Inverness hold ups

[jack-oh]

I had 4 ac in the INS hold yesterday, the last with an EAT of 35 mins after his estimate for arrival, there were also 3 ac to depart that slowed the hole thing down. The question is, now that Inverness is becoming busier and the weather worse, how much of an impact are these delays causing?

[Firestorm]

The answer is that has quite an impact on schedules. LC are allowed a 20 minute turnaround time at Inverness, and are on quite tight duty times and rest times, so if they are held up at Inverness on the way to somewhere, where they arrive late, the next day's report time may be delayed to allow sufficient rest.

The ILS at inverness is pretty neat, but the money might have been better spent on a radar. The number of divertions due to weather are fairly low, but with the increase in traffic, particularly in that one period in the afternoon, around 4pm I think, the instances of holding are more frequent. Alternatively, the companies flying into Inverness could, perhaps, look at their schedules to try to avoid congestion. I think LC have about 3 or 4 aircraft in at that 4pm time: maybe if they spread them throughout the afternoon, when Inverness is pretty quiet, that would help. Fat chance.

[eightyknots]

What...........like a horse?

[parkfell]

Procedural approaches are always slow, and not really designed for even modest levels of traffic which Inverness experience at teatime.

Was the EAT + 35 minutes eventually improved upon when transferred to Inverness ATC?

The increased track distances when flying the arcs to the new ILS will also increase the landing interval rate, unless visual approaches are possible from say the initial approach fix.

Inverness and Lossie need to review their procedures and techniques. Involve the operators at any meetings.

The only really way to improve matters is for Lossie to RV to the ILS. This coupled with say two offset holding patterns, one to the north and one to the south, defined from the INS, would help.

I know that Lossie vectoring to the ILS will go down like a lead balloon with Inverness, but at the end of the day, your customers are beginning to suffer. The passengers in delays, and the operators with increased fuel and operating costs. Time is money.

Whether the RAF and SRG will have the courage to improve matters is quite a different issue.

[DB6]

It's not just in the air. If more than two or three aircraft are on the ground at once it seems to overload things there as well. Our winter schedules are out at the end of October so that may help. I seem to recall an argument for class D airspace around Inverness which is just fine as an airline pilot however as a GA pilot I would have to say we have enough of that already. Radar would be good though.
Can the RAF vector onto civvy ILSs? I had an idea that couldn't be done since they might withdraw the service at any time (quite rightly) if their own traffic needed it. The same thing happens at Dundee, Leuchars will provide a RAS but not vectors. No delays at Dundee though, not enough traffic.

[jack-oh]

It is not Lossie's problem that the recovery rate or the infrestucture at Inverness is failing to meet the requirements of its paying customers. Inverness and HIAL are thier own masters, Lossie only provides radar services to civil traffic to resolve conflictions with military aircraft, it is not there to prop up a civil airports failings.
As an aside, HIAL are taking steps to improve the situation and are considering investment in radar, controlled airspace and its own controllers to perform the task. All of these with the support of Lossie and Kinloss.
About 2 years ago Lossie realised the problems that would arrise with increased traffic levels and offered to provide vectors, in an attempt to get civil ac out of the way more quickly than at present. This ment however that Lossie would take on the approach function for a civil airport, this idea did not go down well and was declined. In retrospect it was probably best that it was, as stated before as long as the civil ac are safe and conflictions have been prevented between military ac, Lossie has fullfilled its obligations. The fact the scheduls are suffering is not really the militaries concern, and all complaints should be addressed to Inverness themselves.

[ecj]

Jack-oh

I don't think everyone is having a go at Lossie. As you say, the present arrangements were introduced to provide a RAS/RIS and reduce the threat to GAT in the vicinity of Inverness.
It is entirely predictable that when a radar unit interphases with an approach procedural service, it is the non-radar part of it will determine the flow rates.
Two years ago, EATs were fairly rare. Now at teatime in the weekdays it is the norm. Simply a function of the traffic and the way it is presented to ATC.

How about this for a suggestion:

All deps from 05/23 climb straight ahead to a defined point before flying a radar heading, and then turning on track. Keep these routes separated from offset holding areas defined from the INS with the traffic arcing, and stepping down towards the ILS aka. a circular flow.
Thus inbounds fly defined tracks without the need for Lossie to RV to the ILS.
If both providers think of what is best for the customers, and not the politics of who does what when, then a practical, safe solution is achievable.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX

:rolleyes:

[jack-oh]

ecj,

What you are asking for is a SID, unfortunately civil airports can not publish SIDs outside of CAS. Equally I can give the instruction to maintain RWY TR in the climb, and often do. Believe me dealing with an approach procedural system when we at lossie vector over 100,000 movements a year into both ourselves and Kinloss is frustrating to say the least. We have devised procedures that would completely alleviate the problem but again we are not Inverness approach. We have handed CAS to Inverness on a plate along with radar procedures to accomodate a 3 fold groth in movements, we have also offered a solution to thier radar problem that suits us both. Believe me we are thinking well outside the box and then some, but at the end of the day you can lead a horse to water etc.

[ecj]

Jack- oh

Whilst you are quite correct that SIDs only exist within CAS, what I was thinking about are departure routes in class G airspace.

As you say, climbing straight ahead off 05/23 is the answer, against traffic arcing for the ILS.

It is evident that the interested parties do require to meet again, and discuss the issues, and this time try and keep the politics to one side.

The bottom line is what is best for the "customers".


;)