PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   ATC Issues (https://www.pprune.org/atc-issues-18/)
-   -   Giving away our airspace and jobs (https://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/119761-giving-away-our-airspace-jobs.html)

Arran's view 20th Feb 2004 03:35

Giving away our airspace and jobs
 
The UK has plans to give away massive revenue to the Irish. The Single Sky initiative looks like encouraging this all round.

Single Sky

So who wants a bit of Clacton to make some money out of ? :( Anyone for the rest of the North Sea to bring us down to Band 3 ATCOs ? :mad:

Jerricho 20th Feb 2004 04:08

Let's see Serco run a service to the new "third" runway at Heathrow when it finally gets built ;)

HAMMY 20th Feb 2004 05:15

That's enough of that Jerricho.Don't go planting any seeds otherwise you may well end up with an unexpected new neighbour.

Arran's view 20th Feb 2004 06:42

We are not talking about small things like another runway at a decent sized European airport. What we are talking about is our complete ATC service being undermined by unfair competition from cheaper NATIONAL operations around Europe. :*

Jerricho 20th Feb 2004 16:19

Sorry Arran, they say sarcasm is the lowest form of humour.

Reading through the articles the comment 'You can make nice plans, but if the member states don't implement it you have a problem,' stands out. Can you see our French brothers and sisters readily giving up centres and airspace. Just look at their attempts at adoption of EU directives.

055166k 20th Feb 2004 23:16

Worry Not!
 
It will never happen. Eurocontrol was a super idea, and was a logical first move towards Single Sky. The reality is that the idea is for everybody else.......not the UK. As soon as the plan becomes feasible you will hear a screeching crescendo of reverse thrust. To quote a Labour Party spokesperson "Our Sky is not for sale".....Oops.....hang on a minute.....heard that before.

BALIX 21st Feb 2004 02:01

Oh for Gawd's sake, why all this antipathy towards the NOTA? The Irish now have a radar that looks out over that bit of airspace and we would be failing the aviation community, who after all pay for the service, if we prevented them from using it simply to protect a few theoretical jobs. As for revenue, Shannon would have to be giving some pretty bizarre routings for aircraft to avoid UK airspace.

And anyway, it isn't 'our' airspace to give. Shanwick's airspace is international and it is up to ICAO who provides the air traffic services within it. In fact the Irish could legitimately tear up the Shanwick agreement in a couple of years and put a case to ICAO for them, and them alone, to provide ATS within the Shanwick area. And that would NOT be good news for real ATC jobs in the west of Scotland.

Fly Through 21st Feb 2004 18:05

Geesh the piano tuners are out already!!!
Face it the single sky is the only way to cope with the expected increases in traffic and provide a decent service to the airlines. With the shortages in ATCOs around the world, I seriously doubt anybodies job will be at risk anyway. As for the UK, would imagine you'll come away pretty well in the whole scheme of things and it's the smaller European centres that would be closed.

Mind you with modern technology they could always set up a centre in Delhi :}

FT

Findo 21st Feb 2004 19:02


Interoperability across countries and systems will be achieved through standards for technology, staff and training, she added.
This lady knows what she is talking about. The word interoperability has a specific meaning amongst equipment manufacturers and ATC providers.It is not just compatibile with it's neighbour it is actually capable of replicating everything that can be done in the other centre.

It is quite feesible that major centres working on the same equipment could shift sectors between centres at certain times of the day. For instance how many Centres have to staff up to the maximum for the North Atlantic day and night flows ? There is only one flow but it moves between every centre over a few days. Each centre has to staff up for the maximum traffic........... just have a few minutes thinking of how you might do it if you were either paying the bills or interested in making a bigger profit :ooh:

Lon More 22nd Feb 2004 02:31

Jerricho It wasn't just the French; the UK, W. Germany, Ireland and the Dutch originally refused to delegate airspace to Eurocontrol.

Maastricht UAC originally controlled only the Upper airspace of Belgium and Luxembourg FL195+

In 1974 The Hannover airspace FL245+ was added with Lippe Radar (German Air Force) also moving there. Additionally Eurocontrol Centres were built at Karlsruhe and Shannon and were both rapidly re-nationalised.

In 1987, after considerable political infighting, the Dutch airspace FL300+ was added.

The division level is now a uniform FL 245 and sector boundaries do not neccessarily conform to national boundaries.

The latest move is to separate the UAC from the rest of the organisation and to nationalise it, probably under the DFS (Deutsche Flugsicherung)

The treality of the One Sky movement, which, by the way, is not new, having been around for some 10 years, lies not so much in consolidation of the number of centres, however desireable that may be, but in the adoption of common systems * and procedures.Findo I think has hit the nail on the head, in fact let's take it one step further and allow controllers to work from home. The technology exists :ok:
The introduction of the "Free Skies" in a couple of years makes this more and more imperative; although the ideal of smaller, or less efficient, centres being consoldated across national boundaries is probably still as far away as it was when I joined Eurocontrol in 1970.

Lon More

Here before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus was a Rigger

* Much of the development work required for NERC duplicated that already done in Bretigny sur Orge under the auspices of Eurocontrol and was therefore readily available. Little use seems to have been made of this.

Arran's view 22nd Feb 2004 06:23


for revenue, Shannon would have to be giving some pretty bizarre routings for aircraft to avoid UK airspace.
Balix where are you looking. Take a route from London to LA and a quick dodge into Irish airspace and go from south east to north west into the NOTA ... out to 15 W and pay your 55 pounds to Shanwick and a bit to Iceland. You have just saved a fortune and cost NATS a mint. Take every other route similar and drag the traffic away from the UK charges and replace with Irish and you see where it starts to lead ?

Sure the Irish have a radar. One the EU paid for and one we couldnt get access to.

Theoretical jobs ? Take at least 3 per watch off Scottish as soon as the routes are established. Increase our charges to the remaining airlines and see what they do.

And this is only the start. The Single Sky is all about encouraging this and who is the only privatised ATC service which can be bought out ?????? :uhoh:

Jerricho 22nd Feb 2004 17:21

Your right Lon, it wasn't just the French.

And it was a cheap shot, but going on past form for industrial action (the rights and wrongs have been thrashed out here on more than one occasion), the whole process could be a major headache for the WHOLE of Euroland.

achtung 23rd Feb 2004 00:49

"Lon"..... you're quite right about our beloved deutsch brethren, they've got that urge again! :ugh:

Scott Voigt 23rd Feb 2004 01:01

An interjection :D

Some of you may not know, but many international airlines have a part of the flight planning computer software that looks not only at the cost of the flight from winds aloft and routing, but also ATC charges. I know of a couple of airlines that fly longer routes to miss certain ATC charges at different locations just becuase of the high fees. It is all taken into acount today..

regards

Scott

Lon More 23rd Feb 2004 03:10

Scott, One of them is the world's favourite airline, NOT. They bypass the Belgian airspace where possible, taking a route through the Netherlands where possible, even if it means accepting some delay

Jerricho, won't worry me any more, presently on sick leave (fell asleep talking to the boss:uhoh: ) and taking ETS anyway next month 35+ years abusing body and mind both in UK - LATCC, Sopley, Gatwick - and in Euroland have finally caught up with me:O

Lon More
Here since before Pontius was a Pilot or Mortus was a Rigger

BALIX 23rd Feb 2004 03:12

Arran's View


Sure the Irish have a radar. One the EU paid for and one we couldnt get access to.
Doesn't matter how they got it, it is there and it would be criminal not to use it. As for routings, operators have to file certain routes at the moment depending on their NAT track - why would this have to change? Dodges are not allowed (although I admit that they do happen)

And three ATCOs per watch? Not sure where you get the number from but I'm sure that Sector 7 would swallow them up. Hey, another chunk of Band 5 airspace taken over by a Band 4 unit - management would LOVE that. Perhaps that is their ulterior motive...

Sure, there has to be safeguards and the thing needs to be carefully looked into but to oppose the establishment of a radar service in a current non-radar environment is 21st century luddism.

Arran's view 24th Feb 2004 01:46

Sorry Balix but you are talking Balix for once.

We are not just talking about a few aircraft missing out of NATS controlled airspace we are talking every east and westbound flight from south of Birmingham getting a cheaper routing because the Irish have been allowed to use a radar paid for by EU funds to provide a service where we could easily provide one - if we had access to the radar the EU paid for. And who gets all the income ? A direct competitor to NATS.

Never mind what sector 7 or anything else might bring to Scottish we are talking about major income loss to the whole of NATS and guess what part of NATS costs most ???? The staff. So where do you think the pressure to recover that money will hit first ? Just plan for those nightshifts with less staff and 0530 starts for the mornings.

More like an reason for managment trying to make us Band 3 !! :mad:

BALIX 24th Feb 2004 06:21

Hey, 0530 starts? Great, make us up to a Band 5 unit and I'll do my one a month.

Anyway, I still feel you are panicing unnecessarily over something that is inevitable. Yeah, I'm sure we could work the NOTA if we got a feed from that radar but the Irish would then set their sights on Shanwick and we could well lose fifty jobs - don't forget that they have job issues as well as us. Far better for NATS and the IAA to come to some sort of amicable agreement that suits both parties.

Arran's view 24th Feb 2004 22:38

sorry but Balix again. 0530 starts ? If the pay agreement goes through you are liable to do them without any regrading.

The IAA could never have done the Shanwick job and tried it as a bluff. they don't have 50 spare ATCOs or any with Oceanic experience, can't afford to import them and haven't the equipment to do it anyway. It was a con and they are happy to admit it in private.


Far better for NATS and the IAA to come to some sort of amicable agreement that suits both parties.
We didn't come to any amicable agreement. We were forced by the Government into this. It suits the Irish just great. They will now have control of about 90% of all east and west and wesbound Ocean traffic and will direct it through their airspace making lods of money. What do we get out of this amicable agrrement ? We lose loads of money and will lose jobs. :}

Findo 25th Feb 2004 01:52

I think this matter is being seriously underestimated by many. The potential impact is pretty massive as well as the precedent it sets for other Single Sky dealings.

I have written complaining to the Prospect General Secretary about the lack of action. So far that has sparked one letter and b****r all else :mad:

BALIX 25th Feb 2004 06:15

Well, it might be a hard lesson to learn chaps but we can't deny aircraft a better service just to keep us in employment. If the potential impact is as huge as you have made out it is essential that NATS and the IAA work together beacuse otherwise it would just be imposed on us and those potential problems become far more likely to happen.

The radar is there, we can't tell 'em to dismantle it. Well we could but they would rightly tell us to sod off.

actas 27th Feb 2004 05:38

and what about lowering the fees NATS has to charge by reducing the ATCO's salaries??

2 six 4 27th Feb 2004 06:54

Well if you make a comparison NATS ATCOs are not particularly well off in European terms.

Where we do have enormously bigger costs are in non ATCO and support staff.

Not many countries have what we have T + P + A (ATSA 4) on every sector we open ..... in fact probably none. ;) ;)

missy 27th Feb 2004 09:58

Was does airspace ownership need to be fixed? Why can't it float between centres depending on the time of day. Most controllers I know don't like the night shift (I don't and who can blame them).

The current feudal system of upper enroute air traffic control in Europe is a joke.

Confine the military to small areas beneath and/or clear of the main airways and consolidate the upper enroute air traffic control to a few centres taking into account technology and time zones. Probably won't mean fewer jobs overall especially if there is an expansion of civil areas.

Scott Voigt 27th Feb 2004 12:09

Missy;

Don't forget that you need to be rated in the area that you are going to work. So you are going to need to know the airspace and other such items such as arrivals, departures approaches. That takes knowledge that you must retain to work. Shifting large amounts of airspace makes that very difficult...

regards

Scott

DFC 27th Feb 2004 19:37

As a pilot it is great to see that the ATCOs at ScOACC are far more interested in their own pay and conditions than providing the best service possible. :(

Not only should the IAA get as much airspace as it can provide a better service in but that should also include the North sea where ScOACC refuses to provide a decent level of service! (see other topic for that one).

Can anyone tell me where it has been published that the EU paid for the radar? (I'd love to see how much it and the new Shannon centre cost compared to the Swanwick and possible new Scottish centre costs).

Furthermore, if the EU paid for the radar then isn't it only right that EU citizens get the most out of it (not just Scottish ones). Getting a direct routing from 56N20W to say NTS could be a cost saver on a regular basis for European citizens. Why pay more to fly via GOW and the North Sea

Perhaps those in doubt of the ability of the new Shannon centre to cope should make a visit. they have the HF station just down the road and are geared up for CPDL. However, that is one for the future ;)

The IAA have for years provide the MtGabriel feed to LATCC. Thus making it available to ScOACC as well. Seems that SOTA works well so other than self interest there is no reason why the NOTA can not be as good for us pilots who do the work that pays your wages that you are moaning about!

Remember Foynes?.....the IAA providing a service on the Atlantic is simply returning to the situation pre Shanwick but with a better service. :D

---
svoight11,

This is oceanic (procedural) airspace which now has radar cover thanks to IAA investment. There are no aerodromes and the proposal is simply to make an area of radar controlled ATS routes which will replace the current procedural daily track structure. This will make direct routes from well out into the Atlantic to mid Europe avaialble thus avoiding much of the busy and costly airspace of the UK.

Regards,

DFC

missy 27th Feb 2004 21:03

Hi Scott,

An aussie and a yank chatting about european airspace!!



Don't forget that you need to be rated in the area that you are going to work.
That point is acknowledged and I am not suggesting for one moment that the controllers working the airspace ain't appropriately endorsed.


you are going to need to know the airspace and other such items such as arrivals, departures approaches.
Of course you need to know the airspace but in my earlier post I was referring to the upper enroute area, perhaps RVSM levels.


Whats the Ozzy line on say, AsiaControl and a rationalisation of en-route centres, with the Upper Air above Sydney being controlled from say, Tokyo?
I'm sure there would be issues that needed to addressed. As it is the Upper Air above Sydney is controlled from Melbourne. The Upper Air above our nation's capital (Canberra) is also controlled by Melbourne. As Tokyo is in the same time zone there may not be that much of an advantage, but controlling aircraft using CPDLC and ADS doesn't have to done from directly beneath the airspace.

Australia has two major centres, both located on the eastern side of Australia, one in Brisbane and one in Melbourne. The Brisbane Centre handles traffic across the northern half of Australia. The Melbourne Centre handles traffic across the southern half of Australia and into the Indian Ocean.

I can understand the senstivities of governments about other nationals controlling the upper airspace. That is why you would limit it to upper airspace [RVSM] and entry to lower levels would required the approval of the state.

Airservices Australia has a contract with the Solomon Islands government to manage the upper airspace of the Honiara FIR on their behalf. This ATC service is provided from the Brisbane Centre.

The marketing people at Airservices argue that they have the technology platform and the experience to offer similar services to other nations.

BALIX 27th Feb 2004 21:33

DFC

Before you get the slating that you are expecting from your posting, I must say that on the whole you are simply repeating the points I've been saying in my discussion with Arran's view. However, you spoil it by then talking utter bolleaux about the north sea. Most controllers are more than willing to provide a 'decent' (ie, RAS) outside CAS but are prevented from doing so by the fact it is a military playground. What's more, in the upper air most controllers will strive to give direct routings whenever they can but cannot always oblige due to active (but frequently unused) danger areas.

It is a completely different issue to the NOTA which I agree is an improved service to the likes of you and can't really be argued against on other than self-interest grounds.

DFC 28th Feb 2004 00:25

Missy,

It is worth remebering that the piece of airspace being discussed is in the middle of the atlantic. In terms of being close to a territory, it is closer to Ireland than to Scotland. That is how a radar located in Ireland can provide the coverage while ones located in Scotland can not.

Balix,

The North Sea is another thred but very similar. In the North Sea case, management are putting money ahead of safety while in this case, the ATCOs are putting money before safety.

One very important point is that the UK's airspace extends to 3nm from the shore. Beyond that it has airspace under control as a result of international agreement.

Regards,

DFC

BALIX 28th Feb 2004 05:17


In the North Sea case, management are putting money ahead of safety.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with airspace utilisation. The implementation of a NEW-ADN airway wouldn't cost a penny beyond the costs of establishing it. The task could be taken on easily by the existing Tay sector controller. The result would be a better service for the customer and fewer dirty underpants for the controllers. Likewise in the upper air, better utilisation of the airspace would ensure more direct routings for the customer, relieve some of the pressure from LACC sectors 10 and 11 and allow the Humber sector controller to do the job he is supposed to do.

If anyone is to 'blame' it is the military who continually oppose the NEW-ADN airway and insisted on such huge danger areas. Whether or not they are justified is another argument that I'm not going to go into here.


while in this case (the NOTA), the ATCOs are putting money before safety.
As you know, this ATCO isn't taking that line of reasoning but I can understand the likes of Arran's view who is. Let's face it, if your airline decided to bring in a load of pilots from Eastern Europe and pay 'em half the wages you might be a bit upset. Extreme example, perhaps, but the same principal.

thelowestlevel 28th Feb 2004 06:47

Thank You DFC

Shannons new centre opened 0000z 27/02/04

ON TIME AND BUDGET,

Need I say more.

And it works!

Whipping Boy's SATCO 28th Feb 2004 15:34

A couple of points:

DFC - Its 12nm and not 3.

Balix - P18. Big argument gone around the buoy a few times. The customer also happens to be the military. Ever heard of the Joint & Integrated Concept? Personally, I think it is reprehensible for an operator to choose to take a greater risk and go "off route" to save money. Implemenetaion of the NEW-ABN route would cost a fortune (to the military). In case you forgot, you directly fund this organisation.

What do you mean by "decent RAS"? I suspect, from other comments on this Forum that some controllers (and regulators?)are misinterpreting the terms and conditions of a RAS. For example, Where exactly in MATS Pt 1 does it say that a controller IS to provide RAS traffic with standard separation of 5nm against unknown traffic. My understanding is that the phrase where possible is quite important. Let's not forget, RAS is an advisory service.

I think one thing we should all agree about is that it is a fine balance between providing a safe service against commercial/economic influence. I guess that is why the regulator has not been privatised.

BALIX 28th Feb 2004 16:04

Whipping boy

I'm well aware of the fact that the military are also 'customers' and wasn't going to get into an argument about it on this thread. I was merely trying to point out to DFC that his assumptions as to the problems on the north sea were perhaps a bit off the mark. If you look closely at my last contribution you will see the word 'blame' is in inverted commas.

As for decent RAS, well a thousand ATCOs will give you a thousand different ideas as to what that entails. I'm well aware that the service does not guarantee 5nm separation but what it does do is guarantee some form of separation (ie, an avoiding turn). I personally think that in the Tay sector that is impossible to say that you will spot some fighter popping up and slamming into a civil a/c under a RAS and as such I can see the logic behind us being told not to provide a RAS under any circumstances.

Just one more thing, why would a ADN-NEW airway cost a fortune to the military? I know you can't exactly move Leuchars but a 10 mile wide airway with a base at, say, FL150 (perhaps a bit lower nearer NEW and ADN) is hardly utilising a large chunk of your playground.

Whipping Boy's SATCO 28th Feb 2004 19:58

Balix, this argument is all about efficient use of airspace. There are times where the military do not manage their MDAs as they should. Similarly, there are times where a piece of CAS is not justifiable. At present, the argument for ADN-NEW (P18) is not justifiable. Why doesn't the relatively small amount of CAT go the long way round? We cannot automatically implement CAS just because we want to - we must consider all airspace users. In the meantime, I would repeat my original comment. The onus for risk acceptance must lie upon the civil operator who chooses to operate in Class G airspace for commercial gain.

Regarding application of RAS - I cannot see the logic behind prohibiting it's application due to the risk of pop-up traffic. IMHO that RAS should only be refused due to controller workload.

BALIX 28th Feb 2004 20:16

Oh wihipping one

It might not seem it but I'm more or less in agreement with you with regards shared usage of airspace. We obviously differ as to the viability of P18 but it is fairly inevitable as we are looking at it from the opposite viewpoints.

As for RAS, well, it all gets back to corporate liability. Should the unthinkable happen it would be NATS and the ATCO involved in the dock. The rules stated we should provide separation and we didn't. Big fine for NATS, prison for the controller? Suddenly it becomes even more of a risky game.

Sorry to drift quite a long way off topic...

rodan 28th Feb 2004 21:03

From MATS 1, Section 1, Chapter 3 - Separation Standards:

Standard vertical or horizontal separation shall be provided between:

.......

(h) Aircraft participating in the radar advisory service.


From MATS 1, Section 1, Chapter 5 - Radar Services:

A radar advisory service (RAS) is an air traffic radar service in which ....... maintain prescribed separation between aircraft participating in the advisory service, and in which he shall pass to the pilot the bearing, distance and, if known, level of conflicting non-participating traffic, together with advice on action necessary to avoid the confliction. Where time does not permit ...... controller shall pass advice on avoiding action....

Under a RAS the following conditions appply:

.......

(e) Controllers shall pass avoiding action instructions to resolve a confliction with non-participating traffic and, wherever possible shall seek to achieve .... 5nm/3000'....... however, it is recognised that in the event of the sudden appearance of unknown traffic, and when unknown aircraft make unpredictable changes in flight path, it is not always possible to achieve these minima.

(end of text)

It seems pretty obvious to me that 'I didn't see it' or 'I was too busy with my airways traffic' are not valid reasons for, at the very least, giving avoiding action, so the decision not to provide RAS (or to limit it) is entirely justified in that respect. In my opinion though, that should be a judgement for the individual atco and not the company lawyers. It also seems very obvious that pilots should not expect to achieve standard separation in areas where military jets are involved in high energy manoeuvres, and in class G must be prepared to work that bit harder on their lookout. To be fair, most of them seem to understand this. Complaining about avoiding action turns or stopping climb and descent does not endear them to this controller though.

Data Dad 29th Feb 2004 02:42

Whipping Boy

See the other thread on this forum about East Coast Airway...

As I posted on that, the number of civilian Commercial flights likely to use an Airway ADN - NEW is OVER 100 per day... a bit more than a "small amount" - AND a lot more aircraft than the boys in blue could ever put up!!!!!

Therefore as the LARGEST volume of customers they surely should get priority? Especially when each fast jet only has at max 2 POB

MDA = Mis-managed Danger Area = nearly always booked and very rarely used.

DD

Arran's view 29th Feb 2004 07:12

DFC


As a pilot it is great to see that the ATCOs at ScOACC are far more interested in their own pay and conditions than providing the best service possible.
I must have missed that bit somewhere ... where did we say that ?


Whta we have here is an EU subsidised radar being given to the IAA and access denied to NATS. Otherwise ScOACC would have been more than happy to provide a service and give the sort of direct routes they give all day every unlike other Area units.

When you have this utopian low cost service provided by the IAA exactly who is going to make up the lost revenue and increased cost base for NATS ? If you fly commercially then it will be your airline irrespective of whether you gain the benefit of the new super improved subsidised anti competeitive service provided to only North Atlantic carriers using south England and Paris. Enjoy :O

DFC 1st Mar 2004 05:13

Arran,

The quote you provided in your last post is I believe what the average person would consider your stance on the issue to be.

You however have yet to provide the amount that the EU is supposed to have paid for this radar. More importantly, how much did NATS pay?

You are the ones who sat on your hands while NATS was privatised and now live in constant fear of NATS loosing out in competition. My advice - take out that dry powder keg and sit on it while you have a long smoke :D

Thanks to Whipping Boy's SATCO, we now know that Scotlands airspace extends to 12nm from the coast.

This means that this topic has nothing to do with Scottish or UK airspace so your complaint fails before one reads beyond the title.

-----

Balix,

I agree that there is not enough of a requirement to justify a NEW - ADN airway especially when an alternative route (slightly longer) exists.

What we have a problem with is eastbound from NEW where there is no protection and no suitable service. The UK military do not recognise advisory routes and quite happily blast across. However, the important point is that if there was an advisory route eastbound from NEW to the FIR boundary, we could get a RAS while on that route and that would be a big benifit while climbing up to the upper levels or for those flights who never reach the safety of the upper air.

---

Of course, what will really upset Arran is the news that the IAA are about to complete the radar head for the remainder of Shanwick airspace north of 53N

Don't believe me? Perhaps you should sail out to Rockall and have a look :ok:

Regards,

DFC

Findo 1st Mar 2004 06:54

DFC if I may correct one or two things and we obviously read most of the rest of your posts with a very large pinch of sea salt.

Not all of us sat on our hands during privatisation. Some of us worked very long hours over years to influence what was happening. When it finally happened 10 years after initial proposal then it was a different beast. Changed very substantially by the sensible arguments put forward by ATCOs, particularaly those from Scotland.

I completely disagree with your interpretation of the Arran comments. You also link it to the debate about services in the FIR which I don't believe were any of his comments.

ScACC ATCOs give the very highest levels of service they can realistically offer. My understanding is that there were a considerable number of incidents where the aircraft types and performance were so different that it was nearly impossible to give timely avoiding action to participating traffic and still have any assurance of achieveing the desired separation. A radar information service is all that can be realistically provided. If you are looking for safety then make a comparison of the number of serious incidents inside the airways system and those outside airways for the flights going to or from Aberdeen. There must be a multiple of 10 involving aircraft outside airways and only a percentage of those are working ScACC under a RIS.

You somewhat illogically say that the military do not recognise advisory routes but you want on to get a RAS anyway. Your first statement is wrong. They do recognise ADRs and give advice on how to cross and what service is appropriate. If you read the Airprox reports you will see the Strike Command comments regularly criticise military pilots if they have not obtained a service from a Radar Unit whilst crssing ADRs. As said above even if ScACC could offera RAS that would not solve the problem.

You talk about the EU funded radar. That information is not immediately available but should not be difficult to find out. You ask how much did NATS pay ? Well they obviously paid nothing for the Irish radar but just as the Irish are going to get access to NATS radar for this area, NATS could equally have provided the service with access to the Irish radar to supplement the coverage in the area.

I for one have no fear of competition. But we have here a state run ATC agency who are being given undisclosed funding for a service to compete with the only privatised ATC service in Europe. The parallels with Ryanair and Charlois seem stark. Maybe those European commisioners who judged the aid to Ryanair to be illegal will have a view on this situation.

I didn't see you answer Arran's point about making up the lost revenue. Your airline and every other airline having a service from NATS will have to contribute to the gap in funding.

As far as airspace is concerned Scotland does not have any of it's own. The UK deals with this issue. Maybe Whipping boy could quote exactly where his view comes from about so many miles off the UK coast. I do not believe this to be true. My understanding is that, unlike the international airspace of the North Atlantic, the airspace around the UK is divided by international Governmental agreement. In this case the participating Governments have agreed some principles so Arran is more correct than you when he says that airspace is being "given away". He is certainly correct when he says jobs are being given away. Ireland will have more and after a period of evaluation the UK will have less.

I have said here before that this matter ( the North Atlantic not the North Sea) is being underestimated. There are very interesting principles and precedents here which are being set. The rest of Europe is only awakening to Single Sky. In a few years we might see huge changes to services, routes and charges around Europe. I wouldn't predict that the smaller airlines will be better off and maybe this is an example. :confused:


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:25.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.