EGTK Radar?

[NorthSouth]

niknak:

The only way a long term plan would work is biting the bullet and contracting out to NATS

But I think it might be worth differentiating between:
1) contracting out to NATS = buying a radar feed from existing NATS radars which is then used by controllers at TK to provide a service, and
2) contracting out to NATS = employing NATS Services Ltd as your ATS provider, as is done at Heathrow/Gatwick/Bristol etc. This could extend to paying NATS to buy your radar for you (although I'm not sure I'd go that far.......)

Number 1 wouldn't allow you to do SRAs into Oxford because the radars are too far away. It might also mean you couldn't apply 3nm separations. Then again, given the traffic situation at Oxford, chances are you couldn't ever provide a Deconfliction Service anyway.

NS

[soaringhigh650]

Controlled Airspace is for sensible pilots and controllers but the clockwork mice brigade have a very strong lobby....

I am a clockwork mouse pilot and consider myself sensible.

I have no reservations with the establishment of controlled airspace to increase the safety of all aircraft.

This means it should be available for transits and isn't Class A.

Nearest NERL radars Debden and Clee Hill

Yet Stapleford, North Weald, Elstree and Panshangar has no radar approaches.

An approach function from Swanwick would involve Band 5 controllers doing a job normally done by Band 1 or 2 controllers - far too expensive.

Is it possible to put band 1 or 2 controllers at Swanwick? Or do the employees just don't mix?

chances are you couldn't ever provide a Deconfliction Service anyway

What's the separation minima?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Yet Stapleford, North Weald, Elstree and Panshangar has no radar approaches.>>

They don't have licenced ATC facilities and are largely used by light aircraft. Oxford has biz jets as well as a very busy flying training facility.

[soaringhigh650]

They don't have licenced ATC facilities and are largely used by light aircraft.

Neither does Marco Island (KMKY) and quite a few airstrips in the area. They can only cope with light aircraft. Pilots make calls on the CTAF.

But Fort Myers (KRSW) does the approach/departure function on 119.75.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

sh650.... Not altogether sure what you are getting at?

[Simtech]

Originally Posted by niknak

There is some justification for providing a joint approach radar service for Oxford/Cranfield by one unit, but where is the funding for this going to come from?

Cranfield are apparently looking at installing their own radar within the next couple of years. They have objected to the siting of a new windfarm for that reason.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Given that Cranfield and Oxford are over 30nm apart I'm not sure how a joint radar service could function given that the best place for an airfield radar is on the airfield. The cost of remoting the information to one or both (if the head was centrally sited) could be prohibitive. Take a look at the elevation profile between the two airfields too. The highest point is about 12 miles southwest of Cranfield which would provide reasonable cover, but probably not below a couple of hundred feet at either airfield.

[chevvron]

Oxford and Cranfield being about 30nm apart; Cranfield Radar used the old RAE Bedford Marconi S232 (50cm radar) for 2nm SRAs and that's 11.5 nm away from Cranfield. A modern radar would probably be 10cm, and if sited high enough should be able to provide 2nm SRAs at both airfields.

[Glamdring]

Is it possible to put band 1 or 2 controllers at Swanwick? Or do the employees just don't mix?

All NATS controllers at Swanwick are Band 5. Although things like Luton Approach and City Approach may not be considered Band 5 positions the controllers doing them will more than likely also be valid on Heathrow or Gatwick.

[niknak]

Cranfield are apparently looking at installing their own radar within the next couple of years. They have objected to the siting of a new windfarm for that reason.

Again, who's going to pay for it? Like Oxford, Cranfield has insuffient commercial activity to pay for the purchase of equipment or instillation, let alone the ongoing running costs (inc. rated staff) without the owners dipping into their own reserves.

As for the windfarms, the technology now exists to eliminate the windfarms as unknown interference and become P.E.'s on the screen, it's expensive and helps if you have controlled airspace, but a number of airports (and, I believe the MOD), have done deals with windfarm operators to provide the equipment in exchange for dropping the objections.

A joint venture between Oxford and Cranfield to contract approach services out to NATS is probably the most commercially viable option.
If nothing else, in time, it eventually leads to only needing ADI ATCOs at each airport as the APP function would be done entirely by NATS.

[chevvron]

Course if the perfectly serviceable AR15 at Luton could be used..................

[anotherthing]

qsyenroute:

I think "over and out" has just summed up why any suggestion of giving a radar service contract to NATS would not be in the best interests of EGTK

I think you are reading wrongly into what 'over and out' has written. NATS TMA North and South controllers are too busy with their primary task to provide the service he talks about, and in fact are not allowed to below FL70. However that does not mean that, if contracted, NATS could not provide the service using other controllers (with the service being the primary task).

There is, I have been told by one LF controller (so second hand knowledge, not sure of the veracity), spare consoles available at Farnborough, if NATS were willing to pay people to provide a service, and subject to suitable radar feeds.

However as LF struggle, due to lack of manpower, to fully man LARS the chances of NATS doing that are low. (Bearing in mind LF LARS was opened with much ceremony and back slapping and talk of major safety benefits were trumpeted, yet now the manpower isn't provided... typical headline grabbing, move on to next bit of glory IMHO).

NikNak

Lets get some facts straight shall we?

The owners of Oxford cannot justify the costs of an approach radar service by installing their own radar, based upon present commercial income at the airport

Yes, let get some facts straight. Oxford openly admit they want to increase their movements by an astronomical amount over the next 2 or 3 years. This should not be allowed until it is proven that there is a solution to the problem. Oxford joiners and leavers are a big safety risk at the moment, the numbers should not be allowed to increase until things are put in place to alleviate this.

Oxford needs to spend the money up-front in order to get the movements it requires. To do it the other way round would be reckless and I can tell you now that no LTMA controller is in favour of it. Not because it makes life harder for us, but because that area is a known hazard as it stands with the movements already there.

The CAA needs to take a long hard look at the policy of allowing airfields outside CAS to operate commercial passenger flights, particularly if those airports are near busy airspace...

[chevvron]

There are indeed two 'spare' consoles at Farnborough which were originally installed for and funded by the air show operators, so it would need their permission to use them.
As regards manpower, two retired ex NATS controllers both with experience of class G operations offered their services but were offered contracts with conditions which weren't acceptable. I don't think NATS HR Dept really understand what a complex job LARS can be, and expect inexperienced ab initio controllers to operate it thus keeping the cost down. I honestly dont know how many (if any) have tried and failed to gain a certificate of competency since I left.

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by chevvron

As regards manpower, two retired ex NATS controllers both with experience of class G operations offered their services but were offered contracts with conditions which weren't acceptable. I don't think NATS HR Dept really understand what a complex job LARS can be, and expect inexperienced ab initio controllers to operate it thus keeping the cost down.

You beat me to it, chevvers! I would have been more than happy to have been a member of the LF LARS team again, however, despite 40 years loyal service including 23 years ATSOCA provision within the areas in question, the nats offer was derisory and laughable. Their loss! I blame the HR Director at the time.

[cambioso]

If they had offered you pies instead of dosh Malcie, I'm sure you would have jumped at the job!!!???
Have a very Happy New Year Matie..................
Jez