Coventry SSR

[tunalic2]

Why can't Coventry ATC get a data link to Birminghams SSR?

Would it be that expensive in these days of ADSL etc?

Am I naive in thinkin this would be a relative low cost help?

Am I correct in thinking that the two ATC's are different business's owned and paid for by different managements with different business interests?

If correct (and I apologise if I have got it all wrong) what would be a better solution?

T2

[Carbide Finger]

Yes you are right. Why would Brum ATC want to share a SSR feed that they pay for.

I also think that your average ADSL line is not quite robust enough for ATC!

The 'Pink Pipe' between LTCC and LACC is actually 4 seperate links to allow for redundancy etc.

[almost professional]

Birmingham get their SSR feed from I believe Clee Hill(when its working!)
nothing to stop Coventry from getting the same feed sent up a phone line-it does of course cost and they may also need additional equipment to add the SSR labels to their existing primary radar kit,
controllers may also need validating on SSR if they have not used it before

[tunalic2]

I realise that there would be a cost involved , how much I have no idea, maybe it would be too much

I would think that someone out there might have an informed opinion on the costs.

T2

[tmmorris]

Same applies to Gloucester - hats off to them for managing their traffic on primary only, but it would be great if they had access to the nearby SSR (would that also be Clee Hill, perchance?)

Tim

[tunalic2]

Absolutely

if you look at the primary screens they can even get returns from the lorries on the road at Coventry!

Then they have to distinguish from all the traffic upto flight level whatever! It gets pretty cluttered.

[VCR]

I believe its about £50K per annum for Gloucester to get SSR piped from Clee Hill......don't know how much our friends at Brize would charge? Not really cost effective at the moment, but in the not too distant future.....who knows?!;)

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

It is rumoured that BE will have SSR fed in by April next year,along with new comms,new radar displays and new desks!!!
:D

[360BakTrak]

Cher-Ching! Have they had all six numbers on a saturday night?!:}

[niknak]

£50K per year is about the going rate.
Justify that in a business plan to the Coventry board and it'll be approved tomorrow.

As Gloucester is one of the few airports in the UK still subsidised by the local tax payer, I'd be very suprised, but very happy, if it happens there.

All sorts of scary things appear when you get SSR, but that's another story....:p

[matspart3]

A point of order!!

Gloucestershire Airport Ltd. is not, in any way, shape or form subsidised by local taxpayers or anybody else for that matter.

On the contrary, since it's formation in 1993, it has returned steadily improving operating profits and paid dividends to it's two shareholders, Gloucester City & Cheltenham Borough Councils (£50K last year).

This is no mean feat for a predominantly GA operation and the staff can be justifiably proud of their efforts to achieve this.

(climbs off soapbox)

The business case for SSR doesn't stack up easily with GA traffic. With roughly 90 000 movements per year, a levy of £1 per landing doesn't seem excessive on paper, but when you consider that this would equate to an extra £7 or 8 per hour on a circuit training session (where the txpndr is off!), I'll have a job selling it to our flying schools, who are already bearing the brunt of AVGAS rises.

It begs the question why NATS has to make a profit for the provision of this safety related data?