Originally Posted by
SATCO Biggin
If some kind soul would buy me a nice new radar, train and employ the staff and maintain the equipment I would be more than happy to provide southeast England with a LARS.
Strange...I do not hear the sound of wallets being un-zipped. Maybe I am asking too much.
Why would anyone in their right mind pay for radar at Biggin when a service from TC would be a far more cost effective option?
Ops. Sory, TC actually do provide a service. So perhaps people would be more inclined to promote an investment in improving the current service which with some investment (far less than that required for your empire building idea) could provide a more appropriate service.
--------------
Someone mentioned provision af a LARS service. Waste of time. I have probably over the years operated within the area of responsibility of every LARS unit in the country. IFR and VFR. The service is at best patchy and generally simply not available when it is most needed.
----------
As for navigation. While I do believe that navigation is not being taught to the required standard, there is more to the infringements than that.
How many pilots are aware and make allowances for the accuracy of the navigation they are performing. Every one checks 5nm or more each side of track for obstacles because they know they could stray such a distance from track between fixes however, those same pilots plan to fly 1/4 mile from an airspace boundary ignoring the posibility of making an infringement.
Thus, if one was to plan carefully, one would plan to route 5nm (or more) clear of airspace. Try that in the airspace under the LTMA!. Thus the airspace forces pilots to reduce the safety margins and consequently these reduced margins can result in errors.
-------------
The laughable situation is that a pilot can blast off from Biggin VFR request a service from Thames, be refused and then QSY to London Info, fly at exactly 1500ft on the London QNH along the base of the London City CTA with a mode C reading 1700ft, causing (through no fault of their own) severe delays at the City because of controllers taking 5nm and 5000ft separation...........while not in any way being at fault in any way.
Remember the Upper Heyford Mandatory Radio Area? Why not have a similar requirement in the airspace below the LTMA and some ATSAs at TC providing a FIS as FISO(A)'s. They could coordinate transit requests, specials joiners etc etc. They could also use radar to confirm accuracy of altitude indications on mode S transponding aircraft while making mode S being mandatory for operation in and below the TMA.
Scottish ACC while not having such a traffic loading has a dedicated FIS providing a service in the airspace below the TMA's area of responsibility. Why not follow the idea where there is actually clearly more of a need?
Regards,
DFC