Doncaster LARS
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in Southern England
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH,
Read what the CAA have published, e.g.Farnborough Radar has taken responsibility for a “London LARS”. The fact that the callsign is Farnborough, rather than London is irrelevant.
Read what the CAA have published, e.g.Farnborough Radar has taken responsibility for a “London LARS”. The fact that the callsign is Farnborough, rather than London is irrelevant.
Which is why I didn't bother much with SH650's remarks, although it isn't wholly his fault; his total lack of knowledge of the non-ICAO compliant UK system is tainted by his knowledge of the non-ICAO compliant US system, that's his big problem.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, I've lost track of what your point is here.
My points are two fold:
1) For everyone to fully understand what LARS is
2) For airspace to re-designed to permit VFR aircraft to safely enter it.
We agree that nobody really knows what point 1 is.
So let's talk about point 2.
A few other posters have commented that someone needs to pay for it to set it up.
My point is that it's controlled airspace has been set up to provide protection to fare paying passengers.
They are the ones who really don't want the mid-air collision.
They are also the ones who primarily contribute towards en-route charges and navigation charges.
However all that has been done, instead of providing services to keep air traffic separated, is set up this massive and complex Class A airspace all around London.
This means everyone who is flying VFR gets NO TRANSIT OR CLEARANCE is wasting huge amounts of time and fuel trying to REMAIN OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE, being made to flying low, and unsuccessfully avoid huge airspace resulting in:
idiots .... infringing CAS and causing chaos!!!!
Why do we never have this problem out here in New York?
Pilots are not the idiots.
It is because the airspace has been designed properly and everyone has access.
Therefore it makes sense that you start taking fresh look at London airspace and think about granting all aircraft access, regardless of flight rules.
Given your airline customers are the ones who need or want the airspace, it makes most sense that you recover your costs through them as they are the people who benefit most from it.
As seen by your en-route charges and airport navigation charges, GA really cannot afford to pay those rates.
But to keep out aircraft just because you think they're not paying anything for it is just extremely poor.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 21st Oct 2013 at 13:58.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH,
That wasn't me.
All your other points seem to be addressed at CAA rather than NATS.
Airspace design and classification is governed by CAA.
Yes, and I can quote many meetings I've attended where other airspace users (i.e. IFR operators using London airports) don't want to permit VFR access, and cite safety concerns about the airspace design and ATC procedures in the USA.
Really? I'd suggest that all airspace users feel that way. Unless you are suggesting you have a lower safety threshold?
Who is keeping aircraft out because they don't pay? Class D CTRs have VFR transits. VFR is not permitted in Class A CTAs. If you want VFR access to what is now a Class A CTR you need to talk to CAA, not NATS.
Please go and visit somewhere like Farnborough, and talk to the LARS controllers there about the 'duty of care' they are lumbered with. For better or worse the UK is not the USA in terms of airspace/ATC. It's no good just haranguing the coal-face ATCOs for 'banning VFR flights'.
<<idiots .... infringing CAS and causing chaos!!!! >>
And more NATS employees hurtling abuse on forums.
And more NATS employees hurtling abuse on forums.
All your other points seem to be addressed at CAA rather than NATS.
Airspace design and classification is governed by CAA.
2) For airspace to re-designed to permit VFR aircraft to safely enter it.
They are the ones who really don't want the mid-air collision.
But to keep out aircraft just because you think they're not paying anything for it is just extremely poor.
Please go and visit somewhere like Farnborough, and talk to the LARS controllers there about the 'duty of care' they are lumbered with. For better or worse the UK is not the USA in terms of airspace/ATC. It's no good just haranguing the coal-face ATCOs for 'banning VFR flights'.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
I've never been "banned" from transiting Class D airspace in UK. I have on a small number of occasions been held outside. Sometimes I've chosen to wait, sometimes I've changed to plan B and gone round instead.
I've found it possible to get SVFR transits of Class A airspace in UK much more often than not.
I've never had a problem accepting the way the UK's "LARS" system works, or not. It is less easy to obtain a LARS service than in years gone by because quite a number of the units providing the service have been closed (mainly military units). Pilots have to adapt to changes, it's what we're paid for.
I've only been using the airspace since 1973 and since 1977 for a living, all of it non-airways but a fair proportion under IFR over the last fifteen years or so. In this branch of aviation we fly routinely operate VFR-IFR-VFR OCAS because we have no choice (probably more than most pilots do) but perhaps I'm missing something.
In any case, if anyone isn't happy about the setup of UK airspace, there's absolutely no point getting grumpy to ATC about it, it's not them making the rules, as in "don't shoot the messenger"!
I've found it possible to get SVFR transits of Class A airspace in UK much more often than not.
I've never had a problem accepting the way the UK's "LARS" system works, or not. It is less easy to obtain a LARS service than in years gone by because quite a number of the units providing the service have been closed (mainly military units). Pilots have to adapt to changes, it's what we're paid for.
I've only been using the airspace since 1973 and since 1977 for a living, all of it non-airways but a fair proportion under IFR over the last fifteen years or so. In this branch of aviation we fly routinely operate VFR-IFR-VFR OCAS because we have no choice (probably more than most pilots do) but perhaps I'm missing something.
In any case, if anyone isn't happy about the setup of UK airspace, there's absolutely no point getting grumpy to ATC about it, it's not them making the rules, as in "don't shoot the messenger"!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and cite safety concerns about the airspace design and ATC procedures in the USA.
Really? I'd suggest that all airspace users feel that way. Unless you are suggesting you have a lower safety threshold?
However very busy GA VFR and IFR airports also have a air traffic control because see and avoid does not work at such levels.
Who is keeping aircraft out because they don't pay?
Therefore there is a underlying perception that the airspace is set up deliberately to keep traffic GA out instead of being safely cleared through it.
And I'm not haranguing any coal-face controller here. I was just rambling on the issues and misundertandings and inconsistencies about LARS - not the SERVICE provided by the people, but its DEFINITION as a concept - and then someone took things personally, interjected, and asked me to pay for it.
Last edited by soaringhigh650; 21st Oct 2013 at 16:53.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 428 Likes
on
226 Posts
Shouldn't that read 'Plan A'....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH,
In your opinion.
I can also relate concerns of US carriers of European/UK ATC that I can portray as overplayed. However, when we come across this we don't just tell them they're wrong and that the USA doesn't do things right. We sit down with them and discuss the concerns, explain why we do things the way we do, the limitations we are faced with (which tangentially are far different for a purely commerical and independent entity with capped income such as NATS, than for a Federal Agency such as the FAA), and we both come out of the room with a far greater understand of each other's worlds.
There, I corrected it for you.
Yes, as I keep saying, if you want VFR access to areas that are currently Class A, you need to lobby the CAA and/or EASA, to change the rules. Failing that, you need to submit an ACP to the CAA.
On here and in other fora you yourself are constantly negative towards NATS. You still have yet to understand that NATS operates under the rules and airspace set by the CAA.
Some concerns valid. But others overplayed.
I can also relate concerns of US carriers of European/UK ATC that I can portray as overplayed. However, when we come across this we don't just tell them they're wrong and that the USA doesn't do things right. We sit down with them and discuss the concerns, explain why we do things the way we do, the limitations we are faced with (which tangentially are far different for a purely commerical and independent entity with capped income such as NATS, than for a Federal Agency such as the FAA), and we both come out of the room with a far greater understand of each other's worlds.
Essentially NATS looks after huge volumes of Class A airspace on behalf of the UK CAA according the the En Route licence
Yes, as I keep saying, if you want VFR access to areas that are currently Class A, you need to lobby the CAA and/or EASA, to change the rules. Failing that, you need to submit an ACP to the CAA.
On here and in other fora you yourself are constantly negative towards NATS. You still have yet to understand that NATS operates under the rules and airspace set by the CAA.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have totally gone off topic but might as well continue. I'm sure there is one somewhere but if someone was able to post a diagram of the LTMA which showed the SIDS and STARS etc form all the major airports that are in such close proximity to each other, maybe, just maybe SH will get the drift (not holding my breath though).
I'm not saying the LTMA route structure is perfect... it is far from it and that is one of many reasons for LAMP, but given the complexity involved with having so many commercial airports in such a small space, it is no wonder that there are swathes of complicated CLASS A.
Of course the way to really simplify it would be to make the whole of the LTMA class A from ground up... but that's not what anyone wants
I'm not saying the LTMA route structure is perfect... it is far from it and that is one of many reasons for LAMP, but given the complexity involved with having so many commercial airports in such a small space, it is no wonder that there are swathes of complicated CLASS A.
Of course the way to really simplify it would be to make the whole of the LTMA class A from ground up... but that's not what anyone wants
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH650's desire is for
The CAA has slightly different criteria when deciding how best to allocate what is a very scarce resource. The Transport Act 2000 requires it to "satisfy the requirements of operators and owners of all classes of aircraft" but also to "secure the most efficient use of airspace consistent with the safe operation of aircraft and expeditious flow of air traffic"
Perhaps mindful that to do both might be an impossible task the Act gives the CAA the leeway to meet the requirements in a manner it thinks reasonable with regard to the whole set and generally it does.
The presumption in the UK is for Class G and it is almost inevitable that if you limit the amount of controlled airspace you end up with an awful lot of traffic in what CAS there is and that means your ability to allow other traffic in will be limited.
For airspace to re-designed to permit VFR aircraft to safely enter it.
Perhaps mindful that to do both might be an impossible task the Act gives the CAA the leeway to meet the requirements in a manner it thinks reasonable with regard to the whole set and generally it does.
The presumption in the UK is for Class G and it is almost inevitable that if you limit the amount of controlled airspace you end up with an awful lot of traffic in what CAS there is and that means your ability to allow other traffic in will be limited.
See how the remarks of someone who doesn't understand the workings of UK Airspace Management have caused the thread to drift; it's supposed to be a discussion on whether DSA should join the UK LARS system!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gonzo - Thank you for the correction.
But NATS and the CAA were the same organization before 1996 and the airspace we see today was drawn up way before then.
Why do you think I'm "constantly negative" towards NATS? And what do you think makes me get such thoughts?
On here and in other fora you yourself are constantly negative towards NATS. You still have yet to understand that NATS operates under the rules and airspace set by the CAA.
Why do you think I'm "constantly negative" towards NATS? And what do you think makes me get such thoughts?
