Doncaster LARS
 

Doncaster always seem willing to provide LARS but I notice they are not a published LARS unit.... Looking at the neighbouring units they seem likely candidates given that they're H24... Anyone have any thoughts on this?

You don't have to be a notified LARS unit to provide ATSOCAs. You have to apply and will only be nominated if there is funding available.

So it's done out of the goodness of their hearts?

Yes if it's outside their CTA/CTR. They only need to provide 'basic' outside; anything else is a bonus. Also don't forget their radar controllers are at Liverpool, don't know where their radar head is.

Yes. It's down to the individual operative. So don't rely on its availability.
Doncaster doesn't seem to have enough CAT to justify its CAS so ATC probably has a lot of spare capacity to provide pseudo-LARS ATSOCA.

radar head's at Doncaster

LARS IS A HUGE MESS.
 

This is the whole stupidity of the LARS system.

We have non-LARS radar units that want to talk to people outside their ATZ (Cambridge / Oxford)

We have non-LARS non-radar units that want to talk to people outside their ATZ (Lydd)

We have non-LARS radar units that are typically too busy to provide a service to people outside their CAS (Stansted / Manchester / London Control)

We have non-LARS non-radar units that are typically too busy to provide a service to people outside their ATZ (Shoreham)

We have LARS units that want to talk to people outside their ATZ (Southend)

We have LARS units that are happy to provide a service to people outside their CAS (Norwich)

We have LARS units that want to talk to people for far too many miles away from their ATZ (Farnborough)

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

To solve this problem, every unit that can provide radar services in lower airspace (regardless of whether it is inside or outside controlled airspace) should be called LARS.

How it is funded is completely irrelevant to the pilot and his LARS charts.

With the exception of the Farnborough LARS operation, LARS is provided by units with spare capacity from their existing resources.
This should explain all the points you attempt to make.

Really?

In my experience it's the aircraft who are calling up/staying with Farnborough LARS outside their operational area.

How far do you think the Farnborough LARS sectors should stretch?

I assume you're aware that their sectors run from west of CPT, down to GWC, over to SFD, up to DET, northeast of BKY and then just south of WCO, and the reasons behind that coverage which have nothing to do with the EGLF ATZ.

Exactly. I couldn't be bothered to explain to SH650 yet again!
Suffice to say, in the various Farnborough sectors, the Heathrow 10cm, Debden 23cm and Pease Pottage 23cm all provide excellent low coverage for the Farnborough task.

Yes. But you have mis-understood my point. I am saying Farnborough's coverage is too large.

Every other LARS unit operates some say 25-30nm radius from a point centered on their airport.

Farnborough goes so much wider - has 3 areas and covers a huge amount of airspace around the South East.

Really what Farnborough is doing should have been called London Approach and let VFR traffic go in and out of controlled airspace easily but of course they were not smart enough to figure that one out. :E

My point remains: The role of LARS is poorly understood and inconsistently applied by many.

No, I really haven't.

No, 'they' are smart enough, but the intention behind Farnborough LARS was to mitigate against infringements into CAS, by providing ATSOCAS around the major CTRs around London. A service that is provided free of charge to those who use it, as it's funded by NATS (i.e. commercial route charges) and Farnborough Airport. A more seamless service could be given, but who would pay for it?

Very true.

Similarly pilots themselves persist in requesting Lower Airspace Radar Service from units which have no remit to provide it eg. Thames Radar and Solent Radar. The Initial Calls seeking such non-available LARS are often poorly prepared radio transmissions which themselves compromise flight safety by interrupting precision radar sequencing.

Clearly somebody somewhere needs to get a robust grip on the promulgation of the availability of radar services outside UK CAS. CAP774 so-called 'Duty of Care' has muddied the waters so much that ANSPs don't seem to know where they stand. Why on earth should CAS radar directors be expected to encumber their spare capacity such as it is by babysitting itinerant Class G traffic?

Simple: For someone unfamiliar with the area it's not clear who to talk to!

So you clearly haven't separated the IFR from the VFR frequencies then?

There is no distinction between commerical or non-commercial. Loosely speaking if you are IFR and over 2T or VFR and over 5.7T you are charged at the NERL unit rate, which is the second highest in the world.

Next time if I can afford to pay the £136.17 + 20% VAT minimum NSL "navigation fee" when I land at Stansted I might.

So NATS ain't making enough money already in both approach and en-route departments? :rolleyes:

I can tell you that the US taxpayer doesn't pay that amount for me to land my little Cub at JFK or transit over its airspace.

My point is exactly that.

There should be no need. They shouldn't be calling inappropriate units on inappropriate frequencies in the first place. Clarification of service availability in the UK IAIP is essential.

Sorry, should have been clearer, I meant commercial in the sense of money changing hands between operator and ANSP, I am aware they can be non-commercial flights.

If you want to dispute them, you have to go to the CAA who set the charges, not NATS.

Where did you get NSL from? Stansted's Approach Radar services are provided by NATS Airspace, which is economically regulated by the CAA. Stansted's Tower services are provided by NATS Airports under contract to Stansted Airport.

Anyway, I've lost track of what your point is here. Stansted is inside CAS. LARS services around the outside of the CTR is provided by Farnborough LARS (NATS Airspace - mostly), so that's what you're paying for with that charge.

Maybe you should set up your own ANSP and start tendering for contracts SH.:ok:

What is the point of separate freqs. if both types of traffic are in close proximity in the same Class G airspace?

saying that NATS charges are the second highest in the world really hacks me off and shows a complete ignorance on your part and many others.

NATS is not subsidised; unlike many other ANSPs.

I also really get hacked off when airlines complain that they are having to pay for our pension etc etc.

We are a service provider, our customer in the main, is the airline. They charge their customers for tickets which contribute to their pensions... so why do they bleat on about us doing so?

Soaring high, what do you want a free service???

I will happily offer a LARS service around Gatwick and Luton approach, and we can stop the Excellent farnborough LARS service. however we would need an extra controller position, so that needs to be paid for, now I would love to start requesting credit card details over the R/T prior to giving a service. Is that good idea???

One more thing SH, why was EGLF LARS introduced? Because idiots like you kept infringing CAS and causing chaos!!!!

This thread has totally lost direction, it's no longer in answer to the OP's question. It's a thread about Doncaster LARS, not mud throwing about SS/LF/NATS charges.

In answer to Cottom Approach, nice handle :ok:, it does seem strange that a unit such as Doncaster doesn't have LARS. Seeing as how they are H24 and are right slap, bang in the middle of area which many GA/Mil use to transit the country. Hopefully there might be a change ahead whenever the powers that be meet to discuss such issues!