Question about LARS in the UK

[soaringhigh650]

So I read:

Lower Airspace Radar Services (LARS) was originally established in the 1970s to improve the efficiency of air traffic control services provided to aircraft in the vicinity of airfields not protected by controlled airspace. Its primary objective is to aid the flow of air traffic arriving at, and departing from, these airfields by encouraging aircraft transiting the area to receive an air traffic service (ATS).

An example of a notified LARS unit is Southend.

I also read:

Aerodromes with IAPs outside controlled airspace: Pilots who intend to fly to or route adjacent to aerodromes with IAPs are strongly recommended when flying within 10nm of the aerodrome to contact the aerodrome ATSU.

Examples of this would be Cambridge and Oxford and Coventry.

I also read:

Military Aerodrome Traffic Zone: The purpose of a MATZ is to provide a volume of airspace within which increased protection may be given to aircraft in the critical stages of circuit, approach and climb-out. Although the recognition of a MATZ by civil pilots is not mandatory, they are encouraged to do so.

Examples of this would be Benson and Wattisham.

Does this mean ALL radar equipped aerodromes with IAPs outside controlled airspace, including ALL those contained inside a MATZ, should be notified to provide LARS?

If not, why not?

[qwerty2]

I'm sure an expert answer will be along in a minute but it's worth remembering that LARS isn't a free service ; IIRC it's paid for by NATS(CAA).
So , I guess there's only so much money to divide up between appropriate ATC Units.

[Avoiding_Action]

I'm pretty sure Durham provide a LARS. I'm sure NATS don't pay for that.

[orgASMic]

Er, Wattisham? I think you need to get some up-to-date FLIPs! Current LARS units are here: http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-07-26.pdf (page 19, if the link does not take you straight to the right page).

Does this mean ALL radar equipped aerodromes with IAPs outside controlled airspace, including ALL those contained inside a MATZ, should be notified to provide LARS?

No, only those on the list linked above. Why not? Because it takes an extra controller on shift, an extra console, extra training, etc. All of which costs money. Civil units will provide it where the balance of risk says that it is a sensible thing to do and where someone is willing to pay for it. Military units provide it because it is in our interests to do so, but only at the units listed above.

When I started controlling (early 90s), there were lots more military airfields and almost the whole of the UK was covered by (mostly military)LARS. Now, not so many of those airfields are open and so more civil units provide LARS, when the cost can be justified.

[qwerty2]

Here's a 2008 NATMAC Document explaining things

NATMAC Informative Letter

I see that at that time Durham was being paid almost £50,000

[Gonzo]

soaringhigh650

Mode S transponders are invaluable safety tools and allow greater airspace capacity.....all aircraft are fitted with them aren't they? And if not why not?

Radar provides an invaluable safety and expedition tool, and allows far greater airspace capacity when used.....all airfields have radar, don't they? And if not, why not?

VHF radio provides an invaluable safety tool, and allows far greater airspace capacity and expedition. All aircraft have radios, don't they? And if not, why not?

[soaringhigh650]

Cost, cost and cost?

I hadn't realized that having the "LARS" badge implied a minimum level of service being offered till now.

Besides that, pilots procedurally do the same - they are encouraged to make themselves known to the three different types of units.

Therefore I think it makes sense to have one type of graphical symbol on one chart.

[ShyTorque]

I've been flying in UK airspace since 1973. The UK is far worse off now for LARS provision than it used to be when the scheme first came into being, due to "negative expansion" of the military. The Midlands is a case in point - since the demise of Cottesmore, there is a big gap in the middle of a chunk of busy Class G airspace.

I'm glad to be provided with a TCAS equipped aircraft! (but before the "trumpetting know-it-alls" begin, I'm fully aware it doesn't negate the need and responsibility to look out...).

[NorthSouth]

ST: agree there are a lot less providers now, but equally, there's a lot less traffic, especially military, so arguably the need for a radar service is less than it was. I've been struck in the last year or two by how quiet almost all frequencies are these days. Did a long trip virtually the whole length of the UK and back last week, mostly on a traffic service with LARS units, and was given almost no traffic info.

Your example's a case in point. At one time Cottesmore had all Tornado type training for UK Germany and Italy while down the road at Wittering there were 3 Harrier squadrons and a training unit. Now there's nothing at either.

NS

[Amexgull]

The other potential reason for a lot less traffic info is the recent-ish changes to ATSOCAS. When applied correctly it should result in far less traffic being called in relation to the previous equivalent, RIS.

[chevvron]

All LARS both civil and military is funded by NATS En-Route Ltd., who in turn get their funding from Eurocontrol Route Charges. The budget is quite small and the payments to individual airfields vary depending on hours/days of operation ie those providing it 24/7 get more than those providing it mon-fri 9-5 to quote the two extremes.
Edit to add:
No way does LARS funding pay for any extra staff, the intention being LARS is provided from spare capacity at radar equipped airfields, apart from the Farnborough operated London LARS system which is subsidised from NATS own budget
Don't forget it's all free to the end users though.

[orgASMic]

The funding does not cover the whole cost, as is admitted in the DPA letter linked by Qwerty2:

The present level of funding for LARS is insufficient to cover the cost of a stand-alone service but it is a useful form of supplementary income for ATSUs using their existing infrastructure, equipment and manpower. It effectively cements their commitment.

The top rate in that letter (dated 2007) is £85.5k for up to 65 hrs of service. That would barely cover the salary of one controller plus the associated costs of his training, standardisation, leave cover, etc, let alone the 3-4 controllers the unit would actually have to employ to provide that up-to-65 hours of service. (I have not done the establishment sums, just working on orders of magnitude).
Others here have rightly said that perceived requirement has reduced in line with traffic levels operating in lower airspace. The extrapolation of this trend added to the expense to the unit can only mean the number of units providing LARS will reduce. The airport authority's thought process will be along the lines of: "less GA/Mil traffic in the lower air around my airfield = less risk to my aircraft movements outside CAS = less return on my investment in the extras controllers, so let's spend the money on petitioning for more CAS around the airfield to get the protection instead". Unless the system is fully-funded, civil units will eventually stop providing LARS unless their safety management assessment in favour of providing it is irrefutable. Mil units will continue to provide it at certains units in our own interests and, with fewer Mil movements, we need to give controllers something to do.
This is just my opinion but, when times are hard, businesses trim everything they can in order to save money. UK LARS is a 'luxury' provided at a loss on a voluntary basis. We need to be very convicing with our argument to retain it or the bean-counters will get rid of it, which would be wrong for lots of reasons other than their balance sheets.

[NorthSouth]

Amexgull:

The other potential reason for a lot less traffic info is the recent-ish changes to ATSOCAS. When applied correctly it should result in far less traffic being called in relation to the previous equivalent, RIS

I'm interested to know how you reach that conclusion. Can you elaborate?
NS

[chevvron]

I retired before TS was introduced, but as far as I can see they're the same in all but name.

[Talkdownman]

Guidelines for the provision of TS from AIC: Y 106/2012:

Traffic is normally considered to be relevant when, in the judgement of the controller, the conflicting aircraft's observed flight profile indicates that it will pass within 3 NM and, where level information is available, 3000 ft of the aircraft in receipt of the Traffic Service.

There were no such guidelines under RIS. Some traffic information under RIS from some ATSOCA ATCOs was akin to an opthalmic examination.

[Amexgull]

Pretty much what talkdownman says and quotes. Under RIS controllers were often taught that as a guideline anything within 5 miles was to be called. It was never written down as such but it was assumed as that was the lateral separation reqd if under RAS. Also that aircraft could have been on parallel or diverging tracks with no point of confliction. Under the newer ATSOCAS they really nailed down what relevant traffic was and therefore, if applied correctly, it should reduce the amount of TI passed. I worked FIS/RIS/RAS and I believe the changes really are an improvement...

[NorthSouth]

Interesting. I see what you mean about the 3nm guideline. However two sentences on in the same guidance it says:
Controllers shall aim to pass information on relevant traffic before the conflicting aircraft is within 5 NM, in order to give the pilot sufficient time to meet his collision avoidance responsibilities and to allow for an update in traffic information if considered necessary.
So that would tend to limit the difference between RIS and TS, would it not?

I also think one of the main aims of the new ATSOCAS - to reduce the instances of controllers providing radar-based traffic info to aircraft on a FIS - hasn't happened. I still get lots of radar-based traffic info on a BS. I'm not complaining though - it's all useful and appreciated and I never EXPECT it.

As a little postscript, I was offered a "Flight Information Service" by a radar controller a couple of weeks ago. Felt like a time-warp.

NS

[Talkdownman]

it is important that controllers do not provide a routine and regular flow of specific traffic information to pilots receiving a Basic Service as this would blur the difference with a Traffic Services.

Originally Posted by NorthSouth

I also think one of the main aims of the new ATSOCAS - to reduce the instances of controllers providing radar-based traffic info to aircraft on a FIS - hasn't happened.

I most certainly agree.

"Request TS"
"TS not available, BS only"
"Roger BS"

"Traffic , blah blah..."
"Roger traffic, confirm TS?"
"Negative, BS"

Yup, it's BS alright. Can anybody provide CAP774 with any consistency?

[Avoiding_Action]

Nevertheless, if a controller considers that a definite risk of collision exists, they are encouraged to issue
a warning to the pilot, but their ability to do so will also be affected by their workload and their perception of the confliction. Therefore, even
though you may have previously been warned about a definite risk of collision whilst receiving a Basic Service, do not expect this in all
occasions as it may not be possible for controllers to always pass such warnings.

[Amexgull]

Controllers shall aim to pass information on relevant traffic before the conflicting aircraft is within 5 NM

Key word here being relevant - under RIS anything that would penetrate a 5nm bubble would be called regardless of whether it was relevant or not eg passing behind. I agree with the problems of service creep but also I couldn't sleep at night if I had a chance to highlight a possible confliction and didn't and the worse happened... If the blips will merge and one is unknown (non-squawking or no mode C) I will always provide at least a generic traffic warning or a reminder to keep your eyes peeled...