British airfields - 'radar on demand'.
Thread Starter
British airfields - 'radar on demand'.
Prior to about 1985/86, most ATC operations at LBA were provided on a single combined Tower and Approach frequency (123.75 as it was). 120.3 was retained as the Tower frequency but not hitherto used AFAIK. The radar frequency was 121.05 and the radar was only activated to provide vectors for inbound aircraft and also for surveillance radar approaches. I'm fairly certain the radar head (Decca 424 then Plessey 430) stopped rotating in the meantime, meaning the radar controller could escape from his cupboard in the corner into the fresh air of the VCR.
Did any other similar sized airfields such as Bristol or East Midlands have a similar arrangement with regard to radar? Does anywhere still operate like this nowadays?
Thankyou.
Did any other similar sized airfields such as Bristol or East Midlands have a similar arrangement with regard to radar? Does anywhere still operate like this nowadays?
Thankyou.
Coventry used to.
In the '90s, I phoned one evening with a radar handover; the reply was 'I'm in the tower at the moment but IF he calls us I MIGHT go downstairs and look at the radar'. The person who answered even refused to take details like altitude, type, callsign.
It was common practice with many airfields to combine tower and approach either by cross coupling or bandboxing and totally ignore radar even without an ATZ and traffic calling to transit; Southend was one example although I think that changed in about 2009.
In the '90s, I phoned one evening with a radar handover; the reply was 'I'm in the tower at the moment but IF he calls us I MIGHT go downstairs and look at the radar'. The person who answered even refused to take details like altitude, type, callsign.
It was common practice with many airfields to combine tower and approach either by cross coupling or bandboxing and totally ignore radar even without an ATZ and traffic calling to transit; Southend was one example although I think that changed in about 2009.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine the modern equivalent would be Radar in the Tower (RiT) where an approach radar service can be provided by the aerodrome controller using an ATM. No need for a separate Approach Radar position to be crewed, nor for a procedural approach control service to be provided.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: N/A
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which became very popular during COVID. It also came which many restrictions such as maximum number of aircraft on frequency before a dedicated Radar ATCO shall split the position, this number sometimes ‘forgotten’ about where I am.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes, I didn't say it was always a good idea!
I imagine the modern equivalent would be Radar in the Tower (RiT) where an approach radar service can be provided by the aerodrome controller using an ATM. No need for a separate Approach Radar position to be crewed, nor for a procedural approach control service to be provided.
Thread Starter
Thankyou all. By the time LBA abandoned the combined TWR/APP lark, the ATCO staff compliment had been stable for a few years and all were rated and validated in TWR, APP and RAD. The majority had been trained on the job on site so would likely have been going for their TWR and APP procedural at the same time. I don't know if it was a local decision to separate TWR and APP or a regulatory one.
As for the radar that I remember back then, I am unsure if the Plessey ACR 430 was much use for anything more than vectors and SRAs. Plus, there was no SSR then either so little to zero opportunity to offer a Radar Information or Advisory Service, thus little point in constant manning of the radar console.
By the way, LBA wasn't and has never been a NATS unit (or, dare I say it, 'state') so perhaps the their trainees followed a different curriculum but obviously leading to the same licence as NATS ATCOs.
As for the radar that I remember back then, I am unsure if the Plessey ACR 430 was much use for anything more than vectors and SRAs. Plus, there was no SSR then either so little to zero opportunity to offer a Radar Information or Advisory Service, thus little point in constant manning of the radar console.
By the way, LBA wasn't and has never been a NATS unit (or, dare I say it, 'state') so perhaps the their trainees followed a different curriculum but obviously leading to the same licence as NATS ATCOs.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Around
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ‘curriculum’ was and is specified by the CAA. An Approved Course is an Approved Course, a Rating is a Rating, and a Licence is a Licence.
Out of interest, has anywhere managed to introduce RitT in the last five years? My feeling is that the CAA has gone off the idea.
Out of interest, has anywhere managed to introduce RitT in the last five years? My feeling is that the CAA has gone off the idea.
Before Radar in the Tower, at smaller units at night, we did this "unofficial" procedural service that we weren't even properly qualified for. You had to "pretend" you couldn't see the traffic on the ATM while they did procedural join and approach. RitT is a massive improvement on that in terms of safety, workload and ultimately efficiency for the airlines.
Thread Starter
Back to LBA, before the Watchman was commissioned and during more downtime for the 430, Tower and Approach were bandboxed so one controller was looking after taxiways, runways, the visual circuit, procedural ILS approaches, Zone transits and airways clearances - without SIDs! Must have been exhausting. I've heard Blackpool once used to handle high numbers of movements on a single frequency some years ago. I don't know what the workload or division is like now.
