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.