As I understand it all IFR aircraft require some sort of OPS Control I believe it is even defined by ICAO. Remember the old Initiation, Continuation, Termination or Diversion of a flight.
I do remember that. It is just that in other parts of the world, and now here, pilots or the operating company provide that responsibility for themselves, as they should. As to the OCCs, whist I did have a bit of a go at the old Ops folks, I also pointed out their value and wealth of experience which was often crucial in SAR exercises, sorry if I touched a nerve.
To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed.
I don’t think we need “IFR approach control” everywhere that we have jet transport ops, this add unnecessary cost that no one want to pay. An “IFR approach aid” at these uncontrolled airports would be a better and more cost effective option. In the US there are a great many airports in G airspace that have ILS. No ATC, just tune it in, broadcast intentions, and use it. We don’t need ATC everywhere there is an ILS. The main problem in G airspace for jet transport aircraft is that they are difficult to see out of. They are designed primarily to be operated in a controlled environment. Spotting a light aircraft is difficult and a ground based information service with visual surveillance works well, (although the visual surveillance at AYE is soon to be diminished). The limitation with this service is the amount of traffic a FIS, (Unicom, CA/GRS) can handle before full aerodrome control is required.
However, getting back on topic, if this new Unicom derivative is to be introduced, as we are advised at a level below CA/GRS, it would be more cost effective to have a remote location running several airports from one room sharing resources and equipment as per the old “centres”. This would obviously be with no visual surveillance but could easily provide estimates and pass met information as is required. As things stand now under the present Unicom rules the operators will not be able to do anything other than pass estimates and factual statements about the weather (TAFs etc), there should be no need for a visual aspect to that job. If visual surveillance is required it could then be upgraded to CA/GRS and when it gets beyond that it can be upgraded to full aerodrome control. It could also be downgraded under the same system, AYE and BME handle more traffic than some of the quieter ATC towers at times. The workload and complexity of traffic, weather, and terrain should determine which level of service is required, preferably by an aerodrome study.