Want a LARS? It'll cost you!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Want a LARS? It'll cost you!
I may be behind the drag curve here, but I have recently become aware of a report on a meeting with the DETR which discussed the problem of funding LARS in the future. At present LARS is funded by Airways charges which are only paid by all aircraft above 5.7 tonnes and IFR aircraft above 2 tonnes. The vast majority of LARS users fall outside these criteria and pay nothing for it. And so it should be, in my opinion!
As the major financiers of LARS, the airlines want to reduce the £1.6m bill and ways are being sought to find another way of funding. These revolve around the direct users paying for it.
Some proposals considered were:
1) A pay per flight charge (difficult to enforce and more costly to collect than it would earn).
2) A 'tax disc' per aircraft (unfair on those who don't use it)
3) An annual levy on each pilot's licence (c£50 p.a). (Unfair on infrequent users).
4) Using some of the duty on AVGAS to pay for it (requires Treasury approval).
The point was made that as units ins SE England get busier they will start to divest themselves of LARS services and this might be detrimental to safety.
Just thought I would raise it if it hasn't been already...
As the major financiers of LARS, the airlines want to reduce the £1.6m bill and ways are being sought to find another way of funding. These revolve around the direct users paying for it.
Some proposals considered were:
1) A pay per flight charge (difficult to enforce and more costly to collect than it would earn).
2) A 'tax disc' per aircraft (unfair on those who don't use it)
3) An annual levy on each pilot's licence (c£50 p.a). (Unfair on infrequent users).
4) Using some of the duty on AVGAS to pay for it (requires Treasury approval).
The point was made that as units ins SE England get busier they will start to divest themselves of LARS services and this might be detrimental to safety.
Just thought I would raise it if it hasn't been already...
Well as a frequent user, who regularly gets a less than satisfactory LARS service, I'd go for (4). Let the tax we're paying go towards supporting the aviation infrastructure, rather than just vanishing into the exchequer as usual. Would put us in a stronger position to complain about service problem also!.
G
G
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I'd also go for 4), especially since my aircraft runs on MoGas so I won't have to worry about the increase in the cost of AvGas that would no doubt come with this! 
I really can't see any fair way of doing this. Many areas of the country aren't covered by LARS - presumably people who only fly locally in these areas won't have to pay? Or can we expect LARS coverage to be extended to the whole country to ensure that everyone is able to take advantage of the service they pay for?
FFF
----------
I really can't see any fair way of doing this. Many areas of the country aren't covered by LARS - presumably people who only fly locally in these areas won't have to pay? Or can we expect LARS coverage to be extended to the whole country to ensure that everyone is able to take advantage of the service they pay for?
FFF
----------
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost all LARS are provided by military controllers. The majority of the cost of providing these services is bourn by the RAF/MOD. LARS was originally introduced to provide RAF jets with a means to enter the UK low flying system. Subsequently it is used to keep fast pointy things away from puddle jumpers below 10 000 ft. As I understand it the RAF pays for some civil airfields to give a LARS service where possible. This service is not guarenteed though. It is dependent upon controller workload and if the workload is high then the first thing to go will be the FIS/RIS to a military jet or some C-152.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Midlands
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An a/c receiving a FIS will still be one of the first ones to go if workload gets too great for the controller.
Most of the MATZ in the UK are not controlled airspace and therefore do not require any sort of service to enter them. Common sense dictates, however, that it would be a good idea to talk to the MATZ Director to ensure safety and collision avoidance but the best way to not hit anyone is to use the Mk 1 eyeball.
Most of the MATZ in the UK are not controlled airspace and therefore do not require any sort of service to enter them. Common sense dictates, however, that it would be a good idea to talk to the MATZ Director to ensure safety and collision avoidance but the best way to not hit anyone is to use the Mk 1 eyeball.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My non-LARS (but radar equipped) unit provided a service to 9558 transitting aircraft during 2001 (I did the stats a few weeks back). For which, we received the princely sum of....****** all.
How about anyone wanting a LARS has to fly directly overhead the providing airfield and drop a fiver out the DV window
How about anyone wanting a LARS has to fly directly overhead the providing airfield and drop a fiver out the DV window
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost all LARS are provided by military controllers. The majority of the cost of providing these services is bourn by the RAF/MOD.
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the levy was only £50 it wouldn't be the end of the world, but [list=a][*]the principle is wrong because in my view the provision of LARs in class G is not there solely because WE puddle-jumpers need it; it is there as has been pointed out for the benefit of descending MIL and IFR. i.e. in areas where there is not a concentration of such (like in AIAA's) then we don't need it or ask for it. I've always thought of it as a reciprocal arrangement: we ask MIL nicely to enter MATZ and MIL kindly provide us an additional service, which enhances the safety of their own traffic.
[*]I'll bet it doesn't stop at £50![/list=a]
While here though, I'd also like to say how much I appreciate the LARs service - especially from the likes of Brize & Farnborough folks who always provide an excellent service. When they are too busy they say so, which is fine. I think the funding problem is a serious one, so some solution must be found. However, adding further to the already outrageous fuel levy does not seem sensible or fair either.
[*]I'll bet it doesn't stop at £50![/list=a]
While here though, I'd also like to say how much I appreciate the LARs service - especially from the likes of Brize & Farnborough folks who always provide an excellent service. When they are too busy they say so, which is fine. I think the funding problem is a serious one, so some solution must be found. However, adding further to the already outrageous fuel levy does not seem sensible or fair either.
Last edited by Aussie Andy; 7th Jun 2002 at 07:01.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More charges?
Well this is a sad state of affairs isn't it ! After all, if the duty paid on Avgas goes to fund LARS then guess what...Fuel prices go up. AVGAS should be tax free in my opinion.
ATC should be paid for by the Government out of tax payers money. It should not be a privilege to get ATC but a right of any pilot, just the same as the traffic lights on your high street. Ok, the tax payer might complain, so why not reclaim some of the money from the airline industry in the form of landing taxes / navigation taxes. Oh and don't worry about the poor airlines having to foot the bill, they'll simply impose a 'navigation surcharge' onto each ticket sold.
What will happen is that PPLs will eventually be priced out of getting ATC services, leading to reduced safety for ALL air transport. What will happen then? Controlled airspace will grow, and then GA pilots will be forced to either get and pay for an ATC service or be grounded.
Bournemouth tower G-XXXX request LARS
G-XXXX Bournemouth Tower, Pass your credit card details
EA
ATC should be paid for by the Government out of tax payers money. It should not be a privilege to get ATC but a right of any pilot, just the same as the traffic lights on your high street. Ok, the tax payer might complain, so why not reclaim some of the money from the airline industry in the form of landing taxes / navigation taxes. Oh and don't worry about the poor airlines having to foot the bill, they'll simply impose a 'navigation surcharge' onto each ticket sold.
What will happen is that PPLs will eventually be priced out of getting ATC services, leading to reduced safety for ALL air transport. What will happen then? Controlled airspace will grow, and then GA pilots will be forced to either get and pay for an ATC service or be grounded.
Bournemouth tower G-XXXX request LARS
G-XXXX Bournemouth Tower, Pass your credit card details
EA
Al, don't know about you but I'm a taxpayer. What's surely in question is HOW we pay for the service, not WHETHER.
If the tax on my Avgas goes towards the infrastructure, like hopefully the tax on my Diesel goes towards the road infrastructure, I have no problem with that.
The only thing, frankly, that I have a problem with is any change to the system which adds significant complexity to the whole thing.
G
If the tax on my Avgas goes towards the infrastructure, like hopefully the tax on my Diesel goes towards the road infrastructure, I have no problem with that.
The only thing, frankly, that I have a problem with is any change to the system which adds significant complexity to the whole thing.
G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LARS provision
Just a couple of points:
The Ugly Fend Off -
WRONG - I suggest you have a read of http://www.ais.org.uk/uk_aip/pdf/enr/2010603.pdf
There are 29 LARS units - 17 military and 12 Civil. Hardly constitutes "almost all" does it. In addition the cost is NOT borne by the MoD/RAF. It is paid for by the airlines / IFR operators as a payment from en-rte charges. MoD get a chunk of it (which goes into their coffers, not the units involved) as do the civil units involved.
Should be wrong again (but the military work differently sometimes). FIS is the easiest service to provide as well as the lowest level of service that can be provided by an ATC unit. You may find yourself being downgraded from RIS to FIS, but that's as far as it should go.
Now - as to funding. I agree with most - option 4) (Using some of the duty on AVGAS to pay for it). Would get my vote too, as it makes the most sense. Duty on a litre of AVGAS at the moment is 27.34p - NONE of which goes towards aviation but into the common pot. Anyone know how much AVGAS is sold every year? Bet it would pay for a decent LARS service. We are in the position of putting in and getting nothing back for it (unlike sections of the community who put nothing in and get plenty back!) - this has GOT to change.
Lastly - englishal -
Can't happen - it's illegal for a tower to provide a radar service 
CM
The Ugly Fend Off -
Almost all LARS are provided by military controllers. The majority of the cost of providing these services is bourn by the RAF/MOD.
There are 29 LARS units - 17 military and 12 Civil. Hardly constitutes "almost all" does it. In addition the cost is NOT borne by the MoD/RAF. It is paid for by the airlines / IFR operators as a payment from en-rte charges. MoD get a chunk of it (which goes into their coffers, not the units involved) as do the civil units involved.
An a/c receiving a FIS will still be one of the first ones to go if workload gets too great for the controller.
Now - as to funding. I agree with most - option 4) (Using some of the duty on AVGAS to pay for it). Would get my vote too, as it makes the most sense. Duty on a litre of AVGAS at the moment is 27.34p - NONE of which goes towards aviation but into the common pot. Anyone know how much AVGAS is sold every year? Bet it would pay for a decent LARS service. We are in the position of putting in and getting nothing back for it (unlike sections of the community who put nothing in and get plenty back!) - this has GOT to change.
Lastly - englishal -
Bournemouth tower G-XXXX request LARS
CM
Who pays for lighthouses?
WWW
WWW
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boat owners don't pay any 'navigation' charges nor do they pay tax on 'red' diesel....Yet Trinity house or whoever it is still maintains the buoys and lights, and I assume they get their dosh from the Government...( and therefore you and me in the form of taxes).
EA
EA
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I give up, what's the lighthouse analogy? Lighthouse would equal NDB. Who is saying we should pay when we tune into a NDB?
(Edited to remove VOR, as a lighthouse is definitely not equivalent to a VOR)
(Edited to remove VOR, as a lighthouse is definitely not equivalent to a VOR)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the golf tee
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually 
At uni a rough description of how a vor worked used a lighthouse.
We were told to think of the vor as a lighthouse with a omni directional light on the top that went off when the uni directional light went through north, and if the uni directional light was rotating at 1 sec per degree you could calculate what bearing you were on, by measuring the time between the 2 lights.
At uni a rough description of how a vor worked used a lighthouse.
We were told to think of the vor as a lighthouse with a omni directional light on the top that went off when the uni directional light went through north, and if the uni directional light was rotating at 1 sec per degree you could calculate what bearing you were on, by measuring the time between the 2 lights.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I never knew that was how lighthouses worked, so I stand corrected. Edited - actually having thought about it, I don't!
So how does the sailor know the difference between the 'omni-directional' flash and the flash caused by the beam sweeping?
Edited - I don't think they can, because lighthouses don't work that way.
(I still don't see the analogy to paying for LARS)
So how does the sailor know the difference between the 'omni-directional' flash and the flash caused by the beam sweeping?
Edited - I don't think they can, because lighthouses don't work that way.
(I still don't see the analogy to paying for LARS)
Last edited by slim_slag; 8th Jun 2002 at 19:21.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: united kingdom
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have long felt that the 'see and be seen' principle is flawed since first, the time taken to complete an efficient scan through, say 270 degrees, is quite long. Then add time taken to eliminate blind spots (lift/lower a wing, weave the nose etc). Add some time taken on head-down tasks. Then consider how close another aircraft has to be before you have a realistic chance of seeing it. You will realise that see-and-be-seen is something of a lottery. The odds are improved greatly if you have the benefit of information from a LARS unit because you at least know where to look. And, in IMC, the benefits mutiply again.
So the worst thing to happen is to lose LARS. If we have to pay some thing extra for it, we should (providing we get the service in the most imprtant areas under the London TMA and in the low-level corridor between Manchester and Liverpool).
However, taxes pay for facilities to ensure safety on the roads and the individual road user does not pay according to the facilities he uses. The same principle can be applied to the skies. There is no need for part of the avgas duty to be specifically allocated to air safety any more than part of road petrol/diesel is allocated to road safety. It is enough to demonstrate that users of uncontrolled airspace mostly pay taxes.
It seems to me that the key issue is to demonstrate that LARS saves lives. How do you do that? Is it possible to compare the accident rate (or the Airprox rate) for accidents involving aircraft receiving a LARS service with those not receiving any service?
Regards
So the worst thing to happen is to lose LARS. If we have to pay some thing extra for it, we should (providing we get the service in the most imprtant areas under the London TMA and in the low-level corridor between Manchester and Liverpool).
However, taxes pay for facilities to ensure safety on the roads and the individual road user does not pay according to the facilities he uses. The same principle can be applied to the skies. There is no need for part of the avgas duty to be specifically allocated to air safety any more than part of road petrol/diesel is allocated to road safety. It is enough to demonstrate that users of uncontrolled airspace mostly pay taxes.
It seems to me that the key issue is to demonstrate that LARS saves lives. How do you do that? Is it possible to compare the accident rate (or the Airprox rate) for accidents involving aircraft receiving a LARS service with those not receiving any service?
Regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can't work something out:
You're all quite happy to fly on a FIS with a FISO service near a busy GA aerodrome where traffic joining and leaving the circuit may not follow any particular 'standard' routes or levels. Or indeed fly over such places without calling the frequency at all, preferring to 'listen out' on the appropriate frequency.
Yet some above expect something for nothing...do you know exactly what you are asking for............totally free?
Although I agree in some areas (high military traffic levels etc) a radar service is a good idea as it benefits you and the rest of the area trying to get on with a set programme of tasks, there is still an small minority of pilots who seem not to know how to act responsibly.
I have had countless people request a service on lto turn down the volume in the headset because of all the noise generated by the chatter of traffic information being passed - result?
When I eventually get your attention the service is terminated and bye bye to the FIR FISO you go!
Remember that some ATC units have ONE PERSON doing the approach radar frequency. That means in civil terms one person is responsible for LARS, vectoring aircraft to final approach, co-ordinating with other ATC units by telephone and intercom. It also means that he/she can be dealing with considerable number of aircraft on one frequency at one time.
One departure to join airways can take two or more phone call before an aircraft is released. These calls are done by the bod you're asking to provide LARS.
If the controller feels that their function is being compromised they can limit the service or refuse it altogether.
The biggest problem here is - if you are paying a fee for your LARS and you get refused or get poor service - will you get a refund?
Nope
We all try to help everyone - but nothing in this world comes for free!
You're all quite happy to fly on a FIS with a FISO service near a busy GA aerodrome where traffic joining and leaving the circuit may not follow any particular 'standard' routes or levels. Or indeed fly over such places without calling the frequency at all, preferring to 'listen out' on the appropriate frequency.
Yet some above expect something for nothing...do you know exactly what you are asking for............totally free?
Although I agree in some areas (high military traffic levels etc) a radar service is a good idea as it benefits you and the rest of the area trying to get on with a set programme of tasks, there is still an small minority of pilots who seem not to know how to act responsibly.
I have had countless people request a service on lto turn down the volume in the headset because of all the noise generated by the chatter of traffic information being passed - result?
When I eventually get your attention the service is terminated and bye bye to the FIR FISO you go!
Remember that some ATC units have ONE PERSON doing the approach radar frequency. That means in civil terms one person is responsible for LARS, vectoring aircraft to final approach, co-ordinating with other ATC units by telephone and intercom. It also means that he/she can be dealing with considerable number of aircraft on one frequency at one time.
One departure to join airways can take two or more phone call before an aircraft is released. These calls are done by the bod you're asking to provide LARS.
If the controller feels that their function is being compromised they can limit the service or refuse it altogether.
The biggest problem here is - if you are paying a fee for your LARS and you get refused or get poor service - will you get a refund?
Nope
We all try to help everyone - but nothing in this world comes for free!