Inverness [radar]
de minimus non curat lex
Thread Starter
Inverness [radar] happenings
As reported elsewhere, HIAL are considering the introduction of radar into INV.
The trafffic levels over the last five years have increased significantly, and the introduction of INV radar would be most welcome. The present arrangement of Lossie radar providing a quasi approach function, although welcome in class G airspace, can lack from expedition when more than two aircraft are in the system at once.
There seems to be a reluctance by some to use radar headings to the best advantage, and prefer to observe the pass take place before climbing or descending the traffic. Perhaps the SOPs prevents this on some routes?
The trafffic levels over the last five years have increased significantly, and the introduction of INV radar would be most welcome. The present arrangement of Lossie radar providing a quasi approach function, although welcome in class G airspace, can lack from expedition when more than two aircraft are in the system at once.
There seems to be a reluctance by some to use radar headings to the best advantage, and prefer to observe the pass take place before climbing or descending the traffic. Perhaps the SOPs prevents this on some routes?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dandy so long as they don't introduce a great dollop of controlled airspace. Perhaps a course on R/T brevity might help as well ? 
Sorry, couldn't resist that one, I'm sure it's just the SOPs
.
Sorry, couldn't resist that one, I'm sure it's just the SOPs
.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB6 you are spot on - what continues to amaze me is that Kirkwall, Stornoway, Sumburgh and Wick ATCs have very clear and concise RT, and yet Inverness which is the busiest HIAL airport use the most verbose style going.
Why is this?
Why is this?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sea Level
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inverness (radar) happenings
This thread appears to discuss two subjects DB6 appears to talk about the SOPS of the Lossie Radar R/T etc.. ecj goes on to discuss/compare other airfields R/T surely some of the problems that arise are the interface of civil/mil procedures that Inverness/Lossiemouth face and the subsequent co-ordination required? The other units presumably don't have to work with a military unit so closely? Other threads on Civ/Mil operations seem to indicate this.
Or could I be wrong?
Or could I be wrong?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could indeed be wrong; Lossie radar use standard military phraseology and are as good as you would expect RAF controllers to be, especially considering they are handling military traffic simultaneously on UHF. My post was a slightly mischievous dig at Inverness ATC who can be somewhat long-winded at times however the impression I get is that this is what their SOPs demand rather than any need on their part to keep talking. The civil/mil interface works well given the circumstances, however once traffic is passed on to Inverness the controllers are obliged to separate traffic procedurally which can lead to holding and consequent delays. I believe another problem is that Lossie are obliged, when push comes to shove, to look after their own traffic first and any other on a capacity basis (which is as it should be). Inverness radar would remove that small uncertainty and also free up Lossie to look after their own, however I personally think there is already enough controlled airspace in Britain and wouldn't like to see any more added.
