Do you care about LARS?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: location, location
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you care about LARS?
Bear with me on this.....
As you may or may not know, Farnborough is one of the busiest LARS units in the country, if not the busiest. It's controllers are also employed by National Air Traffic Services (NATS). These controllers are facing a restructure of their pay according to the levels of traffic they work.
Now from a controller's point of view, Farnborough has some of the most demanding airspace in the country, responsible as it is for a large Class G chunk of airspace, and looking after IFR jet traffic receiving a RIS or RAS not only in and out of itself, but also the adjacent civilian airfields. In other words, this is one of the best opportunities in the ATC community of having an incident and potentially losing your air traffic licence. But it has been decided that LARS movements will be excluded in calculating this restructure, and consequently Farnborough has been placed at the bottom of the pile because only it's aerodrome movements are being taken into account.
So how does this concern pilots? Well, it is possible, just possible, that because of this Farnborough may lose LARS, or rather, give it up. Why? Although the controllers there enjoy providing LARS (well, most of them, most of the time so I understand), what is the point when they're not being recognised for it? If you care, then write to NATS (www.nats.co.uk) but more importantly, write to Prospect. This is the union, that is supposed to stand up for its members, that has brokered this deal. Tell them what you think of LARS and (hopefully) how it important it is to you. LARS is being sidelined again, is this another nail in its coffin?
www.prospect.org.uk or:
Prospect, NATS ATCOs Branch, Prospect House, 75-79 York Road, London, SE1 7AQ
As you may or may not know, Farnborough is one of the busiest LARS units in the country, if not the busiest. It's controllers are also employed by National Air Traffic Services (NATS). These controllers are facing a restructure of their pay according to the levels of traffic they work.
Now from a controller's point of view, Farnborough has some of the most demanding airspace in the country, responsible as it is for a large Class G chunk of airspace, and looking after IFR jet traffic receiving a RIS or RAS not only in and out of itself, but also the adjacent civilian airfields. In other words, this is one of the best opportunities in the ATC community of having an incident and potentially losing your air traffic licence. But it has been decided that LARS movements will be excluded in calculating this restructure, and consequently Farnborough has been placed at the bottom of the pile because only it's aerodrome movements are being taken into account.
So how does this concern pilots? Well, it is possible, just possible, that because of this Farnborough may lose LARS, or rather, give it up. Why? Although the controllers there enjoy providing LARS (well, most of them, most of the time so I understand), what is the point when they're not being recognised for it? If you care, then write to NATS (www.nats.co.uk) but more importantly, write to Prospect. This is the union, that is supposed to stand up for its members, that has brokered this deal. Tell them what you think of LARS and (hopefully) how it important it is to you. LARS is being sidelined again, is this another nail in its coffin?
www.prospect.org.uk or:
Prospect, NATS ATCOs Branch, Prospect House, 75-79 York Road, London, SE1 7AQ
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: surrey
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the heads-up. I make use of Farnborough LARS on approximately half of the flights I make and will write the appropriate letters this weekend.
Is the arrangement local to F'borough or will Southend etc be affected also?
TG.
Is the arrangement local to F'borough or will Southend etc be affected also?
TG.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spangly,
I assume you are an understandably disgruntled Farnborough ATCO or perhaps someone who receives the fine service they provide and has been 'wound up' by a Farnborough ATCO?
In either case I think you are, at best, scandal mongering and at worst inciting unnecessary concern amongst the GA community.
NATS provide a LARS in the Farnborough area not through the goodness of their heart but for sound commercial reasons. As the ATS service provider operating rapidly increasing IFR traffic levels into and out of an airfield with no more protection than an ATZ it is obviously in it's interest to do whatever it can to provide a 'known traffic environment' in the 'gap' between the base of controlled airspace and the runway. Despite the fact that the remuneration NATS receive for providing that LARS service would hardly fund one ATCO leave alone the staff actually needed to carry out the task, it is deemed necessary in order to provide an acceptable level of service to it's paying customers i.e. IFR operators into and out of Farnborough through Class G airspace. While, the intensity of the operation at Farnborough may not have been recognised in the current pay negotiations, for which I have every sympathy, it surely has no relevance to the continued provision of the service unless you are suggesting some form of industrial action in support of your grievance?
IMHO, the threat to the LARS service in the Farnborough area will come with the establishment of controlled airspace for the protection of IFR traffic in and out of Farnborough. If that time should come and I am sure you would agree needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, then I suspect the need for NATS to continue to offer a LARS service outside that airspace will cease since it is no longer commercially viable with the current level of LARS funding.
Spangly, I re-iterated I have every sympathy as an ex-LARS and continuing ATSOCA controller myself with your plight BUT I would suggest your grievance is just that YOUR grievance with NATS management and/or Prospect rather than inciting the willing recipients of the fine service provided by Farnborough, into supporting your cause under false pretences.
I assume you are an understandably disgruntled Farnborough ATCO or perhaps someone who receives the fine service they provide and has been 'wound up' by a Farnborough ATCO?
In either case I think you are, at best, scandal mongering and at worst inciting unnecessary concern amongst the GA community.
NATS provide a LARS in the Farnborough area not through the goodness of their heart but for sound commercial reasons. As the ATS service provider operating rapidly increasing IFR traffic levels into and out of an airfield with no more protection than an ATZ it is obviously in it's interest to do whatever it can to provide a 'known traffic environment' in the 'gap' between the base of controlled airspace and the runway. Despite the fact that the remuneration NATS receive for providing that LARS service would hardly fund one ATCO leave alone the staff actually needed to carry out the task, it is deemed necessary in order to provide an acceptable level of service to it's paying customers i.e. IFR operators into and out of Farnborough through Class G airspace. While, the intensity of the operation at Farnborough may not have been recognised in the current pay negotiations, for which I have every sympathy, it surely has no relevance to the continued provision of the service unless you are suggesting some form of industrial action in support of your grievance?
IMHO, the threat to the LARS service in the Farnborough area will come with the establishment of controlled airspace for the protection of IFR traffic in and out of Farnborough. If that time should come and I am sure you would agree needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, then I suspect the need for NATS to continue to offer a LARS service outside that airspace will cease since it is no longer commercially viable with the current level of LARS funding.
Spangly, I re-iterated I have every sympathy as an ex-LARS and continuing ATSOCA controller myself with your plight BUT I would suggest your grievance is just that YOUR grievance with NATS management and/or Prospect rather than inciting the willing recipients of the fine service provided by Farnborough, into supporting your cause under false pretences.
Last edited by TC_LTN; 23rd Jan 2004 at 17:19.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another important facet to this.
The airlines are currently putting enormous pressure on the CAA to have general aviation pay for LARS. They allege that they are cross-subsidising GA to the tune of millions of pounds by picking up the tab. They want those millions of pounds to be paid by you and me.
There's a dogfight going on at the moment. AOPA's strongest weapon is the demand that if GA must pay for LARS, then GA must be guaranteed a full LARS service at all times. The other side obviously balks at this.
There's a lot of politicking going on here. Tread warily, lest your answer to the question "do you care about LARS" be taken down and used in evidence when the question "how much?" arises..
The airlines are currently putting enormous pressure on the CAA to have general aviation pay for LARS. They allege that they are cross-subsidising GA to the tune of millions of pounds by picking up the tab. They want those millions of pounds to be paid by you and me.
There's a dogfight going on at the moment. AOPA's strongest weapon is the demand that if GA must pay for LARS, then GA must be guaranteed a full LARS service at all times. The other side obviously balks at this.
There's a lot of politicking going on here. Tread warily, lest your answer to the question "do you care about LARS" be taken down and used in evidence when the question "how much?" arises..
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Suffolk
Age: 65
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 'millions of pounds' read £1.6 million. That is the total LARS budget per annum for the UK, distributed unequally (i.e. on opening hours rather than movements handled) between the 28 units which provide LARS. The wine cellar under 10 Downing Street is valued at £1.7 million, which gives an insight into how underfunded this service is. All of these figures are available in the public domain, and the Treasury has just declined to hypothecate VAT on aviation fuel as paid by GA so that it could go towards funding LARS, as was suggested in last year's DofT investigation into LARS funding. Go to www.dft.gov.uk and you'll find it (and the above figures).
No doubt TAG Aviation (who run Farnborough) could work out from TC_LTN's post that if they bin the LARS service, they might get a control zone in double quick time. And most important of all these days, save money.
No doubt TAG Aviation (who run Farnborough) could work out from TC_LTN's post that if they bin the LARS service, they might get a control zone in double quick time. And most important of all these days, save money.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nats ATCO 1/5 Radar Unit
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC_LTN,
i don't think accusing Spangly of scandal mongering over this issue, saying it shouldn't be in this forum, is very fair. I guess you must be doing Luton radar at TC, having worked with your colleagues in the tower preNats, when you had Lars. Of course now, the top of your scale is 22,000 pounds more than that of your colleague in your tower where you worked a couple of years ago. So maybe you are a tad biased...
While Nats controllers provide the Lars at Farnborough, it is on behalf of the aerodrome authority, Tag Aviation. Any money from the central lars budget goes to them. They then pay the Nats contracts for all the staff.
As Wee Jock has said, they may decide to get rid of Lars, to save money on the overall contract. The whole area will then fall apart, there will be airproxes all the time, and no-one will want to use Farnborough.
Farny
i don't think accusing Spangly of scandal mongering over this issue, saying it shouldn't be in this forum, is very fair. I guess you must be doing Luton radar at TC, having worked with your colleagues in the tower preNats, when you had Lars. Of course now, the top of your scale is 22,000 pounds more than that of your colleague in your tower where you worked a couple of years ago. So maybe you are a tad biased...
While Nats controllers provide the Lars at Farnborough, it is on behalf of the aerodrome authority, Tag Aviation. Any money from the central lars budget goes to them. They then pay the Nats contracts for all the staff.
As Wee Jock has said, they may decide to get rid of Lars, to save money on the overall contract. The whole area will then fall apart, there will be airproxes all the time, and no-one will want to use Farnborough.
Farny
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this figure of £1.6million include the military ATC as well? If so then I'd argue that as a tax payer (ahem...ok well I'm not, but many GA pilots are
) then you're entitled to a service, workload permitting.
I'd also argue that airlines shouldn't grumble too much as providing a Radar service to the GA fleet adds to the safety of the fare paying passenger.
I would be prepared to pay for a decent service, not on a per-use basis but an annual (or BI annual) lump sum. Increase my licence fee to cover it if they want, or charge me yearly for my RT licence, but I expect value for money. Value for money in my book would include a guaranteed service, American style VFR flight following (with airspace transit clearances automatically given, or avoiding vectors etc....), and ease of use.
Trouble is, as we have just seen on the news recently (military wasting £3billion!) , of the money collected, they'd probably go and spend most of it on MEPs business expenses to talk about the shape of bananas or something.......
EA
) then you're entitled to a service, workload permitting.I'd also argue that airlines shouldn't grumble too much as providing a Radar service to the GA fleet adds to the safety of the fare paying passenger.
I would be prepared to pay for a decent service, not on a per-use basis but an annual (or BI annual) lump sum. Increase my licence fee to cover it if they want, or charge me yearly for my RT licence, but I expect value for money. Value for money in my book would include a guaranteed service, American style VFR flight following (with airspace transit clearances automatically given, or avoiding vectors etc....), and ease of use.
Trouble is, as we have just seen on the news recently (military wasting £3billion!) , of the money collected, they'd probably go and spend most of it on MEPs business expenses to talk about the shape of bananas or something.......
EA
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farney,
I think you have defeated your own argument!
Having large amounts of jet IFR traffic floating around in the FIR without the fine service that Farnborough provide would be a recipe for disaster and almost certainly result in an increase in incidents/airprox reports. For just this reason, IMHO, NATS will not ditch providing a LARS service as long as the IFR traffic they are contracted to provide a service to, are operating in Class G airspace with little protection other than the 'known traffic environment' generated by the LARS service.
My original point though, was that the provision of that LARS service has little to do with how much Spangly or me(!) are paid and attempting to get the Private Flying community to write to NATS and/or Prospect is going to do little towards helping Farnborough ATCOs pursue their, undoubtedly justified, pay claim.
The threat to the continued provision of a LARS service comes and always has come from a lack of FUNDING. Wee Jock has identified exactly what the current problem is and provided some figures which illustrate exactly why the service is doomed unless a service provider has another reason to deliver the service, as in Farnborough's case. Given the correct level of funding for the provision of this valuable service, NATS along with many other service providers will be queuing up to offer the type of fine service that Farnborough offers today, for many years to come.
.
I think you have defeated your own argument!
Having large amounts of jet IFR traffic floating around in the FIR without the fine service that Farnborough provide would be a recipe for disaster and almost certainly result in an increase in incidents/airprox reports. For just this reason, IMHO, NATS will not ditch providing a LARS service as long as the IFR traffic they are contracted to provide a service to, are operating in Class G airspace with little protection other than the 'known traffic environment' generated by the LARS service.
My original point though, was that the provision of that LARS service has little to do with how much Spangly or me(!) are paid and attempting to get the Private Flying community to write to NATS and/or Prospect is going to do little towards helping Farnborough ATCOs pursue their, undoubtedly justified, pay claim.
The threat to the continued provision of a LARS service comes and always has come from a lack of FUNDING. Wee Jock has identified exactly what the current problem is and provided some figures which illustrate exactly why the service is doomed unless a service provider has another reason to deliver the service, as in Farnborough's case. Given the correct level of funding for the provision of this valuable service, NATS along with many other service providers will be queuing up to offer the type of fine service that Farnborough offers today, for many years to come.
.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a couple of points.
TAG is a Swiss company and they have recently seen Geneva airspace go from a friendly and competent ATC service to an incompetent and dangerous one and one which does not attempt to give the service appropriate to its airspace classification, so dont hold your breath for any altruistic gestures.
The airlines are subisidised with duty free fuel. GA pays duty on its fuel( in the main)
GA provides the airlines with its 500 hour left seaters.
TC -LTN seems to have let the cat out of the bag on this one.
TAG is a Swiss company and they have recently seen Geneva airspace go from a friendly and competent ATC service to an incompetent and dangerous one and one which does not attempt to give the service appropriate to its airspace classification, so dont hold your breath for any altruistic gestures.
The airlines are subisidised with duty free fuel. GA pays duty on its fuel( in the main)
GA provides the airlines with its 500 hour left seaters.
TC -LTN seems to have let the cat out of the bag on this one.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bluskis
Quote:TAG is a Swiss company and they have recently seen Geneva airspace go from a friendly and competent ATC service to an incompetent and dangerous one and one which does not attempt to give the service appropriate to its airspace classification, so dont hold your breath for any altruistic gestures.
Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't it NATS controllers providing the LARS at Farnborough, contracted to provide a service for TAG and the GA community. The last thing they want is to turn the ATC service to an incompetent and dangerous one.
TC_LTN
Quote:it surely has no relevance to the continued provision of the service unless you are suggesting some form of industrial action in support of your grievance?
The only person suggesting some form of industrial action in support of a grievance is you buddy.
PA7
A 1/4 Cherokee 3/4's Animal
Quote:TAG is a Swiss company and they have recently seen Geneva airspace go from a friendly and competent ATC service to an incompetent and dangerous one and one which does not attempt to give the service appropriate to its airspace classification, so dont hold your breath for any altruistic gestures.
Correct me if I am wrong here but isn't it NATS controllers providing the LARS at Farnborough, contracted to provide a service for TAG and the GA community. The last thing they want is to turn the ATC service to an incompetent and dangerous one.
TC_LTN
Quote:it surely has no relevance to the continued provision of the service unless you are suggesting some form of industrial action in support of your grievance?
The only person suggesting some form of industrial action in support of a grievance is you buddy.
PA7
A 1/4 Cherokee 3/4's Animal
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LONDON
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LARS Funding
A draft consultation paper is due out very soon from CAA/DAP .It looks at the funding of LARS issue and ask GA to consider what it feels its contribution should be. IF DAP are instructed to "bill" the only sure way of doing this is by attaching a ROAD FUND License to all aircraft and collecting the levy when the owner operator is renewing the radio license for the aircraft.....
The AOPA news section at www.aopa.co.uk carries the associations views on the earlier discussion....all GA pilots should consider responding and if possible in a co-ordinated manner.
Any charge to GA for the availablity of LARS must be seen as the thin end of the wedge and the GA community should resist. Once a charge is introduced it will only increase each year but it also means that the GA community is now a customer who may no longer be prepared to accept a FIS. Future mandates on new equipment,changes to airspace design, the eventual loss of the exemption on Navigation charges for IFR aircraft of less than 2 tonnes,8.33kHz radios for those who want access to the IFR system, the possible increase in CAA charges as a result of a major UK airline complaining that they are cross subsidising the GA community ! In fact the LARS funding review came about as a result of an airline........complaining that they fund LARS to the tune of £600k---- all happening within the next 5 years !!
there is also the Single European Sky project as well as EASA (which has already started)
Happy landings
nosnibor
The AOPA news section at www.aopa.co.uk carries the associations views on the earlier discussion....all GA pilots should consider responding and if possible in a co-ordinated manner.
Any charge to GA for the availablity of LARS must be seen as the thin end of the wedge and the GA community should resist. Once a charge is introduced it will only increase each year but it also means that the GA community is now a customer who may no longer be prepared to accept a FIS. Future mandates on new equipment,changes to airspace design, the eventual loss of the exemption on Navigation charges for IFR aircraft of less than 2 tonnes,8.33kHz radios for those who want access to the IFR system, the possible increase in CAA charges as a result of a major UK airline complaining that they are cross subsidising the GA community ! In fact the LARS funding review came about as a result of an airline........complaining that they fund LARS to the tune of £600k---- all happening within the next 5 years !!
there is also the Single European Sky project as well as EASA (which has already started)
Happy landings
nosnibor
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not aware of the details of the TAG NATS contract , and I have been the recipient of the excellent LARS service given by Farnborough.
What we have been alerted to here is a possibility that this service will cease.
I am sure this is not what the individual controllers wish to happen, but the decision may not be theirs to make.
It would be in TAG interest to make an airspace takeover, as at Geneva, which could result in the lowering of ATC workload, hence lowering of their costs.
TC LTN has indicated this possibility, and there has been a study of the Stanstead/ Luton operation of their Class D zones with respect to VFR transits. Are they next to claim Class A or Class C
Nosnibor mentioned an airline complained about subsidising LARS, they obviously forgot to mention the fuel duty subsidy they receive ,which I would think amply covers this sum.
The result of an airspace change will be yet more bottlenecks and reduced air safety.
Spangly was right to bring this potential threat to our attention.
What we have been alerted to here is a possibility that this service will cease.
I am sure this is not what the individual controllers wish to happen, but the decision may not be theirs to make.
It would be in TAG interest to make an airspace takeover, as at Geneva, which could result in the lowering of ATC workload, hence lowering of their costs.
TC LTN has indicated this possibility, and there has been a study of the Stanstead/ Luton operation of their Class D zones with respect to VFR transits. Are they next to claim Class A or Class C
Nosnibor mentioned an airline complained about subsidising LARS, they obviously forgot to mention the fuel duty subsidy they receive ,which I would think amply covers this sum.
The result of an airspace change will be yet more bottlenecks and reduced air safety.
Spangly was right to bring this potential threat to our attention.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if Single European Sky vil force introduction of more CAS (D/E or whatever they end up calling the new structure) around UK airfields with IFR traffic, presently protected with just a ATZ and LARS from departure and up to base of CTA/airway. (We Vikings seem to loose the Afis operated TIZ/TIA airspace, and force introduction of ATC on more airfields)
A part of the gate-gate concept for IFR in the SES will demand that a aircraft flying from a controlled airfield flying to another controlled airfield have the option of staying inside CAS along the entire route. Who will pick up the bill on that?
A part of the gate-gate concept for IFR in the SES will demand that a aircraft flying from a controlled airfield flying to another controlled airfield have the option of staying inside CAS along the entire route. Who will pick up the bill on that?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the airlines are commercial operations, perhaps they should foot the bill for any increased airspace they wish to use.Perhaps it could be structured on a volumetric airspace formula.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Suffolk
Age: 65
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat Malone, the following is a quote from the D of T report on LARS funding. If the cost is £7-8 million, who's paying it and where is the money going, because I know for a fact it isn't going to the LARS providers. (Got to www.dft.gov.uk search for LARS and you'll find the full report).
'How LARS is funded
7. The current level of funding for LARS is approximately £1.6 million per year. The service is paid for via the Eurocontrol route charges system as an element of the UK's unit rate. All aircraft above 5.7 tonnes pay route charges and thereby contribute to the cost of LARS. Aircraft between 2 and 5.7 tonnes flying under instrument flight rules (IFR) also pay route charges. Aircraft between 2 and 5.7 tonnes flying under visual flight rules (VFR) and all aircraft below 2 tonnes are exempt from route charges. Effectively, this means that LARS is currently funded by commercial airlines and business aviation of whatever nationality flying in UK airspace.'
Also TC_LTN, it's not Farney who's defeated his own argument it's you - quote: '...IMHO, NATS will not ditch providing a LARS service as long as the IFR traffic they are contracted to provide a service to, are operating in Class G airspace with little protection other than the 'known traffic environment' generated by the LARS service.' It's not up to NATS, it's up to TAG Aviation, they pay NATS to provide an air traffic service and effectively foot much of the LARS bill at Farnborough. And that's twice now you've given TAG the clue that if Farnborough had a CTZ it could ditch LARS.
'How LARS is funded
7. The current level of funding for LARS is approximately £1.6 million per year. The service is paid for via the Eurocontrol route charges system as an element of the UK's unit rate. All aircraft above 5.7 tonnes pay route charges and thereby contribute to the cost of LARS. Aircraft between 2 and 5.7 tonnes flying under instrument flight rules (IFR) also pay route charges. Aircraft between 2 and 5.7 tonnes flying under visual flight rules (VFR) and all aircraft below 2 tonnes are exempt from route charges. Effectively, this means that LARS is currently funded by commercial airlines and business aviation of whatever nationality flying in UK airspace.'
Also TC_LTN, it's not Farney who's defeated his own argument it's you - quote: '...IMHO, NATS will not ditch providing a LARS service as long as the IFR traffic they are contracted to provide a service to, are operating in Class G airspace with little protection other than the 'known traffic environment' generated by the LARS service.' It's not up to NATS, it's up to TAG Aviation, they pay NATS to provide an air traffic service and effectively foot much of the LARS bill at Farnborough. And that's twice now you've given TAG the clue that if Farnborough had a CTZ it could ditch LARS.
'just another atco'
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LTC Swanwick
Age: 60
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wee Jock
I argued that the proposed station grading exercise which is taking place within NATS was not the threat to the LARS service at Farnborough as suggested by Spangly.
I suggested and believe fervently that the threat to the LARS service at Farnborough and everywhere else comes from the level of funding which is offered to provide the service.
IMHO Farnborough is getting very close to the point (although perhaps not using DAP's calculation) where the amount of IFR traffic operating into and out of Farnborough dictates that some form of Controlled Airspace should be provided between the base of the TMA and the ATZ. When that time comes, unless the LARS funding formula changes significantly, I suspect NATS in common with many other units will choose not to offer that service but concentrate on providing the service to traffic operating into and out of Farnborough as well as fulfilling it's obligations with regard to allowing free access to it's newly established airspace for all other airspace users.
I am perfectly confident that TAG or NATS do not need me to identify to them the realities of growing the business and pitiful way that the LARS service is funded at present. THEY ARE WELL AWARE OF THE SITUATION!
I argued that the proposed station grading exercise which is taking place within NATS was not the threat to the LARS service at Farnborough as suggested by Spangly.
I suggested and believe fervently that the threat to the LARS service at Farnborough and everywhere else comes from the level of funding which is offered to provide the service.
IMHO Farnborough is getting very close to the point (although perhaps not using DAP's calculation) where the amount of IFR traffic operating into and out of Farnborough dictates that some form of Controlled Airspace should be provided between the base of the TMA and the ATZ. When that time comes, unless the LARS funding formula changes significantly, I suspect NATS in common with many other units will choose not to offer that service but concentrate on providing the service to traffic operating into and out of Farnborough as well as fulfilling it's obligations with regard to allowing free access to it's newly established airspace for all other airspace users.
I am perfectly confident that TAG or NATS do not need me to identify to them the realities of growing the business and pitiful way that the LARS service is funded at present. THEY ARE WELL AWARE OF THE SITUATION!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nats ATCO 1/5 Radar Unit
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Farnborough does need controlled airspace. Now if we manage to get that airspace, TAG have the right to say that they don't want to do LARS.
However, having a class D zone in an area completely surrounded by small airfields, and at the crossroads of a lot of routes, would mean that all the aircraft would call the approach frequency looking for a zone transit. That would overload the frequency (we occasionally have to bandbox lars and approach and it can get manic) which would defeat the object.
And telling everyone to remain outside isn't an option. I know a lot of airfields do that saying that they are not paid to control non airport traffic, but in our area, that would not be practical - and to be given any airspce would probably depend on us continuing to provide a service.
The area really needs the Lars - but I'm a controller, and not a business person who bases everything on cost. If TAG find out about the figures of the regrading, it could affect their business thinking.
So spangly was right...
Farny
However, having a class D zone in an area completely surrounded by small airfields, and at the crossroads of a lot of routes, would mean that all the aircraft would call the approach frequency looking for a zone transit. That would overload the frequency (we occasionally have to bandbox lars and approach and it can get manic) which would defeat the object.
And telling everyone to remain outside isn't an option. I know a lot of airfields do that saying that they are not paid to control non airport traffic, but in our area, that would not be practical - and to be given any airspce would probably depend on us continuing to provide a service.
The area really needs the Lars - but I'm a controller, and not a business person who bases everything on cost. If TAG find out about the figures of the regrading, it could affect their business thinking.
So spangly was right...
Farny
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB
Presumably if Farnborough did get Class D, it would have to be link directly to LHR's Class A, as your ILS turn ons are not far to the SW of Fairoaks.
Futhermore, I assume that it would stretch nearly as far as Lasham to protect the MA as well as NE'ly arrivals.
LHR are already making dark noises about limiting or removing access to the Ascot Burnham route.
Visualising that Zone on the map just seems to create so many problems for other, currently legitimate, users that it scarcely bears thinking about.
Anyone going South from Blackbushe, WW, Denham, Booker or Elstree will be banging on the door, with no notice from Blackbushe traffic. Those going to the Midlands from Fairoaks, Redhill, Shoreham and Goodwood, plus anyone going West from Biggin, Rochester and Manston will expect a transit 45deg to the approaches. Add in those going East from Popham, Filton and Cardiff, South-East from Gloucester, towards the LTQ or Ostend. Those that are refused will be cutting round close to Lasham, with all the risks that entails both of meeting opposite direction traffic and, more seriously from the manoeuvring gliders.
I do hope that DAP takes a wider view than just protecting the Bizjets into Farnborough!
Timothy
Presumably if Farnborough did get Class D, it would have to be link directly to LHR's Class A, as your ILS turn ons are not far to the SW of Fairoaks.
Futhermore, I assume that it would stretch nearly as far as Lasham to protect the MA as well as NE'ly arrivals.
LHR are already making dark noises about limiting or removing access to the Ascot Burnham route.
Visualising that Zone on the map just seems to create so many problems for other, currently legitimate, users that it scarcely bears thinking about.
Anyone going South from Blackbushe, WW, Denham, Booker or Elstree will be banging on the door, with no notice from Blackbushe traffic. Those going to the Midlands from Fairoaks, Redhill, Shoreham and Goodwood, plus anyone going West from Biggin, Rochester and Manston will expect a transit 45deg to the approaches. Add in those going East from Popham, Filton and Cardiff, South-East from Gloucester, towards the LTQ or Ostend. Those that are refused will be cutting round close to Lasham, with all the risks that entails both of meeting opposite direction traffic and, more seriously from the manoeuvring gliders.
I do hope that DAP takes a wider view than just protecting the Bizjets into Farnborough!
Timothy