Atsocas
JustaFew
Not sure that I understand your "impression" that the "authority may delegate LARS to radar units". Presumably you mean the Authority (not just being a grammar Nazi, just clarifying!), not sure that it's theirs to "delegate", and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provision.
2 s
Not sure that I understand your "impression" that the "authority may delegate LARS to radar units". Presumably you mean the Authority (not just being a grammar Nazi, just clarifying!), not sure that it's theirs to "delegate", and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provision.
2 s
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provision
But maybe the CAA neddies can't quite grasp the concept of commercial ATC provision (or Einstein's Theory of Relativity)...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Middle England
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ominously, it is now being postulated that LARS/ATSOCAS is not there for the benefit of GA but for the benefit of commercial aviation, as it becomes a CAS protection service, thus making CAS safer, or outside CAS, for protecting commercial operations.
All it needs is the CAA to decide that CAS isn't quite safe enough and lo, you will provide LARS/ATSOCAS at your cost, otherwise you will not be safe! Job done, everyone suitably stitched up!
All it needs is the CAA to decide that CAS isn't quite safe enough and lo, you will provide LARS/ATSOCAS at your cost, otherwise you will not be safe! Job done, everyone suitably stitched up!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK Home Counties
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you will provide LARS/ATSOCAS at your cost, otherwise you will not be safe!
Guest
Posts: n/a
What's so special about NATS that they get to input and comment before other service providers?
I have trouble reconciling the fact that some/many units appear to have a draft copy of a document already with your statement that 'The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.' Industry wide consultation surely means that everyone can see the draft - and I thought that the CAA published their consultations on the website.
I refer you to Articles 104and 105 of the ANO.
I thought this sort of thing wasn't allowed under the SES rules on charging - unless there was some justification. Has NATS stated the justification? It might support mr_grumpy's idea after all!
Originally Posted by Goldfish Watcher
Nothing and they didn't
Originally Posted by 2 sheds
Not sure that I understand your "impression" that the "authority may delegate LARS to radar units". Presumably you mean the Authority (not just being a grammar Nazi, just clarifying!), not sure that it's theirs to "delegate", and they certainly will not merely instruct approach radar units to undertake LARS provision.
Originally Posted by CAP493
Not quite. The new 'London LARS' that is to be introduced by NATS will be paid for by NATS En-route (NERL) although provided by NATS' Airports Division. NERL is funded by the airlines and aircraft operators through the Eurocontrol Route Charging mechanism. Therefore, provision of this expanded service is not ultimately being funded by NATS.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ebenezer - as X-Mil (Now Civil) I am inclined to go all watery eyed over my light blue controlling days....but:
Nail on the head you have hit. What looks the same is often not the same..at all! How about a few bodies who have held both licenses and who's last operational controlling was not during the cold war advising on policy!
Fred.
is the imbalance of military and ex-military personnel to civil personnel in CAA departments such as its Airspace Policy directorate. This inevitably results in a lack of appreciation of the constraints and demands of running a civil commercially-driven ATC unit where simply indenting for equipment or staff just doesn't happen.
In summary, the civil world is not the cosy cut-and-dried prescriptive and orderly world that military aviation inhabits; and unfortunately, a significant number of the military or ex-military policy-makers in some of the CAA's departments, appear unable or unwilling to grasp this fact.
Taking just one example of this apparent lack of appreciation, the provision of a RAS to a military fast-jet, trainer or helicopter is a completely different situation to providing the same RAS to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 with civilian passengers on board, particularly if the phase of flight means that they're not all seated and wearing seat belts.
Taking just one example of this apparent lack of appreciation, the provision of a RAS to a military fast-jet, trainer or helicopter is a completely different situation to providing the same RAS to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 with civilian passengers on board, particularly if the phase of flight means that they're not all seated and wearing seat belts.
Fred.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the main justification is that the greatest risk of airproxes is believed to involve aircraft infringing CAS around high density operations, ie. the TMA. The proposed solution is to provide a LARS covering said area. Will that prevent infringers? May be, we'll just have to see I suppose. Anyway, I suppose NATS' argument would be that if it might prevent incidents, it's worth a go. Nice to see someone putting money towards a safety initiative with perhaps no immediate commercial gain visible, wherever the money comes from.
Never thought I'd say that about NATS!
Never thought I'd say that about NATS!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: far far away
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have trouble reconciling the fact that some/many units appear to have a draft copy of a document already with your statement that 'The CAA will initiate industry wide consultation very soon.' Industry wide consultation surely means that everyone can see the draft - and I thought that the CAA published their consultations on the website.
I believe (but can't be entirely sure)that the document being discussed was out for proof reading, but obviously someone decided to put it out to their whole unit.
And by the way, NERL isn't 'funded' by the airlines - The airlines buy a service from NERL.
Just the same way you don't 'fund' WH Smith when you go buy a magazine from them. They make a profit on what they sell you and use that profit in any way they wish. The only difference is that NERL has a cap on how much profit it can make.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buying a service, such as aeronautical service(s); landing, parking at an airfield, being provided with a radar service outside CAS. One user has to pay, does the other? Not that I'm aware of. I've never asked the pilot how he/she wishes to pay when I'm providing a RAS or a RIS. So, if NATS financial provision for certain airfields is withdrawn, or certain airfields delcine NATSs generous offer to provide a LARS (because it simply won't cover the costs invovled), will LARS be withdrawn, or will the users be charged? After all, they are using a service...
Time for a 'third way'.
Time for a 'third way'.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: far far away
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just A Few, I don't understand your point or your mysterious 'third way'.
Can you explain please?
Before you do, remember that the new Farnborough based service is not actually LARS per se, as its not part of the Government LARS scheme. It appears to be just a convenient way of describing the service provision, which has caused a bit of confusion.
Can you explain please?
Before you do, remember that the new Farnborough based service is not actually LARS per se, as its not part of the Government LARS scheme. It appears to be just a convenient way of describing the service provision, which has caused a bit of confusion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North of Dover
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just as confused as I was at the start! I assume that there might or might not be another consultation but nobody really knows, certainly the CAA website hasn't revealed anything to me.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: far far away
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dover
The review isn't over yet, it's still ongoing - consultation just goes in phases. Have a look at the phase two report on the CAA site. It explains what the phases are.
The review isn't over yet, it's still ongoing - consultation just goes in phases. Have a look at the phase two report on the CAA site. It explains what the phases are.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following the official launch of the proposals last Friday, all documents relating to the public consultation of the proposal to replace the current ATSOCAS procedures are available at:
www.caa.co.uk/consultations
For those interested in the processes that lead to this proposal and the system of consultation being used ie the Airspace & Safety Initiative (ASI) then you might find the following site interesting:
www.airspacesafety.com
I think it is worth pointing out the proposals are draft procedures for the application of air traffic services in class F&G airspace in the UK. There is recognition that training & education will be extremely important and there is a workstream under ASI looking at that, there is another workstream examining the issue of resource implications and there is work being done on the duty of care issues surrounding the provision of service in this airspace with the aim of providing clearer guidance to controllers and aircrew alike.
A separate strand altogether is considering the future of LARS and its associated charging issues in light of SES regulation from Europe.
www.caa.co.uk/consultations
For those interested in the processes that lead to this proposal and the system of consultation being used ie the Airspace & Safety Initiative (ASI) then you might find the following site interesting:
www.airspacesafety.com
I think it is worth pointing out the proposals are draft procedures for the application of air traffic services in class F&G airspace in the UK. There is recognition that training & education will be extremely important and there is a workstream under ASI looking at that, there is another workstream examining the issue of resource implications and there is work being done on the duty of care issues surrounding the provision of service in this airspace with the aim of providing clearer guidance to controllers and aircrew alike.
A separate strand altogether is considering the future of LARS and its associated charging issues in light of SES regulation from Europe.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ISZ - not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happens we can rest assured that the majority of pilots still won't have a clue what each service provides them with.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
chevv:
As I read it, that's what they're proposing - they're now saying you can have any service in any met conditions and any flight rules although presumably because they're now saying what were FIS and RIS are "inappropriate for flight in IMC" you'll now get a huge increase in demand for "deconfliction service", no doubt resulting in an inability to offer anything better than the erstwhile FIS/RIS, due to controller workload!
NS
Lets return to 'VMC' and 'IMC' radar advisory services
NS
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they're now saying what were FIS and RIS are "inappropriate for flight in IMC"