of Shanwick's and part of Scottish's airspace. Perhaps we should ask them to have a look at Rockall the next time they pass. Nice Spannish aeroplanes paid for by the EU as well and fitted with a radar etc that has been paid for by the EU. Check them out the next time they visit the UK.
Actually I think you'll find that the patrol profiles (excluding transit) are almost exclusively below FL55. Is that Shanwick's airspace then ?? And the Scottish portion is in Class G and outside the UK 12 mile limit in areas which are the responsibility of Ireland in accordance with the EU Fishing Policy, so even I could patrol out there if my heart and finances desire. And I got extra tanks on my spamcan.
Anyway, we prefer noisy Nimrods. At least they can find submarines, loiter for far far longer, have longer range, can air to air refuel for endurance as long as the crew meals last and toilets don't overflow, carry out SAR and drop dinghies, provide top cover co-ordination with the RCC and so on.
Was it you that strated a thred about the cost of providing an FIS at ScACC some time back? and about wanting to get rid of the ATSA that does the job in certain parts? It seems to have disappeared very quickly. Do I detect a common thred that the Scotts are very worried about money?
Nope, that was just your misconceptual mind working overtime again.
Try here
Future of Scottish Information
The FISOs at ScACC have always received my support as I am sure they would testify. Whether it be taking them for flights, or passing on appreciative emails from satisfied customers, or whatever.
Scotts ?? They make porridge oats. I think they are a part of the Quaker Company (in turn owned by Pepsico) so you can buy Stock on them if you want to invest ok:
Will there be a cost over-run on the new annex?
Unlikely. With Commercial Off The Shelf products most of the risk has already been taken by the manufacturer.
The IAA are just as privatised as NATS in that the Government holds the majority of the shares.
Wrong in that the UK Government is not the majority shareholder in NATS. And wrong since the IAA is a commercial state sponsored business, not privatised in the slightest. The shares are all held by the Irish Government. So who are the private shareholders you allude to ??
Not a criticism of the way the IAA is formed and run at all, it's what we should have in the UK. Just pointing out more holes in the DFC view of the world.
Lets look briefly at the N Sea, starting at NEW, direct ADN about 140nm and via haven, 185nm. 15 min difference in a turboprop give or take. Now lets take your option of a route to EKCH via NEW. routing east over the N Sea gives about 510nm. Taking the route you propose is 750nm (assuming a direct from Klonn). That is a difference of over 1 hour. What ATC world do you live in? Obvously the one which is money hungry and likes as many revenue Kms as possible.
Not quite, I was talking principle rather than fact. The principle whereby you said everyone flying to Aberdeen should all add miles to their route regardless of their need and desires whereas your North Sea flights should have a route provided. No one is stopping any pilot choosing the route he wishes to fly. The services available on each are detailed in the AIP and it is for the company or pilot to decide which route and hence level of guaranteed service is suitable for them. Not ATC.
East of New is the D513 complex. D513 max alt is 10,000. Where is the problem with an ADR with an appropriate base above that? Perhaps insted of seeking excuses, solutions would be better.
Perhaps you should buy a new chart ?? D513 which is active when notified is active to 10,000'. Correct. But you missed D513A, active when notified to 23,000. You missed D323A, active when notified between 5,000' and 55,000'. You missed D412, active when notified to 10,000'. These are all on the pedantic East of NEW route (the 090 Radial). Go a little bit South of that track and then you get D412, D323A, plus D323B, active when notified 5,000' to 55,000' thrown in. Go North of the track and you might get D513 and D513A as mentioned already, but also possibly D513B, active when notified up to 23,000' and maybe the D613 complex, active when notified from 10,000' to 55,000'.
As the users of these areas can make them active at any time in accordance with Airspace Management procedures, how can you publish a route as you suggest ? Well, there is a way. But you would have to make it a Conditional Route. Probably a CDR2 or maybe a CDR3. Although there is nothing to say that CDRs can't be Advisory Routes, there is also nothing to say that they can be and there is certainly no precedent for them in the UK or Europe that I know about.
But you are addressing the wrong agency here. The provision of Air Traffic Services, the agreement and establishment of ATS Routes all lie with the UK Regulator. That's the Directorate of Airspace Policy in the CAA. They have an Airspace Charter which details how airspace can be changed or requested. You or your company could raise an Airspace Change Proposal with them. Negotiate with all the airspace users and agencies, do the environmental impact case (easy with a route over the sea), agree with the CAA that everyone is happy and a few months later in an AIRAC cycle your route magically appears. I am sure we in NATS would be happy to give you the time to hear your formal proposals as part of the Charter Process. As would the MoD, etc, etc.
If there was a solid block preventing traffic routing east of NEW then there would not be any. I know and you state that there is no block and traffic does route that way.
See above. There is an inderminate block, although not solid for some periods. We do very occasionally have to route pilots around who have not read their NOTAMs or seem clueless when asked their intentions to avoid an active Danger Area.
Perhaps this constant negative response is an indication of an unwillingness to provide a service at all.
NATS is committed and indeed obliged to provide the services that are contained within the UK En Route Licence. The core services are those detailed in UK AIP. Specific services are detailed in the licence. One obligation of ScACC is to provide Flight Information Service and Alerting Service within its FIR. No one is ever denied that.
Look through the AIP. You will not find that ScACC have any responsibility for the provision of Radar Services outside Controlled Airspace. No defined Radar Service Areas, no LARS, no Military Middle Airspace Radar Services (our Scottish Military colleagues do that but are not NATS). Even the provision of Radar Advisory Service on the ADRs is not specified. It can be done procedurely. Once again, these are not services laid down by NATS, they are those laid down by the CAA. I am sure if they wanted ScACC to provide any sort of mandatory service then that could be negotiated as part of the licence, either by inclusion in the AIP or as a specific service ... and as a business, presumably NATS would name its price. Quite simply, NATS and ScACC provide services well over and above those which they are legally obliged to. Our core services are what get priority, particularly things like resolving delays, since these cost the company money (as well as the airlines). You may not like it, but when you turn something which should be a publicly run organisation and funded as such in to a private business then you can't expect any charity. I wouldn't expect the bloke next door to mow my lawn just because he happened to be doing his own.
If you have any beefs because of that, particularly about safety, then you should either raise them with the CAA who would decide if any changes should be made to the airspace and service provision based on their risk assessment and duty to ALL airspace users. Or you could take advantage of the existing route structure. As pilot in command, it's your call. Your main opponent however is going to be the MoD .... Good Luck !!!
Belfast TMA departures work Antrim sector frequency. With all that oceanic traffic routing via Irish Airspace then there would be no need for a SW and Central split leaving 1 controller (and 1 planner in theory) free for other radar duties.
So who works departures above FL255 ?? and inbounds at cruising level ?? And funnily enough, when traffic patterns dictate, we do put Central and Southwest together. Doing it permanently is a different kettle of fish. Plus like most units in the UK, there is a shortage of bodies against those actually required so your extra ones usually aren't there anyway and are deployed on a tactical basis to maximise the operation. I remain to be convinced that there will be a wholesale movement of traffic away from UK airspace. European Route Navigation Plans, Traffic Orientation Schemes and Flow Management considerations also need to be factored in. So time will tell.
The TMA can be re-organised and resectorised. Needs more people (as well as equipment) to make it really work though. The airspace is partly in the pipeline.
I am all ears. Let's hear your cunning plan ??