New use for Guard?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar
I'm sure NATS would provide the engineering support ... if the MoD paid for it in their contract 
BD
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by London Mil
Ahhh, the Beloved Contract. Lots of talk but seems to have been overshadowed by the wavy lines. I understand that someone is going to do a roadshow sometimes soon.
BD
Guest
Posts: n/a
I suspect the comment was 'tongue in cheek'. However, there is an interesting slant to the argument. I reckon that the RAF couldn't give two hoots about VHF fixing. It certainly provides training value but their core task remains with 243.0. I think the argument is far more interesting from the NATS perspective. On the one hand, NATS react to their customers' demands. If the airlines bleat enough about something it is only right for NATS to respond. Conversely, it is in NATS' interest to keep VHF auto-triangulation as it probably contributes towards the 'safety net', especially in reducing airspace infringements. This issue is particularly high on their agenda and, correct me if I'm wrong, I suspect that NATS would prefer to keep the capability.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by London Mil
On the one hand, NATS react to their customers' demands. If the airlines bleat enough about something it is only right for NATS to respond. Conversely, it is in NATS' interest to keep VHF auto-triangulation as it probably contributes towards the 'safety net', especially in reducing airspace infringements. This issue is particularly high on their agenda and, correct me if I'm wrong, I suspect that NATS would prefer to keep the capability.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These days it seems that 121.5 gets used all too often for PLOC (Prolonged Loss Of Comms) cases where ATC has to get other crews, with whom they have 2-way, to chase up the guys with the ear wax/wrong freq on their behalf.
If crews stop listening on the #2 box then more instances of PLOC will result in frantic gestures/flashing of lights from fighter jocks that pop up alongside unsuspecting Boeing/Airbus drivers!
Like most of these things, apply a modicum of common sense and what's the problem?
If crews stop listening on the #2 box then more instances of PLOC will result in frantic gestures/flashing of lights from fighter jocks that pop up alongside unsuspecting Boeing/Airbus drivers!
Like most of these things, apply a modicum of common sense and what's the problem?
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by London Mil
Ahhh, the Beloved Contract. Lots of talk but seems to have been overshadowed by the wavy lines. I understand that someone is going to do a roadshow sometimes soon.
Date Time Location Room
April 7 10.00 – 11.00 Swanwick Presentation Room
April 21 10.00 – 11.00 Prestwick Room 1.01
May 2 10.00 – 11.00 CTC CTC Restaurant
May 4 10.00 – 12.00 West Drayton Centre Place, Conference Room 1
HTH
BD
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why would the MoD want to pay for a service to the GA community for which they receive no recompense?
) I haven't the faintest idea about that.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PPRuNe Radar
Does that mean NATS pays for 121.5 and the D&D service to civil aircraft at the moment ? (refuse to use the new name ) I haven't the faintest idea about that.
) I haven't the faintest idea about that.
D&D is provided by the RAF primarily for military emergencies but they also do civil as a part of the joint and integrated ATC in the UK. 121.5 is supported by NATS as a licensing requirement.BD
Absolutely correct, I think. CAA have the international legal obligation to monitor 121.5, which they gave to NATS. NATS supplied the military with the kit to monitor 121.5 because they were already looking after 243.0. Who pays for that element of the service provision? Sorry, you'd have to ask someone a lot cleverer than I.
As to who would have to pay for the kit? Don't know. It wouldn't be NATS as they're not obligated to provide a practise VHF. We provide a practise UHF (245.1) for flt safety reasons. We wouldn't provide funding for a practise VHF because we're already doing NATS a favour looking after 121.5-although this works in our favour in a number of ways that have already been mentioned. Central government through the DoT?
As to who would have to pay for the kit? Don't know. It wouldn't be NATS as they're not obligated to provide a practise VHF. We provide a practise UHF (245.1) for flt safety reasons. We wouldn't provide funding for a practise VHF because we're already doing NATS a favour looking after 121.5-although this works in our favour in a number of ways that have already been mentioned. Central government through the DoT?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South West England
Age: 73
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All ACC's have to monitor 121.5MHz as it is an ICAO requirement. For both London and Scottish FIR's this is done on NATS behalf by London and Scottish Mil. Both civil centres have the capability to select 121.5 MHz when required.
The position fixing bit is a requirement of the CAA in the licence issued to NERL. It has to be on VHF (not necessarily 121.5MHz) and again is delegated to the Military operation. Although I don't know for certain it seems likely that both of these services are covered in the NATS/MoD contract.
A I
The position fixing bit is a requirement of the CAA in the licence issued to NERL. It has to be on VHF (not necessarily 121.5MHz) and again is delegated to the Military operation. Although I don't know for certain it seems likely that both of these services are covered in the NATS/MoD contract.
A I
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A I
All ACC's have to monitor 121.5MHz as it is an ICAO requirement. For both London and Scottish FIR's this is done on NATS behalf by London and Scottish Mil. Both civil centres have the capability to select 121.5 MHz when required.
The position fixing bit is a requirement of the CAA in the licence issued to NERL. It has to be on VHF (not necessarily 121.5MHz) and again is delegated to the Military operation. Although I don't know for certain it seems likely that both of these services are covered in the NATS/MoD contract.
A I
The position fixing bit is a requirement of the CAA in the licence issued to NERL. It has to be on VHF (not necessarily 121.5MHz) and again is delegated to the Military operation. Although I don't know for certain it seems likely that both of these services are covered in the NATS/MoD contract.
A I
Under the Air Traffic Services Licence for NATS (En Route) plc (1-Nov-03), Condition 3 controls modification of Specified Services, defined in Schedule 4 to include “Emergency Fixing Facility”, which is “The making available of radio-communications facilities to enable the identification of the position within the Licensed Areas of aircraft communicating on very high frequency.”
BD
Last edited by BDiONU; 6th Apr 2006 at 09:05.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you transmit on guard for 15 sec or longer you trigger a sattelite tracking for SAR purposes. there are about 300 "false alarms" of this kind every day. pretty unnecessary. u wanna chat, go to your company freq or 123.45...
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All ACC's have to monitor 121.5MHz as it is an ICAO requirement. For both London and Scottish FIR's this is done on NATS behalf by London and Scottish Mil. Both civil centres have the capability to select 121.5 MHz when required.
FCS as I've said before, the use of 123.45 as a chat frequency in the UK is STRICTLY PROHIBITED!
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
FCS as I've said before, the use of 123.45 as a chat frequency in the UK is STRICTLY PROHIBITED!
BD
I dare say it is, but what the users don't realise is it's monitored by the authorities (in the UK) and they will trace anyone they can identify and have words with them!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South West England
Age: 73
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the correction 10W. At Swanwick the VCS can select 121.5MHz. Do you mean that at ScATCC the engineers can patch the frequency through or can only the military use it?
A I
A I
