LARS, Farnborough
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Inside CAS
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those guys working London FIS are top notch. Don't fly without them if you're outside a LARS. Also, wearing a London FIS squawk can save you a lot of grief if you lost your way.
re: LARS. I've decided to request Radar Information on first contact. As previous posters have stated, the whole situation can be confusing as you often get radar traffic info anyway. Might as well ask for it from the outset. This game is expensive...lets get our money's worth.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VictorGolf
You are much better off getting a radar service from Farnborough than transponding to Essex that you are listening out on their frequency. I am quite sure that Essex would not blind call traffic conflicts . . . you would only hear from them if you were about to , or had, bust their zone.
It is so busy around the London TMA with everyone crammed in below 2500' that you need all the help you can get. That is why it is so great to have this new radar service (teething problems aside which appear to be nearly sorted) so don't hesitate to give them a call !
Drambuster
NB- not quite sure how far east of Stansted you plan to be, but the map can be found at: www.flyontrack.co.uk/londonnorth.pdf
You are much better off getting a radar service from Farnborough than transponding to Essex that you are listening out on their frequency. I am quite sure that Essex would not blind call traffic conflicts . . . you would only hear from them if you were about to , or had, bust their zone.
It is so busy around the London TMA with everyone crammed in below 2500' that you need all the help you can get. That is why it is so great to have this new radar service (teething problems aside which appear to be nearly sorted) so don't hesitate to give them a call !
Drambuster
NB- not quite sure how far east of Stansted you plan to be, but the map can be found at: www.flyontrack.co.uk/londonnorth.pdf
Last edited by drambuster; 8th Jun 2008 at 14:48. Reason: clarification
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
Age: 67
Posts: 867
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was particularly interested in Drambusters comments with regard to the service that I provide as a London Information FISO. I would agree that all pilots should be fully familar with their intended routing and airspace regulations as per the Air Navigation Order and I include myself in that as an operational pilot. I would like to add however that a least 3-10 times a day there is a pilot who is not aware of the boundaries of controlled airspace or believes that they are able to fly through class A airspace either VFR or/and without a clearance as they are allowed to in their own country. I have had quite a few instances of trying to explain to pilots the differences in law between UK rules and regulations and European/US legislation regarding airspace. I would also like to add that given these circumstances we try to "smooth the path" of those pilots whose knowledge is not as great as Drambusters. I would also add that unlike Farnborough we are a 24 hour a day service although there are occasions particularly at 3 o clock in the morning when I wished that we were not. I use London Information all the time as I am aware of the access to a great deal of weather and other pertinant informtion that they have access to. I would also like to apologise to Drambuster for daring to remind him/her of their legal requirements, but that is part of our instructions and training. I personally have no problems with confirming my intentions to London Information and in turn to the radar controllers towards whose airspace I am heading as they can then aware of my intentions and situational awareness.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they were called Stansted approach which gives the game away.
Low level they may provide you with a service around Stansted, City, and Biggin and will handle IFR approaches to these.
The service provided is always excellent but their capacity is often stretched.
Southend "overlap" with their LARS service and are often a better bet low level but their coverage is often poor south west of the Thames due to the location of their head and lack of a direct feed from NATS.
Low level they may provide you with a service around Stansted, City, and Biggin and will handle IFR approaches to these.
The service provided is always excellent but their capacity is often stretched.
Southend "overlap" with their LARS service and are often a better bet low level but their coverage is often poor south west of the Thames due to the location of their head and lack of a direct feed from NATS.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: LONDON
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC10RealMan:
There's really no need to take it so personally. As far as I'm concerned your instructions and training on this point are flawed and it is the legal advice behind this that I find so irritating. I am not having a go at you or your operational colleagues personally. However, I am unimpressed with your lawyers as this verbal exchange, whereby you extract from me an acknowledgement that avoidance of controlled airspace is my responsibility, is so pointless. Let me explain why:
* You are a non-radar service so you are never going to be able to see where I am. I think 99.9% of pilots understand the limitations of your service as it never varies. So why do you insist I acknowledge the fact that you don't have radar ? I know that as the situation never changes. Why not just advise the pilot that you don't have radar rather than insisting that he/she repeats back the blindingly obvious? (if you have to draw attention at all to this permanent feature of London Information)
* Contrast your situation with a radar service such as Farnborough: the performance of their equipment varies depending on the weather etc. Therefore it is important that all parties understand if there is a limited service that day - and so a read-back confirming the status is essential AS IT VARIES.
* If you (and by that I mean your managers/lawyers) feel it is so important to get me to confirm the obvious, then why not ask me to verify that I have sufficient fuel for flight and have checked the weather at destination? If buggins the barrister feels it important to intrude on my responsibilities as PIC then why just stop at airspace intrusions ? Why not go for the whole hog and take over the flight?
As a general overview I have to reflect on why Scottish Information works so well but London Info does not. The answer is quite simple - the density of air traffic in the south east, all crammed in at low level, renders a background info service of limited value. The biggest threat is from other aircraft and I have often thought when dodging traffic in bottle necks such as Biggin Hill . . . what the hell am I doing listening to some bloke giving a five minute position report over Cheltenham with you getting clarification of his next six turning points . . . when I should be talking to a radar service and helping everyone keep safe !! - and now I can with the advent of Farnborough East/North etc. hallelujah
Scottish works because the threat of imminent impact with other aircraft is probably a factor of a hundredfold less, so other matters such as weather reports, inhospitable terrain, military exercises, divert options etc etc become the predominate interests. I find the service up there is a genuine aid to flight safety and the lack of radar is not a problem.
So this comes down to a matter of traffic density . . . and not a personal criticism of you. As a pilot I am duty bound to express my opinion which is that London Information is no longer fit for purpose without radar equipment. As a tax payer I would be happy to fork up
happy flying
I would also like to apologise to Drambuster for daring to remind him/her of their legal requirements, but that is part of our instructions and training
* You are a non-radar service so you are never going to be able to see where I am. I think 99.9% of pilots understand the limitations of your service as it never varies. So why do you insist I acknowledge the fact that you don't have radar ? I know that as the situation never changes. Why not just advise the pilot that you don't have radar rather than insisting that he/she repeats back the blindingly obvious? (if you have to draw attention at all to this permanent feature of London Information)
* Contrast your situation with a radar service such as Farnborough: the performance of their equipment varies depending on the weather etc. Therefore it is important that all parties understand if there is a limited service that day - and so a read-back confirming the status is essential AS IT VARIES.
* If you (and by that I mean your managers/lawyers) feel it is so important to get me to confirm the obvious, then why not ask me to verify that I have sufficient fuel for flight and have checked the weather at destination? If buggins the barrister feels it important to intrude on my responsibilities as PIC then why just stop at airspace intrusions ? Why not go for the whole hog and take over the flight?
As a general overview I have to reflect on why Scottish Information works so well but London Info does not. The answer is quite simple - the density of air traffic in the south east, all crammed in at low level, renders a background info service of limited value. The biggest threat is from other aircraft and I have often thought when dodging traffic in bottle necks such as Biggin Hill . . . what the hell am I doing listening to some bloke giving a five minute position report over Cheltenham with you getting clarification of his next six turning points . . . when I should be talking to a radar service and helping everyone keep safe !! - and now I can with the advent of Farnborough East/North etc. hallelujah
Scottish works because the threat of imminent impact with other aircraft is probably a factor of a hundredfold less, so other matters such as weather reports, inhospitable terrain, military exercises, divert options etc etc become the predominate interests. I find the service up there is a genuine aid to flight safety and the lack of radar is not a problem.
So this comes down to a matter of traffic density . . . and not a personal criticism of you. As a pilot I am duty bound to express my opinion which is that London Information is no longer fit for purpose without radar equipment. As a tax payer I would be happy to fork up
happy flying
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason why we at Scottish have a little bit more time to talk to our customers is that Scottish Information on 119.875 only provides a service at and below FL55. Above those levels you will recieve either FIS or RIS from a very busy radar sector. I know my opo's at London info operate a greater area and up to FL 195 so therfore the traffic density is greater and the available time to pass info is more accute....that said I am sure they provide as good a service as the service you say you recieve from ourselves here at Scottish.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji Abound, it is Thames Radar that provide the approach radar service to London City and Biggin Hill, and handles their instrument approaches.
Essex Radar provides the initial approach function for Stansted and Luton. When Luton inbounds are clear of conflicting Stansted traffic, Essex transfers them to Luton Approach.
Essex Radar provides the initial approach function for Stansted and Luton. When Luton inbounds are clear of conflicting Stansted traffic, Essex transfers them to Luton Approach.
