Luton LARS RIP
Luton LARS RIP
Guest
Posts: n/a
What a shame. Provides excellent service. I'd like to know the reason. The LARS is generally available on a separate frequency than approach frequency used for sequencing IFR arrivals. I've heard rumours that approach is being transferred away from LTN tower to LATCO, so is this the reason?? How much consultation took place with AOPA before this decision was taken? Another nail in the coffin of private flying in the UK, if its true.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Calibahn - you appear to be well placed to help me out.
I travel each week from 'oop north' to Denham and I have to fly round and under the Luton stub via Henlow. Can I ask someone at Luton if it's OK to fly straight over them. I've never dared ask on the radio having been warned against doing so by at least two other sources.
Waddya think?
I travel each week from 'oop north' to Denham and I have to fly round and under the Luton stub via Henlow. Can I ask someone at Luton if it's OK to fly straight over them. I've never dared ask on the radio having been warned against doing so by at least two other sources.
Waddya think?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rightstuffer,
If they're not too busy they will usually let you through. A polite call on 129.55 usually reaps the dividends. Make your first call 'Luton Approach, G-ABCD for zone transit' and they will prioritise you over LARS requests (which I guess that they will continue getting even after the LARS is defunct).
Try to choose a routing that overflies the field at 2,400ft and they will often give you an on-track transit without having to bother about the CTR entry-exit points (more useful for those heading down towards the east of London). There's a 5km vis and a 1,500ft AGL cloudbase legal minimum for transit, however they may internally operate higher minima than this.
Finally, if you're IMC rated, file IFR at 2,400ft and they should let you through under IFR with no minima (and will keep you seperated from their traffic)!
If they're not too busy they will usually let you through. A polite call on 129.55 usually reaps the dividends. Make your first call 'Luton Approach, G-ABCD for zone transit' and they will prioritise you over LARS requests (which I guess that they will continue getting even after the LARS is defunct).
Try to choose a routing that overflies the field at 2,400ft and they will often give you an on-track transit without having to bother about the CTR entry-exit points (more useful for those heading down towards the east of London). There's a 5km vis and a 1,500ft AGL cloudbase legal minimum for transit, however they may internally operate higher minima than this.
Finally, if you're IMC rated, file IFR at 2,400ft and they should let you through under IFR with no minima (and will keep you seperated from their traffic)!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is the way of the future. LARS available during the week, and more to the North of the UK, when & where the GA traffic is least. Sods law.
[This is not to belittle those RAF bases who do offer LARS during the week - the service is gratefully received]
[This is not to belittle those RAF bases who do offer LARS during the week - the service is gratefully received]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I used to travel to Elstree on a regular basis and found the Luton guys very helpful when transiting overhead.
Don't think that will change if the Lars has gone... the corridor is still published and it is in their interests to know who you are and your intentions.
Surely this is why the RAF offer the service, mainly for the protection of their birds than us grunts trucking around!
For that reason I think that the withdrawal of the service is a retro-step.
Don't think that will change if the Lars has gone... the corridor is still published and it is in their interests to know who you are and your intentions.
Surely this is why the RAF offer the service, mainly for the protection of their birds than us grunts trucking around!
For that reason I think that the withdrawal of the service is a retro-step.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This really pisses me off! No, the service will not remain the same when they go to LATCC! Some of the controllers will maintain their professionalism and do their best to help, others will pick up the anti-GA atmosphere there and not give you the time of day. Some ATCOs at LATCC openly say that they wont provide a service to GA because GA doesn't pay their wages! This ia a disgusting, short sighted attitude, but it is there and there is nothing we can do about it.
If LARS is being gradually withdrawn due to lack of interest (due to lack of funding) then surely more money needs to be available for providing the service (already a 6 figure sum). The only way that will happen is if the CAA is forced to see the error of their ways by much lobbying from us, the PFA, AOPA etc. Make your views known to them!
If LARS is being gradually withdrawn due to lack of interest (due to lack of funding) then surely more money needs to be available for providing the service (already a 6 figure sum). The only way that will happen is if the CAA is forced to see the error of their ways by much lobbying from us, the PFA, AOPA etc. Make your views known to them!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please let me clarify the situation regard Luton LARS and zone transits.
Yes, LARS is being withdrawn from 30 Nov. It is a decision we have relutctantly had to take but with the increasing commercial traffic and some staff leaving we have little spare capacity to provide it. We have struggled to do so this summer and have had to NOTAM 'No LARS available' on many occasions.
We have not provided a separate frequency for ATSOCAS (not just LARS) for well over a year. Again, with the increase in traffic we had to re-configure the system so that both radar controllers handled Luton arrivals (and departures if necessary). 129.55 became the Intermediate Director and 128.75 the Final Director. The Intermediate Director was left to provide LARS and Zone Transits if he/she had any spare capacity.
Zone transits should not be affected by the decision to withdraw LARS but obviously the amount of inbound/outbound traffic the Intermediate Director is handling does affect his/her capacity to handle transits. Another complication is that since July time the go-around procedures on our runways now go to alt 3,000ft instead of 2,000ft so we can no longer put VFR traffic over the landing threshold at 2,500ft if we have traffic on final.
But, as Cahlibahn says, give us a call and ask (yes, do say 'for zone transit' on first tx). Listen out first and if the guy is working his bal, er, socks off then perhaps another day. If we cannot do overhead then we'll try 8nm east or west. Rightstuffer, I am sorry that you have been put off calling us. Don't be frightened of us, we are human (well, most are!) E-mail me and come and visit.
Beagler - you mention 'the corridor' almost as if it is available without calling ('in their interests to know who you are and your intentions'.) I'm sure you don't mean that. In fact, 'the corridor' is really entry/exit lanes for SVFR traffic arriving and departing, please see the UK AIP. We also use them to enable the Tower to depart VFR traffic without co-ordination with APR. Their tracks are not really suitable to transits (Hemel-overhead almost looks up the 26 climbout!)
I hope that clarifies the situation.
Yes, LARS is being withdrawn from 30 Nov. It is a decision we have relutctantly had to take but with the increasing commercial traffic and some staff leaving we have little spare capacity to provide it. We have struggled to do so this summer and have had to NOTAM 'No LARS available' on many occasions.
We have not provided a separate frequency for ATSOCAS (not just LARS) for well over a year. Again, with the increase in traffic we had to re-configure the system so that both radar controllers handled Luton arrivals (and departures if necessary). 129.55 became the Intermediate Director and 128.75 the Final Director. The Intermediate Director was left to provide LARS and Zone Transits if he/she had any spare capacity.
Zone transits should not be affected by the decision to withdraw LARS but obviously the amount of inbound/outbound traffic the Intermediate Director is handling does affect his/her capacity to handle transits. Another complication is that since July time the go-around procedures on our runways now go to alt 3,000ft instead of 2,000ft so we can no longer put VFR traffic over the landing threshold at 2,500ft if we have traffic on final.
But, as Cahlibahn says, give us a call and ask (yes, do say 'for zone transit' on first tx). Listen out first and if the guy is working his bal, er, socks off then perhaps another day. If we cannot do overhead then we'll try 8nm east or west. Rightstuffer, I am sorry that you have been put off calling us. Don't be frightened of us, we are human (well, most are!) E-mail me and come and visit.
Beagler - you mention 'the corridor' almost as if it is available without calling ('in their interests to know who you are and your intentions'.) I'm sure you don't mean that. In fact, 'the corridor' is really entry/exit lanes for SVFR traffic arriving and departing, please see the UK AIP. We also use them to enable the Tower to depart VFR traffic without co-ordination with APR. Their tracks are not really suitable to transits (Hemel-overhead almost looks up the 26 climbout!)
I hope that clarifies the situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Lewton,
Actually it was me that said to give a polite call on 129.55 for zone transit - no worries
Does the airspace reconfiguration mean that 129.55 now has the callsign 'Luton Director'?
I often transit on track Woburn - BPK (conveniently through your overhead) as I am Cranfield based, and was taught that this particular routing is the done thing. I have only been re-routed to Hemel Hempstead once.
What is the position for IFR transits? Will that increase the (already high when VFR) chance of a transit, or does it just increase your workload with regards to active seperation. I'm interested as I would like to be as ATC-friendly as possible in my flying without increasing my workload too much (see long discussion re Thames Radar in the ATC forum).
Actually it was me that said to give a polite call on 129.55 for zone transit - no worries
Does the airspace reconfiguration mean that 129.55 now has the callsign 'Luton Director'?
I often transit on track Woburn - BPK (conveniently through your overhead) as I am Cranfield based, and was taught that this particular routing is the done thing. I have only been re-routed to Hemel Hempstead once.
What is the position for IFR transits? Will that increase the (already high when VFR) chance of a transit, or does it just increase your workload with regards to active seperation. I'm interested as I would like to be as ATC-friendly as possible in my flying without increasing my workload too much (see long discussion re Thames Radar in the ATC forum).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi foghorn, sorry for the mid-ident!
129.55 is Luton Radar (or Approach, if you prefer), 128.75 Luton Director.
The route Woburn-BPK is one we are very use to, and we use to be quite happy putting VFR traffic over the landing threshold at 2,500ft, knowing that any go-arounds would (or should!) only go to 2,000ft. But with the go-around procedures being revised to go to 3,000ft, we either have to put transit traffic up to 3,500ft, or invite you go 8nm east or west. If there is no landing traffic then there is no problem.
If you are IFR (or SVFR) then I am afraid it will mean less chance of a zone transit as we have to provide standard separation with our own IFR traffic. 1,000ft against the go-around would mean 4,000ft over the top which we cannot do with transit traffic, hence you'll get vectored to provide radar separation. And if the boys and girls are busy with inbounds then wouldn't want to do it.
But we are not busy all of the time so zone transits should not become any different to what we do now.
Hope this helps.
129.55 is Luton Radar (or Approach, if you prefer), 128.75 Luton Director.
The route Woburn-BPK is one we are very use to, and we use to be quite happy putting VFR traffic over the landing threshold at 2,500ft, knowing that any go-arounds would (or should!) only go to 2,000ft. But with the go-around procedures being revised to go to 3,000ft, we either have to put transit traffic up to 3,500ft, or invite you go 8nm east or west. If there is no landing traffic then there is no problem.
If you are IFR (or SVFR) then I am afraid it will mean less chance of a zone transit as we have to provide standard separation with our own IFR traffic. 1,000ft against the go-around would mean 4,000ft over the top which we cannot do with transit traffic, hence you'll get vectored to provide radar separation. And if the boys and girls are busy with inbounds then wouldn't want to do it.
But we are not busy all of the time so zone transits should not become any different to what we do now.
Hope this helps.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Lew,
Just got back from a weekend away... hence the delay in answering.
You assumed correctly... I was trying to tackle 2 queries with 1 answer, not wise, especially on this forum where there are a lot of knowledgeable people around.
LARS... the point I was trying to cover was that it probably really exists so that you guys know who or what those radar traces near to your traffic are, even if they are in open airspace.
Withdrawing the service is surely a backward step regarding safety.
You are correct in that it is not a corridor but to my guilt I used to plan that way and gave you a call 10 mins away.
This was definitely a mistake because out of Elstree I used to plan for Hemel without realising that I was directly under your climb out and intended to orbit there if I couldn't get a call in!
Won't plan for that again if 26 is in use.
Checked my log book and it is over 2 years since I transitted your airspace... I'd bet it's a lot busier now!
Thanks for the input, I for one have learned something.
Just got back from a weekend away... hence the delay in answering.
You assumed correctly... I was trying to tackle 2 queries with 1 answer, not wise, especially on this forum where there are a lot of knowledgeable people around.
LARS... the point I was trying to cover was that it probably really exists so that you guys know who or what those radar traces near to your traffic are, even if they are in open airspace.
Withdrawing the service is surely a backward step regarding safety.
You are correct in that it is not a corridor but to my guilt I used to plan that way and gave you a call 10 mins away.
This was definitely a mistake because out of Elstree I used to plan for Hemel without realising that I was directly under your climb out and intended to orbit there if I couldn't get a call in!
Won't plan for that again if 26 is in use.
Checked my log book and it is over 2 years since I transitted your airspace... I'd bet it's a lot busier now!
Thanks for the input, I for one have learned something.
