Shoreham proposal to downgrade ATC to FISO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA invent stuff on the hoof. Standard empire building practice.
A while ago I had some correspondence with what was obvious an expat Brit working there (prob99 a former ISO9000 quality manager which some smart company made reduntant) and he was making stuff up from one paragraph to the next. Even his use of the language made that obvious.
This problem also exists in the FAA. I phoned up the NY IFU recently and they insisted an EHSI is an EFIS and cannot be installed without an STC. The difference is that you can look up the written rules which are fairly clear... EASA has taken this out of peoples' hands by being the judge, jury and executioner on all matters connected with mods.
Shoreham's issue with the IAPs is that they never offered anything which you could not do legally VFR i.e. fly in on the 02 extended final at 501ft above the sea (or perhaps 520ft, allowing for a boat below
). Had somebody had the foresight back in 1979 and built the runway as ~ 25, another ~ 200m longer, and stuck an ILS there, everything would change and Shoreham would have a real asset which would increase its usability. The existing procedures (NDB/DME, NDB/DME flown with a GPS in the OBS mode, NDB/DME flown with a GPS overlay, or the RNAV ones) offer nothing over just flying in VFR - well they offer ATC-operated approach scheduling but outside the ATZ there could be anybody else there in IMC, non-radio. It just happens that almost nobody in UK GA flies in bad weather, especially in IMC, and those that do fly in IMC know where they are very accurately and would not do something so stupid, and that is what keeps all this hanging together.
Without ATC, however, there will be pandemonium on good weather weekend days. It will be like Stapleford - a place I now avoid totally.
Shoreham has the best and most helpful ATC of all places I know. It is a tragedy that established ATC working practices make ATC so expensive to operate, but obviously nobody has an interest in changing that.
A while ago I had some correspondence with what was obvious an expat Brit working there (prob99 a former ISO9000 quality manager which some smart company made reduntant) and he was making stuff up from one paragraph to the next. Even his use of the language made that obvious.
This problem also exists in the FAA. I phoned up the NY IFU recently and they insisted an EHSI is an EFIS and cannot be installed without an STC. The difference is that you can look up the written rules which are fairly clear... EASA has taken this out of peoples' hands by being the judge, jury and executioner on all matters connected with mods.
Shoreham's issue with the IAPs is that they never offered anything which you could not do legally VFR i.e. fly in on the 02 extended final at 501ft above the sea (or perhaps 520ft, allowing for a boat below
). Had somebody had the foresight back in 1979 and built the runway as ~ 25, another ~ 200m longer, and stuck an ILS there, everything would change and Shoreham would have a real asset which would increase its usability. The existing procedures (NDB/DME, NDB/DME flown with a GPS in the OBS mode, NDB/DME flown with a GPS overlay, or the RNAV ones) offer nothing over just flying in VFR - well they offer ATC-operated approach scheduling but outside the ATZ there could be anybody else there in IMC, non-radio. It just happens that almost nobody in UK GA flies in bad weather, especially in IMC, and those that do fly in IMC know where they are very accurately and would not do something so stupid, and that is what keeps all this hanging together.Without ATC, however, there will be pandemonium on good weather weekend days. It will be like Stapleford - a place I now avoid totally.
Shoreham has the best and most helpful ATC of all places I know. It is a tragedy that established ATC working practices make ATC so expensive to operate, but obviously nobody has an interest in changing that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mmmmmm.....thanks, wiggly. Like I say, no real experience of the way that EASA works so far myself, but this is just one of the reasons that I fear the day that it takes competence for ATM and airports! If you speak to the rule drafters they seem quite rational (well, most of them) but somewhere things seem to get lost in translation when the rules get published and have to be applied.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 458 Likes
on
242 Posts
It just happens that almost nobody in UK GA flies in bad weather, especially in IMC
Obviously, the worse the weather, the fewer GA aircraft are in the air, but I can't totally agree with that. Does your aircraft have TCAS?
Thankfully mine does. Surprisingly often in Class G, I do find it necessary to take avoiding action on transponding aircraft in IMC; in fact this has become almost routine.
I fly under a Traffic Service whenever necessary (if possible, it isn't always). It is often obvious that the other pilots must be unaware of our presence because they are not on the same frequency and there is no one else to provide a radar service.
Now there are now fewer LARS units in UK it seems to me that some might be relying totally on the "big sky" theory. If some of these other aircraft were under a radar service too, presumably it wouldn't have to be me taking the avoiding action quite so often, either based on ground radar or TCAS derived info.
(If this sounds like I'm accusing you, I'm definitely not, btw).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I don't have TCAS. The installation downtime is 4weeks+
I am sure you are right i.e. there is traffic in IMC but equally I am sure there is very little compared to the masses in VMC especially below 2000ft.
Very much so, but a radar controller is under no obligation to report any particular contact anyway, so there is no real solution to this - short of mandatory Mode C carriage and mandatory and enforced use, and then TCAS would work pretty well.
I am sure you are right i.e. there is traffic in IMC but equally I am sure there is very little compared to the masses in VMC especially below 2000ft.
it seems to me that some might be relying totally on the "big sky" theory
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 458 Likes
on
242 Posts
LARS unit controllers agreeing to give a full traffic service are generally very good, subject to workload. In poor weather, workload may or may not decrease.
However, I've been fortunate enough to fly TCAS equipped aircraft for well over a decade now (and twenty more before that flying without it). Bearing in mind what I've experienced, I am not now happy to fly IMC in UK's Class G airspace without it.
Having said this, as long as pilots are in communication and fly with common sense, it isn't too difficult to avoid each other whilst carrying out an approach, irrespective of the type of ATC service provided.
However, I've been fortunate enough to fly TCAS equipped aircraft for well over a decade now (and twenty more before that flying without it). Bearing in mind what I've experienced, I am not now happy to fly IMC in UK's Class G airspace without it.
Having said this, as long as pilots are in communication and fly with common sense, it isn't too difficult to avoid each other whilst carrying out an approach, irrespective of the type of ATC service provided.
Rumour has it that two of the biggest players at Shoreham are now actively planning to move if the threat to remove ATC services takes place on 01 June 2011 as planned. (It would not take a genius to work out which two).
This wonderful airfield has been mis-managed ever since the disgraced Erinaceous organisation take-over was agreed with the local council.
The existing "organisation" bears a very close resemblance to its predecessor(with something of a common cast of actors) and I think the time has come whereby the local council should re-examine just what is going on here.
It seems to me that we are about to lose a very important local amenity if we are not very, very careful.
I, and many of my fellow aircraft owners at Shoreham, are totally convinced that the big plan is to close the oldest airfield in the United Kingdom and turn the land into a housing estate thereby making a lot of money for a few speculators.
The local council needs to get a grip of the situation.
In the meantime, can I ask all of you who have an interest in Shoreham airfield to start pestering your MP in a major fashion?
This wonderful airfield has been mis-managed ever since the disgraced Erinaceous organisation take-over was agreed with the local council.
The existing "organisation" bears a very close resemblance to its predecessor(with something of a common cast of actors) and I think the time has come whereby the local council should re-examine just what is going on here.
It seems to me that we are about to lose a very important local amenity if we are not very, very careful.
I, and many of my fellow aircraft owners at Shoreham, are totally convinced that the big plan is to close the oldest airfield in the United Kingdom and turn the land into a housing estate thereby making a lot of money for a few speculators.
The local council needs to get a grip of the situation.
In the meantime, can I ask all of you who have an interest in Shoreham airfield to start pestering your MP in a major fashion?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding TCAS, it is one of the next upgades we'll probably make after a PFD. Cost wise you're looking at about ~5k plus fitting for something like the Garmin GTS800. If you have the other kit, like the PFD, then it makes sense to integrate all this stuff. I don't think it would take 4 weeks to fit, it is just a few antenna and some interfacing cable after all.
I was reading the Airprox's recently and it was interesting to see one out of Shoreham between a King Air and TBM700 in IMC after the TBM made a level bust on departure (KA was inbound, TBM was outbound). Obviously from the KA's pilots POV it was quite worrying, but as the TBM had TCAS then it was a no factor situation as they had seen the KA and could ensure separation.
I think if you fly a lot of IMC then having TCAS just for the piece of mind is worth it.
I was reading the Airprox's recently and it was interesting to see one out of Shoreham between a King Air and TBM700 in IMC after the TBM made a level bust on departure (KA was inbound, TBM was outbound). Obviously from the KA's pilots POV it was quite worrying, but as the TBM had TCAS then it was a no factor situation as they had seen the KA and could ensure separation.
I think if you fly a lot of IMC then having TCAS just for the piece of mind is worth it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not understand - explain?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I'm not a pilot but someone who lives in Sussex and is considering going for my PPL(A) in the near future. I have considered Shoreham Airport as the base for that training.
Could someone please explain in layman's terms how Shoreham Airport traffic control operates at the moment and what these proposed changes are and what they mean to the future operation of the airport, for pilots and the flight schools based there.
Thanks.
I'm not a pilot but someone who lives in Sussex and is considering going for my PPL(A) in the near future. I have considered Shoreham Airport as the base for that training.
Could someone please explain in layman's terms how Shoreham Airport traffic control operates at the moment and what these proposed changes are and what they mean to the future operation of the airport, for pilots and the flight schools based there.
Thanks.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geege
In simple terms their are two different basis on which the flow of aircraft into an airport is controlled. One basis is that the pilots control themselves perhaps with some help form an "official" observer on the ground who is able to pass information about other aircraft. The other basis is for the airport to control the traffic through an observer in the tower to whom every pilot reports. The observer in the the tower is known as an ATCO. He has a picture of where every aircraft is either from radar or from various other devices at his disposable.
As you would expect at the vast majority of airports in the UK at which commercial aircraft land the second system is used.
So far as light aircraft are concerned some would say the pilots are perfectly capable of sorting themselves out. Others would argue that while that may be true when the traffic density is light as soon as lots of aircraft are all trying to land at the same time there is a greatly increased risk of a mid air collision.
So coming directly to your question and what it means for Shoreham - firstly Shoreham handles some jets and larger aircraft. In some cases it is a condition of their insurance to only use airports with ATCOs - these aircraft will no longer be able to use Shoreham and the airport will no longer enjoy this income - which can be 20 times the amount a typical light single engined aircraft might pay. Secondly, as pilots progress they may learn how to fly on instruments and in particular arrive at an airport in cloud. This type of training can only be done at an airport with an ATCO. Shoreham have a number of flying schools that offer this type of training who will doubtless be disappointed at the loss of this facility requiring them to under take this type of training at other airports. Thirdly, limitations may be placed on the volume of traffic and how the runways are used. Shoreham has three runways; wind direction and other considerations often mean that different types of aircraft want to use different runways. This makes for a potentially more dangerous enviroment if pilots are left to their own devices. Fourthly some pilots will fly to and from Shoreham in the knowledge they can still land at the airport when the cloud is low. As indicated earlier without an ATCO it is questionable whether pilots will be able to continue to operate in these conditions and if they do how much the risk of a collision will increase.
That at any rate is the flavour in simple terms. There other reasons why this could be a retrograde step but I hope that gives you the flavour.
Good luck with your training.
In simple terms their are two different basis on which the flow of aircraft into an airport is controlled. One basis is that the pilots control themselves perhaps with some help form an "official" observer on the ground who is able to pass information about other aircraft. The other basis is for the airport to control the traffic through an observer in the tower to whom every pilot reports. The observer in the the tower is known as an ATCO. He has a picture of where every aircraft is either from radar or from various other devices at his disposable.
As you would expect at the vast majority of airports in the UK at which commercial aircraft land the second system is used.
So far as light aircraft are concerned some would say the pilots are perfectly capable of sorting themselves out. Others would argue that while that may be true when the traffic density is light as soon as lots of aircraft are all trying to land at the same time there is a greatly increased risk of a mid air collision.
So coming directly to your question and what it means for Shoreham - firstly Shoreham handles some jets and larger aircraft. In some cases it is a condition of their insurance to only use airports with ATCOs - these aircraft will no longer be able to use Shoreham and the airport will no longer enjoy this income - which can be 20 times the amount a typical light single engined aircraft might pay. Secondly, as pilots progress they may learn how to fly on instruments and in particular arrive at an airport in cloud. This type of training can only be done at an airport with an ATCO. Shoreham have a number of flying schools that offer this type of training who will doubtless be disappointed at the loss of this facility requiring them to under take this type of training at other airports. Thirdly, limitations may be placed on the volume of traffic and how the runways are used. Shoreham has three runways; wind direction and other considerations often mean that different types of aircraft want to use different runways. This makes for a potentially more dangerous enviroment if pilots are left to their own devices. Fourthly some pilots will fly to and from Shoreham in the knowledge they can still land at the airport when the cloud is low. As indicated earlier without an ATCO it is questionable whether pilots will be able to continue to operate in these conditions and if they do how much the risk of a collision will increase.
That at any rate is the flavour in simple terms. There other reasons why this could be a retrograde step but I hope that gives you the flavour.
Good luck with your training.
I have to admit that I am a little bit surprised that none of you out there seem to be the slightest bit bothered that Shoreham Airport might just be in danger of disappearing.
Forget about niceties like "ah well, even if they do downgrade from ATC to AFISO status, I will still be able to bimble down to Shoreham when I feel like it, so I don't need to do anything".
At the moment, Shoreham is the only hard runway airfield with an ATC service between Lydd and Southampton. The closure of this airfield would be catastrophic to a lot of people and would result in the loss of a lot of local jobs.
If ATC services are withdrawn and the two major operators that I have alluded to move elsewhere, then I have been told that their withdrawal would mean 15,000 less movements per annum.
The loss of this income will probably be more than the current cost of ATC services.
However, it will be grist to the mill to the speculators who will say that the airfield is losing even more money and should therefore be turned into affordable housing at a huge profit to themselves.
What I find difficult to understand is that absolutely no one that I speak to at Shoreham has actually seen the document signed by the Council handing the airfield over to Erinaceous. Nor have I heard of anyone actually having sight of the amendment document handing the lease to the present bunch of speculators.
I would have thought that the Council should be required to make this document available to all of us under the Freedom of Information Act or would the local council find such a disclosure a bit of an embarrassment?
If so, why?
Forget about niceties like "ah well, even if they do downgrade from ATC to AFISO status, I will still be able to bimble down to Shoreham when I feel like it, so I don't need to do anything".
At the moment, Shoreham is the only hard runway airfield with an ATC service between Lydd and Southampton. The closure of this airfield would be catastrophic to a lot of people and would result in the loss of a lot of local jobs.
If ATC services are withdrawn and the two major operators that I have alluded to move elsewhere, then I have been told that their withdrawal would mean 15,000 less movements per annum.
The loss of this income will probably be more than the current cost of ATC services.
However, it will be grist to the mill to the speculators who will say that the airfield is losing even more money and should therefore be turned into affordable housing at a huge profit to themselves.
What I find difficult to understand is that absolutely no one that I speak to at Shoreham has actually seen the document signed by the Council handing the airfield over to Erinaceous. Nor have I heard of anyone actually having sight of the amendment document handing the lease to the present bunch of speculators.
I would have thought that the Council should be required to make this document available to all of us under the Freedom of Information Act or would the local council find such a disclosure a bit of an embarrassment?
If so, why?
Guest
Posts: n/a
JW411 - I'm with you. I have a gut feeling that some players around Shoreham stand to make a killing. I'm not sure about residential housing though. My bet is on hitech units like Ricardo's type of business.
Pension funds invest in commercial property with a reasonably long view for a return. The proximity to the A27 is a factor too.
I've read that the local MP probably won't help but what about next door and Norman Baker? With his Transport hat on and a revised south east aviation white paper isn't he worth a try?
Sir George Cayley
Pension funds invest in commercial property with a reasonably long view for a return. The proximity to the A27 is a factor too.
I've read that the local MP probably won't help but what about next door and Norman Baker? With his Transport hat on and a revised south east aviation white paper isn't he worth a try?
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest news...
Full ATC is to be retained at Shoreham and another full time controller to be recruited. Hooray!!!
Now it would be nice if the bars and restaurants manager(s) were told to keep their businesses open beyond 16.00L
Now it would be nice if the bars and restaurants manager(s) were told to keep their businesses open beyond 16.00L
Well, if that is true then I am truly a happy bunny.
I was flying today doing a mixture of RNAV approaches and circuit work. It was a nice day and every man and his dog was out to play.
ATC were doing a fantastic job (thank you Bob). It would have been chaos without them.
I was flying today doing a mixture of RNAV approaches and circuit work. It was a nice day and every man and his dog was out to play.
ATC were doing a fantastic job (thank you Bob). It would have been chaos without them.