It's Class F - Scottish provide a service to participating traffic on it/them. It's this that was delegated.

Coming back to CAS, the other big problem they'll have is that even if they get an Inverness CTR, DAP will want it to be connected to something. Not much point having the protection of Class D around Inverness if you get dumped into Class F or G just as you enter cloud in the climb. The days of isolated stand-alone control zones/SRAs, like Newcastle, Tees-side, Southend and Lydd used to be, are gone.
Ns

I see HIAL are advertising for non-radar APCs in Flight last week.

The delegation of airspace from NATS to Lossiemouth was for the Advisory routes W3D and W6D.

As for controlled airspace, I presented to a meeting at both Lossie and Kinloss for the introduction of CAS around Inverness in the summer of 2003. The Intiative was at that stage taken by the 2 stations as the writing was on the wall regarding the growth of Inverness. I then remember going to a meeting at HIAL HQ in which the agreed proposal was delivered to them on a plate. The dimensions of the Inverness CTA/CTZ were carefully worked out, regarding the base levels, that would allow for FJ to transit underneath them. This proposal took HIAL by surprise, but it was carefully planned by the 2 stations at the time.

The design allowed for something looking rather like the current Durham CTA/CTZ, but was extended to the west to allow for high terrain and the subsequent longer approach for a 3degree glidepath, additionally there was a stub linking the CTZ to W3D.

This proposal was put in place because it is impossible for Inverness to have an exclusive zone due to the position of Kinloss. The 7nm final point for both Kinloss RW08 and INV RW23 being almost coincident. Furthermore, consideration was given to a Moray Firth TMA surrounding all 3 airfields, with individual airfields having there own CTAs. However, this was rejected as the size of the thing would need to be huge and the amount of exemptions required for Mil FJ (speed, VFR at night etc) were considered too numerous to be worth it. With that said, without the ability for IFR ac under the control of Lossie to penetrate an INV CTA/CTZ the whole arrangement would not work, and would in effect prevent Kinloss from using 50% of its RWs. Shared access was the the overall requirement and thus the imputus for Lossie and Kinloss to be pro-active.

This proposal was submitted to the MIl DAP who declined to take it any further for "political" reasons.

What would be interesting would be to know how many movements Lossie and Kinloss have and the number of airproxes aircraft under their control have been involved in. If as I susppect these are not of sufficient cause for major concern, then it seems to suggest that large airliner aircraft, fast jets and numerous GA aircraft can operate in the Moray airspace with a level of safety assured through the provision of a radar service without the imposition of CAS. So how does the number of movements at Inverness compare and why isn't provision of a radar sevice without establishing CAS made a prerequisite before further expansion of traffic levels at Inverness?

And with the likely imposition of Mode S for all aircraft in the next few years, TCAS would add another level of safety that has hitherto been unavailable.

Any further developments ?
 

It seems to have gone quiet in snekyland - are there any further developments.

May be wrong but I believe the 'mandatory mode S' rule only applies to civil aircraft; lets face it, very few military aircraft even carry TCAS (probably only those which might operate in controlled airspace for long periods)

The mandate does apply to military aircraft, but they have a later compliance date of 2009 I believe. Currently MoD is looking to find the funding. :)

But in the real world as opposed to Eurocontrolia NATS radars will continue to see military Mode C returns and since the amount of mil tfc in CAS is minimal anyway this is a minor issue. They'll presumably equip the airways-frequenting types first (VC-10, Tristar, C-17, C-130) then worry about the pointy types later.
NS

Military will/have applied for exemption and will get it as state aircraft. Similar to 8.33 where even the eurofighter is not equipped.

BD

As I understand there will be very few military exemptions granted. The latest CAA Mode S Partial RIA hits everyone with its 'improved technical interoperability' dogma. Many military fast jets are included in the SIFF (Successor IFF) programme which includes a Mode S capability. Exemptions may possibly be applied to non-capable aircraft (gliders), histioric aircraft and aircraft within twelve months of an out of service date.

But isn't 8.33 only applicable to certain airspace - unlike Mode S which will be all pervasive?

http://www.egpe.demon.co.uk/html/new...s/CASmap2.jpeg

I don't know how out of date this pic is.


MJ

8.33 is applicable within Controlled Airspace and with the DFL coming down to FL195 in March that area gets much bigger ;)

BD

Inverness Radar
 

I am presently serving in Cyprus as an ATCO with the RAF. But have had enough and looking for a new lease of life. I served at Lossie and did the Inverness Radar Task while there. I thoroughly enjoyed this job and always said to the Inverness boys that I would love to do this full time. My only problem is that being military I hold no officially recognised licences but would like to apply for an ATCO post. The job when I was at Lossie worked fairly well in my opinion with only the odd bust up over the landline especially when Inv on 24 and Kinloss on 08 with who had the priority. Their traffic levels now necessitate their own radar. Highland Director is it worth my while applying?

Good luck to you Spotter, apply via the HIAL website but be aware that they regularly trawl the local population of each airports catchment area for bright young folk who are a lot younger than you and want to do exactly what you desire.

When I worked for the company, they had a very pro active approach to applicants from all sectors, although it would help your cause by a factor of 1000 if you already had the ADI rating - something to think about spending any resettlement funding on at CATC Bournmouth, ASTAC or Bae Cwmbran.

At the best its worth blowing £300 on an assessment, then you can either fund it yourself and be in a position of power to partially dictate your future.

Back to the CAS - although I have enormous respect for
C.S and the work he is doing at Inverness, until they get their own radar with SSR and passenger numbers exceed 1 Million, it won't even be considered - thats the latest gossip and goal post figures from the DAP.

Cyprus to Inverness
 

Spotter99 - I wish I were in a position to advise you but alas I'm just an ATCO - the lowest form of life within HIAL. I've long since given up trying to predict what management might do next. I wouldn't trust anything they tell you either.
Stornoway is the crisis unit at present in terms of Atco shortages - so beware. You wouldn't be the first to have fallen victim to a broken HIAL 'promise' only to find yourself banished and bonded in the Hebrides for years on end.
Be aware also that HIAL management find it difficult to conceive that anyone over the age of 40 is worthwhile investing in. There are middle-aged ATCOs at Inverness who've spent their entire careers working for the company who've been overlooked for Radar training. The £13,000 course is seen as too much to risk. Suggestions that consideration ought to be given to the operatioal experience of these guys, tend to be met with lots of sucking of teeth and shaking of heads by the non-operational management types.
Sorry if that's not exactly what you were hoping to hear but that's the way things are from my perspective anyway. It'd do no harm to contact them though. HIAL advertised in Flight just a few weeks ago with the slogan 'Ten Airports - One vision'. As far as I'm aware the number of valid ATCOs who were considered for interview was zero. :uhoh:
There is just a chance that next time the Ad will read - 'Ten Airports - One ATCO.' :)

niknak

how firm are these pax numbers in the gossip?

OWZ

Ocean,

all I can say is that DAP have finally woken up to the fact that you don't have to have a million air transport movements to get a million passengers, Inverness should be able to achieve the required figure in the next couple of years but if they don't get their own radar with SSR, they won't get CAS.

Master Plan
 

Page 28 of the just released Inverness Airport Master Plan, says that by 2010 the airport will have developed its own radar on site. Currently phase one is under way. The provision of seven day radar cover will facilitate the move towards designation of controlled airspace.
Anyone care to comment

Egbert Bear

A tad more realistic than some of the pronunciations I've heard in the last little while.
NS

Remember that part of that so-called Master Plan involves GA leaving the airport totally by 2020, and ideally by 2010 - anyone with the correct figures care to hazard a guess how many of the annual movements are down to GA? The figures I've had from a few reputable sources hardly place HIAL's latest policies in a favourable light. No GA, no radar, if it's purely based on movements...! Alarmist? Yes. But possibly also realistic, I didn't enjoy reading through the master plan while down south on an ATPL groundschool course supposed to let me make light aircraft flying a job rather than an expensive hobby.

It's not the radar that's dependent on movements, it's controlled airspace, and I suspect the radar's coming faster than some may have imagined. This could benefit GA at Inverness if the GA operators play it right and get talking to the controllers early about how the VFR/IFR mix will work. At present, the inordinate time taken by an IFR to complete a procedural approach means that the knock-on effect in terms of delays on VFRs is significant. But with radar they can be more confident about separations and so reduce those delays.
The other thing is that Inverness still has two runways. If I was a GA operator at Inverness I'd be talking to the HIAL ops people about the benefits of keeping those two runways open and having simultaneous ops to maximise the movement rate and assist separation of VFRs from IFRs.
NS

Why is VFR being delayed that much anyway? Class 'G' airspace, pass traffic information and it's up to them to stay out of the way. Whether they have radar or not shouldn't be making any difference.

True - I can only see radar vectored ILSs as a positive thing, although it will take a while to get a radar head close enough to the field for SRAs. Equally, I'm quite in favour of Class D airspace as long as it's well managed - more separation and control can't be a bad thing, especially if it stops people hanging around just outside the ATZ... On the other hand, I'm still nervous that coupled with that Master Plan document GA could end up being very much at the bottom of the food chain. Of course we'll give way to IFR traffic on final approach - but recently I've been held long enough to get carb icing due to a bizjet backtracking the full length when I could've gone and turned clear before he was ready to go. And then I had to be held for wake turbulence etc... Slightly petty I know, but it could be a bad sign.

Might as well give them a chance anyway - things can always change.

In theory, yes. In practice... Lots of time orbiting before being allowed joins, near the ATZ, etc. Will it changed with controlled airspace? Maybe - it's almost a virtual control zone now the way it's handled, so who knows.

Ah yes, I thought it wouldn't take too long to get back into the old "do you separate VFRs from IFRs" debate. This could run and run!
NS

Hmmmm, watch that space! May be sooner than you imagine.
NS

Good :) The sooner the better.

After a question from the tower while getting beasted in a OPC. I believe they have a feed in the tower and they can see you down to 200ft on the 23 end.

NS :E

Is there a new lot in Lossie Radar? Some very strange instructions recently while VFR again. The old "not below" clearance to VFR traffic has started again. And the old "they are under my control"

200'? In that case I'm impressed - I was under the impression the dead zone was a lot higher than that, given the radar head being 27(ish, off the top of my head!) miles away. If it's really that good then the sooner "we" get a feed and set up Inverness Radar the better, although I remain impressed by the service from Lossie Radar, even today when they're NOTAMed as being on leave they were still providing Inverness Approach within their normal schedule. And they've got time to a) be nice to GA b) identify us from heading changes!

Lossie radar is open all year round. I can't remember if its Kinloss or lossie is a mil divert airport. So even at the weekend Lossie radar is operating. They just don't get involved with civ traffic.

The primary head is at Lossie.
The secondary head is at Kinloss.

They arn't providing a service during the week from the goodness of thier hearts. The only reason they identify you isn't for any service which will help you. Its so they can satisfy there operating requirments for launching and recovering aircraft into the CMATZ. If INV traffic wasn't near enough to stop them launching or recovering they really couldn't care what you do. As soon as you accept a service off lossie be ready to be on your toes. They will try and radar vector you in class G VFR which maybe into cloud. They will give you "not below xxxxft" which is a IFR clearance. The reason why they give you a turn for identification is because the secondary radar is tits up again at Kinloss and they are trying not to tell any one. And be ready to stick up for yourself and don't except a not above instruction which gets you 500ft off Saddle Hill just for W3D inbounds.

The primary radar is a heap and from various discussions on the RT is some what suspect in relation to geographic range from the danger areas. And the secondary radar is out more than they tell you.

The service from Lossie has its peaks and troughs depending where the controllers are in the training cycle and what attitude the controller has to civi aircraft. The peaks can be extremely impressive letting you do visual climb against's decending traffic which civi controllers can't do. The troughs can be sub sea levels of service with such a marked difference to normal civi controlling practises and RT that nobody has a clue what is going on.

"G-xxxx cancel IFR decending QNH 10XX"
"Rodger IFR flight plan cancel at xxxx"
"G-xxxx RAS turn heading 120 deg stop decent FL90"

As they refuse to band box UHF to VHF as Luchars do you don't have a clue how over worked they are or what mil traffic is doing. The fact that most mil pilots make a point of trying not to talk to them if they can help it, due to years of fighting doesn't help.

The whole thing is a political hand bags at dawn.

Hmm. Those who actually work in/with it may correct me later, but for now... As far as I'm aware Lossie are contracted (free...) to operate Inverness Approach until this March, when the contract ends whether we want it to or not. Personally I've had nothing but excellent services from Lossie, partly of course because I very very rarely accept RAS, I'd far rather take RIS and maintain my own brain - then again, I'm not exactly Public Transport so can do as I like.

Yes, they operate in a military manner, but that's a problem for whoever thought up the initial contract rather than Lossie themselves, personally as an ex-military (not for long, but every hour counts...) pilot I find them a bit crisper and more responsive than most civvy units, and it does help that they're nowhere near as commercially focused as Inverness! A couple of times Inverness have denied me IFR inbound slots and the weather's been VFR but without the safety margin I'd like, and Lossie have got me IFR slots straight away with no fuss. Yes, I'm biased, but it'll be interesting to see how the transition period goes - on a serious note, I do of course hope Inverness Radar is successful!

Are you Instrument or IMC rated?
If not its illegal for you to accept a RAS. Not that you will have any choice if Lossie want to seperate you.
Do you carry the instrument plates for INV, ABZ, WIK or Kinloss and the fuel for the divert?. Do you have the instruments fitted on the aircraft to do all the approaches (I have 800 hours on LP and ZA and 200 on YR) ?

Or are you banking on doing the timed VOR approach onto 23 at 90knts for a cloud break onto 05 thus totally scewing inbounds for nearly 30 mins, who if they are on min fuel with 30min hold with one in front doing the proc ie 13 mins are now going to have to divert. And if you are in a DME kitted aircraft at 90knts you are going to take 20 mins (it takes a 737 13mins to do the procedure) at max blat, if you config and all the rest of the things they teach you its going to be more like 25mins again.


If not why are you fannying around pretending to be an IFR inbound?
Its no wonder the airport want to get rid of GA.

The last prat that turned up that I heard on the RT was last month. Booked into tower at FL60 on a low QNH which put him below the MSA for that sector with 15 miles to run IMC and the hold was active at all levels down to 3500ft (I was in it). Lossie hadn't seen them on primary or secondary radar. They didn't have any plates and it took over 45 minutes before they were on the ground. All with the hold full. Its fannys like that which are putting the nail in the coffin for GA.

I really wouldn't put faith in crisp RT the lady that came out with my example was crisp and correct to the letter but she obviously didn't have a clue what canceling IFR meant.

IMC rated with a certain amount of military experience, so I'm comfortable with SRAs and PARs if offered. Clearly I suit my flight profile to the conditions and weather - usually IFR to within 20D if necessary then VFR if possible from then on, but occasionally it's easier on the controllers for me to remain IFR. Common sense dictates that if I'm offered a service I should at the least seriously consider taking it, therefore if they offer it they should expect me to take it. Yes, I carry diversion fuel (actually, I usually carry alternate fuel and hold fuel well beyond the basic JAR OPS requirements, unlike airlines now landing without enough fuel for a missed approach at the alternate!) & full plates, and have practical experience of all the relevant approaches, both day and night. The timed VOR approach to 23 with cloudbreak to 05 does not remove the 05 ILS for 30 mins - I'm not quite sure where you get your timings from, but it's only 3 mins outbound, 1min10s in the base turn, and I would expect to be able to change to a VFR (and therefore visual...) approach during the inbound leg, thus removing me from the IFR equation. Total time? Maximum 6 mins in real life, and I can accept unusual hold heights that aircraft with passengers are often unable to accept. If doing the more standard approaches, 18-19nm plus a base turn doesn't add up to 20-30mins last time I used a CRP5 (this morning). If I fly at all, let alone IFR, I fly with the correct kit & reference aids & plan properly - I can't answer for everyone, but please don't assume all GA pilots blunder around randomly with nothing more than the legal VFR minimum of a stopwatch! Oh, and as I'm sure you're aware if you fly into INV regularly, Kinloss hasn't been available as a diversion for over 6 months - as advised in the relevant AICs.

90kts in the DME equipped aircraft? None of the DME equipped aircraft I regularly fly carry out procedures as slowly as 90kts. I'm not sure what DME equipped aircraft you've flown at INV that carry out the procedure at that speed, the ones I regularly fly maintain at least 105kts until 4D, significantly more in the retractables. Not a major difference I know, but it does help to get the facts spot on.

Yes, of course there are prats who mess up the procedures for everyone - I remember the times when EZY were averaging 1 conflict a week, not to mention coming on frequency asking Inverness Tower for radar approaches, asking for the Ground frequency, etc. As far as I'm concerned we're all aircraft despite such differing approach profiles, while good airmanship suggests booking in for the less busy times. Equally, if ATC do clear me for a slot when they know the aircraft type then it's only fair for me to assume that they're aware of their expected inbound traffic, fuel states, hold times, EATs, etc! As another example of how commercial traffic can also mess up the pattern, a few months ago I was held orbiting outside the ATZ for nearly the full 45 minutes (reciprocating engined aircraft hold fuel as specified in JAR Flight Planning) thanks to a J32 practising visual circuits at as high a speed as possible between scheduled approaches. I could just have adjusted my speed to slot in nicely (I'm quite happy to maintain cruise speed down to very short finals - when the Calibrator was working recently at night on the 05 ILS ATC asked me to position for 23 "tight, fast, and to turn off by the intersection", an interesting combination!), but it would've made everyone's life easier for the Jetstream to reduce speed for a circuit or 2 rather than hammering around at 1000' and high power. Good airmanship surely?

In conclusion... I'd far rather we all operated & worked together - everyone has to start somewhere, and therefore start off in GA and gain valuable experience that way. It's unwise to lump all GA pilots together based on the lack of a company callsign, bearing in mind the current range at INV from basic NPPL doing a couple of hours a month at most with little currency, airmanship, and understanding of aviation all the way up to a tame 747 training captain or 2 instructing for fun. Yes, of course there are pilots who let us all down, but please don't assume we're all the same - personally, I can think of a couple of examples of extremely sloppy commercial flying purely from the flights I did today, scheduled aircraft misunderstanding procedural arc-ils approaches and attempting to gain a clearance to descend below MSA, etc... If I can successfully fly an arc-ils solo at night for the first time without any problems without annoying anyone, I have every right to expect a ATPL holder to do the same! Yes, being accused of "fannying around pretending to be an IFR inbound" by someone who doesn't know me or the flying I do does annoy me, with justification I think.

Rant over - can we all get along, or would everyone but me rather that GA at INV followed the path of the suddenly closed flying school at ADZ??

fair enough I apologise. You have all the ticks in the boxs.

And no I definately don't want GA to leave INV. But I supect that things will happen like at Leeds and Newcastle which will kill it off.

And yes the none local commercials don't read thier plates properly and there are some very shoddy arc's flown.

Mad Jock,

errmmmm.....are you sure? You can fly IFR in Class G without those ratings as long as you remain VMC

From the UK AIP concerning Radar Advisory Service:

Accepted & no offence taken - it is hard to get the right tone sometimes online! Yes, I'm have a feeling that GA will struggle to stay at INV, it probably doesn't help when the SATCO states that he wants all GA to leave "his" airport (yes, he really did say that...). That wouldn't be a problem if there was somewhere for us to go - I for one would have no problems leaving the HIAL umbrella to go somewhere where we felt more valued, didn't have to fight bureaucratic inefficiency on a daily basis just to get what we're actually paying for - hangar charges to name just one - but sadly there is nowehere else. Dornoch only has so much room, I can only safely get my own aircraft - 4 seat STOL retractable tourer - in & out of Knockbain on a very favourable day with half load, etc... Maybe HIAL build us another airfield we'll move?? Unrealistic, but I can dream.

Regarding the integration of GA with commercials; when radar arrives it should surely include an ATM which should make the tower controller's job much easier.

Inverness Radar
 

Oh I do like reading rumour and ill informed arguments, esp those that are bent in order to make the writer's view sound better!
From my understanding, Lossie provide the radar service along the advisory routes to mitigate the risk from other traffic flying about, such as GA and more importantly fast jets, be they from Lossie or elsewhere. As they are advisory routes, the controllers are mandated to provide RAS to participating traffic. They are not providing an approach service to Inverness as SRG said they couldn't, although it seems to make sense that they did. Therefore, at Inverness ATC's request, the tracks are sent to Inverness approx 15-20nm from INV; this means that the aircraft are flying through open FIR in the region of INV under procedural service even though there is a radar unit that can see them. Lossie do, although dont need to, provide advisory actions to aircraft, via Inverness, if aircraft come into confliction.
As to the radar - the servicability of both the primary and secondary as well as the radar coverage both provide, I am sure, have been disclosed to HIAL so they are aware of the level of service they are getting. If the radar at Lossie is not performing well, be that primary or secondary, the controllers will limit service accordingly. Surely the drivers would prefer to know what they are getting rather than bimble about in an air of ignorance? It is probably unhelpful for Ppruners to throw rocks unless they know the full picture. However I am sure that all pilots are fully aware what RAS and RIS mean and the level of service that that implies. ("I'll just take a Radar Advisory...its quite sunny up here" springs to mind!!).
Is it worth asking why you need CAS when you have a radar doing the vectoring and providing RAS? Surely it is safer to have radar than not at all; if Farmer Giles is lost, he will still be lost whether CAS exists or not....! Maybe another argument!
As to the provision of service during the period Lossiemouth is NOTAM'd as closed - I hear from a good source that Lossie are not obliged to provide radar to Inverness during standdowns or leave periods, as, if you recall above, there is no fast jet traffic to mitigate against; however as good neighbours they are controlling during the Xmas period, although for restricted periods. Strictly speaking, the radar service is an MOD - NATS contract so neither Lossie nor Inverness are involved in the grubby cash element.
I'll just go and get my helmet and body armour ready for the returning chest poking!!:=

No he really did not! What he has said, consistently, is that unless the ground infrastructure at Inverness is improved, or better information to ATCOs concerning effects of vortex or jet blast is provided, he would like microlights banned.
This would be purely for safety and flight regularity reasons, in that order. He would greatly miss the presence of most of the GA at Inverness, indeed is extremely grateful for its presence at quiet times as it helps keep his hand in. This is particularly true as he is most definitely middle-aged!:=