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!

SH,

Read what the CAA have published, e.g.Farnborough Radar has taken responsibility for a “London LARS”. The fact that the callsign is Farnborough, rather than London is irrelevant.

Never argue with an idiot on the internet. Eventually they'll drag you down to their level and beat you through experience.

Well said MT.

Which is why I didn't bother much with SH650's remarks, although it isn't wholly his fault; his total lack of knowledge of the non-ICAO compliant UK system is tainted by his knowledge of the non-ICAO compliant US system, that's his big problem.

Gonzo,

My points are two fold:
1) For everyone to fully understand what LARS is
2) For airspace to re-designed to permit VFR aircraft to safely enter it.

We agree that nobody really knows what point 1 is.

So let's talk about point 2.

A few other posters have commented that someone needs to pay for it to set it up.

My point is that it's controlled airspace has been set up to provide protection to fare paying passengers.

They are the ones who really don't want the mid-air collision.

They are also the ones who primarily contribute towards en-route charges and navigation charges.

However all that has been done, instead of providing services to keep air traffic separated, is set up this massive and complex Class A airspace all around London.

This means everyone who is flying VFR gets NO TRANSIT OR CLEARANCE is wasting huge amounts of time and fuel trying to REMAIN OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE, being made to flying low, and unsuccessfully avoid huge airspace resulting in:

And more NATS employees hurtling abuse on forums.


Why do we never have this problem out here in New York?

Pilots are not the idiots.

It is because the airspace has been designed properly and everyone has access.

Therefore it makes sense that you start taking fresh look at London airspace and think about granting all aircraft access, regardless of flight rules.

Given your airline customers are the ones who need or want the airspace, it makes most sense that you recover your costs through them as they are the people who benefit most from it.

As seen by your en-route charges and airport navigation charges, GA really cannot afford to pay those rates.

But to keep out aircraft just because you think they're not paying anything for it is just extremely poor.

SH,

That wasn't me.

All your other points seem to be addressed at CAA rather than NATS.

Airspace design and classification is governed by CAA.

Yes, and I can quote many meetings I've attended where other airspace users (i.e. IFR operators using London airports) don't want to permit VFR access, and cite safety concerns about the airspace design and ATC procedures in the USA.

Really? I'd suggest that all airspace users feel that way. Unless you are suggesting you have a lower safety threshold?

Who is keeping aircraft out because they don't pay? Class D CTRs have VFR transits. VFR is not permitted in Class A CTAs. If you want VFR access to what is now a Class A CTR you need to talk to CAA, not NATS.

Please go and visit somewhere like Farnborough, and talk to the LARS controllers there about the 'duty of care' they are lumbered with. For better or worse the UK is not the USA in terms of airspace/ATC. It's no good just haranguing the coal-face ATCOs for 'banning VFR flights'.

I've never been "banned" from transiting Class D airspace in UK. I have on a small number of occasions been held outside. Sometimes I've chosen to wait, sometimes I've changed to plan B and gone round instead.

I've found it possible to get SVFR transits of Class A airspace in UK much more often than not.

I've never had a problem accepting the way the UK's "LARS" system works, or not. It is less easy to obtain a LARS service than in years gone by because quite a number of the units providing the service have been closed (mainly military units). Pilots have to adapt to changes, it's what we're paid for.

I've only been using the airspace since 1973 and since 1977 for a living, all of it non-airways but a fair proportion under IFR over the last fifteen years or so. In this branch of aviation we fly routinely operate VFR-IFR-VFR OCAS because we have no choice (probably more than most pilots do) but perhaps I'm missing something.

In any case, if anyone isn't happy about the setup of UK airspace, there's absolutely no point getting grumpy to ATC about it, it's not them making the rules, as in "don't shoot the messenger"!

Shouldn't that read 'Plan A'.... :E

Some concerns valid. But others overplayed. Best compromise is where we have our Class B/C areas designed so that jet traffic and piston traffic climb out and approach in very different areas of the airspace, but all still under control.

Nobody wants a mid-air but lighter aircraft do have lower safety thresholds. The public transport flight that carries more people will feel the impact greater if it is involved in a collision as many more lives are lost.

However very busy GA VFR and IFR airports also have a air traffic control because see and avoid does not work at such levels.

Essentially NATS looks after huge volumes of Class A airspace in lower airspace across the UK. Much more than the Class D it looks after. And the vast majority of GA flies according to VFR.

Therefore there is a underlying perception that the airspace is set up deliberately to keep traffic GA out instead of being safely cleared through it.

And I'm not haranguing any coal-face controller here. I was just rambling on the issues and misundertandings and inconsistencies about LARS - not the SERVICE provided by the people, but its DEFINITION as a concept - and then someone took things personally, interjected, and asked me to pay for it.

Only if we're talking about your airspace....:E :p

SH,

In your opinion.

I can also relate concerns of US carriers of European/UK ATC that I can portray as overplayed. However, when we come across this we don't just tell them they're wrong and that the USA doesn't do things right. We sit down with them and discuss the concerns, explain why we do things the way we do, the limitations we are faced with (which tangentially are far different for a purely commerical and independent entity with capped income such as NATS, than for a Federal Agency such as the FAA), and we both come out of the room with a far greater understand of each other's worlds.

There, I corrected it for you.:ok:

Yes, as I keep saying, if you want VFR access to areas that are currently Class A, you need to lobby the CAA and/or EASA, to change the rules. Failing that, you need to submit an ACP to the CAA.

On here and in other fora you yourself are constantly negative towards NATS. You still have yet to understand that NATS operates under the rules and airspace set by the CAA.

We have totally gone off topic but might as well continue. I'm sure there is one somewhere but if someone was able to post a diagram of the LTMA which showed the SIDS and STARS etc form all the major airports that are in such close proximity to each other, maybe, just maybe SH will get the drift (not holding my breath though).

I'm not saying the LTMA route structure is perfect... it is far from it and that is one of many reasons for LAMP, but given the complexity involved with having so many commercial airports in such a small space, it is no wonder that there are swathes of complicated CLASS A.

Of course the way to really simplify it would be to make the whole of the LTMA class A from ground up... but that's not what anyone wants

SH650's desire is for

The CAA has slightly different criteria when deciding how best to allocate what is a very scarce resource. The Transport Act 2000 requires it to "satisfy the requirements of operators and owners of all classes of aircraft" but also to "secure the most efficient use of airspace consistent with the safe operation of aircraft and expeditious flow of air traffic"

Perhaps mindful that to do both might be an impossible task the Act gives the CAA the leeway to meet the requirements in a manner it thinks reasonable with regard to the whole set and generally it does.

The presumption in the UK is for Class G and it is almost inevitable that if you limit the amount of controlled airspace you end up with an awful lot of traffic in what CAS there is and that means your ability to allow other traffic in will be limited.

See how the remarks of someone who doesn't understand the workings of UK Airspace Management have caused the thread to drift; it's supposed to be a discussion on whether DSA should join the UK LARS system!

Gonzo - Thank you for the correction. :ok:

But NATS and the CAA were the same organization before 1996 and the airspace we see today was drawn up way before then.

Why do you think I'm "constantly negative" towards NATS? And what do you think makes me get such thoughts?

Is it because you used to work for them…?