London gets LARS!

[SQUAWKIDENT]

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=33331

[IO540]

Very good news.

[scubawasp]

Wow. I can't believe something positive like that is going to happen. Though about time - especially for those teaching the IMCR

[Finals19]

Included in my prayers will be:

"Dear Lord, please let it be H24"
(slim chance I know)

Great news though. Now we have this coming our way, lets hope they structure it to meet demand - in otherwords AVAILABLE ON WEEKENDS!

[chevvron]

7 days a week probably same hours as present Farnborough operation.

[Dysonsphere]

I think youll find Farnbourgh can be very hard to talk to on weekends (at least the LARS bit)

[Magp1e]

According to the link, Farnborough are identified as the unit that will be providing LARS in the London area up towards Luton and Stansted. Does Farnborough have suitable radar coverage to provide LARS below 2400ft QNH that far NE?

[Saab Dastard]

Magp1e,

In this day and age with high-speed data links, the location of the radar head(s) and the controller are (to all intents and purposes) independent.

SD

[AlanM]

Saab

In my mind, it is not really what was asked. It is not about where London LARS sits, but the quality of what is being presented to them. A single source radar is unlikely to provide everything needed at the lower levels around the LTMA. A composite source brings in other SRG factors. Yes, datalinks are relatively easy. Finding a suitable source will be the key.

[MikeJ]

This news of a London LARS is indeed excellent. But does anyone know how many frequencies will be allocated, and the division of sectors?
The wonderful guys and gals at Farnborough LARS do an unbelievably good job given the so often gross congestion on 125.25, which is not just at weekends. But they are only covering less than 20% of the space under the TMA (plus Odiham MATZ crossings, etc).

Up to a few years ago, Dunsfold operated a LARS, and this gave enormous, valuable relief to the congestion, as they split the area between them.

I'm a very frequent user of Farnborough LARS, and on my visit there they told us how much they wanted us to log in with them, to know our intentions to aid threading their Bizjets through the busy Class G airspace. It seems to me that a minimum of 4 controllers, each on their own frequency, is needed to cover the whole area under the TMA.

[Fuji Abound]

to know our intentions to aid threading their Bizjets through the busy Class G airspace.

Ooo good, glad to see they have worked out their priorities then.

[AlanM]

Grow up mate

It is not about saving a bizjet! If you both come together you could both die.

MikeJ - you are probably correct - I can't see it happening safely with less than four freqs. Not sure if that has been looked at though..........

[Fuji Abound]

It is not about saving a bizjet! If you both come together you could both die.

Yep, I think we just about worked that out.

Strangely, we also worked out that if a couple of light twins come together you also both die.

Even more strangely, if two light singles come together the result is vaguely similar.

I am afraid aircraft aren’t to choosey about whether they are pretty bizjets or a couple of old Turkeys.

Reality is there is far less chance of a Bizjet hitting another aircraft firstly because the time they spend OCAS with a Farnborough departure is minimal and they will be fitted with TCAS.

Sorry if I took MikeJ’s comments literally, and even with my usual cynicism I don’t suppose NATS are really providing this service to aid the controllers threading the odd bizjet through those nuisance light aviators!

[Giles Wembley-Hogg]

Since the callsign "London Radar" is already taken. What will they call themselves? If they are going with the river motif (a la "Thames Radar") how about "Lea Radar" for the bit north of the Thames and "Mole Radar" for the bit to the south????!!!!!!

Or we could resurrect some names from the past "Kent" and "Bedford" perhaps??

G W-H

(Just been to the pub - full of good ideas!!)

[AlanM]

Fuji

Even for me, the number of times you mention NATS in a derogatory post is quite alarming.

SO tell us, what have NATS done to upset you??? :)

[Fuji Abound]

SO tell us, what have NATS done to upset you???

GA in much of the London area practically operates in a 1,400 foot corridor with many choke points caused by CAS. I suspect the amount of traffic has increased, as has the speed, whilst the service has diminished.

NATS principally provides a service to aircraft operating within CAS. Understandably, given their remit, historically they have done little to provide a service to traffic OCAS. Perhaps cynically some would say “one reason for the provision of a London LARS now is to reduce the number of CAS infringements” or “to aid threading their Bizjets through the busy Class G airspace”.

Our Government on the other hand is charged with providing common access to our airspace and for ensuring users can expect to use our airspace as safely and efficiently as possible. At least for that reason our Government retains a significant shareholding in NATS.

Our Government therefore has a difficult balance to achieve between the profit motivated aspirations of a commercial national air traffic service provider and the needs of GA.

Radar heads operated by NATS already provide significant cover for the London area. The data “exists” and could be provided at marginal cost to other LARS units who are competent to provide a service OCAS. NATS has historically been reluctant to provide such data feeds at marginal cost.

NATS has done b%44er all to upset me, they do precisely what I would expect them to do within the terms of their remit.

However, I am very concerned about the terms of their remit.

Put simply, and IMHO, if you create a system that constricts traffic in the way that has occurred around London without an eye to the increase in speed and volume of that traffic and the service it needs to conduct itself safely you are negligent.

For these reasons if you think it is NATS that has upset me you are seriously misguided.

Realistically NATS are not altruism providers, and so for their failings you had better look elsewhere.

Sorry if I took MikeJ’s comments literally, and even with my usual cynicism I don’t suppose NATS are really providing this service to aid the controllers threading the odd bizjet through those nuisance light aviators!

Finally, if you think that was derogatory you are also misguided. In fact quite the opposite, I cant imagine the average controller at Farnborough wants GA to log in with them purely to enable the efficient flow of their Bizjet traffic, and if they do, I doubt they would want to give this impression. In so far I was intending to put the record straight.

[AlanM]

Radar heads operated by NATS already provide significant cover for the London area

With respect to you, that statement is not true. Simple as that.

Whilst I haven't been a big fan of NATS in terms of GA service provision, surely the fault stems from the Government providing a profit driven PPP company - and the CAA for not paying for LARS. (Aren't they they ones that take most many from GA - not NATS??)

During the "Privatisation" many of us in NATS were predicting the subsequent dropping of LARS by units as having a big hit in the GA world. I don't remember too much support for us in stopping the PPP from any of the organisations that perhaps should have helped block the PPP. How vocal were the BHAB/HCGB/AOPA etc?

[IO540]

As I said I think this is very good news and we should not look a gift horse in the mouth.

However, as this is a discussion forum :) let me add that I also wish that the PPL training scene was overhauled to include GPS training, and the usage of moving map GPS units became as widespread in training as it is in some sectors of GA.

Then, there would be far fewer CAS busts, and IMHO it is CAS busts (and the resulting possibility of a major accident) that are the primary driver behind this new service.

Apparently, the provision of a radar service which must cost somebody an extra £1M a year in ATCO salaries alone (counting employer's contributions and benefits) is easier to achieve than dragging the PPL syllabus, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century.

Just an observation...

[ShyTorque]

IO,

Regarding GPS training, I think the present scheme of navigation should continue to concentrate on the basics of DR but the individual should be encouraged to make use of modern aids where available after PPL qualification. Otherwise, it will only increase the cost of the licence. Also, if the use of GPS is introduced too early, human nature being what it is, pilots will undoubtedly rely on it too much and not become proficient in the basics, which may have the opposite effect to that required.

An "add-on" training scheme post PPL, maybe; such as the "pass-plus" for driving might be a way forward. Trouble is, there are so many different types of GPS equipment; from my own experience, the most difficult part of GPS is working out which buttons to press to get the desired effect to appear on the magic box!

[chevvron]

To try to answer some of your questions:
Initially there will one extra sector working alongside the present 125.250 person. Frequency is to be allocated, but don't be surprised if it sounds familiar. Farnborough already has access to two radar heads at Heathrow plus the Pease SSR head (sited south of Gatwick). It's probable the Stansted primary will be added to this tally, plus maybe Debden SSR.
Transponder codes are in short supply; Farnborough already has use of much of the 04XX block and maybe the rest could be allocated. But don't be surprised if an aircraft at (say) Basingstoke is allocated the same code as one at (say) Thurrock.

[Fuji Abound]

With respect to you, that statement is not true. Simple as that.

Well, you may well know something NATS doesn’t and should tell them. They (NATS) seem to think they can provide a LLARS.

surely the fault stems from the Government providing a profit driven PPP company

Yes, I thought that was what I said.

How vocal were the BHAB/HCGB/AOPA etc?

A very good observation. AOPA who should represent us on matters of any importance are utterly useless. They say that is changing - I say I will wait and see.

Then, there would be far fewer CAS busts, and IMHO it is CAS busts (and the resulting possibility of a major accident) that are the primary driver behind this new service.

Is it? You may be right, but some would accuse us of being cynical if we said so.

I am far more concerned about collision avoidance. For those reading this thread who are not aware, even if you pride yourself on always maintaining a really good look out, the chances of your seeing an aircraft that is going to hit you are remarkably small. In reality the reason why there are so few collisions is down to the big sky theory. However, the vertical restrictions, corridors and choke points around London combined with the traffic moving faster, the increase in volume, the reduction in services and the periods during which the services are over loaded are combining to create a less than safe environment.

If you can, go fly in an aircraft with TCAS. Yesterday it enabled me to “spot” three aircraft I doubt I would have seen if I am honest all within 3 miles. Vectoring for the ILS yesterday another aircraft was driving the controller mad with a TCAS advisory - traffic the controller was clearly aware of and maintaining adequate separation with. I doubt GA has any perception how often they woul receive a TCAS advisory around London - and that is only transponding aircraft.

Farnborough do a sterling job but consider this - at the very times of highest traffic congestion, and therefore collision risk, how often do you hear - FIS only due to controller work load. How may of those aircraft can fall back on TCAS? 1 in 100?

[chevvron]

If they're VFR in class G they should use EYEBALL not rely totally on electronic gizmos. How many non transponders did your TCAS show?

[Fuji Abound]

they should use EYEBALL

Here are some sobering facts.

To see and recognise an aircraft - 1 sec,
Become aware you will collide - 6 sec,
Decide to turn - 10 sec,
Time to react and turn - 13 sec.

(source the FAA)

Realistic distance at which to see aircraft in good conditions - 3 miles

(source FAA)

Time to collision if you spot the aircraft at 3 miles excluding reaction time (above)


Combined speeds of 360 mph 17 secs.

Good luck!

The mark 1 eyeball is nice in theory, not bad if thats all youve got, will do a better job against non transponding traffic, because they are likely to be slow moving and in the case of a glider rarely following a steady course, not much good against a fast single or twin with the autopilot in command, maintaining a constant position on the screen coming at you over your left or right sholder. Reduce the viz a bit and I wish you the very best of luck. If he is actually on a collision course with you I would be amazed if you ever see him.

[chevvron]

What part of VFR do you not understand? Sure TCAS is a tool to assist you, but it's not the only method you should use.

[IO540]

It's true that "see and avoid" is a fallacy, propagated by generations of grey haired flying instructors ever since man first took to the skies.

An aircraft on a genuine collision course will be a stationary point in the sky and you won't spot it until much too late.

Those you saw, including the really close ones which "would have got you if you didn't take action" would in all probability not have hit you had you totally ignored them.

All this goes against the established teaching, of course.

Fuji - you are also right, but if I wanted a comprehensive solution I would spend £10k on a TCAS system. This would be useless for traffic avoidance until transponders are mandatory on all things that fly around - just like an RIS from Farnborough as it happens ;) A nontransponding target on a known azimuth could be anywhere vertically; most of them can't be spotted no matter how hard you look.

[airac]

but if I wanted a comprehensive solution I would spend £10k on a TCAS system.

Never mind TCAS make them all have radios and lookout instead of relying on expensive gismos that only tell you half the story:ugh:

[Fuji Abound]

What part of VFR do you not understand?

Yep, very smug.

Never mind TCAS make them all have radios and lookout instead of relying on expensive gismos that only tell you half the story.

You, like most of us, have convinced yourself you will (see and avoid) because that is what we are all taught. You have seen an avoided a fair few aircraft and you think you will see them all.

How many pilots have you flown with?

Have you watched how effective their visual scan is?

Do you appreciate where statistically the highest risk of collision is? Guess what, it is also where the pilots work load is highest. Guess what, how effective do you think the visual scan of low time pilots (most) is when they are working hard.

Do you realise that you are relying on these pilots for 50% of the time to see and avoid you?

Surprisingly the CAA would not agree with you either. This is what they have to say.

“The principal means of avoiding collisions in uncontrolled airspace is “see and avoid”. Available evidence suggests that the effectiveness of “see and avoid” is questionable when used in isolation (i.e. not in conjunction with a radar service), implying an increased risk of failure to detect a loss of separation.”

Nor would the director of the professional pilots’ association.

“It is publications like the FAA's Advisory Circular on collision avoidance that help perpetuate the idea that all you have to do is pay attention, look out the windshield, and you won't have a midair collision. Rather, the FAA should be telling pilots how dangerous the see-and-avoid concept really is as a means of separating aircraft.”

It leaves me wondering on what you rely to support your position. It cant be scientific evidence, it cant be on what the CAA has to tell us, it cant be on what professional pilots have to say - I wonder what it is.

Clearly you have never used TCAS. You get an aural alert, no looking at screens, no head in the cockpit, your eyes are outside just where they should be. However, for transponding traffic, TCAS will tell you what your eyes have often missed. It will tell you where to look so you can be sure OF seeing AND avoiding it. It is not perfect and most of us haven’t got it. That is why LLARS is so desperately needed. It is TCAS in another form

So I will go one looking out of the cockpit fully aware that I will miss most of the traffic but grateful that TCAS will find some of it for me and LLARS will help me a bit more.

[rustle]

Fuji

Even for me, the number of times you mention NATS in a derogatory post is quite alarming.

SO tell us, what have NATS done to upset you??? :)

Alan, don't worry about it: If FA won the Euromillions jackpot he'd still whinge about having to go pick-up the cheque.

[Fuji Abound]

Alan, don't worry about it: If FA won the Euromillions jackpot he'd still whinge about having to go pick-up the cheque.

Glad to see as usual, constructive, well informed, a genuine contribution to an interesting debate - just what is needed on the forum. :O

I dont really know why I am bothering to comment but,

It is well worth reading all the posts before commenting.

Moreover, if we had nothing to whinge about, I dont suppose anything would every change - but I guess there are those who are happy to think that NATS is a perfectly run organisation as is the government's civil airspace policy.

Anyway that's me done on this thread, I really cant be bothered when the discussion gets reduced to petty comments such as this

- good luck to you Rustle if that is what rows your boat.

[airac]

F A don't get out of your pram simply because people do not agree with your views.
You make several assumptions in your posts
I am not convinced see and be seen is the only solution.
I have flown with several over the years and always maintained a keen look out and it is, very effective .
Yes I do appreciate where the greatest risk of a collision is you are extremely condescending to assume otherwise
I think generally you'll find that if both pilots are maintaining a good look out that it would represent 50% of the work load.
Quote what you like from the CAA ,IF it was that dangerous how could they allow non radar units to operate?
As for my stance I do not advocate a reliance on any one particular method.
TCAS is a great aid but it wont matter a tinkers toss if the a/c coming the other way is a non radio/non transponder tiger moth .
As for your final point regarding a radar service ,ATSOCAS is in the final stages of a review. Unfortunately the changes being proposed , will do nothing to increase the understanding of services available and the limitations that go with each one . Whilst you as a pilot ,I presume, have the right to fly in uncontrolled airspace, with out the need to talk or squawk, the mark one eyeball is, along with the other rules of the air, the only common tool available to all, in order to decrease the risk of collisions .
Also from a personal point of view don't get so grumpy:=

[chevvron]

My own personal view is that if someone calls me asking for FIS, then irrespective of visibility and workload permitting, I'll act as an extra pair of eyes and warn them of anything that will obviously get close. You have to be a bit circumspect of course; wouldn't want a pilot to concentrate on one area of sky and omit to scan the rest, but by doing this you build up a rapport and work together to make the sky safer.

[SQUAWKIDENT]

I see this in the NOTAMS for tomorrow:
FARNBOROUGH LARS EXTENSION A TEMPORARY EXTENSION, TO ENABLE CONTROLLER TRAINING, OF THE FARNBOROUGH LOWER AIRSPACE RADAR SERVICE (LARS) WILL BE ESTABLISHED TO THE EAST OF THE EXISTING SERVICE, TO COVER THE AIRSPACE BELOW THE LONDON TMA IN THE AREA: 513612N 0002650W, 513602N 0002241E, 511814N 0003550E, 505613N 0003110E, 504354N 0001455E, 504325N 0003247W, 504846N 0003247W, 510054N 0002700W, 511818N 0002650W, 512014N 0002550W WITHIN THE NEW LARS (EAST) AREA AND PROMULGATED TIMES, FARNBOROUGH WILL ENDEAVOUR TO PROVIDE A FULL LARS SERVICE, SUBJECT STAFF LEVELS. A FULL LARS SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE EXISTING AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY LARS (WEST). FREQUENCIES LARS (WEST) (EXISTING LARS AREA) SERVICE FREQUENCY 125.250 MHZ LARS (EAST) SERVICE FREQUENCY 123.225 MHZ CALLSIGN 'FARNBOROUGH RADAR' AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE UK AIP ENR 1.6.3.

Is this the start of the "London LARS" service but only covering the southern bit of the London TMA? Any idea when the other bits get LARS coverage?
Off to Turweston and White Waltham tomorrow from Denham. I assume from the above NOTAM that my flight will not be able to receive a LARS service for the short time I am close to the London TMA.

[pulse1]

The new service is being introduced in stages.

11 - 23 Sep: Kent, Surrey and Sussex from 10:00 - 16:00 on 123.225

24 Sep as above from 08:00 to 20:00 local every day.

Early 2008 Essex, Herts and Bedfordshire

[SQUAWKIDENT]

Thanks for the info:ok:

[chevvron]

Not forgetting the normal LARS on 125.250 will still operate 0800 - 2000 local times 30nm radius of Farnborough.
Extension of service to cover the areas surrounding Luton and Stansted regulated airspace will occur early next year, meantime radar coverage has been increased by 'piping in' extra radar sources such as Stansted primary and Debden secondary radars.

[Fright Level]

Check the NOTAMS, you'll see Farnborough Radar training on two frequencies, a new one to cover the eastern sector.

[Standard Noise]

Don't be surprised by the 'ooh-arr, ooh-arr'. That's just one of our guys seconded up there, showing them what to do.

Be gentle and don't break him, we want him back!

[Saab Dastard]

Where are the transceivers located that will handle the Essex / Kent N/S London LARS VHF traffic?

I assume that existing transceivers will be used, but I am curious as to where they are located.

Anyone know?

SD