The current problem is U.K.- wide. It's nothing to do with CLDA/Stobart or Loganair. It goes back in fact to the end of WW2, and was 'enhanced' by the 1970s oil-crisis. In the late 1980s, NATS introduced irrelevant 'SHL aptitude tests' for those applying to be ATCOs, and reduced the entry requirements from 2 'A' levels to 5 GCSE 'O' Levels. The pass rate on each course dropped from 95% to about 20%. In spite of a major recruitment drive from 1978 onwards, the 'recruitment bulge' is now a 'retirement bulge'.
The present shortage is a 'global problem'.
Many of those appointed to HR/training positions, post-PFI, had no ATC or aviation experience, and couldn't get their heads around how long it takes to qualify to do the job. Heathrow's best controller cannot walk into Carlisle tower and start work on day 1. Also, new training regulations introduced by the European Aviation Safety Authority are an issue. Way back, a controller's licence was valid for the lifetime of the holder. I believe that is no longer the case?

Well, if you're right I don't see starting in September helping anyone. At least Loganair are now in a strong position to judge future demand and if they choose to proceed that's the only positive I can see in this.

EU ATCO Licensing regulations may have been an issue. I don't know, but if you haven't got ATC staff trained and licensed to do the job, it doesn't go. They could use the delay as a 'window of opportunity' to get radar installed. That would help EGNC tremendously, given the amount of GA, RAF activity and local terrain.

The fact that you need trained ATC shouldn't have come as a shock, especially as they've been told often enough locally. Given the fiasco of the runway closure - tenants given days notice of the total closure of the runway, planning and communication don't seem to be strong points. Judging by the (many) FB comments, a lot of goodwill lost.

...........but what about an ILS?


RNAV (GNSS) with LPV will be infinitely cheaper!

I believe there is an application in with the CAA for a certificated RNAV system for CAX. Frankly I don't see how they can carry out reliable scheduled ops without at least that facility.

TCAS FAN

In fact Carlisle have already submitted an Airspace Change Process application for RNAV (GNSS) procedures with LPV option back in December. The system limits for the LPV approaches have recently been reduced from 250 to 200 feet, though of course local features such as obstacles and approach and runway lighting will generate somewhat higher OCHs. In short very similar to ILS Cat 1 without the expense of installation and maintenance of ground based facilities, so no need for ILS.

The application has not yet been determined. On April 6 CAA wrote to CAX requiring a further noise survey. On May 23 CAX wrote to CAA requesting an urgent determination in the form of a temporary airspace arrangement. The reply (from the Deputy Director of Airspace Policy) on May 24 indicated consideration might be given but subject to further supporting evidence. This correspondence is a matter of public record.

Expressflight

I believe the intention is to maintain the existing NDB/DME procedures alongside the RNAV . The OCHs for Cat B aircraft are 407 and 500 feet on these approaches so whilst actual limits will be higher than for the LPV approaches (I don't know how RVRs will compare) it seems to me quite workable. My knowledge of CAX weather is not enough to suggest how often this would produce a problem. Of course it is Loganair's take on it, not mine, that matters.

There's summer in Cumbria? I'm sure it's all been thought through.... :rolleyes:

Whilst on the subject of CAX facilities and ATC, I cannot see any need for radar in the context of separation of CAXs own traffic. There are only eight scheduled CAT movements during the whole day and even if there is the occasional non-scheduled IFR arrival which may conflict, non radar procedural separation should be entirely adequate. The integration of IFR flights with a visual circuit may be a consideration but surely addressable by agreeing procedures with local GA operators, and the amount of GA at CAX is very low in my experience. I make this point because it often seems that non pilots on these forums do not understand that departure and arrival procedures are designed to be flown without radar assistance.

It is true of course that radar could be of advantage in giving advance warning of unidentified transit traffic in the Class G airspace below FL95 which is the lowest CAS base in the vicinity of CAX and for reasons suggested by ZOOKER above, in effect providing an additional layer of safety. Then if CAA had believed there was an essential safety case for radar they surely would have made that clear long ago and CAX would have known they had to comply..

SWKCB, Of course the need for trained ATC did not come as a shock - they had been operating ATC at CAX for years, they did not need to be told by others. What may have caught them out was recruiting the numbers they needed when the length of operating day was increased from 8 hours to 15, or even longer when provision for delays was included. So I for one am quite prepared to accept the CAX explanation for postponement as valid and if there are other unstated reasons no doubt they will become apparent in the fullness of time.

I've no reason to doubt that it is reason, but if recruitment and training is such a long lead item how have they been caught out? It is hard to believe that they only knew a few days before the launch of services that they couldn't operate as advertised.

They could have had resignations or drop outs of prospective new employees. In this situation of a world wide shortage of ATCOs I wonder how many would be waiting in the wings ready to relocate to Carlisle. And of course they would have wanted to keep the show on the road if they thought there was any glimmer of hope. We don't know they were unaware until only a few days before launch and we don't know what measures they might have attempted to address the situation

Loganair has been doing just that for decades at a number of Highlands & Islands airfields with no radar or ILS.

and without ATC coverage too.

"We're sorry"

Tagron

"Whilst on the subject of CAX facilities and ATC, I cannot see any need for radar in the context of separation of CAXs own traffic. There are only eight scheduled CAT movements during the whole day and even if there is the occasional non-scheduled IFR arrival which may conflict, non radar procedural separation should be entirely adequate".

Was it not the case with the now defunct Sheffield City Airport that at least one operator pulled the plug due to the lack of radar, a number of airproxes in Class G airspace and the subsequent inability to come up with a risk assessment that provided adequate mitigation to bring the resultant risk down to an acceptable level?

do it remotely like LCY

Also at Dundee, where Flybe pulled out for the same reasons in 2016.

If i was a controller I'm not sure i would leave a secure job to move to something that might only last a year or two till the route subsidy runs out. I guess if Carlisle cant recruit/ train and more importantly retain the controllers then the airport will be forced to close again. chicken and egg sort of problem

It could be very interesting negotiating pay deals going forward when the threat to leave if there is not a 30% pay deal would close the whole operation down?

The postponement does not surprise , and I don't believe there is anything sinister about it. Just management discovering late in the day supply and demand for experienced controllers..

The airport has retained a skeleton ATC unit for a long time, supported by secondments from other airport operators, to keep it's approvals and instrument approach procedures ticking over.

Approach Procedural ratings are rare, and people holding them looking for a job, willing to take a punt on Carlisle are even rarer. Added to that the closure and refurbishment of the airport does not allow for anyone to get any training done..

ifc84,

Where would you do it from?

Are there enough staff in the 'Remote Location' to do EGNC, in addition to their existing tasks?

If you mean doing EGNC remotely from EGMC, it's a completely different physical/ATC environment.

What odds would I give it not opening in early September, no more than evens I think.

my comment was tongue in cheek given the timescale
however it is something smaller airfields could do. this would benefit the likes of Carlisle.
longer term it is do-able.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/19/remote-air-traffic-control-preparing-for-takeoff-at-london-city-airport

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/london-city-digital-air-traffic-control-tower-inside/

TCAS FAN
I don't know the exact circumstances of Sheffield City but from what I recall you are probably correct. I would assume that the airproxes were not between their own traffic but involved itinerant aircraft ? In that respect I would think the risks were far higher at Sheffield than they will be at CAX because of the greater number of GA airfields in the general area and the funneling effect of the low based controlled airspace overhead and to the west and north. My impression is the Carlisle area is very quiet in terms of GA activity. As for military activity one can see the potential for issues, but I would have thought these were containable by appropriate procedures.

But of course radar could provide an additional level of safety, or at least reassurance, though at a cost. My assumption would be that if the cost were assessed to be justified then both CAA and Loganair would require it. An alternative could be the establishment of an RMZ though an Airspace Change Process application is apparently neither quick nor cheap.

Complicated at Carlisle by the proximity of Spadeadam. If transient traffic was required by the RMZ to speak to non-radar controllers at Carlisle that would mean they were not speaking to Spadeadam or the LARS provider for the area, Newcastle.
But Loganair are THE experts in commercial ops into non-radar airports in Class G, so I'm sure they will be giving good advice to Stobart.

What is the quality of low level radar coverage from Newcastle given the distance and height of intervening terrain ? If it is good then there would seem little advantage of a dedicated radar at CAX.

Tagron

If coverage is available do NCL have the staff capacity to provide a service, and if so are they going to provide it FOC? I think not.

Have a gut feeling that this is all going to end in tears.

Aren't the hills between NCL and CAX over a thousand feet?

TCAS FAN

As I see it NCL would not be providing an approach service, only a LARS service as available and appropriate according to the menu of LARS service - Basic, Traffic, Deconfliction etc. The principal of LARS is that it is a free service to the user aircraft and it is subject to capacity availability. I suppose if NCL wanted to play hardball they could. In any case it surely would be at the discretion of the airline as to whether to use it, not a requirement on the airport.

I wonder if Stobart's experience at SEN shaped their thinking when it came to CAX and the CAA? There are those who believe that there are issues down south that should have prevented the CAA granting a licence, in particular St Lawrence church with its spire 105 metres from the runway extension centreline, and the boundary fence of the graveyard under 50 metres.

I'm not qualified to come to any judgement, but if Stobart found the CAA flexible and willing to assist at SEN then they may have expected that attitude as a given at CAX.

DC3 Dave

Don't assume anything with SARG. You mention SEN issues, which are/were Aerodrome Licensing related. SARG is comprised of a number of different entities.

The apparent CAX ATC issues are governed by their Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) Certification, which is a whole different rule book (s) from CAP 168, overseen by SARG's ATS regulators, albeit part of the Airspace, ATM and Aerodromes section.

Broadly speaking the ANSP Certification requirements are far more complex than Aerodrome Licensing when it comes to staffing, which appears to be at least a part of the delay caused to commencement of scheduled air transport flights. The requirements include ATCO licensing, training and working hours regulation. In many respects the scope for flexibility is minimal. Put together with the current shortage of UK ATCOs,,unless CAX has by now recruited them (or are "leasing" them, to use a long term marketing pitch of a UK company) even the delayed target operational date for scheduled services may not be achievable.

In the absence of any further fully qualified ATCOs I would speculate that with only three ATCOs in situ, assuming that all are ADI/APP rated and hold Unit Endorsements, you are possibly looking at a five day week operation with restricted operating hours (not good for delayed flights) or the likelihood of some non ATC availability during the day while duty breaks are taken. That's assuming nobody calls in sick or wants leave!

GLAEDI

Amen bro'.