An alarming experience
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An alarming experience
I had an interesting day recently which may change my view of light aviation.
It started with a visit to a radar control tower for the benefit of my friend. In this case the “tower” offered a LARS and an approach service, in addition to the normal air traffic services. The professionalism of the guys in charge was as usual impressive.
Far less impressive was the equipment. Primary radar has a number of disadvantages that are well known. Moreover, maintaining the primary head is clearly a very expensive business particularly when, so it would seem no subsidies or other financial assistance is provided to those offering this service, unless the military are involved (and they were not in this case.) when it would be funded from the defense budget.
It would seem logical to stream the data from a local NATS head with all the benefits this would bring. I gather to do so would be relatively simple. So what’s the hitch. Well, as I understand it, an annual bill of getting on for £100K for the privilege - just for the stream.
NATS is a commercial organisation - that we all understand. They exist to make money. However I question the wisdom of their effectively denying vital safety information to those that can and do provide an excellent service in open FIR.
They are not providing a NATIONAL air traffic service, they are providing a COMMERCIAL air traffic service, and in my opinion that should not have been permitted by government.
I know - but who is going to pay. Firstly, I would be surprised if the actual cost of a feed was anything close to the proposed charge. Secondly, the structure of the airspace in some parts of the country forces OCAS traffic to operate in confined corridors with little availability of vertical separation. The existence of CAS is therefore in itself increasing the risk of an OCAS mid air. Finally, and just maybe there is an argument that some of the fees light aircraft pay in the form of duty and CAA fees should be applied to radar services or that GA should make an additional contribution.
That was of course hardly sufficient to change my view of light aviation.
There was a very harsh lesson to follow.
Shortly after I had the closest mid air occurrence I wish to ever experience.
Personally, if I can get a service I do. I don’t care if it is outside CAS, and I don’t care if the unit would far rather give me a FI or even nothing at all. I know I cant insist on the service and often have to make do - but at least I always try. I also reckon that in a great many years and hours of flying I have a pretty good scan helped a little by plenty of aeros.
In this case I was getting a RIS. The incident occurred in the few moments between changing service providers. I completely missed seeing the other aircraft and he me. In hindsight I suspect we had been converging in such a way that we crossed at right angles. We were doing 160 knots and he a little faster I would guess. I would be “interested” to know the separation. I have done some formation flying and have some judgement of distance. I would guess it was less than 50 feet of vertical separation and there was no horizontal separation. I can only assume he was not receiving a RIS as the controller commented as soon as I signed on (moments later) that the returns had merged. He gave no indication he had been working the other aircraft. From the direction the other aircraft came, it is very unlikely he would have been changing service providers.
I am still wondering if I could have done anything more. However, it has left me wondering whether there is any excuse for “fast” aircraft not to obtaining a RIS whenever possible, not to be fitted with mode C or S (and I would assume they just about all are) but also no excuse for the government not requiring NATS to provide a more coherent and integrated service. It seems to me that often the radar feeds are available and it also seems to me that it is to a great degree the impact of controlled airspace that has increased the risk. Statistically the risk of a collision in Scotland must be far less. However in southern England the result of CAS is to bottle OCAS traffic into narrow low level “corridors” and to boot in some of the busiest air space.
I do not have the statistics but I have a suspicion that the number of light aircraft in some of these areas has increased and, perhaps more importantly, the average speed of that traffic has also increased and will continue to do so as the quest for faster light and very light aircraft becomes a reality with modern designs. Moreover, I also have a suspicion that there are a great many who don’t bother to request or “insist” on a RIS where available, because it is simpler for them not to do so; yet I find myself not in favour of of pilots following this practice.
Despite the criticism of mode S it has made be reassess the need for all aircraft to transpond so at least the faster traffic has a better opportunity of avoiding slower traffic, it has left me reconsidering the urgent need for an integrated low level service being made available to OCAS traffic and left me wondering whether to fit TCAS or PCAS on the basis that anything that reduces the risk of collision cant be a bad thing.
It started with a visit to a radar control tower for the benefit of my friend. In this case the “tower” offered a LARS and an approach service, in addition to the normal air traffic services. The professionalism of the guys in charge was as usual impressive.
Far less impressive was the equipment. Primary radar has a number of disadvantages that are well known. Moreover, maintaining the primary head is clearly a very expensive business particularly when, so it would seem no subsidies or other financial assistance is provided to those offering this service, unless the military are involved (and they were not in this case.) when it would be funded from the defense budget.
It would seem logical to stream the data from a local NATS head with all the benefits this would bring. I gather to do so would be relatively simple. So what’s the hitch. Well, as I understand it, an annual bill of getting on for £100K for the privilege - just for the stream.
NATS is a commercial organisation - that we all understand. They exist to make money. However I question the wisdom of their effectively denying vital safety information to those that can and do provide an excellent service in open FIR.
They are not providing a NATIONAL air traffic service, they are providing a COMMERCIAL air traffic service, and in my opinion that should not have been permitted by government.
I know - but who is going to pay. Firstly, I would be surprised if the actual cost of a feed was anything close to the proposed charge. Secondly, the structure of the airspace in some parts of the country forces OCAS traffic to operate in confined corridors with little availability of vertical separation. The existence of CAS is therefore in itself increasing the risk of an OCAS mid air. Finally, and just maybe there is an argument that some of the fees light aircraft pay in the form of duty and CAA fees should be applied to radar services or that GA should make an additional contribution.
That was of course hardly sufficient to change my view of light aviation.
There was a very harsh lesson to follow.
Shortly after I had the closest mid air occurrence I wish to ever experience.
Personally, if I can get a service I do. I don’t care if it is outside CAS, and I don’t care if the unit would far rather give me a FI or even nothing at all. I know I cant insist on the service and often have to make do - but at least I always try. I also reckon that in a great many years and hours of flying I have a pretty good scan helped a little by plenty of aeros.
In this case I was getting a RIS. The incident occurred in the few moments between changing service providers. I completely missed seeing the other aircraft and he me. In hindsight I suspect we had been converging in such a way that we crossed at right angles. We were doing 160 knots and he a little faster I would guess. I would be “interested” to know the separation. I have done some formation flying and have some judgement of distance. I would guess it was less than 50 feet of vertical separation and there was no horizontal separation. I can only assume he was not receiving a RIS as the controller commented as soon as I signed on (moments later) that the returns had merged. He gave no indication he had been working the other aircraft. From the direction the other aircraft came, it is very unlikely he would have been changing service providers.
I am still wondering if I could have done anything more. However, it has left me wondering whether there is any excuse for “fast” aircraft not to obtaining a RIS whenever possible, not to be fitted with mode C or S (and I would assume they just about all are) but also no excuse for the government not requiring NATS to provide a more coherent and integrated service. It seems to me that often the radar feeds are available and it also seems to me that it is to a great degree the impact of controlled airspace that has increased the risk. Statistically the risk of a collision in Scotland must be far less. However in southern England the result of CAS is to bottle OCAS traffic into narrow low level “corridors” and to boot in some of the busiest air space.
I do not have the statistics but I have a suspicion that the number of light aircraft in some of these areas has increased and, perhaps more importantly, the average speed of that traffic has also increased and will continue to do so as the quest for faster light and very light aircraft becomes a reality with modern designs. Moreover, I also have a suspicion that there are a great many who don’t bother to request or “insist” on a RIS where available, because it is simpler for them not to do so; yet I find myself not in favour of of pilots following this practice.
Despite the criticism of mode S it has made be reassess the need for all aircraft to transpond so at least the faster traffic has a better opportunity of avoiding slower traffic, it has left me reconsidering the urgent need for an integrated low level service being made available to OCAS traffic and left me wondering whether to fit TCAS or PCAS on the basis that anything that reduces the risk of collision cant be a bad thing.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, an alarming experience.
Difficult though to find an answer. As your experience demonstrates, the receipt of a RIS does not eliminate the risk, and I'd suggest that radar is not a viable methodology. After over 100 ears of development a system has evolved in which the major means of separation is procedural, using controlled airspace, with aircraft flying along assigned tracks, separated by height and timing, rather than by a process of radar control.
A look at the process for vectoring aircraft into Heathrow and Gatwick demonstrates the system that has evolved. It's not a reactive system, it's a procedural one. Aircraft are placed in stacks, separated by height, and are then pulled from them in sequence onto pre-determined tracks. They form a very distinctive pattern on the screen, making it easier to spot an intruder.
If the use of reactive systems like RIS or RAS were a viable alternative to procedural systems the airlines would be pumping money into their development, It isn't and they're not.
Difficult though to find an answer. As your experience demonstrates, the receipt of a RIS does not eliminate the risk, and I'd suggest that radar is not a viable methodology. After over 100 ears of development a system has evolved in which the major means of separation is procedural, using controlled airspace, with aircraft flying along assigned tracks, separated by height and timing, rather than by a process of radar control.
A look at the process for vectoring aircraft into Heathrow and Gatwick demonstrates the system that has evolved. It's not a reactive system, it's a procedural one. Aircraft are placed in stacks, separated by height, and are then pulled from them in sequence onto pre-determined tracks. They form a very distinctive pattern on the screen, making it easier to spot an intruder.
If the use of reactive systems like RIS or RAS were a viable alternative to procedural systems the airlines would be pumping money into their development, It isn't and they're not.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not nice!
If I have understood correctly it is hard to see how mode s would have helped, unless you have TCAS on your aircraft?
“The incident occurred in the few moments between changing service providers”
You were changing to a new LARS unit so not actuality getting a service? I assume you have mode C and that the other aircraft was doing 160kn + it probably had c or s. Mode C or Mode S are excellent ways of avoiding collision if the aircraft concerned are TCAS equipped, but of little value otherwise.
I had the following incident some years ago.
Tracking to a VOR in quite solid IMC, on a RIS. I had traffic reported 1000 ft below unverified. I had class A above me, so stayed at my height with a theoretical 1000 ft of clearance. Popped out of the side of a cloud to see the other aircraft flash under me at about 50 ft separation. The controller confirmed it was the reported contact, still indicating 1000 ft below. The encoder must have been out by 950 ft! In this instance even TCAS would have been of no use. I “modified” my approach to flying IFR after this, I now like to see what is coming the other way.
Rod1
If I have understood correctly it is hard to see how mode s would have helped, unless you have TCAS on your aircraft?
“The incident occurred in the few moments between changing service providers”
You were changing to a new LARS unit so not actuality getting a service? I assume you have mode C and that the other aircraft was doing 160kn + it probably had c or s. Mode C or Mode S are excellent ways of avoiding collision if the aircraft concerned are TCAS equipped, but of little value otherwise.
I had the following incident some years ago.
Tracking to a VOR in quite solid IMC, on a RIS. I had traffic reported 1000 ft below unverified. I had class A above me, so stayed at my height with a theoretical 1000 ft of clearance. Popped out of the side of a cloud to see the other aircraft flash under me at about 50 ft separation. The controller confirmed it was the reported contact, still indicating 1000 ft below. The encoder must have been out by 950 ft! In this instance even TCAS would have been of no use. I “modified” my approach to flying IFR after this, I now like to see what is coming the other way.
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
They are not providing a NATIONAL air traffic service, they are providing a COMMERCIAL air traffic service, and in my opinion that should not have been permitted by government
I agree 100%.
Also the marginal cost of providing the feed is close to zero, but these people have decided to make money out of it. This sort of thing should be publicised; I'd start with letters to the media.
It would be possible for smaller GA airfields to have a radar feed too. I bet it would be handy. Easily delivered over the internet. In this case, the anally retentive rules about ATCO pay grades / qualifications prevent this being provided to a non radar qualified ATCO; of course a radar qualified ATCO gets paid more so if it was provided to one of the "lesser" grades there would likely be objections from the ATC unions.
It's difficult to say that mid-airs are rare after your experience but they are indeed rare. 4 in the last 10 years and all below 1000ft. Nowadays, a life is valued at some figure (£100k-£1M or so) and given that only about 5-10 lives have been lost in UK mid-airs in the last 10 years I can't see the powers to be in paying for anything better.
Rod1 - yes TCAS (with mandatory Mode C) is the only way to solve this and the price of TCAS is coming down all the time. You can get a top-notch system installed for the cost of a top-notch IFR GPS, and a portable (but directional and fairly effective) system is far less than that.
I'd favour mandatory Mode C/S above some level e.g. 2000ft AGL, for all powered aircraft with an electrical system.
A lookout doesn't work - much as this flies in the face of everything we have been taught since the Boer War. Assuming straight trajectories, a target on a genuine collision course will be stationary in your field of view and you will not see it until too late. Probably the only time a lookout does anything much is in the circuit, or in proximity to a gliding site, where the trajectories are rarely straight.
They are not providing a NATIONAL air traffic service, they are providing a COMMERCIAL air traffic service, and in my opinion that should not have been permitted by government
I agree 100%.
Also the marginal cost of providing the feed is close to zero, but these people have decided to make money out of it. This sort of thing should be publicised; I'd start with letters to the media.
It would be possible for smaller GA airfields to have a radar feed too. I bet it would be handy. Easily delivered over the internet. In this case, the anally retentive rules about ATCO pay grades / qualifications prevent this being provided to a non radar qualified ATCO; of course a radar qualified ATCO gets paid more so if it was provided to one of the "lesser" grades there would likely be objections from the ATC unions.
It's difficult to say that mid-airs are rare after your experience but they are indeed rare. 4 in the last 10 years and all below 1000ft. Nowadays, a life is valued at some figure (£100k-£1M or so) and given that only about 5-10 lives have been lost in UK mid-airs in the last 10 years I can't see the powers to be in paying for anything better.
Rod1 - yes TCAS (with mandatory Mode C) is the only way to solve this and the price of TCAS is coming down all the time. You can get a top-notch system installed for the cost of a top-notch IFR GPS, and a portable (but directional and fairly effective) system is far less than that.
I'd favour mandatory Mode C/S above some level e.g. 2000ft AGL, for all powered aircraft with an electrical system.
A lookout doesn't work - much as this flies in the face of everything we have been taught since the Boer War. Assuming straight trajectories, a target on a genuine collision course will be stationary in your field of view and you will not see it until too late. Probably the only time a lookout does anything much is in the circuit, or in proximity to a gliding site, where the trajectories are rarely straight.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd favour mandatory Mode C/S above some level e.g. 2000ft AGL, for all powered aircraft with an electrical system.
The problem there is that there are a lot of aircraft operating above that height without electrical systems, so the problem will remain.
A lookout doesn't work
But then neither do the technical options either.
TCAS relies on both parties carrying a serviceable transponder and a radar service requires both the infrastructure and sufficient staff - where I am you can whistle for a LARS service at weekends and during the summer holidays
The problem there is that there are a lot of aircraft operating above that height without electrical systems, so the problem will remain.
A lookout doesn't work
But then neither do the technical options either.
TCAS relies on both parties carrying a serviceable transponder and a radar service requires both the infrastructure and sufficient staff - where I am you can whistle for a LARS service at weekends and during the summer holidays
What you have to remember is that NATS has two halves; NATS En Route Limited (NERL) (ATCCs) and NATS Services Limited (NSL)(Airports). SSR interrogators are generally (but not always) 'owned' by NERL and the information is 'bought' by airport operators, even those where ATS is provided by NSL. Although some RAF airfields have their own interrogator, some 'buy' their SSR from NERL too.
All airports have to be treated equally, hence the cost to the airport, whether or not NATS(NSL) provide ATS, is the same.
There was a company (Stormscope I think) who offered a low cost SSR receiver several years ago; what happened to it I don't know but it was NOT the Mode S only receiver offered by the SBS-1, it could receive mode A and C too.
All airports have to be treated equally, hence the cost to the airport, whether or not NATS(NSL) provide ATS, is the same.
There was a company (Stormscope I think) who offered a low cost SSR receiver several years ago; what happened to it I don't know but it was NOT the Mode S only receiver offered by the SBS-1, it could receive mode A and C too.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting paradox between the conflicting demands of commerce, safety, and security.
Systems exist to integrate the data from a multiplicity of radar heads and provide a feed of the raw data. Having poured liberal amounts of wonga into developing this and providing and running the infrastructure to deliver it you then have to come up with a viable way of paying for it. It's not unlike the situation that exists with any map or chart producer.
While it's an attractive proposition to suggest low-cost feeds you get stuck with a number of issues. ATC provider A might justifiably complain at having to pay considerably more than ATC provider B for the same data.
From a safety point of view it's not difficult to foresee situation where pilots think they are getting one service but are getting another. (I have enough of a problem remembering the difference between RIS & RAS). If you add in the possibility of radar information being provided by units that are not radar qualified it gets more tricky.
And finally from a security perspective it's not difficult to see that certain persons would find easier access to radar feeds of some practical use for nefarious activities.
Systems exist to integrate the data from a multiplicity of radar heads and provide a feed of the raw data. Having poured liberal amounts of wonga into developing this and providing and running the infrastructure to deliver it you then have to come up with a viable way of paying for it. It's not unlike the situation that exists with any map or chart producer.
While it's an attractive proposition to suggest low-cost feeds you get stuck with a number of issues. ATC provider A might justifiably complain at having to pay considerably more than ATC provider B for the same data.
From a safety point of view it's not difficult to foresee situation where pilots think they are getting one service but are getting another. (I have enough of a problem remembering the difference between RIS & RAS). If you add in the possibility of radar information being provided by units that are not radar qualified it gets more tricky.
And finally from a security perspective it's not difficult to see that certain persons would find easier access to radar feeds of some practical use for nefarious activities.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airprox (I hope you reported it) was probably not down to the changing of units - under a RIS you should ideally be getting handed-over unit to unit rather than a "freecall", and both controllers should be looking at your return & any adjacent ones. The problem is, I suspect, likely to be one of a/c type and flight profile, with a bit of radar equipment thrown in. In general -
The smaller & less-metallic an a/c, the harder it is for the primary radar to see.
tangential fade/critical relative speed - primary radar won't see it.
No transponder - SSR won't see it
If synthetic (processed) radar loses a target (eg if it's manoeuvring) it will produce a return for where it thinks the a/c should be, rather than for where it is.
The only real way to get to the answer is to file an airprox & have the incident investigated. Have to say, though, top marks for always using the best service you can get. I get so many people calling me and blithely announcing "squawking standby" - who's that helping?!
ap
The smaller & less-metallic an a/c, the harder it is for the primary radar to see.
tangential fade/critical relative speed - primary radar won't see it.
No transponder - SSR won't see it
If synthetic (processed) radar loses a target (eg if it's manoeuvring) it will produce a return for where it thinks the a/c should be, rather than for where it is.
The only real way to get to the answer is to file an airprox & have the incident investigated. Have to say, though, top marks for always using the best service you can get. I get so many people calling me and blithely announcing "squawking standby" - who's that helping?!
ap
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you add in the possibility of radar information being provided by units that are not radar qualified it gets more tricky.
I think that's a bit of a circular argument, because "radar qualified" is defined in terms of the existing system, under which a RAS is based on massive (for GA) spacing and is thus next to useless (even if it is available which is unlikely on days you need it) and RIS is not allowed to give you avoidance suggestions.
ATC provider A might justifiably complain at having to pay considerably more than ATC provider B for the same data.
That's the fault of the accounting system. The marginal cost of the data is close to zero.
And finally from a security perspective it's not difficult to see that certain persons would find easier access to radar feeds of some practical use for nefarious activities
I wouldn't suggest having it on an open website. Anyway, terrorists can get good enough info (where to position oneself with a stinger missile) from notams right now.
The other thing is that you can already buy that box from Kinetic which gives you virtual radar. The cat is out of the bag as far as tracking CAT traffic goes. The only defence CAT has from shoulder launched (heat seeking) missiles is a fairly rapid climb/descent; above about 10k feet they won't work.
I think that's a bit of a circular argument, because "radar qualified" is defined in terms of the existing system, under which a RAS is based on massive (for GA) spacing and is thus next to useless (even if it is available which is unlikely on days you need it) and RIS is not allowed to give you avoidance suggestions.
ATC provider A might justifiably complain at having to pay considerably more than ATC provider B for the same data.
That's the fault of the accounting system. The marginal cost of the data is close to zero.
And finally from a security perspective it's not difficult to see that certain persons would find easier access to radar feeds of some practical use for nefarious activities
I wouldn't suggest having it on an open website. Anyway, terrorists can get good enough info (where to position oneself with a stinger missile) from notams right now.
The other thing is that you can already buy that box from Kinetic which gives you virtual radar. The cat is out of the bag as far as tracking CAT traffic goes. The only defence CAT has from shoulder launched (heat seeking) missiles is a fairly rapid climb/descent; above about 10k feet they won't work.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not arguing with you, marginal cost is indeed near to zilch. However if unit A is legally required to have the service and unit B is not you have to have some system that allows unit B to get it at very low cost if you want to encourage them to provide it. It's human nature that Unit A will then argue for Unit B to pay a "Fairer" proportion of the cost. Problem is also that while the marginal cost of providing the data is zilch, the cost of delivering it is not. If you want a point to point secure circuit with assured bandwidth and latency you have to pay for it. I think we recently got a 2 Mb/Sec point to point put in around 10-12 miles radial distance and the rental is around 7.5k p.a.
There is of course also the issue of how much of a service you can provide. Any radar service is very manpower intensive. No doubt one of the controller chappies can advise us of how many contacts can reasonably be handled per controller.
I wasn't just thinking about Stingers, "OK lad's the police chopper's on it's way, drive away carefully and look natural" springs to mind. Establishing a pattern of operation could also be useful.
There is of course also the issue of how much of a service you can provide. Any radar service is very manpower intensive. No doubt one of the controller chappies can advise us of how many contacts can reasonably be handled per controller.
I wasn't just thinking about Stingers, "OK lad's the police chopper's on it's way, drive away carefully and look natural" springs to mind. Establishing a pattern of operation could also be useful.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the NATS data network is an MPLS based cloud no point to point circuits. The core bearers are 100mb and the tail circuits run to the local POP. A 2mb MPLS circuit is around £4.5k, the core network is where the real costs are. But that is already being paid for on current levels.
I would question the need for a such a big circuit for local access to a data stream. More in the region of 512k to 1mb.
But what would I know.
I would question the need for a such a big circuit for local access to a data stream. More in the region of 512k to 1mb.
But what would I know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From bose-x's description it reads like it is based on the BT Wholesale Ethernet product (http://www.btwholesale.com/applicati...tream_Ethernet)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could deliver a radar picture on a 38400 baud RS232 link! It's vector data, not raster.
It's true that a 2mbit/sec leased line costs a few k but
a) you don't need that speed
b) the "leased line" actually runs on the BT ATM network anyway (unless you got a point to point microwave link for some special reason) so there is no special reliability or redundancy.
You can still rent a traditional leased line from BT. I don't know what they cost but everybody knows that BT resisted providing ADSL for years, because this was going to cut into the big revenue they were getting from 64kbit/sec leased lines. Those lines were physical wires, I believe; certainly in the old days.
Anyway, these are details; the problem is in the organisation and the regs governing who is allowed to use the data.
It's true that a 2mbit/sec leased line costs a few k but
a) you don't need that speed
b) the "leased line" actually runs on the BT ATM network anyway (unless you got a point to point microwave link for some special reason) so there is no special reliability or redundancy.
You can still rent a traditional leased line from BT. I don't know what they cost but everybody knows that BT resisted providing ADSL for years, because this was going to cut into the big revenue they were getting from 64kbit/sec leased lines. Those lines were physical wires, I believe; certainly in the old days.
Anyway, these are details; the problem is in the organisation and the regs governing who is allowed to use the data.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're getting a bit deep here. Weekends excepted, the vast majority of the country has radar coverage to some degree. You've just got to select the right unit, and it doesn't matter whether or not it's a published "LARS" unit - the same services are available from all, although of course their primary task takes priority.
Weekends are a bit trickier with most military bases closed.
The cost of upgrading an airfield to a radar unit is astronomical. Not just the cost of the equipment, but surveying, flightchecking, design of new approaches, re-writing the airfield manual, training of new controllers etc etc. If you haven't got the commercial back-up, it's not going to happen.
What may become more prevalent, however, is the remote siting of a radar unit, as for instance at Finningley. The radar there is done from Liverpool. The commercial case there though is that both airfields are Peel Holdings so the ATCOs work for one company, and airlines pay!
The drawback, however, is that the radar controllers have no local knowledge.
ap
Weekends are a bit trickier with most military bases closed.
The cost of upgrading an airfield to a radar unit is astronomical. Not just the cost of the equipment, but surveying, flightchecking, design of new approaches, re-writing the airfield manual, training of new controllers etc etc. If you haven't got the commercial back-up, it's not going to happen.
What may become more prevalent, however, is the remote siting of a radar unit, as for instance at Finningley. The radar there is done from Liverpool. The commercial case there though is that both airfields are Peel Holdings so the ATCOs work for one company, and airlines pay!
The drawback, however, is that the radar controllers have no local knowledge.
ap
Guest
Posts: n/a
Speaking as one of those controller chappies I should point out that there are a number of misconceptions in the thoughts being aired in this thread.
Time does not permit the necessary dissertation about the need for reliable radar data before using it for any type of air traffic service and the services that might be offered. But I must just refute the statement that Livepool controllers '.... have no local knowledge' around and about Finningley. If you take the trouble to get a controller's licence and appropriate 'pages' attached to it, you'll then have pass a Certificate of Competence for any particular working position - and, trust me, you don't pass unless you have knowledge of the areas in which you are providing the service....regardless of where you happen to be sitting!
Time does not permit the necessary dissertation about the need for reliable radar data before using it for any type of air traffic service and the services that might be offered. But I must just refute the statement that Livepool controllers '.... have no local knowledge' around and about Finningley. If you take the trouble to get a controller's licence and appropriate 'pages' attached to it, you'll then have pass a Certificate of Competence for any particular working position - and, trust me, you don't pass unless you have knowledge of the areas in which you are providing the service....regardless of where you happen to be sitting!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tcas...tcas...tcas...tcas...
Avoidance of scenarios like this one is why I love TCAS so much.
Yes I know that some aircraft are not transponder equiped, and also that there are still people out there who neglect to switch their transponder on, or activate mode C but most traffic (talking on LARS frequencies in the Southwest) appears as a little blip on my MFD.
I can think of at least 3 occasions in the past year when I have been thankful for it and it has definitely saved me from airproxes if not worse.
And yes I still look out the window...
Now all I need is XM:WX weather radio or onboard weather radar...
SB
Yes I know that some aircraft are not transponder equiped, and also that there are still people out there who neglect to switch their transponder on, or activate mode C but most traffic (talking on LARS frequencies in the Southwest) appears as a little blip on my MFD.
I can think of at least 3 occasions in the past year when I have been thankful for it and it has definitely saved me from airproxes if not worse.
And yes I still look out the window...
Now all I need is XM:WX weather radio or onboard weather radar...
SB
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Fuji,
Look on the positive side - you've had your near-hit, or close shave, and got away with it!
Statistically you are now among the safest in the sky!
I had a very similar incident a few years ago, open FIR south of Farnbro's coverage, so no LARS available.
Within 30 feet vertical separation.
So you and I should go flying together - nothing could poss
Look on the positive side - you've had your near-hit, or close shave, and got away with it!
Statistically you are now among the safest in the sky!
I had a very similar incident a few years ago, open FIR south of Farnbro's coverage, so no LARS available.
Within 30 feet vertical separation.
So you and I should go flying together - nothing could poss
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 wrote...
Gawd, you do love banging on about our unions and the like don't you 
Yet again you are way off the mark, it's got nothing to do with them!
We work under a harmonised European ATC licence, who can do what is decided at a European level not by some NATS union atcos sitting round a table in a smoke filled room drinking beer and eating sandwiches. Go and look at CAP744 and then get on your hobby horse to Europe whilst at the same time getting off the one that's always going on about NATS trade unions.
Improved radar services outside CAS in the SE is on NATS agenda...
It would be possible for smaller GA airfields to have a radar feed too. I bet it would be handy. Easily delivered over the internet. In this case, the anally retentive rules about ATCO pay grades / qualifications prevent this being provided to a non radar qualified ATCO; of course a radar qualified ATCO gets paid more so if it was provided to one of the "lesser" grades there would likely be objections from the ATC unions.
Yet again you are way off the mark, it's got nothing to do with them!
We work under a harmonised European ATC licence, who can do what is decided at a European level not by some NATS union atcos sitting round a table in a smoke filled room drinking beer and eating sandwiches. Go and look at CAP744 and then get on your hobby horse to Europe whilst at the same time getting off the one that's always going on about NATS trade unions.
Improved radar services outside CAS in the SE is on NATS agenda...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for all your helpful comments.
I have to say I still find the experience unsettling, I think, as irrational as it is, because it was so close - but Saab the same thought occurred to me.
So far the rate seems to be around 1 every 500 hours, although the others were no no where near as close and one was in CAS due to controller error.
I would like to pick up on a few comments.
The previous unit was a LARS the "new" unit a radar service. The change over (a hand over was refused although requested) took maybe 5 minutes. I was mode S, and becasue the other aircraft was also a twin, I am guessing at least mode C. As I commented earlier I find it strange he was not receiving a service. I wonder whether as seems to be increasingly the case he couldnt be bothered to ask or had been refused a service. The same unit had flatly refused me a service on route to my destination. Is it the case that many are becoming reluctant to ask?
I wish. In my experience hand overs are becoming increasingly rare.
The fact remains it is the best we have at the moment.
In my experience a RIS provides an excellent mechanism for reducing the risk of a mid air. Most fast aircraft are fitted with a transponder. There is more time to see slower moving aircraft (although I accept not necessarily that much). Some service providers have improved. Gatwick for example was often reluctant to provide any service and had to be coerced into doing so - that has improved enormously. On the other hand Farnborough (as helpful as they are) rapidly get overwhelmed, Thames are usually a right pain and Stanstead are even worse (shame on you), whereas Lyneham, Brise, Bristol, and many of those providers in the Midlands and further North are excellent. I recall returning from Dundee in particularly unpleasant IMC OCAS and Stanstead flatly refusing any service what so ever. I recall being less than pleased, but at least the weather was sufficiently poor that I doubt there was much traffic.
Any how shame on you - maybe we should start a name and shame thread in a similiar way that has happened with pilots being refused class D transits - and in consequence that has greatly improved.
I know of a number of airports that would gladly install a feed from NATS - it is the same story - they cant afford it. I believe Manston is in the process of doing so, I can imagine Lyd would benefit if for no other reason to assist with all the cross channel traffic and there are many others.
As others have commented NATS should be compelled by government to provide this data to any qualifying party at least at cost - their failure to do so is in my opinion a disgrace. I find it difficult to believe that any organisation can justify with holding vital safety data - which in effect is exactly what they are doing.
The thought of a mid air collision is horrifying, and brought painfully home to me by this experience. A collision of even two light twins over a built up area could have severe ramifications. Any efforts that can be made to ensure there is integrated coverage from service providers who are willing and able to provide the service in areas of conjestion and where air space is restricted should in my opinion be encouraged, particularly when it is the very presence of areas of CAS that are closely compacted with open FIR that so dramatically increases the risk of collision.
I have to say I still find the experience unsettling, I think, as irrational as it is, because it was so close - but Saab the same thought occurred to me.
So far the rate seems to be around 1 every 500 hours, although the others were no no where near as close and one was in CAS due to controller error.
I would like to pick up on a few comments.
You were changing to a new LARS unit so not actuality getting a service? I assume you have mode C and that the other aircraft was doing 160kn + it probably had c or s. Mode C or Mode S are excellent ways of avoiding collision if the aircraft concerned are TCAS equipped, but of little value otherwise.
under a RIS you should ideally be getting handed-over unit to unit rather than a "freecall", and both controllers should be looking at your return & any adjacent ones.
and I'd suggest that radar is not a viable methodology. After over 100 ears of development a system has evolved in which the major means of separation is procedural, using controlled airspace, with aircraft flying along assigned tracks, separated by height and timing, rather than by a process of radar control.
In my experience a RIS provides an excellent mechanism for reducing the risk of a mid air. Most fast aircraft are fitted with a transponder. There is more time to see slower moving aircraft (although I accept not necessarily that much). Some service providers have improved. Gatwick for example was often reluctant to provide any service and had to be coerced into doing so - that has improved enormously. On the other hand Farnborough (as helpful as they are) rapidly get overwhelmed, Thames are usually a right pain and Stanstead are even worse (shame on you), whereas Lyneham, Brise, Bristol, and many of those providers in the Midlands and further North are excellent. I recall returning from Dundee in particularly unpleasant IMC OCAS and Stanstead flatly refusing any service what so ever. I recall being less than pleased, but at least the weather was sufficiently poor that I doubt there was much traffic.
Any how shame on you - maybe we should start a name and shame thread in a similiar way that has happened with pilots being refused class D transits - and in consequence that has greatly improved.
I know of a number of airports that would gladly install a feed from NATS - it is the same story - they cant afford it. I believe Manston is in the process of doing so, I can imagine Lyd would benefit if for no other reason to assist with all the cross channel traffic and there are many others.
As others have commented NATS should be compelled by government to provide this data to any qualifying party at least at cost - their failure to do so is in my opinion a disgrace. I find it difficult to believe that any organisation can justify with holding vital safety data - which in effect is exactly what they are doing.
The thought of a mid air collision is horrifying, and brought painfully home to me by this experience. A collision of even two light twins over a built up area could have severe ramifications. Any efforts that can be made to ensure there is integrated coverage from service providers who are willing and able to provide the service in areas of conjestion and where air space is restricted should in my opinion be encouraged, particularly when it is the very presence of areas of CAS that are closely compacted with open FIR that so dramatically increases the risk of collision.