Originally Posted by
Spitoon
Ahh, the NATS commercial viewpoint. But the UK as a State has an obligation to provide a navigational infrastructure for its airspace users - it signed up to this in the ICAO convention. Perhaps the Government did not pass on this obligation in the NATS licence to provide services....or maybe NATS needs to look at the conditions on the licence.
I have no problem with NATS being a commercial organisation, or the users pays concept, but that does not mean that all other considerations go out of the window! That's one of the reasons we have regulators. In this case however, if i understand it correctly, it was the regulator who agreed to the Eurocontrol plan without consulting all of the airspace users.
Withdrawal of VORS is a part of the emerging ECAC navigation strategy being developed by Eurocontrol. The strategy envisages withdrawal of the majority of VORs – in the order of 60% of the total population, replacement of the remaining VORs to provide a back-up in the case of aircraft RNAV system failures, and a rationalisation of the DME infrastructure to provide an optimised DME/DME RNAV coverage.
In my earlier reply I was talking specifically about ATC service as opposed to navigation service (if that makes sense). NATS do have a commitment to provide certain minimal navigation, as witness the consultation etc over the withdrawal of the NEW VOR.
BD