Shoreham proposal to downgrade ATC to FISO

[IO540]

Announced recently...

The instrument approaches will also be lost, because the UK CAA makes ATC mandatory for any instrument approach.

[Ryan5252]

Assuming this will have a fairly larger effect on pilot's such as yourself IO who don't necessarily rely on ATC per se but rather the ability to get back in when conditions are IFR? Shirley this will create an extra headache when it comes to flight planning not only for a return trip from Europe but also before you even go you would need to be confident conditions will be suitable for the homeward bound leg?

When is this likely to be effective? I suppose one could always divert to a nearby field with suitable IAPs available? Not knowing the background of the field and the type of aviation which is conducted there it is hard to know what affect this will have but would it be fair to say, if there are a number of IFR touring type pilot's based there (which I imagine given the location so close to the continent this is not unlikely) that they will perhaps consider re-locating to a more suitable field nearby thus endangering the future of yet another UK airport?

Ryan

[TCAS FAN]

A decision no doubt brought upon by a business decision. If it happens maybe another potential supporter to prevail upon ATSD to re-consider provision of instrument approach procedures with AFIS.

As Shoreham is in Class G airspace compliance with ATC instructions outside the ATZ is not mandatory for aircraft not receiving an approach service, so why cannot approach procedures continue with only AFIS?

It would be a straight forward process to write into any AFIS ops manual procedures for sequencing arrivals within the ATZ, which ATSD would have to review and determine their acceptability.

If at the moment an aircraft can overfly the ATZ 50 feet above it without any legal obligation to contact the ATC unit, what is different between that and an AFIS providing the service?

Much better an instrument approach procedure that has been designed using quality controlled survey data and compliant with ICAO Doc 8168 design criteria, rather than a a pilot making up his/her own procedure to break cloud.

[Whopity]

The instrument approaches will also be lost, because the UK CAA makes ATC mandatory for any instrument approach.There were a number of Scottish airfields with approaches and AFIS!

[Ryan5252]

There were a number of Scottish airfields with approaches and AFIS!

And still are as far as I'm aware - I fly often to Islay and this would be an example - though they are aparently 'secret'

[IO540]

Yes, confidential instrument approaches, approved for the use by a specific company, which paid for the approach design and owns the copyright to it. No kidding.

[Sir George Cayley]

From a friend in a pub who knows someone at the Campaigns brother-in-law, the issues surrounding secret let downs and non ATCO provisions for GPS approaches is 'under review' at the moment.

How long it will take for them to get to where the rest of the world -OK US & Aus - have been for years, Lord knows. :ugh::ugh:

Fingers crossed for all and especially Brighton & Hove International.

Sir George Cayley

[AdamFrisch]

Here we go again. This has been in the workings for ages, but got curtailed. The owners of Shoreham are fattening her up for the slaughter.

They wont stop until every single field in the UK has been developed into a housing estate and every single GA pilot has been eradicated. I just wish that for once a pilot actually owned a field and not some d**khead investor who's constantly looking for a high price sell. I'm buying stocks in Sikorsky. Helicopters are the only things with a future in GA the way things are going...

This leaves Lydd and Manston as the only places with instrument approaches in the coastal region and out of those two, I know which one I'd like to fly into.

Subversive thought IO: could not all pilots based at Shoreham gang together and offer to pay ATCOs salaries? Shared between you, it might not be much of a monthly cost?

[Mickey Kaye]

Out of interest how does it work in the USA.OZ etc

[Whopity]

confidential instrument approaches, approved for the use by a specific company, which paid for the approach design and owns the copyright to it. No kidding.So what is the safety case for allowing this, whilst denying it elsewhere? We could all have our own private approaches.

[turbine100]

Shoreham's a busy licensed airfield.

The freq's get split when busy and the full time controllers are currently under staffed.

I think if this goes through in Shoreham's situation, it would potentially be a safety issue. They have large numbers of movements at busy times throughout the year and tower / approach services are perfect with proper ATIS.

Today the approach controller was working on his own and was over worked, this was noticeable. In addition had people flying circuits, outside of the ATZ.

One flying school does a lot of IR training, invested a lot of money in equipment and having the services available. helps them and their business.

Some of the Part 145 maintenance organisations will loose the larger AOC operators, who may need work done, before charters the following day. Those companies will not risk flying in IFR conditions into the airport if the correct services are not available, to comply with their own AOC / ops manual requirements.

So they may end up loosing revenue via landing / instrument approaches etc.

If anything at the moment is to go by, it could be worse if downgraded. Any issues the operators, schools and private pilots are seeing or having with ATC; they should be raising these via SMS, MOR or Chirp reports, depending on circumstances etc. In addition to complaining to the airport owners, council and CAA regarding Shoreham airports situation and apply pressure.

[CharlieRomeo]

as far as I was aware the "discreet approaches" at the scottish airfields such as Islay and Tiree are only used by Loganair and the Scottish Air Ambulance.

I've been to Shoreham a couple of times during my hours building many moons ago, and both times was very busy. I think downgrading to FISO would be a bad move.

Shoreham is certainly in my opinion 1 of the best GA airfields in the UK

[englishal]

You need to back up the GPS approach in the IFR GPS dB before it gets wiped by future updates. I wonder how one can do that...?

[IO540]

Out of interest how does it work in the USA.OZ etc

In the USA, ATC is not privatised and the FAA provides an approach controller (somewhere nearby) who schedules the traffic onto the IAP. I think France does the same.

You can do the same in the UK but the approach controller's employer (a private company) will send an invoice to the airfield, which the vast majority of GA airfields would not be able to pay.

Other possible methods are using a non-ATC (i.e. low cost) "man in a hut with a radio" doing the approach scheduling but that cannot be reconciled with the ICAO requirements for ATC being required to "control" traffic i.e. to issue clearances.

Obviously if the powers to be got their heads around the incredibly difficult emotional concept of IFR pilots being able to work with less than formal instructions as to whether the IAP is available, that would change everything. But this horse has been flogged for as long as the G-word has been around.

So what is the safety case for allowing this, whilst denying it elsewhere?

It's called..... ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ :)

Another name for it is "AOC".

We could all have our own private approaches.

We can. You can legally fly DIY IAPs, in a G-reg anyway.

You need to back up the GPS approach in the IFR GPS dB before it gets wiped by future updates. I wonder how one can do that...?

I know of no way to do that. If you stick the database card into a reader, all you see is garbage. It's obviously encrypted somehow, and uses some hardware / nonstandard filing system hack.

Obviously, you can create your own IAP, using user waypoints, i.e. a little standalone flight plan, and when approaching the IAF you just load that flight plan.

Whether it is worth doing this with an existing GPS approach is another matter. The Shoreham GPS approaches don't deliver anything which the old navaid approaches do not, in terms of MDH. All they give you is the ability for the airport to shut down the navaids, which is a big money saving - except the CAA crippled that option by requiring the NDB to be used for the missed approach :ugh:

At Shoreham, you would fly the 02 using the GPS OBS mode, and optionally circle to land to 20. That's what most pilots going in there "for real" have been doing. You just can't do that on AOC flights.

Shoreham is a super airport, in good condition and with the best ATC I know of in the UK. This is really sad.

[Fuji Abound]

Will this have consequences for night ops?

[S-Works]

You need to back up the GPS approach in the IFR GPS dB before it gets wiped by future updates. I wonder how one can do that...?

By keeping a second card 'frozen' in time with the GPS approach cycle.

However flight under IFR using an IFR GPS with a database more than 28 days out of date is not legal......

[ShyTorque]

Where does it say that? An IFR equipped aircraft doesn't need GPS at all.

[S-Works]

Who said an IFR equipped aircraft needs a GPS?

However if you use a GPS for IFR then the database must be within the 28 day airac cycle.

If you swap the card in an IFR GPS like the Garmin it reboots. Doing that just prior to the start of the procedure would probably not be described as smart.

However as you now need BRNAV for CAS IFR below FL95 and pretty much the only way of getting it in a light aircraft is with a GPS some would argue that an IFR aircraft does need an IFR GPS in reality..........

[Tinstaafl]

To follow on IO540's answer re Oz & US: Australia doesn't require ATC at all to do an instrument approach. A flight information service is provided - but not by someone on the field. FIS is located in one of the cities and handles an area which can include many aerodromes.

The US is typically Class E away from controlled fields but for IFR aircraft that's still controlled airspace. You still have to broadcast your intentions on the aerodrome frequency but that's not hard. At some point you'll have to report cancelling IFR to the controller or after landing to free the airspace for the next IFR aircraft.

IFR pilots in Oz self-separate by talking to each other and arranging who will do what & when. Note that in Oz & US you must be on an IFR flight plan to operate under IFR so continuous comms. with FIS or ATC is necessary. HF is a normal part of ops in Oz, even in GA aircraft.

[IO540]

IFR pilots in Oz self-separate by talking to each other and arranging who will do what & when

That would be the other method for the UK but I gather the regulators find self-sequencing far too much to swallow.

It's all a bit meaningless in the UK if speaking of Class G airports, where no ATC has the power to issue a clearance anyway, outside the ATZ, and all the GPS approach IAFs are well outside the ATZ.

Such a clearance would be meaningless for another reason: VFR traffic, or IFR traffic for that matter, in solid IMC for that matter, could be flying the IAP trajectory as the same time as you have been cleared for it, and they could be non-radio, and they would be 100% legal so long as they break off before they reach the ATZ. They would be reckless allright (although in the PPL you are not taught to avoid Class G airport instrument approach trajectories, so this is just another sleeping dog) but not illegal. The USA deals with the IMC scenario here by having the IAPs in Class E so anybody hanging around there quietly in IMC would be illegal.

[TWR]

Belgium has also IAP without ATC (EBKT). It is completely inside class G.
Of course VFR in IMC is not allowed here...

[ShyTorque]

However if you use a GPS for IFR then the database must be within the 28 day airac cycle.

Bose-X,

I understoood what you wrote but where does it say that?

[S-Works]

Go look it up. :ok:

[IO540]

Of course VFR in IMC is not allowed here...

VFR in IMC is illegal everywhere.

But assuming people will be legal, what is needed to support some pretence of separation is for IFR flight without an IFR clearance to be illegal. This is the case in the USA, by virtue of most of it being in Class E.

In the UK, nobody will want to do that because (a) absolutely nobody wants to pay for the "IFR GA enroute" ATC system which would then be required; (b) ATC cannot issue a clearance for Class G; (c) I am sure most pilots would not want it because the ability to just drill a hole in some clouds is really handy.

I understoood what you wrote but where does it say that?

It usually says it in flight manual supplements for the IFR GPS.

But obviously this applies only if using the GPS as a mandatory means of compliance with some airspace equipment carriage requirement.

You don't need a working ADF to fly a VOR approach.

Similarly you don't need a working GPS to fly in an airspace where RNAV navigation (for which an IFR GPS is the only "GA" means of compliance; I am ignoring the practically ludicrous "KNS80 + antenna filters" option).

But to fly a published GPS approach you surely need RNAV capability.

But if we are talking of flying a no-longer-published ;) GPS approach, that current-database requirement can no longer be present. What you are doing is just the same as flying a DIY IAP using a handheld GPS or whatever, which is legal in a G-reg but illegal in an N-reg (ref: FAR 91.175).

Same must apply if using a GPS to fly an NDB or VOR approach. You are doing so informally, there is no GPS carriage requirement, so there cannot be a current-database requirement.

[ShyTorque]

Go look it up.

Thanks, very helpful. :hmm:

[Lurcherman]

Another case of regulators killing off GA for people who want to use aircraft as a serious means of transport. How many hours/days a year is Shoreham down close to minimas that require an IP. Yes, I know it will happen just at the time you want to arrive. Cost of full blown ATC, fire cover?
Show me a business model where you could operate anything less than a King Air on an AOC and not just be passing cheques on to the CAA.

With a blank sheet of paper , simple, GPS approaches with radar cover from Farnborough/Gatwick/Solent. Aircraft announcing intentions on "unicom" As per US but God forbid that anyone suggests that they might actually be doing something we could copy. Please add PCL and self service fuel and the ability to actually get off the airfield once you have landed.

Anyone bimbling around IMC near an active airfield like Shoreham and not even listening out on the radio should be used as target practice.

To expand the thread. I am continually frustrated that aircraft are not used to their full potential as a serious business tool. Those that spout the mantra "Time to spare go by air" do the industry a great diservice.
We have the equipment and the training but one thing we do lack are airfields that advertise them selves clearly as "Business Friendly"
The current flight guides give basic info but it takes numerous phone calls and varying levels of pleading to establish whether an airfield will be flexible and assist in operating to the client's timetable.

Night flying on Club Nights!!

A simple Red/Amber/Green would suffice.
Green is Yes, great we'll bust a gut to meet your needs.
Amber Yes, but we've got some issues you will need to work around.
Red, How dare you even ask?

UK aviation has evolved, and it is perfectly understandable, to being dominated by "The Hobby Lobby" and I don't mean to use the term perjuritively. I confess that I find it difficult to justify the expense of pleasure flying. I fly for a living( All beit meagre).

Shoreham's plight is not unique and unless some sensible solutions are found it will be yet another nail in the coffin for UK GA.

How do we roll back the tide? I am a fully paid up member of AOPA but is it the best mouthpiece for me any other aircraft users like me?

[Mickey Kaye]

Lucherman I couldn't agree more

[AdamFrisch]

Well said, Lucherman.

[Jan Olieslagers]

How do we roll back the tide?
By giving up the concept of operating G/A fields by commercial companies. No G/A operation can create enough profit to make the real estate investment worth its while.
One possible scheme - as I read in another thread - is an economically viable business park with an aerodrome tucked away in a little corner, and paying for the aerodrome out of the overall profitable business.
Better would be a public setup - either national or regional or local - with the authority providing both the terrain and the operational staff; but while authorities might have the real estate available, it would be politically dangerous to them to spend lots of public money on supporting what is widely regarded as rich guy's hobbies. But in France, this is a common occurence.
Most workable seems a mixed setup, with public authorities providing infrastructure, and perhaps some maintenance to the same, and volunteers (from the local aeroclub(s), likely) providing day to day operations. I am indeed surprised to see very few UK aerodromes operating under this kind of arrangement.

[IO540]

One possible scheme - as I read in another thread - is an economically viable business park with an aerodrome tucked away in a little corner, and paying for the aerodrome out of the overall profitable business.

Indeed, but there will always be the commercial incentive to close the airfield activities and make even more money by converting the remaining space to a business park...

Most property developers are sharks of the highest order, with no ethics whatever.

The real problem in the UK is that Planning regs do not distinguish. Once you have Planning for an airfield, it is easy enough to get Planning for industrial units, and once you have Planning for those (which is a pretty dirty and unattractive kind of development anyway) you will easily get Planning to level the lot and build houses there - especially if you throw in a bribe (called "affordable housing" ;) ;) ) to the local authority while you are at it.

A well worn route.

If the airfield is wholly owned by an aviation enthusiast, that is different, but eventually he dies, and his widow gets a phone call the next day from the property shark who has been circling the place for 20 years.

But with the bickering and backstabbing which GA is full of, the private owner will probably get fed up with running the place and herding all the cats, well before he dies. Running an airfield is likely to be a poisoned chalice.

If one could get a Planning for a fresh new airfield to be built, with some commercial property on site, and done in such a way so as to securely preclude (as far as anything can be precluded in Planning) further development, that would be a stable situation. New purpose-built GA facilities could be built in the middle of nowhere (but close to a road, for access) and the existing ones could be thrown to the sharks. But there is no imagination in the Planning system to do that.

[Lurcherman]

One thing that is noticable "elsewhere" is that airfields are seen as an asset to a community. They often have a board up say, This airfields is worth $xmill to the area.( OK the mill bit may be shooting high for us)

Aviation produces passionate advocates both for and against. Renaming a small airfield "International" however tongue in cheek is guaranteed to have locals anticipating Ryanair to be landing on 700mtrs of grass!

Unfortunately when the UK embarked on one of the largest civil engineering projects of all time, building wartime airfields, they didn't include in their thinking, let's locate airfields close to towns so at the end of hostilities we have an unparalleled aviation infra structure. Can't blame them!

We need to use what we already have more amicably. All reasonable attempts should be made to accomodate protestors but at the end of the day if there has to regulatory intervention there should be a recognised level of flying activity that is acceptable. Farnborough seems to be going in the right direction. With Government support?

If a protestor was told they couldn't take their car out of the garage before 8-30 in the morning and they had to be home by 18-00 they wouldn't tolerate it. Runway lights that have to be turned off at 20-00 even if an a/c is on finals!
Aircraft movements for business are by their nature infrequent. One landing, silent, one take off, noisy. Maybe 2 of each if it involves positioning. The ability to be free to make those movements is the difference between justifying puchaseing an aircraft or not. The resulting income generated from fuel sales, maintenence, hangerage, landing fees, training would be significant and measurable.
How many hobby pilots would transition to business pilots if the environment were more useable?
How many lost PPL's would continue?

[wigglyamp]

The requirement for having a current database when using a GPS for IFR (BRNav etc) is in EASA AMC20-4 para 5.2 (b)

[ShyTorque]

Wigglyamp, thanks for that. Nice to know it is still possible to get other than a smarta$$ answer.

[smarthawke]

Perhaps, wigglyamp knew where it said it and other posters didn't....!

[ShyTorque]

I thought possibly so... ;)

[S-Works]

Possibly...... However as I knew the answer, you would assume I knew where to find it......

But then ST was very positive in his assumption about IFR so we could assume he already knew the answer and was playing a game? ;)

[ShyTorque]

I was interested in finding a precise written reference. I still haven't found it, btw.

[Spitoon]

The requirement for having a current database when using a GPS for IFR (BRNav etc) is in EASA AMC20-4 para 5.2 (b) I don't know much about how the EASA rules for aircraft work, but it seems strange that you quote a 'requirement' originating from an AMC.

[IO540]

The legal requirement will be in the AFMS.

For example one AFMS will say you need a current database and must check the lat/long of each waypoint (which makes no sense, but the DGAC insisted on this wording).

Another AFMS will say you need a current database or must check the lat/long of each waypoint (which actually makes some sense; this is more common in US type certificated aircraft).

But obviously you don't need a current database if there is no requirement to have RNAV capability............

[wigglyamp]

When we produce an AFMS for BRNav, EASA require that we use the reference to the AMC. It seems throughout EASA that AMC's are taken as rules rather than guidance. We now have to reference AMC20-27 for GPS non-precision approach rather than CAA CAP773.

[IO540]

EASA invent stuff on the hoof. Standard empire building practice.

A while ago I had some correspondence with what was obvious an expat Brit working there (prob99 a former ISO9000 quality manager which some smart company made reduntant) and he was making stuff up from one paragraph to the next. Even his use of the language made that obvious.

This problem also exists in the FAA. I phoned up the NY IFU recently and they insisted an EHSI is an EFIS and cannot be installed without an STC. The difference is that you can look up the written rules which are fairly clear... EASA has taken this out of peoples' hands by being the judge, jury and executioner on all matters connected with mods.

Shoreham's issue with the IAPs is that they never offered anything which you could not do legally VFR i.e. fly in on the 02 extended final at 501ft above the sea (or perhaps 520ft, allowing for a boat below :) ). Had somebody had the foresight back in 1979 and built the runway as ~ 25, another ~ 200m longer, and stuck an ILS there, everything would change and Shoreham would have a real asset which would increase its usability. The existing procedures (NDB/DME, NDB/DME flown with a GPS in the OBS mode, NDB/DME flown with a GPS overlay, or the RNAV ones) offer nothing over just flying in VFR - well they offer ATC-operated approach scheduling but outside the ATZ there could be anybody else there in IMC, non-radio. It just happens that almost nobody in UK GA flies in bad weather, especially in IMC, and those that do fly in IMC know where they are very accurately and would not do something so stupid, and that is what keeps all this hanging together.

Without ATC, however, there will be pandemonium on good weather weekend days. It will be like Stapleford - a place I now avoid totally.

Shoreham has the best and most helpful ATC of all places I know. It is a tragedy that established ATC working practices make ATC so expensive to operate, but obviously nobody has an interest in changing that.

[Spitoon]

Mmmmmm.....thanks, wiggly. Like I say, no real experience of the way that EASA works so far myself, but this is just one of the reasons that I fear the day that it takes competence for ATM and airports! If you speak to the rule drafters they seem quite rational (well, most of them) but somewhere things seem to get lost in translation when the rules get published and have to be applied.

[ShyTorque]

It just happens that almost nobody in UK GA flies in bad weather, especially in IMC

IO540,

Obviously, the worse the weather, the fewer GA aircraft are in the air, but I can't totally agree with that. Does your aircraft have TCAS?

Thankfully mine does. Surprisingly often in Class G, I do find it necessary to take avoiding action on transponding aircraft in IMC; in fact this has become almost routine.

I fly under a Traffic Service whenever necessary (if possible, it isn't always). It is often obvious that the other pilots must be unaware of our presence because they are not on the same frequency and there is no one else to provide a radar service.

Now there are now fewer LARS units in UK it seems to me that some might be relying totally on the "big sky" theory. If some of these other aircraft were under a radar service too, presumably it wouldn't have to be me taking the avoiding action quite so often, either based on ground radar or TCAS derived info.

(If this sounds like I'm accusing you, I'm definitely not, btw).

[IO540]

No I don't have TCAS. The installation downtime is 4weeks+ :)

I am sure you are right i.e. there is traffic in IMC but equally I am sure there is very little compared to the masses in VMC especially below 2000ft.

it seems to me that some might be relying totally on the "big sky" theory

Very much so, but a radar controller is under no obligation to report any particular contact anyway, so there is no real solution to this - short of mandatory Mode C carriage and mandatory and enforced use, and then TCAS would work pretty well.

[ShyTorque]

LARS unit controllers agreeing to give a full traffic service are generally very good, subject to workload. In poor weather, workload may or may not decrease.

However, I've been fortunate enough to fly TCAS equipped aircraft for well over a decade now (and twenty more before that flying without it). Bearing in mind what I've experienced, I am not now happy to fly IMC in UK's Class G airspace without it.

Having said this, as long as pilots are in communication and fly with common sense, it isn't too difficult to avoid each other whilst carrying out an approach, irrespective of the type of ATC service provided.

[JW411]

Rumour has it that two of the biggest players at Shoreham are now actively planning to move if the threat to remove ATC services takes place on 01 June 2011 as planned. (It would not take a genius to work out which two).

This wonderful airfield has been mis-managed ever since the disgraced Erinaceous organisation take-over was agreed with the local council.

The existing "organisation" bears a very close resemblance to its predecessor(with something of a common cast of actors) and I think the time has come whereby the local council should re-examine just what is going on here.

It seems to me that we are about to lose a very important local amenity if we are not very, very careful.

I, and many of my fellow aircraft owners at Shoreham, are totally convinced that the big plan is to close the oldest airfield in the United Kingdom and turn the land into a housing estate thereby making a lot of money for a few speculators.

The local council needs to get a grip of the situation.

In the meantime, can I ask all of you who have an interest in Shoreham airfield to start pestering your MP in a major fashion?

[englishal]

Regarding TCAS, it is one of the next upgades we'll probably make after a PFD. Cost wise you're looking at about ~5k plus fitting for something like the Garmin GTS800. If you have the other kit, like the PFD, then it makes sense to integrate all this stuff. I don't think it would take 4 weeks to fit, it is just a few antenna and some interfacing cable after all.

I was reading the Airprox's recently and it was interesting to see one out of Shoreham between a King Air and TBM700 in IMC after the TBM made a level bust on departure (KA was inbound, TBM was outbound). Obviously from the KA's pilots POV it was quite worrying, but as the TBM had TCAS then it was a no factor situation as they had seen the KA and could ensure separation.

I think if you fly a lot of IMC then having TCAS just for the piece of mind is worth it.

[2 sheds]

IO540
Very much so, but a radar controller is under no obligation to report any particular contact anyway

I do not understand - explain?

2 s

[IO540]

I do not understand - explain?

Your public profile and previous posts show that you are an ATCO so you will understand perfectly. You will e.g. know about 'controller workload' etc.

[Geege]

Hi all,

I'm not a pilot but someone who lives in Sussex and is considering going for my PPL(A) in the near future. I have considered Shoreham Airport as the base for that training.

Could someone please explain in layman's terms how Shoreham Airport traffic control operates at the moment and what these proposed changes are and what they mean to the future operation of the airport, for pilots and the flight schools based there.

Thanks.

[Fuji Abound]

Geege

In simple terms their are two different basis on which the flow of aircraft into an airport is controlled. One basis is that the pilots control themselves perhaps with some help form an "official" observer on the ground who is able to pass information about other aircraft. The other basis is for the airport to control the traffic through an observer in the tower to whom every pilot reports. The observer in the the tower is known as an ATCO. He has a picture of where every aircraft is either from radar or from various other devices at his disposable.

As you would expect at the vast majority of airports in the UK at which commercial aircraft land the second system is used.

So far as light aircraft are concerned some would say the pilots are perfectly capable of sorting themselves out. Others would argue that while that may be true when the traffic density is light as soon as lots of aircraft are all trying to land at the same time there is a greatly increased risk of a mid air collision.

So coming directly to your question and what it means for Shoreham - firstly Shoreham handles some jets and larger aircraft. In some cases it is a condition of their insurance to only use airports with ATCOs - these aircraft will no longer be able to use Shoreham and the airport will no longer enjoy this income - which can be 20 times the amount a typical light single engined aircraft might pay. Secondly, as pilots progress they may learn how to fly on instruments and in particular arrive at an airport in cloud. This type of training can only be done at an airport with an ATCO. Shoreham have a number of flying schools that offer this type of training who will doubtless be disappointed at the loss of this facility requiring them to under take this type of training at other airports. Thirdly, limitations may be placed on the volume of traffic and how the runways are used. Shoreham has three runways; wind direction and other considerations often mean that different types of aircraft want to use different runways. This makes for a potentially more dangerous enviroment if pilots are left to their own devices. Fourthly some pilots will fly to and from Shoreham in the knowledge they can still land at the airport when the cloud is low. As indicated earlier without an ATCO it is questionable whether pilots will be able to continue to operate in these conditions and if they do how much the risk of a collision will increase.

That at any rate is the flavour in simple terms. There other reasons why this could be a retrograde step but I hope that gives you the flavour.

Good luck with your training.

[Geege]

Excellent! Thank you for the clear explanation! :ok:

[JW411]

I have to admit that I am a little bit surprised that none of you out there seem to be the slightest bit bothered that Shoreham Airport might just be in danger of disappearing.

Forget about niceties like "ah well, even if they do downgrade from ATC to AFISO status, I will still be able to bimble down to Shoreham when I feel like it, so I don't need to do anything".

At the moment, Shoreham is the only hard runway airfield with an ATC service between Lydd and Southampton. The closure of this airfield would be catastrophic to a lot of people and would result in the loss of a lot of local jobs.

If ATC services are withdrawn and the two major operators that I have alluded to move elsewhere, then I have been told that their withdrawal would mean 15,000 less movements per annum.

The loss of this income will probably be more than the current cost of ATC services.

However, it will be grist to the mill to the speculators who will say that the airfield is losing even more money and should therefore be turned into affordable housing at a huge profit to themselves.

What I find difficult to understand is that absolutely no one that I speak to at Shoreham has actually seen the document signed by the Council handing the airfield over to Erinaceous. Nor have I heard of anyone actually having sight of the amendment document handing the lease to the present bunch of speculators.

I would have thought that the Council should be required to make this document available to all of us under the Freedom of Information Act or would the local council find such a disclosure a bit of an embarrassment?

If so, why?

[IO540]

There is a debate here (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=68727)

[Sir George Cayley]

JW411 - I'm with you. I have a gut feeling that some players around Shoreham stand to make a killing. I'm not sure about residential housing though. My bet is on hitech units like Ricardo's type of business.

Pension funds invest in commercial property with a reasonably long view for a return. The proximity to the A27 is a factor too.

I've read that the local MP probably won't help but what about next door and Norman Baker? With his Transport hat on and a revised south east aviation white paper isn't he worth a try?

Sir George Cayley

[2604]

Full ATC is to be retained at Shoreham and another full time controller to be recruited. Hooray!!!

Now it would be nice if the bars and restaurants manager(s) were told to keep their businesses open beyond 16.00L

[chevvron]

Could I ask where you got this information?

[2604]

ATC themselves.

[chevvron]

Just received an e-mail confirming it.

[JW411]

Well, if that is true then I am truly a happy bunny.

I was flying today doing a mixture of RNAV approaches and circuit work. It was a nice day and every man and his dog was out to play.

ATC were doing a fantastic job (thank you Bob). It would have been chaos without them.

[Roffa]

IO,

Shoreham has the best and most helpful ATC of all places I know. It is a tragedy that established ATC working practices make ATC so expensive to operate, but obviously nobody has an interest in changing that.

Each unit or provider has their own working practices as agreed between themselves and their staff. In the UK however all also have to adhere to SRATCOH, as laid down in CAP670 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP670.PDF) and it is SRATCOH that will ultimately dictate minimum staff numbers etc. .

You may consider it a tragedy that SRATCOH exists but fortunately the more enlightened folk in the aviation industry recognise fatigue and suchlike as bad things and to be avoided. You no doubt probably also consider it a tragedy that when you fly commercially your flight deck and cabin crew have duty time limitations as well?

Anyway, you think duty time limitations are a bad thing? Nothing to stop you starting your own campaign to petition the CAA and government to have them changed or removed.

[IO540]

I think, Roffa, that you spend your shift breaks trawling the 2 UK aviation forums I post on for my posts containing any references to working practices, and when you see one you pop up like that toy which has the spring up its backside :)

By "tragedy" I mean the tragedy of the way UK GA is organised and run. Mandatory ATC for approaches means GPS approaches will never be of operational relevance in the UK. This sets up a cost barrier to IFR traffic which at the vast majority of GA airfields can never be crossed.

The only solution is "DIY GPS approaches" which are tacitly approved by the CAA (ANO, G-reg) because everybody knows that nobody wants to deal with the issue in the way it can be dealt with in every other country in the world i.e. regarding GA as an economic/transport resource which, like roads etc, should be centrally funded.

Of course you might say the real culprit is ATC privatisation, which is true, but (in the post-Maggie era) there was never any will to provide specific GA services anyway, and we have to move on from where we are now.

Excellent news from Shoreham :ok:

[I Love Flying]

Fab news from Shoreham.

Did my training there last winter, and cannot begin to imagine the chaos that would ensue on a sunny weekend without ATC. On more than one occasion whilst training, I was number 5 in the circuit and grateful to have the all-seeing-eyes of ATC there to assist me with my lookout and positioning.

Bob, and others, you do a great job!:ok:

[2604]

Unfortunately, IMHO it is only a matter of time before the management company does eventually what it wants with Shoreham Airport. It is apparently talking about trying to "save £180,000" instead of trying to make £180,000.

This is only the beginning of the end. I hope I'm wrong.

[IO540]

Well, if you get a property developer who is focused on a particular site and is happy to take a long term view, and throw a lot of money at it, then he will always win.

The reason they often give up is because they find an easier target elsewhere.

But in this case the local council is equally determined to keep the airport as an airport. They want to keep the green gap between Shoreham and Lancing.

Obviously if the council changes their policy the airport would be finished.

But one could say that about all aspects of planning policy. Relax planning policy and it will be like the Spanish coast. All we have to go on is that the council does not change its policy, and that comment applies to most GA facilities in the UK. Nothing is somehow sacred - even an airfield owned by an aviation enthusiast will come to an end when he dies, or gets fed up with it.

[FlyingGoat]

when he dies

or she.

[2604]

Ok but the council doesn't seem to much bothered that Erinaceous "breached" the contract in the first place.

[Dannyboyblue]

True but does erinaceous even exist any more?