An alarming experience
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bit of thread drift perhaps, but...........
In addition to an ATS provider having to justify the safety of its procedures, the local ATC procedures are considered by some companies to represent valuable intellectual property.
NATS is not the only ATC service provider at UK airports - I think in total there are something in the region of 40 to 50 separate prover orgnisations. Many airports will contract out the ATC service provision and one of the things that makes it harder for a new provider to bid is not having access to the existing local procedures (and therefore taking time and effort to develop them. Of course they don't have time to do this when they take over a contract, the airport will want the service provided on day 1. Hence although on paper it is an open and competitive market, in reality it is a generally static market with very little change over of service provider.
The intellectual property rights of local procedures were not really an issue before the privatisation of NATS but have since become keenly protected. Maybe this is just a change in the general view on IPR or maybe it is something that NATS made an issue of in the ATS business - doesn't really matter I guess.....
Although it is primarily a commercial matter it is sad to see that this form of protectionism has been permitted by the CAA. Historically the CAA has typically steered well clear of anything that can be vaugely considered commercial but there are some safety issues bound up in all of this as well.
In addition to an ATS provider having to justify the safety of its procedures, the local ATC procedures are considered by some companies to represent valuable intellectual property.
NATS is not the only ATC service provider at UK airports - I think in total there are something in the region of 40 to 50 separate prover orgnisations. Many airports will contract out the ATC service provision and one of the things that makes it harder for a new provider to bid is not having access to the existing local procedures (and therefore taking time and effort to develop them. Of course they don't have time to do this when they take over a contract, the airport will want the service provided on day 1. Hence although on paper it is an open and competitive market, in reality it is a generally static market with very little change over of service provider.
The intellectual property rights of local procedures were not really an issue before the privatisation of NATS but have since become keenly protected. Maybe this is just a change in the general view on IPR or maybe it is something that NATS made an issue of in the ATS business - doesn't really matter I guess.....
Although it is primarily a commercial matter it is sad to see that this form of protectionism has been permitted by the CAA. Historically the CAA has typically steered well clear of anything that can be vaugely considered commercial but there are some safety issues bound up in all of this as well.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
From: UK
As far as the TC MATS Pt 2 is concerned there is also other sensitive information, and I'm not thinking in commercial terms, that is best kept out of the public domain.
Fuji,
Aside from the relatively recent LCY CTA shelf (much of the area it covers is not sensibly accessible in a single) CAS at lower levels in the SE has been relatively static for a number of years. The changes to the north of Luton a little while ago shouldn't have had a massive impact on GA. The London Control Zone the last time it changed reduced in size. I can't really think of any other significant changes...?
Things are hopefully changing in the not too distant future, watch this space, but for maximum benefit make sure all your PPL compatriots take part as and when the service becomes available by using the radio and squawking with altitude... ahhhh... right... 
Fuji,
In my opinion CAS (particularly in the south) has, as it has increased, constricted OCAS traffic in to ever smaller corridors in terms of both lateral and vertical seperation. Transit reusals add to the problem.
Yes, and we know, thats the way it is .. .. ..
but sometimes the way it is, is not a good thing, and when you have just missed another aircraft by 50 feet it brings it home to you thats not the answer to a few dead people if it could be avoided.
... .. .. time for things to change, me thinks.
but sometimes the way it is, is not a good thing, and when you have just missed another aircraft by 50 feet it brings it home to you thats not the answer to a few dead people if it could be avoided.
... .. .. time for things to change, me thinks.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Roffa
I agree that the south east suffers from air space restriction more than any other. Not only is the area of CAS significant but it probably has a higher desity of GA fields that any other area. It also suffers from vertical constriction because of the London TMA
I shall look forward to hearing more about the changes. I hope that these arent rolled out with the usual lack of consultation that seems endemic in aviation.
I was and still remain opposed to the compulsory introdcution of mode S. I do not see it offers any material advantages to GA over mode C. However my view on transponders has changed. In my opinion all aircraft should be fitted with a transponder. The fact of the matter maybe that mode S transponders will become as "cheap" as mode C before to long.
Until then your fears are justified and as you would say - sadly that is the way it is. Hopefully times are gradually changing in that respect as well.
I agree that the south east suffers from air space restriction more than any other. Not only is the area of CAS significant but it probably has a higher desity of GA fields that any other area. It also suffers from vertical constriction because of the London TMA
I shall look forward to hearing more about the changes. I hope that these arent rolled out with the usual lack of consultation that seems endemic in aviation.
I was and still remain opposed to the compulsory introdcution of mode S. I do not see it offers any material advantages to GA over mode C. However my view on transponders has changed. In my opinion all aircraft should be fitted with a transponder. The fact of the matter maybe that mode S transponders will become as "cheap" as mode C before to long.
Until then your fears are justified and as you would say - sadly that is the way it is. Hopefully times are gradually changing in that respect as well.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
From: UK
Fuji,
There shouldn't be any consultation necessary as what is hopefully coming is something that is actually wanted by the majority of the GA community I'd say.
It's actually an ICAO requirement now, has been for some time, that all aircraft should carry an altitude reporting transponder so mandatory carriage has always been on the cards, just that no-one took much notice of it.
However if all aircraft were to be fitted with Mode A/C transponders the simple fact is the infrastructure couldn't cope. One of the reasons for mandating S instead of A/C is that the nature of S allows more transponders to be in the air at any one time than there ever could be with A/C without overloading the system.
In short mandate A/C, the sytem can't cope. Mandate S it can.
No doubt a mix of A/C and S could probably be accomodated but I've no idea what a workable ratio might be.
I shall look forward to hearing more about the changes. I hope that these arent rolled out with the usual lack of consultation that seems endemic in aviation.
I was and still remain opposed to the compulsory introdcution of mode S. I do not see it offers any material advantages to GA over mode C. However my view on transponders has changed. In my opinion all aircraft should be fitted with a transponder. The fact of the matter maybe that mode S transponders will become as "cheap" as mode C before to long.
However if all aircraft were to be fitted with Mode A/C transponders the simple fact is the infrastructure couldn't cope. One of the reasons for mandating S instead of A/C is that the nature of S allows more transponders to be in the air at any one time than there ever could be with A/C without overloading the system.
In short mandate A/C, the sytem can't cope. Mandate S it can.
No doubt a mix of A/C and S could probably be accomodated but I've no idea what a workable ratio might be.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Things are hopefully changing in the not too distant future
by using the radio and squawking with altitude... ahhhh... right...
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
From: UK
Fuji,
Difficult to say at the moment and can't say much about them just now either but the mere fact they are being worked on is a major step forward.
So approximately when should we be on the look out for these changes?
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
SSSShh dont say anything or you might have to shoot yourselves.
It is the usual Chinese Wispers we see in Government, Public bodies and so many other organisations today.
It is even more annoying when the Government manage to privatise something concerned with public safety and then claim it is in the private sector despite their golden shareholding when it suites them.
Pathetic, a bunch of complete morons.
Frankly I have given up caring, and I am so cynical I am expecting if anything is ever done it will be the usual hash up.
In so far is aviation is concerned we have had in recent months:
1. The mode S farce - cost me £6,000 four or five years ago because everyone needed one and then the CAA changed its mind,
2. Lifejackets, transponders and the like. The ANO was changed, the CAA now interpret the ANO to apparently suite themselves, and even then have to issue a dispensation,
3. Proposed changes to the the PPL/IR which no one knows about .. .. ..
and so it goes on.
I have come to the conclusion that the whole lot are a complete shower.
It is the usual Chinese Wispers we see in Government, Public bodies and so many other organisations today.
It is even more annoying when the Government manage to privatise something concerned with public safety and then claim it is in the private sector despite their golden shareholding when it suites them.
Pathetic, a bunch of complete morons.
Frankly I have given up caring, and I am so cynical I am expecting if anything is ever done it will be the usual hash up.
In so far is aviation is concerned we have had in recent months:
1. The mode S farce - cost me £6,000 four or five years ago because everyone needed one and then the CAA changed its mind,
2. Lifejackets, transponders and the like. The ANO was changed, the CAA now interpret the ANO to apparently suite themselves, and even then have to issue a dispensation,
3. Proposed changes to the the PPL/IR which no one knows about .. .. ..
and so it goes on.
I have come to the conclusion that the whole lot are a complete shower.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
From: UK
Fuji wrote...
Psst Fuji, have you seen what the morons are putting in place, foc, for you yet?
Your apology, should it arrive, is accepted.
SSSShh dont say anything or you might have to shoot yourselves.
It is the usual Chinese Wispers we see in Government, Public bodies and so many other organisations today.
It is even more annoying when the Government manage to privatise something concerned with public safety and then claim it is in the private sector despite their golden shareholding when it suites them.
Pathetic, a bunch of complete morons.
It is the usual Chinese Wispers we see in Government, Public bodies and so many other organisations today.
It is even more annoying when the Government manage to privatise something concerned with public safety and then claim it is in the private sector despite their golden shareholding when it suites them.
Pathetic, a bunch of complete morons.
Your apology, should it arrive, is accepted.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
In fact have changed my mind.
My previous post was because I couldn’t be bothered to say what I felt - which seems a shame.
It is far easy to say well done, and I apologise .. .. ..
When actually I feel there is a growing tendency for people to want praise and thanks for the most extraordinary things.
Elsewhere someone wants thanks for creating an easier PPL IR when the utterly ridiculous system we have should never have come into existence in the first place had the relevant organisations and regulatory authorities been doing there job properly. The only person that should get any thanks is the new fella on the block that decided to do something about it.
Now we are expected to thank NATS (or however they have re-branded themselves) for providing a London LARS.
Lest we forget, the reason a London LARS is needed is because of the minimal amount of open FIR around London. As I said before there are significant areas where traffic is corridored into 1,000 feet of airspace with numerous bottlenecks. CAT causes these bottlenecks. NATS claims their mission is to protect commercial traffic and they don’t have the funding to provide a reliable service outside CAS. However, since commercial carriers require protected airspace, it does not seem unreasonable they should pay for the airspace they use. After all telecommunication providers pay the government a very large sum for their privileged use of certain frequencies.
I have taken many people flying who have never been in a light aircraft before. Without exception they are horrified when told to keep their eyes peeled for traffic - “but surely you are on radar”. God forbid there is ever a mid air over one of the “nice” London suburbs, but certain newspapers are going to make hay out of all these aircraft flying overhead without any form of separation from other traffic. NATS are going to protest that its not part of their brief, and the government will say they are a “private” organisation. Someone is going to spot that the Government own a golden share, mention that the CAA is responsible for safety and that really it is a misnomer that NATS provide a “national” air traffic service. No one will come out of it well, never mind that it might have been one of the small commercial flights operating form a London satellite airport that had twenty or so people on board.
Fact is in such congested airspace the service should always have existed. When I started flying Dunsfold did a very good job and Manston covered the whole of the south east corner. Both have ceased to offer a service and whilst even then it wasn’t perfect my guess is the airspace was less congested and the traffic slower moving.
So forgive me if I sound ungrateful, but I cant bring myself to say “well done” or “I apologise” for the parties involved only now providing a service that they should have felt compelled to provide for the last 15 years. I cant forgive them wanting to charge others, who could well have provided the service in the past, £100K for a radar feed, when the real cost was a fractional part of the proposed charge. Finally, no apology will be forthcoming form me to those involved in the Chinese whispers that say just wait and see, you will get what you want, but we are not going to tell you what it is or when it will come, but when it does, aren’t we clever because we knew something everyone else didn’t. Good luck to you if that is what rows your boat.
Now it aint rocket science you lot, provide the service you know you should. If you doubt it is possible take a trip to the States and see how it should be done. I know, our airspace is sooo much busier, we couldn’t possibly do that .. .. .. , b&88"3** !
My previous post was because I couldn’t be bothered to say what I felt - which seems a shame.
It is far easy to say well done, and I apologise .. .. ..
When actually I feel there is a growing tendency for people to want praise and thanks for the most extraordinary things.
Elsewhere someone wants thanks for creating an easier PPL IR when the utterly ridiculous system we have should never have come into existence in the first place had the relevant organisations and regulatory authorities been doing there job properly. The only person that should get any thanks is the new fella on the block that decided to do something about it.
Now we are expected to thank NATS (or however they have re-branded themselves) for providing a London LARS.
Lest we forget, the reason a London LARS is needed is because of the minimal amount of open FIR around London. As I said before there are significant areas where traffic is corridored into 1,000 feet of airspace with numerous bottlenecks. CAT causes these bottlenecks. NATS claims their mission is to protect commercial traffic and they don’t have the funding to provide a reliable service outside CAS. However, since commercial carriers require protected airspace, it does not seem unreasonable they should pay for the airspace they use. After all telecommunication providers pay the government a very large sum for their privileged use of certain frequencies.
I have taken many people flying who have never been in a light aircraft before. Without exception they are horrified when told to keep their eyes peeled for traffic - “but surely you are on radar”. God forbid there is ever a mid air over one of the “nice” London suburbs, but certain newspapers are going to make hay out of all these aircraft flying overhead without any form of separation from other traffic. NATS are going to protest that its not part of their brief, and the government will say they are a “private” organisation. Someone is going to spot that the Government own a golden share, mention that the CAA is responsible for safety and that really it is a misnomer that NATS provide a “national” air traffic service. No one will come out of it well, never mind that it might have been one of the small commercial flights operating form a London satellite airport that had twenty or so people on board.
Fact is in such congested airspace the service should always have existed. When I started flying Dunsfold did a very good job and Manston covered the whole of the south east corner. Both have ceased to offer a service and whilst even then it wasn’t perfect my guess is the airspace was less congested and the traffic slower moving.
So forgive me if I sound ungrateful, but I cant bring myself to say “well done” or “I apologise” for the parties involved only now providing a service that they should have felt compelled to provide for the last 15 years. I cant forgive them wanting to charge others, who could well have provided the service in the past, £100K for a radar feed, when the real cost was a fractional part of the proposed charge. Finally, no apology will be forthcoming form me to those involved in the Chinese whispers that say just wait and see, you will get what you want, but we are not going to tell you what it is or when it will come, but when it does, aren’t we clever because we knew something everyone else didn’t. Good luck to you if that is what rows your boat.
Now it aint rocket science you lot, provide the service you know you should. If you doubt it is possible take a trip to the States and see how it should be done. I know, our airspace is sooo much busier, we couldn’t possibly do that .. .. .. , b&88"3** !
