EGTK Radar?

[deltaalphaecho]

Does anyone know when Oxford are due to install radar?
I have a source on the inside that says they're banking on having it in by the 2012 Olympics. Any ideas?
It seems strange to me, personally, that it's taken them so long to get it.
:confused:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I tried to get them to get radar in 1971; guess they have other things on their plate!

[deltaalphaecho]

Another tid-bit of info... NATS have stepped up to the plate as engineers.
Interesting that Oxford have decided to go that route, I would've thought they'd rather go independent installation.
Won't going with NATS mean they'll have to use NATS for their radar courses?

[eastern wiseguy]

Won't going with NATS mean they'll have to use NATS for their radar courses?

Not at all. This is just another example of NATS competing for and winning contracts.

They have done the same sort of thing at non NATS airfields like Belfast City and Ronaldsway.

[niknak]

Another tid-bit of info... NATS have stepped up to the plate as engineers.
Interesting that Oxford have decided to go that route, I would've thought they'd rather go independent installation.
Won't going with NATS mean they'll have to use NATS for their radar courses?

When I was at another regional airport, a couple of years ago we invited tenders for the instillation of an ILS on the non precision end. NATS were by far the most competetive and most professional bidder.

Oxford Airport Management have no operational experience of installing and opertaing any radar systems and they are sensible enough to recognise this.
They have two options:

1. Have their own radar system installed. Due to the complexity of the local airspace this would almost certainly have to include the provision of SSR. Then they'd have to employ radar rated ATCOs (around 8 of them to cover the current airport hours at abround £55 to £60k per annum each in that area).They'd also have to employ the appropriately qualified engineers.
Instillation would cost in the region of £1m plus around £40k a year for SSR.
There would also be ongoing parts costs, none of which are cheap.
If they employ their own radar rated ATCOs they can send them where they want for training.

2. Contract it all out to NATS for them to provide a centralised approach from Swanwick. For one fixed cost per year, you get all of the above which would almost certainly cost less than a "greenfield installation" and the ongoing costs.
Additionally, they will in the future, only have to employ Tower rated atcos at the airport as NATS will always provide radar and approach rated ATCOs to provide an approach service from Swanwick.
You've got to remember that Oxford never has had radar before so, although in my opinion they don't have the commercial income to justify the cost of either option and never will, if they want it, option two is the sensible choice.

If the Airport owners are looking for a comparison, they should look at Inverness.
They were persuaded to employ a non NATS provider for the instillation and launch of their own radar. The provider was perfectly candid about costs and ongoing expenditure but HIAL still went with it as opposed to centralising the APS function and now they are paying very heavily for it.
Still, that's HIAL for you, twas ever thus I suppose.:rolleyes:

[throw a dyce]

Niknak,
I'm curious to where a centralised approach function for Inverness would have been done from?

[deltaalphaecho]

I heard they're hoping to keep all their current ATC staff and just employ greenfielders to cover the installation and operation whilst the current ATCOs are on radar course. Don't see how they can justify this, personally, as some of their ATCOs aren't up to the job!

[ZOOKER]

Will the RTF callsign be 'London Radar'?
Or will they be using Morse?

[eastern wiseguy]

Zooker...lol

[ZOOKER]

eastern, thank-you.
In fact, thinking of future LTMA development, 'MORSE' and 'LEWIS' would be splendid holding patterns for said airfield. :ok:
A class above ARTHA DALEY! :E

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Don't see how they can justify this, personally, as some of their ATCOs aren't up to the job!>>

That's a pretty outrageous statement from someone who reveals nothing in his profile. I wonder what grounds he/she has for saying that?

[trafficnotsighted]

HD - you beat me too it, sounds like DELTA has been "sent around" too many times for his/her liking.

[ATCO Fred]

Then they'd have to employ radar rated ATCOs (around 8 of them to cover the current airport hours at abround £55 to £60k per annum

Cheers Nik Nak - if you can secure those sort of T&C's we'll be most welcome.:ok:



<<Don't see how they can justify this, personally, as some of their ATCOs aren't up to the job!>>

That's a pretty outrageous statement from someone who reveals nothing in his profile. I wonder what grounds he/she has for saying that?
12th Dec 2010 22:23

Cheers HD. Taking into consideration that we are still utilising the outdated and painfully slow form of ATC (App Procedural) we are punching well above our weight. With circa 60-70 jets/turbo-props based at TK and with a full IFR flow rate of 6 per hour the demand for IFR slots is often greater than the number of slots available. Plus no ATM, a ready great danger area (often not active:mad:) and Brize no longer providing a service outside LARS hours, yeah we are all trainee Jedi Nights cause the Force is strong...it has to be!

A considerable amount has been invested in the airport these past 3 years, we've been patient and it's now our turn. NATS have taken over as provider of maintenance and the Voice Coms Upgrade project that should have started in August is delayed until this Feb. Personally I'll be pleased to get rid of those poxy Airlite headsets - I was wearing those when I started controlling 25 years ago.

Onwards and upwards.... Hey - but at least we got a free uniform!!!

[ATCO Fred]

Will the RTF callsign be 'London Radar'?
Or will they be using Morse?

Oxford Radar I should imagine - but personnaly I'd like to see Cotswold Radar

[anotherthing]

Are a hell of a lot more reliable than the ones that replaced them. Many NATS people would prefer to revert back to the old headsets...


You've got to remember that Oxford never has had radar before so, although in my opinion they don't have the commercial income to justify the cost of either option and never will...
NikNak - Oxford have aspirations for a huge increase in traffic - possibly using the Olympics as a springboard. If they get their way (bearing in mind they do not have the same Local Council restraints that have hampered Farnborough), then they will have the income...

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Hi Fred... I sympathise with you. At least you have a slightly better tower than when I was there in 70ish!! It was damnably busy in those days but there were no based jets then - just lots of Navajos and six million Cherokees. There was usually one fully-licenced ATCO on duty then with his headset on running a busy procedural approach whilst legally responsible for Student Controllers on Ground and Air!! Great fun...

[TottyTamer]

I have to say I'm inclined to agree with Delta.
Not only have a few of Oxford's ATCO's (on more than one occasion) shown a lack of confidence, ability and professionalism, but their ATCA's don't seem to be faring too well either.
Quite a number of my questions put forward to the ATCA's have been met by an "Errm..." or a "Hold on, I'll just ask someone who knows".
To me this is rather diappointing to see. I like to know that the employees of an airfield I am using are competent as it makes for much safer co-ordination!
Maybe management should be thinking of new staff to go along with that new radar?

[trafficnotsighted]

Totty or should i call you by your other name Delta, they must have really upset you for you to go to such lengths. The correct answer from an ATCA that does not know the answer to a question is "i'll just ask someone who knows". or would you like them to have a guess at information such the status of danger area's.etc.:ugh:

[bad bear]

The radar will be a mixed blessing. The local ATC guys could be the best candidates as they know what is going on in the local area. Im not sure how a NATS safety case would stack up with 2 gliding clubs within 5 nm and all the traffic that is forced to squeeze between Birmingham and Brize and of course between Brize and Weston. This is the busiest VFR play ground in the UK and the VFR traffic wont go away because it cant, there is no where else to go. I simply dont think the NATS lawers would alow them to bid for this contract and if they did the Oxford arrivals or departures would have to wait till dark 'o'clock to get a big enough gap in the sky to deconflict the flight. If all the VFR traffic within 10 nm were to call the friequency would be saturated. Imagine all 50 competitors from Bicester calling one after the other for 60 min...... Bicester is less than 5nm form the C/L of the ILS and most competitors would be up wind, given a westery they would be about 3nm, well then there is Weston at 3nm from theC/L,,, Gliding alone can generate over 400 movements per day within 10nm, how would NATS lawers feel about that?
bb

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Seems to me the ATCA was behaving correctly. When I was trained as a controller I was told that if I did not know the answer to a question I must know where to find the answer. As an experienced controller at Heathrow I sometimes had to ask a pilot to standby while I found the answer. Heck, you can't expect a fairly junior member of staff to be the local Wikipedia!!

Bad bear... have you ever listened to Farnborough Radar on a busy summer weekend? And what, pray, is a "lawer"??

[Sir Herbert Gussett]

Will the RTF callsign be 'London Radar'?
Or will they be using Morse?

Now that is clever wit; well done that man :D:D:D

[trafficnotsighted]

BAD - There is a lot more airpsace around the area for the VFR's than there was in the early 90's, when Upper Heyford was open and TK was knocking out 1000-1200 movements on a good day.

[Spitoon]

bad bear, you seem to be falling into a common trap of saying something that you don't like wouldn't/couldn't possibly have a safety case. I worked for years at an aerodrome providing radar services outside CAS in a busy part of the world, there was gliders and microlight within the CTZ/CTA and military activity of various descriptions pretty much all around. It worked OK, within the limitations of the environment, but made some of the NATS controllers who came on liaison visits go pale. This was in the days pre-safety cases but I would have no difficulty in preparing one for the operations. There is no need to hide behind the regulations - I am quite sure that an adequate safety case could be prepared for a TK radar service.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[deltaalphaecho]

Whoa there, hold your aircraft!
I only meant that from personal experience a few of the current ATCOs might not be up for the job of radar.
As for 'Tottytamer', I don't appreciate being dragged in to your poor opinion of the ATCOs and ATCAs at Oxford. If you've got a problem, which you obviously have, take it the official route rather than b****ing on here. There are ways and means of stating your concerns, or haven't you been in the game that long?
I've got nothing agains the ATCAs, having had pleasant experiences when I've spoken to any of them. And as I hear it, one of thems a bit of alright. :ok:

[NorthSouth]

niknak:Contract it all out to NATS for them to provide a centralised approach from SwanwickHow would that work? Nearest NERL radars Debden and Clee Hill, both long-range radars not suitable for LARS work and probably don't have the required low level cover, and certainly no use for SRAs nor probably for vectoring to final approach.

If the Airport owners are looking for a comparison, they should look at Inverness. They were persuaded to employ a non NATS provider for the instillation and launch of their own radar. The provider was perfectly candid about costs and ongoing expenditure but HIAL still went with it as opposed to centralising the APS functionAs someone else has said, how could you centralise that function with NATS? Nearest radar is Allanshill, getting on for 100 miles away. Also, were you aware that the HIAL ATE function is contracted to NATS?

NS

[Cows getting bigger]

Daft question, why can't Oxford just do the radar from Brize? Is it the age old - "well their kit isn't licensed" argument?

[spekesoftly]

Is it the age old - "well their kit isn't licensed" argument?There are previous examples of Civil ATC using Military radar. Norwich did many years ago, and more recently Doncaster radar used the Waddington PSR and Scampton SSR.

[chevvron]

An approach function from Swanwick would involve Band 5 controllers doing a job normally done by Band 1 or 2 controllers - far too expensive.
From using Debden 23cm on Farnborough LARS North, I would say, contrary to what NorthSouth said, it's an excellent LARS radar - you can see traffic on primary almost to touchdown at Wyton about 25nm away,(much better than Stansted 10cm due to it being sited about 400ft+ amsl) and RAE Bedford used their SSR feed. I never used it to look towards Oxford so I can't say how well it sees there; I used to use the 'new' Heathrow 10cm in this area as it gave better low cover than the Heathrow 23cm.
Brize already have (or had) a procedure where they would vector for Oxford, but as said before, they tend to close radar positions late afternoon; they may well have sufficient room to allocate a console for Oxford using an Oxford controller. Cranfield Radar used to be done from Bedford, and the initial plan for Farnborough under TAG control was for Farnborough Approach to be done from Odiham by Farnborough controllers, (with the RAF taking over the LARS - we actually started training them for this)so there are precedents.
The main problem with using RAF units for civil tasks is security; during certain practice alerts, RAF stations are made impenetrable to outsiders and to get to the tower at Brize, you not only do you need to access the station but you would also need to go 'airside' to cross the airfield.
All things considered, I reckon the most viable option (not necessarily the cheapest) would be a new primary radar at Oxford, with an SSR feed from Heathrow or Clee Hill. Alternatively, get together with Cranfield and find a site for a primary radar convenient to serve both airfields.

[NorthSouth]

chevvron:get together with Cranfield and find a site for a primary radar convenient to serve both airfieldsBrilliant idea, if they could find the right site it would save them both millions. I wonder if either of them have thought of it?
NS

[Buster the Bear]

Western Radar expansion!

[verticalhold]

A pilot here.

I'm TK based and have the utmost respect for all the controllers. I would suggest that the person who claimed some of their controllers aren't up to the job should go there on a busy day and marvel at what they achieve. The major problems in the area are visiting crews who don't understand what they are doing and downright fools who fly through the approach without talking to either TK or Brize. I find it a tad frustrating having to go round due to a TCAS RA when established and finding that the other pilot is just ignoring where he is and simply can'y be bothered telling anyone what he is up to.

I have had far worse services at much bigger airports in the UK, a list of the poor to down right bloody incompetent would probably not be welcome here, but it is a subject heavily discussed by pilots in the places we meet.

How about controlled airspace as well. Then life would be a lot easier.

P.S. Fred; At least the uniform goes with your eyes!!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

verticalhold..... Sounds like it ever was. I was in ATC Oxford in 1971. A number of the more senior instructors were very much against radar as they felt that it would be restrictive, yet when things were downright grim they would gaily do QGHs!! It was very scary running a hold in IMC with half a dozen twins and some charlie would call "... just coming up to your overhead at FL55, any traffic?" Aarrgghh.

Controlled Airspace is for sensible pilots and controllers but the clockwork mice brigade have a very strong lobby....

Keep taking the tablets.

[verticalhold]

HD

I have a clockwork mouse too. Sadly some of my aquaintences from that world have no idea of the problems they cause on occasion.

VH

[Cows getting bigger]

I'm not sure just installing a radar is the solution. There are many of us who operate in the area and recognise the complexity and intensity. Not only are there a large number of wide-ranging activities (gliding, parachuting, GA, RAF etc etc) but the interaction is quite complex. Dropping-in a radar without significant planning, airspace redesign(?) and consultation may create more problems than it solves. I would suggest that there is a need to clearly define (simplify?) responsibilities otherwise there would be at least 3 radar units (Brize, Benson, Oxford) providing ATSOCAS in the same crowded bit of sky.

Maybe there are some lessons to be learnt from the Farnborough LARS development. :hmm:

[verticalhold]

Benson; not open much at the moment and likely to be less so in the future.

Brize; LARS hours much less than TK opening and they don't want to provide a service to IFR traffic at TK.

Farnborough; Doesn't reach that far.

The people at TK are not fools and wil look at every option on merit. Radar the sooner the better for the operators.

TK

[qsyenroute]

"When I was trained as a controller I was told that if I did not know the answer to a question I must know where to find the answer"

Heathrow Director, was it East the Beast who gave you this philospohphical tip? And if so did the answer lie in the back of his little camper van?

[Over+Out]

I am a TC Controller. I hate TK joiners and leavers at CPT. There are no procedures that really work and an aircraft calling for join or leaving CAS are an incident waiting to happen. I have seen loads of these near incidents and TC is just too busy to provide a radar service outside CAS.
Somebody has spent a lot of money in providing facilities at TK, they should have spent money so that those operators were safe joining and leaving CAS .
I think there should be one unit only proving a radar service in this area and it should be either VN or LF LARS

[qsyenroute]

I think "over and out" has just summed up why ant suggestion of giving a radar service contract to NATS would not be in the best interests of EGTK

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

qsyenroute... Good God, no!! It was when I was trained some years before encountering that gentleman!!!

[niknak]

Lets get some facts straight shall we?

The owners of Oxford cannot justify the costs of an approach radar service by installing their own radar, based upon present commercial income at the airport, unless they want to do so from their own resources. We are talking of an investment of £1m plus just to get it installed and flight checked, then you've got ongoing costs of ATCOs and engineers. Anyone who questions costs of less than £800k for a 0600 -2000 operation has no idea of the real world.

There is some justification for providing a joint approach radar service for Oxford/Cranfield by one unit, but where is the funding for this going to come from?

LARS? Oh dear! you've got to have the ability to provide the basic services before you even get this far!

Radar at Oxford is a laudable idea, but it's got to be commercially viable.
The only way a long term plan would work is biting the bullet and contracting out to NATS, the current "Odd Job" way of doing things there is simply not a viable idea.

[NorthSouth]

niknak:The only way a long term plan would work is biting the bullet and contracting out to NATSBut I think it might be worth differentiating between:
1) contracting out to NATS = buying a radar feed from existing NATS radars which is then used by controllers at TK to provide a service, and
2) contracting out to NATS = employing NATS Services Ltd as your ATS provider, as is done at Heathrow/Gatwick/Bristol etc. This could extend to paying NATS to buy your radar for you (although I'm not sure I'd go that far.......)

Number 1 wouldn't allow you to do SRAs into Oxford because the radars are too far away. It might also mean you couldn't apply 3nm separations. Then again, given the traffic situation at Oxford, chances are you couldn't ever provide a Deconfliction Service anyway.

NS

[soaringhigh650]

Controlled Airspace is for sensible pilots and controllers but the clockwork mice brigade have a very strong lobby....

I am a clockwork mouse pilot and consider myself sensible.

I have no reservations with the establishment of controlled airspace to increase the safety of all aircraft.

This means it should be available for transits and isn't Class A.

Nearest NERL radars Debden and Clee Hill

Yet Stapleford, North Weald, Elstree and Panshangar has no radar approaches.

An approach function from Swanwick would involve Band 5 controllers doing a job normally done by Band 1 or 2 controllers - far too expensive.

Is it possible to put band 1 or 2 controllers at Swanwick? Or do the employees just don't mix?

chances are you couldn't ever provide a Deconfliction Service anyway

What's the separation minima?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Yet Stapleford, North Weald, Elstree and Panshangar has no radar approaches.>>

They don't have licenced ATC facilities and are largely used by light aircraft. Oxford has biz jets as well as a very busy flying training facility.

[soaringhigh650]

They don't have licenced ATC facilities and are largely used by light aircraft.

Neither does Marco Island (KMKY (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMKY)) and quite a few airstrips in the area. They can only cope with light aircraft. Pilots make calls on the CTAF.

But Fort Myers (KRSW (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KRSW)) does the approach/departure function on 119.75.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

sh650.... Not altogether sure what you are getting at?

[Simtech]

There is some justification for providing a joint approach radar service for Oxford/Cranfield by one unit, but where is the funding for this going to come from?

Cranfield are apparently looking at installing their own radar within the next couple of years. They have objected to the siting of a new windfarm for that reason.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Given that Cranfield and Oxford are over 30nm apart I'm not sure how a joint radar service could function given that the best place for an airfield radar is on the airfield. The cost of remoting the information to one or both (if the head was centrally sited) could be prohibitive. Take a look at the elevation profile between the two airfields too. The highest point is about 12 miles southwest of Cranfield which would provide reasonable cover, but probably not below a couple of hundred feet at either airfield.

[chevvron]

Oxford and Cranfield being about 30nm apart; Cranfield Radar used the old RAE Bedford Marconi S232 (50cm radar) for 2nm SRAs and that's 11.5 nm away from Cranfield. A modern radar would probably be 10cm, and if sited high enough should be able to provide 2nm SRAs at both airfields.

[Glamdring]

Is it possible to put band 1 or 2 controllers at Swanwick? Or do the employees just don't mix?All NATS controllers at Swanwick are Band 5. Although things like Luton Approach and City Approach may not be considered Band 5 positions the controllers doing them will more than likely also be valid on Heathrow or Gatwick.

[niknak]

Cranfield are apparently looking at installing their own radar within the next couple of years. They have objected to the siting of a new windfarm for that reason.

Again, who's going to pay for it? Like Oxford, Cranfield has insuffient commercial activity to pay for the purchase of equipment or instillation, let alone the ongoing running costs (inc. rated staff) without the owners dipping into their own reserves.

As for the windfarms, the technology now exists to eliminate the windfarms as unknown interference and become P.E.'s on the screen, it's expensive and helps if you have controlled airspace, but a number of airports (and, I believe the MOD), have done deals with windfarm operators to provide the equipment in exchange for dropping the objections.

A joint venture between Oxford and Cranfield to contract approach services out to NATS is probably the most commercially viable option.
If nothing else, in time, it eventually leads to only needing ADI ATCOs at each airport as the APP function would be done entirely by NATS.

[chevvron]

Course if the perfectly serviceable AR15 at Luton could be used..................

[anotherthing]

qsyenroute:

I think "over and out" has just summed up why any suggestion of giving a radar service contract to NATS would not be in the best interests of EGTKI think you are reading wrongly into what 'over and out' has written. NATS TMA North and South controllers are too busy with their primary task to provide the service he talks about, and in fact are not allowed to below FL70. However that does not mean that, if contracted, NATS could not provide the service using other controllers (with the service being the primary task).

There is, I have been told by one LF controller (so second hand knowledge, not sure of the veracity), spare consoles available at Farnborough, if NATS were willing to pay people to provide a service, and subject to suitable radar feeds.

However as LF struggle, due to lack of manpower, to fully man LARS the chances of NATS doing that are low. (Bearing in mind LF LARS was opened with much ceremony and back slapping and talk of major safety benefits were trumpeted, yet now the manpower isn't provided... typical headline grabbing, move on to next bit of glory IMHO).

NikNak


Lets get some facts straight shall we?

The owners of Oxford cannot justify the costs of an approach radar service by installing their own radar, based upon present commercial income at the airport
Yes, let get some facts straight. Oxford openly admit they want to increase their movements by an astronomical amount over the next 2 or 3 years. This should not be allowed until it is proven that there is a solution to the problem. Oxford joiners and leavers are a big safety risk at the moment, the numbers should not be allowed to increase until things are put in place to alleviate this.

Oxford needs to spend the money up-front in order to get the movements it requires. To do it the other way round would be reckless and I can tell you now that no LTMA controller is in favour of it. Not because it makes life harder for us, but because that area is a known hazard as it stands with the movements already there.

The CAA needs to take a long hard look at the policy of allowing airfields outside CAS to operate commercial passenger flights, particularly if those airports are near busy airspace...

[chevvron]

There are indeed two 'spare' consoles at Farnborough which were originally installed for and funded by the air show operators, so it would need their permission to use them.
As regards manpower, two retired ex NATS controllers both with experience of class G operations offered their services but were offered contracts with conditions which weren't acceptable. I don't think NATS HR Dept really understand what a complex job LARS can be, and expect inexperienced ab initio controllers to operate it thus keeping the cost down. I honestly dont know how many (if any) have tried and failed to gain a certificate of competency since I left.

[Talkdownman]

As regards manpower, two retired ex NATS controllers both with experience of class G operations offered their services but were offered contracts with conditions which weren't acceptable. I don't think NATS HR Dept really understand what a complex job LARS can be, and expect inexperienced ab initio controllers to operate it thus keeping the cost down.You beat me to it, chevvers! I would have been more than happy to have been a member of the LF LARS team again, however, despite 40 years loyal service including 23 years ATSOCA provision within the areas in question, the nats offer was derisory and laughable. Their loss! I blame the HR Director at the time.

[cambioso]

If they had offered you pies instead of dosh Malcie, I'm sure you would have jumped at the job!!!???
Have a very Happy New Year Matie..................
Jez