Do you care about LARS?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't the UK implement Class E airspace. You could then protect the instrument approaches with Class D, stick a layer of Class E on top, which would allow VFR traffic access across the zone without undue burden on ATC. In the case of IFR traffic, they would also be protected in the Class E by ATC.
Why doen't the UK consider more use of VFR corridors through airspace? An example is LAX and most other large airports in the states, you enter the corridor at a defined location, one altitude for one direction, one for the other. You sqwark a particular code which allows ATC to see your intentions, even though you are not communication with them, and you announce your position during the course of the transit. This way, convienient routing for VFR traffic, and less burden on ATC can all be accomplished with comparitive ease. In the above example, as many of you already know no doubt, you can transit LAX right overhead without talking to a sole. Stick one of these corridors across each Class D zone, and life would become much easier for everyone.
Cheers
EA
Why doen't the UK consider more use of VFR corridors through airspace? An example is LAX and most other large airports in the states, you enter the corridor at a defined location, one altitude for one direction, one for the other. You sqwark a particular code which allows ATC to see your intentions, even though you are not communication with them, and you announce your position during the course of the transit. This way, convienient routing for VFR traffic, and less burden on ATC can all be accomplished with comparitive ease. In the above example, as many of you already know no doubt, you can transit LAX right overhead without talking to a sole. Stick one of these corridors across each Class D zone, and life would become much easier for everyone.
Cheers
EA
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So surely the time has come to have an all encompassing LARS service, certainly in the south of England, provided not by individual airfields, but centrally from either Swanwick or W. Drayton.
This is certainly possible, and could be done by the London Military provided that they got the proper funding to staff the service.
As technology improves, there's no reason why, with the exception of perhaps extreme areas, the service could not be done on this basis UK wide.
We're not an official LARS provider, but we spend a lot of our time giving an equivilant service and get no income at all.
From a civil ATC viewpoint, this would certainly free up more time to give a better and more efficiant service to our own paying customers at the airfield, and also, for the most part, coordination against LARS traffic would be relatively simple.
It would take some considered thought on all sides to implement it, but it would be a better and more efficiant service than we have at present.
This is certainly possible, and could be done by the London Military provided that they got the proper funding to staff the service.
As technology improves, there's no reason why, with the exception of perhaps extreme areas, the service could not be done on this basis UK wide.
We're not an official LARS provider, but we spend a lot of our time giving an equivilant service and get no income at all.
From a civil ATC viewpoint, this would certainly free up more time to give a better and more efficiant service to our own paying customers at the airfield, and also, for the most part, coordination against LARS traffic would be relatively simple.
It would take some considered thought on all sides to implement it, but it would be a better and more efficiant service than we have at present.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NikNak
Nice idea - but doesn't go far enough.
What we really need is a complete restructuring of UK airspace and ATC. Someone needs the cajones to start it from scratch.
With an Island the size of ours I think the time has come to take the radars out of the airfields (Mil and civil) and have it centrally controlled - maybe 3 centres instead of 2 but that would cover the whole of the UK.
With that in place you resector the country - surface to FL100. FL100 - FL245 (or whatever the boundary between FIR/UIR is deemed to be), and base of UIR upwards. The lateral limits depend on known traffic density (South Wales lower would be bigger than South East lower for example)
Make it Class 'E' up to FL100, except around major internationals where you'd have Class 'A' where deemed necessary - maybe even use Class 'C' airspace around the busier regionals (most of them operate as if it were anyway).
Let's face it - UK airspace, airways structure, and service provision, is a complete bloody mess with a hotchpotch of units outside CAS providing piecemeal services on an ad hoc basis. It needs radical action and it needs it now.
If the airport's want to provide their own tower controllers then fine - no problems. But it's time that all en-rte and approach radar provision was done by one provider, operating for the benefit of all, with no self interest involved. That's got to be more efficient for all users in the long run.
Nice idea - but doesn't go far enough.
What we really need is a complete restructuring of UK airspace and ATC. Someone needs the cajones to start it from scratch.
With an Island the size of ours I think the time has come to take the radars out of the airfields (Mil and civil) and have it centrally controlled - maybe 3 centres instead of 2 but that would cover the whole of the UK.
With that in place you resector the country - surface to FL100. FL100 - FL245 (or whatever the boundary between FIR/UIR is deemed to be), and base of UIR upwards. The lateral limits depend on known traffic density (South Wales lower would be bigger than South East lower for example)
Make it Class 'E' up to FL100, except around major internationals where you'd have Class 'A' where deemed necessary - maybe even use Class 'C' airspace around the busier regionals (most of them operate as if it were anyway).
Let's face it - UK airspace, airways structure, and service provision, is a complete bloody mess with a hotchpotch of units outside CAS providing piecemeal services on an ad hoc basis. It needs radical action and it needs it now.
If the airport's want to provide their own tower controllers then fine - no problems. But it's time that all en-rte and approach radar provision was done by one provider, operating for the benefit of all, with no self interest involved. That's got to be more efficient for all users in the long run.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 26th Jan 2004 at 00:14.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, we both obviously sip from the same glass. Some very interesting points.
Combined Approach Centres - Canada? Nice plan and if it works it will set the standard for the rest of the world.
Redesign the airspace. SES (Single European Skies) is going along this route. FL195+ will be Class C. In the longer term. A-G will go and we will end up with 2/3 classifications of airspace. Ditch RAS/RIS/FIS and bring something in more aligned to flight rules/conditions and Bob will be your uncle.
Finally, put some in smart technology (Dynamic Air Traffic Management, Mode S(!) etc) and everyone may be happy.
The bottom line is that, instead of tinkering with the current structure, we should get out a brand spanking new piece of paper and start a fresh.
Combined Approach Centres - Canada? Nice plan and if it works it will set the standard for the rest of the world.
Redesign the airspace. SES (Single European Skies) is going along this route. FL195+ will be Class C. In the longer term. A-G will go and we will end up with 2/3 classifications of airspace. Ditch RAS/RIS/FIS and bring something in more aligned to flight rules/conditions and Bob will be your uncle.
Finally, put some in smart technology (Dynamic Air Traffic Management, Mode S(!) etc) and everyone may be happy.
The bottom line is that, instead of tinkering with the current structure, we should get out a brand spanking new piece of paper and start a fresh.
Last edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO; 26th Jan 2004 at 03:00.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If only CAA had the same power as local authority planning committees.
You're a developer, you want to build a pile of houses and a shopping centre. Fine says the planning authority but we want a nice new leisure centre as well, a road upgrade for all the extra traffic, and why not have a little park too; if you want your planning consent, you will need to provide it. The important point is that the connection between the planners' demands and the "harm" caused by the development can (under the legislation) be tenuous or non-existent.
So Stansted wants a new runway. And Heathrow wants a new terminal and (eventually) a runway. If only the CAA could just say that, as part of their agreement to that, BAA has to provide radar services for everyone.
And if someone now tells me that CAA already have this power and don't use it then I am going to be upset.
On the class E debate, as most of my experience till recently has been in US airspace, I appreciate the benefits that class E gives in terms of more VFR airspace access, lower airways for IFR etc. However, I also appreciate the more relaxed visibility and cloud clearance requirements that the UK's version of class G gives me - I think we would all miss those more than we think if it all became class E.
You're a developer, you want to build a pile of houses and a shopping centre. Fine says the planning authority but we want a nice new leisure centre as well, a road upgrade for all the extra traffic, and why not have a little park too; if you want your planning consent, you will need to provide it. The important point is that the connection between the planners' demands and the "harm" caused by the development can (under the legislation) be tenuous or non-existent.
So Stansted wants a new runway. And Heathrow wants a new terminal and (eventually) a runway. If only the CAA could just say that, as part of their agreement to that, BAA has to provide radar services for everyone.
And if someone now tells me that CAA already have this power and don't use it then I am going to be upset.
On the class E debate, as most of my experience till recently has been in US airspace, I appreciate the benefits that class E gives in terms of more VFR airspace access, lower airways for IFR etc. However, I also appreciate the more relaxed visibility and cloud clearance requirements that the UK's version of class G gives me - I think we would all miss those more than we think if it all became class E.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Suffolk
Age: 65
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat - if LARS is being funded to that amount, who's paying?
TC_LTN - being aware of a situation and having the will to do anything about it are two very different things. As for TAG not needing you how to tell them to 'grow the business', one of the senior TAG suits was quoted in a magazine after EGLF passed civil licensing that if they'd known how hard it was going to be they'd have thought twice. TAG knows squat about ATC. And NATS just want to save money. Spangly, on the other hand, does know what he's talking about.
TC_LTN - being aware of a situation and having the will to do anything about it are two very different things. As for TAG not needing you how to tell them to 'grow the business', one of the senior TAG suits was quoted in a magazine after EGLF passed civil licensing that if they'd known how hard it was going to be they'd have thought twice. TAG knows squat about ATC. And NATS just want to save money. Spangly, on the other hand, does know what he's talking about.
Last edited by Wee Jock; 5th Feb 2004 at 02:28.
