Airport/Airspace changes in SE UK
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport/Airspace changes in SE UK
Colleagues,
Anyone following airport developments will probably be aware that the former Kent International Airport has recently been sold to a firm committed to re-opening the place. Also, that a Development Consent Order process has been completed and is awaiting a decision from the SoS. The purpose of this post is NOT to challenge the wisdom of this situation or enter into viability arguments. My aim is to stimulate discussion on future ATC services and airspace classification once this closed airport transitions to an open one in, maybe, 2 years time or so. There seems to me to be quite a tricky problem to be solved of multiple over-lapping circles; service provision, staff numbers, technology, future airspace policy, CAA/EASA oversight and regulation, business implementation and risks to that business by getting it wrong, control zones/areas, safety, class of airspace, proximity of other CAS, digital towers, oft-quoted national ATCO shortage etc. Etc. Lots of developments happening in the wider AT world which could work for or against.Traffic assumptions:That the bulk of the paying traffic will be transport category airliners.
That airliners will be training – visual circuits, practice approaches and so on.
Flying club.
Helicopter school.
Flight training of light a/c on instrument approaches.
Transit trafficWhat thoughts do the assembled company have on how this might pan out? As I said, I'm looking to stimulate a theoretical debate!Any reference to official documentation for supporting arguments would be appreciated.Ta,
LISSART
Anyone following airport developments will probably be aware that the former Kent International Airport has recently been sold to a firm committed to re-opening the place. Also, that a Development Consent Order process has been completed and is awaiting a decision from the SoS. The purpose of this post is NOT to challenge the wisdom of this situation or enter into viability arguments. My aim is to stimulate discussion on future ATC services and airspace classification once this closed airport transitions to an open one in, maybe, 2 years time or so. There seems to me to be quite a tricky problem to be solved of multiple over-lapping circles; service provision, staff numbers, technology, future airspace policy, CAA/EASA oversight and regulation, business implementation and risks to that business by getting it wrong, control zones/areas, safety, class of airspace, proximity of other CAS, digital towers, oft-quoted national ATCO shortage etc. Etc. Lots of developments happening in the wider AT world which could work for or against.Traffic assumptions:That the bulk of the paying traffic will be transport category airliners.
That airliners will be training – visual circuits, practice approaches and so on.
Flying club.
Helicopter school.
Flight training of light a/c on instrument approaches.
Transit trafficWhat thoughts do the assembled company have on how this might pan out? As I said, I'm looking to stimulate a theoretical debate!Any reference to official documentation for supporting arguments would be appreciated.Ta,
LISSART
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast and Suffolk
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF they reopen, the chances are they’ll only get a 2.5NM ATZ, like they had when they closed. Lydd and Headcorn not far away have the same although theirs are 2NM as their Runways are shorter. Of course, there could be a Business Case imminent with an Airspace Change Proposal involving a request for Controlled Airspace but these are usually only granted because of high passenger numbers; Flying Schools, Helicopters and Airliners doing visual approaches won’t attract the passenger numbers warranting controlled airspace.
Nobody wants to see any airfield closed so best of luck to whoever it is that wants to reopen it.
Nobody wants to see any airfield closed so best of luck to whoever it is that wants to reopen it.
Colleagues,
Anyone following airport developments will probably be aware that the former Kent International Airport has recently been sold to a firm committed to re-opening the place. Also, that a Development Consent Order process has been completed and is awaiting a decision from the SoS. The purpose of this post is NOT to challenge the wisdom of this situation or enter into viability arguments. My aim is to stimulate discussion on future ATC services and airspace classification once this closed airport transitions to an open one in, maybe, 2 years time or so. There seems to me to be quite a tricky problem to be solved of multiple over-lapping circles; service provision, staff numbers, technology, future airspace policy, CAA/EASA oversight and regulation, business implementation and risks to that business by getting it wrong, control zones/areas, safety, class of airspace, proximity of other CAS, digital towers, oft-quoted national ATCO shortage etc. Etc. Lots of developments happening in the wider AT world which could work for or against.Traffic assumptions:That the bulk of the paying traffic will be transport category airliners.
That airliners will be training – visual circuits, practice approaches and so on.
Flying club.
Helicopter school.
Flight training of light a/c on instrument approaches.
Transit trafficWhat thoughts do the assembled company have on how this might pan out? As I said, I'm looking to stimulate a theoretical debate!Any reference to official documentation for supporting arguments would be appreciated.Ta,
LISSART
Anyone following airport developments will probably be aware that the former Kent International Airport has recently been sold to a firm committed to re-opening the place. Also, that a Development Consent Order process has been completed and is awaiting a decision from the SoS. The purpose of this post is NOT to challenge the wisdom of this situation or enter into viability arguments. My aim is to stimulate discussion on future ATC services and airspace classification once this closed airport transitions to an open one in, maybe, 2 years time or so. There seems to me to be quite a tricky problem to be solved of multiple over-lapping circles; service provision, staff numbers, technology, future airspace policy, CAA/EASA oversight and regulation, business implementation and risks to that business by getting it wrong, control zones/areas, safety, class of airspace, proximity of other CAS, digital towers, oft-quoted national ATCO shortage etc. Etc. Lots of developments happening in the wider AT world which could work for or against.Traffic assumptions:That the bulk of the paying traffic will be transport category airliners.
That airliners will be training – visual circuits, practice approaches and so on.
Flying club.
Helicopter school.
Flight training of light a/c on instrument approaches.
Transit trafficWhat thoughts do the assembled company have on how this might pan out? As I said, I'm looking to stimulate a theoretical debate!Any reference to official documentation for supporting arguments would be appreciated.Ta,
LISSART
They operated for many years after becoming a civil airport without controlled airspace handling both passenger carrying flights and freight without even a suggestion they might ask for controlled airspace so why would they need it now?
It's my understanding that the intention is to concentrate on freight flights when (not if) it re-opens and as controlled airspace requires a minimum throughput of passengers per year, determined by the D of T (who won't tell anyone what this minimum is), the airport wouldn't qualify anyway.
Before closing, they had their own approach radar service (APS) which also provided LARS; this would be sufficient in the future although Farnborough, who operate LARS just to the west of Manston, could easily cover the APS requirement using remote radars.
It's my understanding that the intention is to concentrate on freight flights when (not if) it re-opens and as controlled airspace requires a minimum throughput of passengers per year, determined by the D of T (who won't tell anyone what this minimum is), the airport wouldn't qualify anyway.
Before closing, they had their own approach radar service (APS) which also provided LARS; this would be sufficient in the future although Farnborough, who operate LARS just to the west of Manston, could easily cover the APS requirement using remote radars.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks chaps.
Yes clearly the 2.5NM ATZ as before would get approved. Considering the remarks about other airspace classes getting approval - or more likely not - we are left with an ATZ in class G. I'm not sure that a "business case" presumably based on speculated projected traffic is a good enough game changer for the CAA. On the other hand, a DCO requires that the project is Nationally Important Infrastructure so that designation could swing the case.
The next step could be to decide if the service is to be radar or non-radar, either on site or not. Chevron's point about other units providing a radar service is interesting. Southend might be another possibility but we are entering into the realms of Service Level Agreements and all that. Would these other units have enough staff capacity in any case? Does any business feel comfortable having essential services provided by someone else, albeit with contracts etc in place? Is a place like Manston likely to be able to attract enough fully rated ATCO's given its recent history? Or, why not go the whole hog and get the tower done remotely as well under the same package while you are at it?
So, if a business decision to not invest in radar on site was taken, a Procedural Service could be provided, The usual arguments about APP in class G apply but where else could you find yourself doing procedural separations with a 747 against a KingAir trainer, 6000 or less of vertical airspace to play with and EGMC class D to the west etc.....? Maybe then, APP but with Class E + TMZ to give some protection - that might mitigate the need for radar IF you could persuade the CAA. (Don't EASA say class E can't be used for aerodromes?) All of that is put in place, then along come EASA again and ban all of our current control services outside of CAS because you can't have "control" in class G! (This is on the cards but I forget the reference.) We also have the various ADS-B trials going on at the moment. Maybe they could be looked at.
To summarise, it seems to me that there are a lot of variables that could be applied here on what is effectively a Green field. One option is just to carry on applying the rules we have as before: Class G, APP, Deconfliction service subject to whatever staff you can get. (Look how long it has taken Carlisle to get themselves going due to ATC constraints.) Alternatively, we could push the technology which may mitigate to a certain extent the ATCO shortage (or make it someone else's problem) while enhancing safety. Or think outside of the box as to what airspace is for/about and do something a bit different. If it could even be done.......
Yes clearly the 2.5NM ATZ as before would get approved. Considering the remarks about other airspace classes getting approval - or more likely not - we are left with an ATZ in class G. I'm not sure that a "business case" presumably based on speculated projected traffic is a good enough game changer for the CAA. On the other hand, a DCO requires that the project is Nationally Important Infrastructure so that designation could swing the case.
The next step could be to decide if the service is to be radar or non-radar, either on site or not. Chevron's point about other units providing a radar service is interesting. Southend might be another possibility but we are entering into the realms of Service Level Agreements and all that. Would these other units have enough staff capacity in any case? Does any business feel comfortable having essential services provided by someone else, albeit with contracts etc in place? Is a place like Manston likely to be able to attract enough fully rated ATCO's given its recent history? Or, why not go the whole hog and get the tower done remotely as well under the same package while you are at it?
So, if a business decision to not invest in radar on site was taken, a Procedural Service could be provided, The usual arguments about APP in class G apply but where else could you find yourself doing procedural separations with a 747 against a KingAir trainer, 6000 or less of vertical airspace to play with and EGMC class D to the west etc.....? Maybe then, APP but with Class E + TMZ to give some protection - that might mitigate the need for radar IF you could persuade the CAA. (Don't EASA say class E can't be used for aerodromes?) All of that is put in place, then along come EASA again and ban all of our current control services outside of CAS because you can't have "control" in class G! (This is on the cards but I forget the reference.) We also have the various ADS-B trials going on at the moment. Maybe they could be looked at.
To summarise, it seems to me that there are a lot of variables that could be applied here on what is effectively a Green field. One option is just to carry on applying the rules we have as before: Class G, APP, Deconfliction service subject to whatever staff you can get. (Look how long it has taken Carlisle to get themselves going due to ATC constraints.) Alternatively, we could push the technology which may mitigate to a certain extent the ATCO shortage (or make it someone else's problem) while enhancing safety. Or think outside of the box as to what airspace is for/about and do something a bit different. If it could even be done.......
'ATC constraints' at Carlisle are due to a drastic shortage of suitably rated and experienced ATCOs. Everybody wants controllers with ADV/ADI and APS ratings nowadays, very few units have APP only.
Some airports will tempt inexperienced controllers by saying 'get the MER, then we will take you on and sponsor you for an APS rating'.
Safeskys in particular have suffered from this at Wycombe.
Some airports will tempt inexperienced controllers by saying 'get the MER, then we will take you on and sponsor you for an APS rating'.
Safeskys in particular have suffered from this at Wycombe.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast and Suffolk
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend’s CAS ACP was different as they already had a few new commercial flights, the passenger numbers was not quite yet there for CAS but the airlines wanted the protection of CAS before increasing their movements which they did very soon after the implementation.
As already said before, the magic number of passengers required before CAS will be given is not known and it seems to rely heavily on what the DfT are given by way of ACP which ultimately gets its facts and figures from some kind of Business Case/Model from the Sponsor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again.
Chevvron rightly points out some of the problems with ATCO availability. It does not help now only having the one private ATC training college. I still maintain that one of the biggest single risks to the Manston project could well turn out to be a lack of ATCO's,e specially as Greenfield vaildations will be needed, ruling out in the first case, ab-initio's. All that money, all that effort and struggle and they can't operate as envisaged because of a lack of controllers! That would be a bitter pill to swallow. So, strategic thinking needs to include assessment of this risk and how to mitigate it. From my own experience, I'd say it is not just about attracting controllers but about retention. Give them professional salaries, working conditions and sound management and above all avoid trying to make a dodgy business successful by nibbling away at their T's & C's and squeezing every last bit of juice out of them. ATCO are essential staff and ATC is just part of the cost of doing business.
Andy Mayes points are interesting. One would hope that a genuine conversation could be had between the operator, ANSP's, airlines, etc to come up with a solution.
Anybody want to comment on the idea in principle of Class E + TMZ as a CAS solution, following the changes coming in 2020 from EU 373 part ATS?
Chevvron rightly points out some of the problems with ATCO availability. It does not help now only having the one private ATC training college. I still maintain that one of the biggest single risks to the Manston project could well turn out to be a lack of ATCO's,e specially as Greenfield vaildations will be needed, ruling out in the first case, ab-initio's. All that money, all that effort and struggle and they can't operate as envisaged because of a lack of controllers! That would be a bitter pill to swallow. So, strategic thinking needs to include assessment of this risk and how to mitigate it. From my own experience, I'd say it is not just about attracting controllers but about retention. Give them professional salaries, working conditions and sound management and above all avoid trying to make a dodgy business successful by nibbling away at their T's & C's and squeezing every last bit of juice out of them. ATCO are essential staff and ATC is just part of the cost of doing business.
Andy Mayes points are interesting. One would hope that a genuine conversation could be had between the operator, ANSP's, airlines, etc to come up with a solution.
Anybody want to comment on the idea in principle of Class E + TMZ as a CAS solution, following the changes coming in 2020 from EU 373 part ATS?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast and Suffolk
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s some talent at the nearby Lydd in the form of SATCO Mr Maskens and his team of ATCOs. Perhaps some kind of assistance could be provided by them in the startup. Of course, SRATCOH would need to be taken into account. Once established as an airport and ATSU again, it would make it more attractive in recruiting new ATCOs. I would suggest, until it is operating again, unless staff are already living nearby, there would be some reluctance to move there given it’s history.
I do hope it does come to fruition. It’s sad to see it just sitting there every time I fly the Gatwick STAR,
I do hope it does come to fruition. It’s sad to see it just sitting there every time I fly the Gatwick STAR,
Thanks again.
Chevvron rightly points out some of the problems with ATCO availability. It does not help now only having the one private ATC training college. I still maintain that one of the biggest single risks to the Manston project could well turn out to be a lack of ATCO's,e specially as Greenfield vaildations will be needed, ruling out in the first case, ab-initio's. All that money, all that effort and struggle and they can't operate as envisaged because of a lack of controllers!
Chevvron rightly points out some of the problems with ATCO availability. It does not help now only having the one private ATC training college. I still maintain that one of the biggest single risks to the Manston project could well turn out to be a lack of ATCO's,e specially as Greenfield vaildations will be needed, ruling out in the first case, ab-initio's. All that money, all that effort and struggle and they can't operate as envisaged because of a lack of controllers!
I was tentatively approved for a greenfield validation at Dunsfold back in 2012 based on the fact I used to operate close by at Farnborough and I had held an ADV/ADI validation up to 4 years previously.
The plan was to be I would do ADV/ADI on my own with other controllers 'observing', then after about 4 weeks, with CAA approval I could start training the other controllers; that is probably how it would be done at Manston. I had already held 'greenfield' validations 6 times for 'special events' so the CAA inspectors were aware of my record.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wherever someone will pay me to do fun stuff
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
Greenfield validations shouldn't be a problem; one of the ex Manston controllers recently circulated his CV so he's 'on the market'....
Originally Posted by middles
ATCOs..........Offer the right money, and they will come.
They'd take one look at the cost of renting lines from BT, (and you would need to rent at least 2 high definition lines via separate routes for redundancy as with SSR feeds) and would say 'it'll be cheaper to employ a controller on site'.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Make an risk assessment of the desired airspace options.
If wanting to make a controlled airspace, make sure it is not larger than the absolute required, which means, contain instrument approaches and departures and the traffic circuit.
Make sure if you’re going for some sort of uncontrolled airspace, that airprox and collisions are covered by the assessment, with the risk included where there’s no atc to intervene. And that assessment you send to the CAA for approval.
Hence, ever any airprox, or collision, it’s approved by the CAA.
If wanting to make a controlled airspace, make sure it is not larger than the absolute required, which means, contain instrument approaches and departures and the traffic circuit.
Make sure if you’re going for some sort of uncontrolled airspace, that airprox and collisions are covered by the assessment, with the risk included where there’s no atc to intervene. And that assessment you send to the CAA for approval.
Hence, ever any airprox, or collision, it’s approved by the CAA.
Lissart, the points that you attribute to EASA in your post (e.g. class E not being used for aerodromes) are actually ICAO SARPS and PANS. EASA is only acting on behalf of the EC to propose the transposition of ICAO materials into EU law (Implementing Rules) and to develop the associated AMC and GM. Class E airspace can be used around aerodromes but only as a control area, control zones must be class D or 'above'.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: France
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lissart, the points that you attribute to EASA in your post (e.g. class E not being used for aerodromes) are actually ICAO SARPS and PANS. EASA is only acting on behalf of the EC to propose the transposition of ICAO materials into EU law (Implementing Rules) and to develop the associated AMC and GM. Class E airspace can be used around aerodromes but only as a control area, control zones must be class D or 'above'.
1/. Continue to operate in class G but downgrade their current ATS to FIS only. The repercussions of this are obvious.
2/. Apply to the UK CAA for class D, which is possibly unlikely to be approved.
3/. A hybrid solution: Convince the CAA to grant class D classification to the ATZ itself - so a radius of 2.5nm for the bigger airports - with contiguous class E control areas to protect departure and arrival routes. This would mimic what happens in practice at the moment. But I have no idea if this is even possible as a solution or acceptable to the regulator.
Clearly if these changes are going to happen - and everyone is saying that they are - there is a massive change coming. Short of substantially increasing the total amount of class D - which is unlikely and unpopular with the GA community - there seems to be limited solutions available to be allowed to retain Air Trraffic Control services (both Tower and Approach) at these airports.
What is the answer then....?
I'm replying from my phone so can't easily download the EASA CRD that was published (so I can't quote exactly) and contained each of the State's comments but the answer to your question is in there. I recall that the CAA said things like they "support the principle" that ATC service is provided in controlled airspace and "aspire" to implement the proposals in full but that it will take longer than normal EU transition periods to achieve compliance. Gross understatement but evidence of moving in the right direction.
... the CAA said things like they "support the principle" ....... and "aspire" to implement the proposals in full but that it will take longer than normal .....
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts