Giving away our airspace and jobs
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it might be a hard lesson to learn chaps but we can't deny aircraft a better service just to keep us in employment. If the potential impact is as huge as you have made out it is essential that NATS and the IAA work together beacuse otherwise it would just be imposed on us and those potential problems become far more likely to happen.
The radar is there, we can't tell 'em to dismantle it. Well we could but they would rightly tell us to sod off.
The radar is there, we can't tell 'em to dismantle it. Well we could but they would rightly tell us to sod off.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you make a comparison NATS ATCOs are not particularly well off in European terms.
Where we do have enormously bigger costs are in non ATCO and support staff.
Not many countries have what we have T + P + A (ATSA 4) on every sector we open ..... in fact probably none.
Where we do have enormously bigger costs are in non ATCO and support staff.
Not many countries have what we have T + P + A (ATSA 4) on every sector we open ..... in fact probably none.
Was does airspace ownership need to be fixed? Why can't it float between centres depending on the time of day. Most controllers I know don't like the night shift (I don't and who can blame them).
The current feudal system of upper enroute air traffic control in Europe is a joke.
Confine the military to small areas beneath and/or clear of the main airways and consolidate the upper enroute air traffic control to a few centres taking into account technology and time zones. Probably won't mean fewer jobs overall especially if there is an expansion of civil areas.
The current feudal system of upper enroute air traffic control in Europe is a joke.
Confine the military to small areas beneath and/or clear of the main airways and consolidate the upper enroute air traffic control to a few centres taking into account technology and time zones. Probably won't mean fewer jobs overall especially if there is an expansion of civil areas.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missy;
Don't forget that you need to be rated in the area that you are going to work. So you are going to need to know the airspace and other such items such as arrivals, departures approaches. That takes knowledge that you must retain to work. Shifting large amounts of airspace makes that very difficult...
regards
Scott
Don't forget that you need to be rated in the area that you are going to work. So you are going to need to know the airspace and other such items such as arrivals, departures approaches. That takes knowledge that you must retain to work. Shifting large amounts of airspace makes that very difficult...
regards
Scott
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pilot it is great to see that the ATCOs at ScOACC are far more interested in their own pay and conditions than providing the best service possible. 
Not only should the IAA get as much airspace as it can provide a better service in but that should also include the North sea where ScOACC refuses to provide a decent level of service! (see other topic for that one).
Can anyone tell me where it has been published that the EU paid for the radar? (I'd love to see how much it and the new Shannon centre cost compared to the Swanwick and possible new Scottish centre costs).
Furthermore, if the EU paid for the radar then isn't it only right that EU citizens get the most out of it (not just Scottish ones). Getting a direct routing from 56N20W to say NTS could be a cost saver on a regular basis for European citizens. Why pay more to fly via GOW and the North Sea
Perhaps those in doubt of the ability of the new Shannon centre to cope should make a visit. they have the HF station just down the road and are geared up for CPDL. However, that is one for the future
The IAA have for years provide the MtGabriel feed to LATCC. Thus making it available to ScOACC as well. Seems that SOTA works well so other than self interest there is no reason why the NOTA can not be as good for us pilots who do the work that pays your wages that you are moaning about!
Remember Foynes?.....the IAA providing a service on the Atlantic is simply returning to the situation pre Shanwick but with a better service.
---
svoight11,
This is oceanic (procedural) airspace which now has radar cover thanks to IAA investment. There are no aerodromes and the proposal is simply to make an area of radar controlled ATS routes which will replace the current procedural daily track structure. This will make direct routes from well out into the Atlantic to mid Europe avaialble thus avoiding much of the busy and costly airspace of the UK.
Regards,
DFC
Not only should the IAA get as much airspace as it can provide a better service in but that should also include the North sea where ScOACC refuses to provide a decent level of service! (see other topic for that one).
Can anyone tell me where it has been published that the EU paid for the radar? (I'd love to see how much it and the new Shannon centre cost compared to the Swanwick and possible new Scottish centre costs).
Furthermore, if the EU paid for the radar then isn't it only right that EU citizens get the most out of it (not just Scottish ones). Getting a direct routing from 56N20W to say NTS could be a cost saver on a regular basis for European citizens. Why pay more to fly via GOW and the North Sea
Perhaps those in doubt of the ability of the new Shannon centre to cope should make a visit. they have the HF station just down the road and are geared up for CPDL. However, that is one for the future
The IAA have for years provide the MtGabriel feed to LATCC. Thus making it available to ScOACC as well. Seems that SOTA works well so other than self interest there is no reason why the NOTA can not be as good for us pilots who do the work that pays your wages that you are moaning about!
Remember Foynes?.....the IAA providing a service on the Atlantic is simply returning to the situation pre Shanwick but with a better service.
---
svoight11,
This is oceanic (procedural) airspace which now has radar cover thanks to IAA investment. There are no aerodromes and the proposal is simply to make an area of radar controlled ATS routes which will replace the current procedural daily track structure. This will make direct routes from well out into the Atlantic to mid Europe avaialble thus avoiding much of the busy and costly airspace of the UK.
Regards,
DFC
Hi Scott,
An aussie and a yank chatting about european airspace!!
That point is acknowledged and I am not suggesting for one moment that the controllers working the airspace ain't appropriately endorsed.
Of course you need to know the airspace but in my earlier post I was referring to the upper enroute area, perhaps RVSM levels.
I'm sure there would be issues that needed to addressed. As it is the Upper Air above Sydney is controlled from Melbourne. The Upper Air above our nation's capital (Canberra) is also controlled by Melbourne. As Tokyo is in the same time zone there may not be that much of an advantage, but controlling aircraft using CPDLC and ADS doesn't have to done from directly beneath the airspace.
Australia has two major centres, both located on the eastern side of Australia, one in Brisbane and one in Melbourne. The Brisbane Centre handles traffic across the northern half of Australia. The Melbourne Centre handles traffic across the southern half of Australia and into the Indian Ocean.
I can understand the senstivities of governments about other nationals controlling the upper airspace. That is why you would limit it to upper airspace [RVSM] and entry to lower levels would required the approval of the state.
Airservices Australia has a contract with the Solomon Islands government to manage the upper airspace of the Honiara FIR on their behalf. This ATC service is provided from the Brisbane Centre.
The marketing people at Airservices argue that they have the technology platform and the experience to offer similar services to other nations.
An aussie and a yank chatting about european airspace!!
Don't forget that you need to be rated in the area that you are going to work.
you are going to need to know the airspace and other such items such as arrivals, departures approaches.
Whats the Ozzy line on say, AsiaControl and a rationalisation of en-route centres, with the Upper Air above Sydney being controlled from say, Tokyo?
Australia has two major centres, both located on the eastern side of Australia, one in Brisbane and one in Melbourne. The Brisbane Centre handles traffic across the northern half of Australia. The Melbourne Centre handles traffic across the southern half of Australia and into the Indian Ocean.
I can understand the senstivities of governments about other nationals controlling the upper airspace. That is why you would limit it to upper airspace [RVSM] and entry to lower levels would required the approval of the state.
Airservices Australia has a contract with the Solomon Islands government to manage the upper airspace of the Honiara FIR on their behalf. This ATC service is provided from the Brisbane Centre.
The marketing people at Airservices argue that they have the technology platform and the experience to offer similar services to other nations.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
Before you get the slating that you are expecting from your posting, I must say that on the whole you are simply repeating the points I've been saying in my discussion with Arran's view. However, you spoil it by then talking utter bolleaux about the north sea. Most controllers are more than willing to provide a 'decent' (ie, RAS) outside CAS but are prevented from doing so by the fact it is a military playground. What's more, in the upper air most controllers will strive to give direct routings whenever they can but cannot always oblige due to active (but frequently unused) danger areas.
It is a completely different issue to the NOTA which I agree is an improved service to the likes of you and can't really be argued against on other than self-interest grounds.
Before you get the slating that you are expecting from your posting, I must say that on the whole you are simply repeating the points I've been saying in my discussion with Arran's view. However, you spoil it by then talking utter bolleaux about the north sea. Most controllers are more than willing to provide a 'decent' (ie, RAS) outside CAS but are prevented from doing so by the fact it is a military playground. What's more, in the upper air most controllers will strive to give direct routings whenever they can but cannot always oblige due to active (but frequently unused) danger areas.
It is a completely different issue to the NOTA which I agree is an improved service to the likes of you and can't really be argued against on other than self-interest grounds.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missy,
It is worth remebering that the piece of airspace being discussed is in the middle of the atlantic. In terms of being close to a territory, it is closer to Ireland than to Scotland. That is how a radar located in Ireland can provide the coverage while ones located in Scotland can not.
Balix,
The North Sea is another thred but very similar. In the North Sea case, management are putting money ahead of safety while in this case, the ATCOs are putting money before safety.
One very important point is that the UK's airspace extends to 3nm from the shore. Beyond that it has airspace under control as a result of international agreement.
Regards,
DFC
It is worth remebering that the piece of airspace being discussed is in the middle of the atlantic. In terms of being close to a territory, it is closer to Ireland than to Scotland. That is how a radar located in Ireland can provide the coverage while ones located in Scotland can not.
Balix,
The North Sea is another thred but very similar. In the North Sea case, management are putting money ahead of safety while in this case, the ATCOs are putting money before safety.
One very important point is that the UK's airspace extends to 3nm from the shore. Beyond that it has airspace under control as a result of international agreement.
Regards,
DFC
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the North Sea case, management are putting money ahead of safety.
If anyone is to 'blame' it is the military who continually oppose the NEW-ADN airway and insisted on such huge danger areas. Whether or not they are justified is another argument that I'm not going to go into here.
while in this case (the NOTA), the ATCOs are putting money before safety.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points:
DFC - Its 12nm and not 3.
Balix - P18. Big argument gone around the buoy a few times. The customer also happens to be the military. Ever heard of the Joint & Integrated Concept? Personally, I think it is reprehensible for an operator to choose to take a greater risk and go "off route" to save money. Implemenetaion of the NEW-ABN route would cost a fortune (to the military). In case you forgot, you directly fund this organisation.
What do you mean by "decent RAS"? I suspect, from other comments on this Forum that some controllers (and regulators?)are misinterpreting the terms and conditions of a RAS. For example, Where exactly in MATS Pt 1 does it say that a controller IS to provide RAS traffic with standard separation of 5nm against unknown traffic. My understanding is that the phrase where possible is quite important. Let's not forget, RAS is an advisory service.
I think one thing we should all agree about is that it is a fine balance between providing a safe service against commercial/economic influence. I guess that is why the regulator has not been privatised.
DFC - Its 12nm and not 3.
Balix - P18. Big argument gone around the buoy a few times. The customer also happens to be the military. Ever heard of the Joint & Integrated Concept? Personally, I think it is reprehensible for an operator to choose to take a greater risk and go "off route" to save money. Implemenetaion of the NEW-ABN route would cost a fortune (to the military). In case you forgot, you directly fund this organisation.
What do you mean by "decent RAS"? I suspect, from other comments on this Forum that some controllers (and regulators?)are misinterpreting the terms and conditions of a RAS. For example, Where exactly in MATS Pt 1 does it say that a controller IS to provide RAS traffic with standard separation of 5nm against unknown traffic. My understanding is that the phrase where possible is quite important. Let's not forget, RAS is an advisory service.
I think one thing we should all agree about is that it is a fine balance between providing a safe service against commercial/economic influence. I guess that is why the regulator has not been privatised.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whipping boy
I'm well aware of the fact that the military are also 'customers' and wasn't going to get into an argument about it on this thread. I was merely trying to point out to DFC that his assumptions as to the problems on the north sea were perhaps a bit off the mark. If you look closely at my last contribution you will see the word 'blame' is in inverted commas.
As for decent RAS, well a thousand ATCOs will give you a thousand different ideas as to what that entails. I'm well aware that the service does not guarantee 5nm separation but what it does do is guarantee some form of separation (ie, an avoiding turn). I personally think that in the Tay sector that is impossible to say that you will spot some fighter popping up and slamming into a civil a/c under a RAS and as such I can see the logic behind us being told not to provide a RAS under any circumstances.
Just one more thing, why would a ADN-NEW airway cost a fortune to the military? I know you can't exactly move Leuchars but a 10 mile wide airway with a base at, say, FL150 (perhaps a bit lower nearer NEW and ADN) is hardly utilising a large chunk of your playground.
I'm well aware of the fact that the military are also 'customers' and wasn't going to get into an argument about it on this thread. I was merely trying to point out to DFC that his assumptions as to the problems on the north sea were perhaps a bit off the mark. If you look closely at my last contribution you will see the word 'blame' is in inverted commas.
As for decent RAS, well a thousand ATCOs will give you a thousand different ideas as to what that entails. I'm well aware that the service does not guarantee 5nm separation but what it does do is guarantee some form of separation (ie, an avoiding turn). I personally think that in the Tay sector that is impossible to say that you will spot some fighter popping up and slamming into a civil a/c under a RAS and as such I can see the logic behind us being told not to provide a RAS under any circumstances.
Just one more thing, why would a ADN-NEW airway cost a fortune to the military? I know you can't exactly move Leuchars but a 10 mile wide airway with a base at, say, FL150 (perhaps a bit lower nearer NEW and ADN) is hardly utilising a large chunk of your playground.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balix, this argument is all about efficient use of airspace. There are times where the military do not manage their MDAs as they should. Similarly, there are times where a piece of CAS is not justifiable. At present, the argument for ADN-NEW (P18) is not justifiable. Why doesn't the relatively small amount of CAT go the long way round? We cannot automatically implement CAS just because we want to - we must consider all airspace users. In the meantime, I would repeat my original comment. The onus for risk acceptance must lie upon the civil operator who chooses to operate in Class G airspace for commercial gain.
Regarding application of RAS - I cannot see the logic behind prohibiting it's application due to the risk of pop-up traffic. IMHO that RAS should only be refused due to controller workload.
Regarding application of RAS - I cannot see the logic behind prohibiting it's application due to the risk of pop-up traffic. IMHO that RAS should only be refused due to controller workload.
I'm Just A Lawnmower
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Over the hills and faraway
Age: 62
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh wihipping one
It might not seem it but I'm more or less in agreement with you with regards shared usage of airspace. We obviously differ as to the viability of P18 but it is fairly inevitable as we are looking at it from the opposite viewpoints.
As for RAS, well, it all gets back to corporate liability. Should the unthinkable happen it would be NATS and the ATCO involved in the dock. The rules stated we should provide separation and we didn't. Big fine for NATS, prison for the controller? Suddenly it becomes even more of a risky game.
Sorry to drift quite a long way off topic...
It might not seem it but I'm more or less in agreement with you with regards shared usage of airspace. We obviously differ as to the viability of P18 but it is fairly inevitable as we are looking at it from the opposite viewpoints.
As for RAS, well, it all gets back to corporate liability. Should the unthinkable happen it would be NATS and the ATCO involved in the dock. The rules stated we should provide separation and we didn't. Big fine for NATS, prison for the controller? Suddenly it becomes even more of a risky game.
Sorry to drift quite a long way off topic...
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From MATS 1, Section 1, Chapter 3 - Separation Standards:
Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided between:
.......
(h) Aircraft participating in the radar advisory service.
From MATS 1, Section 1, Chapter 5 - Radar Services:
A radar advisory service (RAS) is an air traffic radar service in which ....... maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to avoid the confliction. Where time does not permit ...... controller shall pass advice on avoiding action....
Under a RAS the following conditions appply:
.......
(e) Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with non-participating traffic and, wherever possible shall seek to achieve .... 5nm/3000'....... however, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
(end of text)
It seems pretty obvious to me that 'I didn't see it' or 'I was too busy with my airways traffic' are not valid reasons for, at the very least, giving avoiding action, so the decision not to provide RAS (or to limit it) is entirely justified in that respect. In my opinion though, that should be a judgement for the individual atco and not the company lawyers. It also seems very obvious that pilots should not expect to achieve standard separation in areas where military jets are involved in high energy manoeuvres, and in class G must be prepared to work that bit harder on their lookout. To be fair, most of them seem to understand this. Complaining about avoiding action turns or stopping climb and descent does not endear them to this controller though.
Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided between:
.......
(h) Aircraft participating in the radar advisory service.
From MATS 1, Section 1, Chapter 5 - Radar Services:
A radar advisory service (RAS) is an air traffic radar service in which ....... maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to avoid the confliction. Where time does not permit ...... controller shall pass advice on avoiding action....
Under a RAS the following conditions appply:
.......
(e) Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with non-participating traffic and, wherever possible shall seek to achieve .... 5nm/3000'....... however, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.
(end of text)
It seems pretty obvious to me that 'I didn't see it' or 'I was too busy with my airways traffic' are not valid reasons for, at the very least, giving avoiding action, so the decision not to provide RAS (or to limit it) is entirely justified in that respect. In my opinion though, that should be a judgement for the individual atco and not the company lawyers. It also seems very obvious that pilots should not expect to achieve standard separation in areas where military jets are involved in high energy manoeuvres, and in class G must be prepared to work that bit harder on their lookout. To be fair, most of them seem to understand this. Complaining about avoiding action turns or stopping climb and descent does not endear them to this controller though.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whipping Boy
See the other thread on this forum about East Coast Airway...
As I posted on that, the number of civilian Commercial flights likely to use an Airway ADN - NEW is OVER 100 per day... a bit more than a "small amount" - AND a lot more aircraft than the boys in blue could ever put up!!!!!
Therefore as the LARGEST volume of customers they surely should get priority? Especially when each fast jet only has at max 2 POB
MDA = Mis-managed Danger Area = nearly always booked and very rarely used.
DD
See the other thread on this forum about East Coast Airway...
As I posted on that, the number of civilian Commercial flights likely to use an Airway ADN - NEW is OVER 100 per day... a bit more than a "small amount" - AND a lot more aircraft than the boys in blue could ever put up!!!!!
Therefore as the LARGEST volume of customers they surely should get priority? Especially when each fast jet only has at max 2 POB
MDA = Mis-managed Danger Area = nearly always booked and very rarely used.
DD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I must have missed that bit somewhere ... where did we say that ?
Whta we have here is an EU subsidised radar being given to the IAA and access denied to NATS. Otherwise ScOACC would have been more than happy to provide a service and give the sort of direct routes they give all day every unlike other Area units.
When you have this utopian low cost service provided by the IAA exactly who is going to make up the lost revenue and increased cost base for NATS ? If you fly commercially then it will be your airline irrespective of whether you gain the benefit of the new super improved subsidised anti competeitive service provided to only North Atlantic carriers using south England and Paris. Enjoy
As a pilot it is great to see that the ATCOs at ScOACC are far more interested in their own pay and conditions than providing the best service possible.
Whta we have here is an EU subsidised radar being given to the IAA and access denied to NATS. Otherwise ScOACC would have been more than happy to provide a service and give the sort of direct routes they give all day every unlike other Area units.
When you have this utopian low cost service provided by the IAA exactly who is going to make up the lost revenue and increased cost base for NATS ? If you fly commercially then it will be your airline irrespective of whether you gain the benefit of the new super improved subsidised anti competeitive service provided to only North Atlantic carriers using south England and Paris. Enjoy
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arran,
The quote you provided in your last post is I believe what the average person would consider your stance on the issue to be.
You however have yet to provide the amount that the EU is supposed to have paid for this radar. More importantly, how much did NATS pay?
You are the ones who sat on your hands while NATS was privatised and now live in constant fear of NATS loosing out in competition. My advice - take out that dry powder keg and sit on it while you have a long smoke
Thanks to Whipping Boy's SATCO, we now know that Scotlands airspace extends to 12nm from the coast.
This means that this topic has nothing to do with Scottish or UK airspace so your complaint fails before one reads beyond the title.
-----
Balix,
I agree that there is not enough of a requirement to justify a NEW - ADN airway especially when an alternative route (slightly longer) exists.
What we have a problem with is eastbound from NEW where there is no protection and no suitable service. The UK military do not recognise advisory routes and quite happily blast across. However, the important point is that if there was an advisory route eastbound from NEW to the FIR boundary, we could get a RAS while on that route and that would be a big benifit while climbing up to the upper levels or for those flights who never reach the safety of the upper air.
---
Of course, what will really upset Arran is the news that the IAA are about to complete the radar head for the remainder of Shanwick airspace north of 53N
Don't believe me? Perhaps you should sail out to Rockall and have a look
Regards,
DFC
The quote you provided in your last post is I believe what the average person would consider your stance on the issue to be.
You however have yet to provide the amount that the EU is supposed to have paid for this radar. More importantly, how much did NATS pay?
You are the ones who sat on your hands while NATS was privatised and now live in constant fear of NATS loosing out in competition. My advice - take out that dry powder keg and sit on it while you have a long smoke
Thanks to Whipping Boy's SATCO, we now know that Scotlands airspace extends to 12nm from the coast.
This means that this topic has nothing to do with Scottish or UK airspace so your complaint fails before one reads beyond the title.
-----
Balix,
I agree that there is not enough of a requirement to justify a NEW - ADN airway especially when an alternative route (slightly longer) exists.
What we have a problem with is eastbound from NEW where there is no protection and no suitable service. The UK military do not recognise advisory routes and quite happily blast across. However, the important point is that if there was an advisory route eastbound from NEW to the FIR boundary, we could get a RAS while on that route and that would be a big benifit while climbing up to the upper levels or for those flights who never reach the safety of the upper air.
---
Of course, what will really upset Arran is the news that the IAA are about to complete the radar head for the remainder of Shanwick airspace north of 53N
Don't believe me? Perhaps you should sail out to Rockall and have a look
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC if I may correct one or two things and we obviously read most of the rest of your posts with a very large pinch of sea salt.
Not all of us sat on our hands during privatisation. Some of us worked very long hours over years to influence what was happening. When it finally happened 10 years after initial proposal then it was a different beast. Changed very substantially by the sensible arguments put forward by ATCOs, particularaly those from Scotland.
I completely disagree with your interpretation of the Arran comments. You also link it to the debate about services in the FIR which I don't believe were any of his comments.
ScACC ATCOs give the very highest levels of service they can realistically offer. My understanding is that there were a considerable number of incidents where the aircraft types and performance were so different that it was nearly impossible to give timely avoiding action to participating traffic and still have any assurance of achieveing the desired separation. A radar information service is all that can be realistically provided. If you are looking for safety then make a comparison of the number of serious incidents inside the airways system and those outside airways for the flights going to or from Aberdeen. There must be a multiple of 10 involving aircraft outside airways and only a percentage of those are working ScACC under a RIS.
You somewhat illogically say that the military do not recognise advisory routes but you want on to get a RAS anyway. Your first statement is wrong. They do recognise ADRs and give advice on how to cross and what service is appropriate. If you read the Airprox reports you will see the Strike Command comments regularly criticise military pilots if they have not obtained a service from a Radar Unit whilst crssing ADRs. As said above even if ScACC could offera RAS that would not solve the problem.
You talk about the EU funded radar. That information is not immediately available but should not be difficult to find out. You ask how much did NATS pay ? Well they obviously paid nothing for the Irish radar but just as the Irish are going to get access to NATS radar for this area, NATS could equally have provided the service with access to the Irish radar to supplement the coverage in the area.
I for one have no fear of competition. But we have here a state run ATC agency who are being given undisclosed funding for a service to compete with the only privatised ATC service in Europe. The parallels with Ryanair and Charlois seem stark. Maybe those European commisioners who judged the aid to Ryanair to be illegal will have a view on this situation.
I didn't see you answer Arran's point about making up the lost revenue. Your airline and every other airline having a service from NATS will have to contribute to the gap in funding.
As far as airspace is concerned Scotland does not have any of it's own. The UK deals with this issue. Maybe Whipping boy could quote exactly where his view comes from about so many miles off the UK coast. I do not believe this to be true. My understanding is that, unlike the international airspace of the North Atlantic, the airspace around the UK is divided by international Governmental agreement. In this case the participating Governments have agreed some principles so Arran is more correct than you when he says that airspace is being "given away". He is certainly correct when he says jobs are being given away. Ireland will have more and after a period of evaluation the UK will have less.
I have said here before that this matter ( the North Atlantic not the North Sea) is being underestimated. There are very interesting principles and precedents here which are being set. The rest of Europe is only awakening to Single Sky. In a few years we might see huge changes to services, routes and charges around Europe. I wouldn't predict that the smaller airlines will be better off and maybe this is an example.
Not all of us sat on our hands during privatisation. Some of us worked very long hours over years to influence what was happening. When it finally happened 10 years after initial proposal then it was a different beast. Changed very substantially by the sensible arguments put forward by ATCOs, particularaly those from Scotland.
I completely disagree with your interpretation of the Arran comments. You also link it to the debate about services in the FIR which I don't believe were any of his comments.
ScACC ATCOs give the very highest levels of service they can realistically offer. My understanding is that there were a considerable number of incidents where the aircraft types and performance were so different that it was nearly impossible to give timely avoiding action to participating traffic and still have any assurance of achieveing the desired separation. A radar information service is all that can be realistically provided. If you are looking for safety then make a comparison of the number of serious incidents inside the airways system and those outside airways for the flights going to or from Aberdeen. There must be a multiple of 10 involving aircraft outside airways and only a percentage of those are working ScACC under a RIS.
You somewhat illogically say that the military do not recognise advisory routes but you want on to get a RAS anyway. Your first statement is wrong. They do recognise ADRs and give advice on how to cross and what service is appropriate. If you read the Airprox reports you will see the Strike Command comments regularly criticise military pilots if they have not obtained a service from a Radar Unit whilst crssing ADRs. As said above even if ScACC could offera RAS that would not solve the problem.
You talk about the EU funded radar. That information is not immediately available but should not be difficult to find out. You ask how much did NATS pay ? Well they obviously paid nothing for the Irish radar but just as the Irish are going to get access to NATS radar for this area, NATS could equally have provided the service with access to the Irish radar to supplement the coverage in the area.
I for one have no fear of competition. But we have here a state run ATC agency who are being given undisclosed funding for a service to compete with the only privatised ATC service in Europe. The parallels with Ryanair and Charlois seem stark. Maybe those European commisioners who judged the aid to Ryanair to be illegal will have a view on this situation.
I didn't see you answer Arran's point about making up the lost revenue. Your airline and every other airline having a service from NATS will have to contribute to the gap in funding.
As far as airspace is concerned Scotland does not have any of it's own. The UK deals with this issue. Maybe Whipping boy could quote exactly where his view comes from about so many miles off the UK coast. I do not believe this to be true. My understanding is that, unlike the international airspace of the North Atlantic, the airspace around the UK is divided by international Governmental agreement. In this case the participating Governments have agreed some principles so Arran is more correct than you when he says that airspace is being "given away". He is certainly correct when he says jobs are being given away. Ireland will have more and after a period of evaluation the UK will have less.
I have said here before that this matter ( the North Atlantic not the North Sea) is being underestimated. There are very interesting principles and precedents here which are being set. The rest of Europe is only awakening to Single Sky. In a few years we might see huge changes to services, routes and charges around Europe. I wouldn't predict that the smaller airlines will be better off and maybe this is an example.