CTAF in the UK

[bad bear]

Some parts of the world use CTAF,Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) 4-1-9:

should the UK introduce this for quieter airports like Doncaster?
bb

[chevvron]

What does CTAF mean?

[orgASMic]

Common Traffic Advisory Frequency aka UNICOM.

Used at airfields with no established ATS, so would not be appropriate at RHADS as they have an established ATC set-up. Not quite sure what the OP is driving at.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Where on earth is RHADS please?

[cossack]

Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield.
EGCN ex RAF Finningly.
Do keep up!;)

[Spitoon]

bb, it's an interesting proposition - what do you see as the benefits?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

RHADS=Doncaster? What happened to the old EG** system? A close by thread talks about a reunion at "LBIA", which I took to be in Bulgaria but the bloke actually means Leeds!! That was EGNM in my language.

Back to my Horlicks.

[chevvron]

Going by orgASMic's defintion, I was under the impression we already have CTAF in the form of Safetycom.

It would have been ideal at Doncaster Airport, but sadly that bit of land just across the road from the racecourse has been a housing estate for many years due to a greedy council selling it to developers. I think bad bear must be referring to the former RAF station near the former Rossington Colliery which some misguided company re-developed a few years ago so that when it failed to attract traffic, they could build houses there too.

[orgASMic]

HD, my apologies. No confusion was intended.

For your further amusement/frustration, it is entirely possible for Liverpool John Lennon Airport to masquerade as Lubljana ACC. I blame Labour Councils and their populist manifestos.

ICAO codes only from now on, I promise.:ok:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

org.... No problem at all; just take account of my incredible old age. I'll be asking for Egyptian hieroglyphics next!!

[Cows getting bigger]

RHADS - one of those pesky Vulcan bases. :}

[orgASMic]

It is marginally closer to Vulcan than it is to Sheffield!

[bad bear]

The CTAF idea is used in other parts of the world where trafic density is low and relies on pilots making blind transmissions and resolving conflicts them selves. It works well. Places that have only one commercial movement an hour could save a lot of money by dispensing with full ATC. I think it could be a useful tool to cover ATC sickness or shifts when there is next to no traffic. Possibly the quieter airports like Teeside, Dundee, Oban, Carlisle and other sleepy airfields could cut costs by adopting this.

Can struggling airports afford to continue covering a fully manned 7 day ATC tower covering mandatory breaks, sickness, leave etc when their group is loosing millions?

bb

[chevvron]

Even low traffic airports with iaps require full ATC in the UK. In some parts of Scotland for instance, airports such as Islay might only have one scheduled IFR arrival per day, but they still have to have ATC, basically because if a second aircraft turns up unnanounced and also wants to fly the iap, only an ATCO can provide the necessary instructions to separate them.
Not forgetting of course, that the CAA have a mandate to require the aerodrome authority to provide a certain level of ATS (ATC, FIS or A/G) depending how complex they decide the traffic situation might become at any time.

Thinks: What makes me suspect bad bear and Fuzzy 6898 are the same person?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Possibly the quieter airports like Teeside, Dundee, Oban, Carlisle and other sleepy airfields could cut costs by adopting this.>>

Several of those have passenger carrying scheduled movements. Are you proposing a sort of "DIY ATC"?

[chevvron]

I wouldn't call Durham Tees Valley quiet anyway, plus they have regulated airspace so like Finningley(DSA), it wouldn't be prudent.

[bad bear]

Even low traffic airports with iaps require full ATC in the UK. In some parts of Scotland for instance, airports such as Islay might only have one scheduled IFR arrival per day, but they still have to have ATC, basically because if a second aircraft turns up unnanounced and also wants to fly the iap, only an ATCO can provide the necessary instructions to separate them.
This is exactly the situation that would be ideal for CTAF. It would not be beyond that capacity of the second crew to confirm to the first that they will enter the hold.
Several of those have passenger carrying scheduled movements. Are you proposing a sort of "DIY ATC"?

yes, just like other parts of the world. It might suprise you that dumb as pilots are they can just about work out their own sequence.

As I say it seems to work in other parts of the world with similar aeroplanes

How many controllers are needed to cover 7am till 10 pm 7 days per week and how much do they get paid?

bb

[reportyourlevel]

According to the UK ANO article 172, any aerodrome with a holding, let-down or approach aid must provide an approach control service. So "full" ATC is required, regardless of how busy the aerodrome is.

[happ1ness]

Oban is providing a FISO service these days. Latest news is the airport is not to receive further backing from Argyll and Bute Council. Great shame, if true. Nice little airport.

[Lifes2good]

Chevvron you'll find Islay (EGPI) is a FISO unit only and the let down procedure is only available to the Company that publishes the let down procedure. Strict PPR keeps conflictions to a minimum I would imagine.

[chevvron]

Things changed with HIAL then. When Islay was NATS, there was an ATCO with ADC and APR ratings who was also airport manager, and his relief was often a FISO in the shape of the resident tels guy.

[bad bear]

According to the UK ANO article 172.....

The ANO can be changed I guess.

bb

[agent007]

Hi Chevvron iys been changed for quite a few years. I too remember when it was that way. Prestwick supplied some of the relief controllers for these positions if my memory serves me correctly. Islay, Barra, Tiree, and Cambeltown are FISO only and have been for quite some time.

[orgASMic]

Last time I was on exercise at Islay Airport (2001?), the tower was manned by a FISO and the firemen did everything else, so the change must have been a while ago.

The FISO on at the time was very helpful and a thoroughly nice chap. The firemen were tremendously hospitable, lending me their car for the afternoon and giving me a hearty supper of venison stew whilst I waited for the Herc to turn up after dark.:D

[bad bear]

Eric T Cartman, thanks for the info. There must have been almost as many staff as passengers!
Do you know why the CAA at the time needed ATC when the VOR approach was being flown and if it was a system monitoring issue could that be done remotely with modern equipment, i.e. has technology ovetaken old rules.

bb

[chevvron]

After gaining my ADC/GMC endorsement at Glasgow (1972) I was sent to Sumburgh for H & I experience. The complement there, right at the start of the oil boom, was ATCO Manager, 1 x tels engineer (who was supposed to be a FISO too), clerical assistant, 'several' firemen/baggage handlers and one MT Mechanic. The ATCO was assisted by ATCO cadets rotating through every 2 weeks for 4 weeks at a time. The relief ATCO Manager , who was there when I arrived, was supplied by Aberdeen.
This was well before radar and ILS were installed , but there was a choice of NDB or VOR approaches, and on more than one occasion, we had more than one aircraft inbound for an iap.

[galaxy flyer]

I, admittedly a Yank who flies frequently to the UK, find all this blather about "must have ATC, no DIY ATC stuff amusing. Farnborough (EGLF), is outside CAS, for God's sake. You lot have various levels of service which are pretty unique to the UK, like the ATCSOCAS. Just join the rest of the world with CTAF. I was landing in Palau (PTRO, Heathrow Director) at night last week with two other FAR 121 carriers, all in uncontrolled airspace with "cruise clearances". We worked it out just fine. VMC didn't hurt.

GF

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Farnborough (EGLF), is outside CAS, for God's sake. >>

And, for God's sake, Farnborough is a busy airfield and has a licenced ATC unit which includes very busy radar sectors. It's also very close to several other airfields and Class A airspace. If you think you would be safe flying in and out of Farnborough on a "DIY basis" then I think you need to spend an hour or two at Farnborough Radar one day. You might be surprised!

[Lon More]

It might suprise you that dumb as pilots are they can just about work out their own sequence.
Unfortunately there are always some (not necessarily LoCo) that would always assume themselves to be number one.:=

Bren I got a couple of replies on the Bulgarian thread. They'll be checking them out soon before they know the Q codes,:ugh:

[Spitoon]

bad bear, there are a number of issues that need to be considered. But first, don't underestimate the inertia associated with changing things - often for reasons that are valid for significant proportions of those affected.

Let's think about going to CTAF, or something similar, at an airport which caters for commercial passenger-carrying aircraft - what level of service, or of safety, are those passengers entitled to expect? What level of service do they tink they get today - it;'s an interesting topic which, to my knowledge, has never been properly investigated. In part, at least, this question almost certainly was what led to the legislation that requires ATC at an airport in the UK where an aircraft can carry out an instrument approach.

However, there often appears to be confusion between the concepts of an IAP and an ATC service. Although it may seem to be stating the bleedin' obvious but if a pilot needs to make an approach to an airport and can't do it visually, he needs an IAP - if he wants to be separated from other aircraft he needs ATC too. The idea of pilots sorting themselves out by talking to each other is not well established in the UK, particularly in the eyes of the CAA people who set the rules. Indeed, I think there is some evidence to suggest that it doesn't work very well - I recall at least one AIRPROX in Scotland where the FISO provided all of the correct information but the aeroplanes still came close to colliding.

Despite this, some 8 or 9 years ago the CAA proposed permitting IAPs to be conducted where a FIS was available but it met a lot of opposition and I imagine it was dropped because nothing further came of it.

But all may not be not lost. It is quite possible that EASA will sort this out - or at least attempt to achieve some consistency across Europe.

[galaxy flyer]

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

First, no offence intended and I would very much like a visit to Farnborough ATC, if that is even possible in these times. They have been unfailingly pleasant and helpful, even when I've had some unusual requests.

Second, while it may have licensed ATC, is it not outside controlled airspace? Is it not possible to have uncontrolled traffic fly thru the airspace, completely within the "rules"?

Third, I have no desire to "DIY" my way thru London TMA, not yet reached that level of stupidity. Just pointing out that "uncontrolled" operations are not unheard of in the UK.

Fourth, the "old heads" in the AF would always remind us "young 'uns" that UK radar controllers were outstanding because, "after all, they invented the stuff".

GF

[bad bear]

There are occasions where the option of having CTAF in the UK could be useful. I think it was last year when Durham Tees had a controller shortage and NOTAMed the airfield closed several times each day. The CAS of course lapses when the airfield is closed and no one can land. Any inbound planes would have to take up the hold in class "G" and wait (unless they could sit in the bottom level of P18). If there had been the option to down grade to CTAF the planes that arrived while the controller was on his break could have continued to land.
bb

[chevvron]

The Farnborough situation is not unique in the UK, there are many airfields both with and without radar with iaps in class G airspace.
In the Farnborough case, offering ATC services to transit traffic mitigates, to some extent, the lack of controlled airspace by creating a 'known traffic environment; most people who fly through the iap are on one or other of the Farnborough frequencies. If Farnborough did not have ATC of any kind, it would be a strictly VFR airfield as there are no holding or letdown aids associated with the iaps ie nothing to get you onto the ILS, (apart from comms. fail procedures which cannot be used without radar) and in any case with the proximity of class A airspace only 5 miles away, you couldn't have a purely 'pilot interpreted' letdown due to the necessary 'buffer' required.
I was the person responsible for getting Farnborough iaps approved so I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

[055166k]

When Heathrow tower was evacuated the aircraft were allowed to land on their own, and then find their own stand. True or false?
Make absolutely sure you know what happened before spouting off personal opinion. [To save embarrassment]

[055166k]

By the way, UK does not have UNICOM as such......but does have SAFETYCOM...........135.475.
AIC Yellow 014/2010 22-April-2010 refers.
Rgds.

[galaxy flyer]

Chevvron

I understand the "how" of Farnborough, that it is in uncontrolled airspace, joining clearances, types of service. I'd like to understand the "how" and the "why" of it. How can uncontrolled airspace exist with a licensed radar unit? Why has this come about and continues, considering it is 5 miles from Class A airspace? I flew out of MLD, on Galaxys for 18 years and understanding Class G was an annual check ride question after a couple of near hits there when USAF US-based pilots didn't understand what they agreed to on taking RIS.

Any info to explain this situation to US civil pilots who hav had no experience with UK ATC?

GF

[DFC]

In order fror CTAF to work, there would need to be quite drastic changes to the airspace structure and the operating practices of the ACCs.

Taking Doncaster as an example;

Replace the current controlled airspace with Class E and increase the VMC minima appropriately to proper ICAO minima.

Have the responsible ACC issue departure and approach clearances to aircraft and ensure separation of IFR vs IFR flights in the airspace.

Very much a 1 IFR flight at a time situation.

No radar service to arriving or departing flights until within ACC radar coverage.

Limited number of inbound or outbound routes and forget the idea of arriving or departing IFR into class G airspace.

Great Idea - bring it on!!!! :)

[Spitoon]

Not an easy thing to explain. The UK, unlike just about every other State, has always allowed an air traffic control service to be provided outside CAS - in some ways it even encourages it. As a result, it has had to invent rules and procedures to deal with the anomalies that are created.

The usual reason or justification offered is that the UK is a relatively small place and the establishment of CAS limits mil and GA activity - it's certainly true that the mil and GA lobby are the traditional opponents of any extension to the CAS system (joined more recently by the green lobby).

Given the difficulty in establishing CAS where it is justified to provide the appropriate protection to commercial GAT, the prevalence of control services being provided outside controlled airspace (in many areas) has increased over time.

Although it doesn't help a great deal, you are not alone - there are a good many UK pilots (and a few controllers) who don't understand the implication of the rules and services that apply outside CAS!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<When Heathrow tower was evacuated the aircraft were allowed to land on their own, and then find their own stand.>>

Heathrow Tower was evacuated several times when I was there; in fact I took part in the very first one!! Nothing such as you suggest happened during any of them I find it incredibly difficult to believe that this could happen. I'll just say that if it did, then the crews of the aircraft were monstrously irresponsible..

[GAPSTER]

...a recent situation Bren.055166k is not entirely correct in what he says but for the usual reasons the details should not be discussed openly I feel.However,@ 055166k I assume you are aware of the fallout from that particular episode?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Gapster... Understood.

[055166k]

One purpose of pprune is to constantly question and probe in the hope of inspiring debate. The thread started by addressing the Unicom idea. Rules and regulations form the backbone of daily ATC service delivery but, occassionally, a situation occurs which may need a non-standard solution.
Respected posters have mentioned the Scottish solution to an instrument letdown where there is no ATCO on duty.....I did a tour in H&I where there were even out-of-hours arrivals and departures with no-one on duty...and never a problem.
And the POINT: when controllers are faced with a unique challenge they must use all of their training and experience to arrive at a measured and calculated solution....and they must do that in seconds! Any controller using initiative and common sense resulting in a safe outcome should be supported and applauded and not condemned. The Manual of ATS recognises this.

[bad bear]

I'll just say that if it did, then the crews of the aircraft were monstrously irresponsible..
HEATHROW DIRECTOR, I'm not sure I fully agree with you on that one. If a pilot is looking at a long and vacant runway when an ATC tower is evacuated and chooses to land rather than Go-Around on a relatively low fuel load and join a very long queue of plane diverting to already busy aerodromes in the south east. I would support his decision. There are days when the "books" have to be thrown away.

055166k, fully agree.

Now , I don't think anyone is really talking about DIY ATC in busy class "A" nor even Farnborough but I would suggest that a law change to allow CTAF in some situations would be a good thing. Good debate though hope it continues. Its beginning to look to me that places without radar or when radar it not available , particularly in Northern England or Scotland would be ideal candidates for removing the financial burden of always having to have ATC tower for public transport planes.

How much is spent on providing ATC at Dundee and could that cost be reduced by using CTAF?
bb

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

bad bear. OK, I'll tell you a story. I once flew jump seat in a 747 into Heathrow. As we left the runway, ATC gave explicit instructions to take the first left turn on to another taxiway. The captain said "No, let's take the second left; it's much easier". I said: "How do you know that there isn't a broken light fitting at that intersesction?". Quick application of brakes and they took the first..... Pilots don't always know the full story.

At a major airfield I still think it would be potentially dangerous for large commercial aircraft to land if ATC was temporarily u/s. Question also arises as to how they would get anywhere near the airfield in the first place, but I don't think we'd better pursue that.

"There are days when the "books" have to be thrown away."

In around 36 years as a controller both at home and abroad I never once met a pilot who threw any books away. Maybe it was because I worked with professionals?

[chevvron]

Bad bear: if you're talking about carrying out an iap without ATC, you hgave to consider the following:
The airport operator would have to present a robust 'safety case' to the CAA, and it would need to be approved.
The airport operator would have to demonstrate 'duty of care' eg public transport aircraft lands, bursts a tyre and goes off the runway. Passengers are injured as they exit the aircraft.
Who calls the emergency services if the airport is unattended? Aircraft operator sues the airport authority claiming poor runway surface caused tyre damage.
How they get round this in places like the USA and Oz I don't know, but the UK CAA would never approve it.

[bad bear]

chevvron, thanks for the contributions. Its great to get all views. If you still live in the Farnborough area it might be fun to meet up for a beer next time Im down that way.
The airport operator would have to present a robust 'safety case' to the CAA, and it would need to be approved.
Absolutely! Any airfield operator would have to do that if CTAF were introduced as an option by the CAA
Who calls the emergency services if the airport is unattended? Aircraft operator sues the airport authority claiming poor runway surface caused tyre damage.
I doubt that any airport would be "unattended" as someone has to meet/refuel/unload the aeroplane. If the firemen double as ramp workers they would be there to respond and would see for them selves that help was needed without someone telling them, simply one of the many details that other countries have covered before approving CTAF.
There is no suggestion of cutting any of the other services. Runway inspections and fire services remain, only ATC tower function is removed.
bb