Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Problems at Shoreham EGKA?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Problems at Shoreham EGKA?

Old 9th Mar 2018, 13:16
  #21 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,647
The problem I forsee with a remote radar unit guiding aircraft in to Shoreham is that other aircraft around the airfield might not be using that same radar service. Shoreham has an ATZ; there is no controlled airspace around it. A remote radar unit would have no idea if potentially conflicting traffic was on frequency and would have no way (practical or legal) of ensuring they were. The aircraft being vectored would still have to be given standard separation; the only way to ensure this would be a "deconfliction service" resulting in a lot of "break-offs" from the letdown being attempted.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 13:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
The problem I forsee with a remote radar unit guiding aircraft in to Shoreham is that other aircraft around the airfield might not be using that same radar service. Shoreham has an ATZ; there is no controlled airspace around it. A remote radar unit would have no idea if potentially conflicting traffic was on frequency and would have no way (practical or legal) of ensuring they were. The aircraft being vectored would still have to be given standard separation; the only way to ensure this would be a "deconfliction service" resulting in a lot of "break-offs" from the letdown being attempted.
It works in many places around the world, including the UK with the likes of Biggin Hill which as you state, the approach goes into "uncontrolled airspace". Thames will generally vector planes for the ILS for runway 21 at Biggin via London City's zone, before returning them to uncontrolled airspace (for around 4nm) until you reach the ATZ. Planes could well fly between the two zones, completely legally without talking to anyone. But with both primary and secondary radar being available to the controller, they can have a "high degree of certainty" that there is no other conflicting traffic.

I don't see how the clearance being given by the controller in the tower is any safer than by the area controller? In some conditions the controller in the tower may not even be able to see the runway in front of him/her, let alone a plane several miles away, and even so, if it isn't being displayed on their radar screen (as would the area controller) how would they know how high the plane is, or even if it is a definite conflict?
alex90 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 14:05
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 576
You could find that the Area [sic] controller is rather more expensive than the local controller in the tower. Who's going to pay their cut for approach provided by Farnborough when you’re already complaining about the cost of Shoreham ATC approaches?
Dan Dare is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 14:31
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by Dan Dare View Post
You could find that the Area [sic] controller is rather more expensive than the local controller in the tower. Who's going to pay their cut for approach provided by Farnborough when you’re already complaining about the cost of Shoreham ATC approaches?
Really!? A Farnborough East (or west?) controller will be more expensive to handle a dozen IFR flights than having the tower manned by at least two equally licensed controllers and their helpers?

As I said in an earlier post - whatever fee is levied (however outrageous), should go to the people offering the service, in this case Farnborough LARS east (or west?).

Last edited by alex90; 9th Mar 2018 at 14:36. Reason: added or west - its in between both....
alex90 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 15:05
  #25 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,647
Originally Posted by alex90 View Post
It works in many places around the world, including the UK with the likes of Biggin Hill which as you state, the approach goes into "uncontrolled airspace". Thames will generally vector planes for the ILS for runway 21 at Biggin via London City's zone, before returning them to uncontrolled airspace (for around 4nm) until you reach the ATZ. Planes could well fly between the two zones, completely legally without talking to anyone. But with both primary and secondary radar being available to the controller, they can have a "high degree of certainty" that there is no other conflicting traffic.

I don't see how the clearance being given by the controller in the tower is any safer than by the area controller? In some conditions the controller in the tower may not even be able to see the runway in front of him/her, let alone a plane several miles away, and even so, if it isn't being displayed on their radar screen (as would the area controller) how would they know how high the plane is, or even if it is a definite conflict?
Alex, I know EGKB really quite well and carry out ILS approaches there on a regular basis; in the distant past I've been required to self position onto the ILS because there was no radar vectoring available. I've also had to carry out self positioned NDB approaches into Shoreham when there was no ATC cover. There are no great problems doing that on an infrequent basis. But this thread is about the situation where there is no local ATC operator and presumably making a let down commonly available. My point was that there would be no way of the remote radar unit coordinating with local traffic if there was no-one in the tower to phone.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 15:42
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by Dan Dare View Post
You could find that the Area [sic] controller is rather more expensive than the local controller in the tower. Who's going to pay their cut for approach provided by Farnborough when you’re already complaining about the cost of Shoreham ATC approaches?
I can assure you that Farnborough controllers cost considerably less than controllers at Swanwick whether they are Area or Terminal controllers.
NATS salary banding puts Farnborough on Band 1 (lowest paid) whilst Swanwick controllers are Band 5 (highest paid).
chevvron is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 15:49
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by alex90 View Post
Really!? A Farnborough East (or west?) controller will be more expensive to handle a dozen IFR flights than having the tower manned by at least two equally licensed controllers and their helpers?

As I said in an earlier post - whatever fee is levied (however outrageous), should go to the people offering the service, in this case Farnborough LARS east (or west?).
I don't know how Shoreham normally operate but they have two control functions, one which requires an ADI/ADV rating (aerodrome control) and the other which requires an APP rating (approach control). If the controller on duty has both ratings and they are both valid, there is nothing apart from traffic loading to stop him/her carrying out both functions at the same time.
I get the impression that the problem at Shoreham is a lack of controllers with an APP rating, however from another forum, I understand 5 controllers have recently left.
chevvron is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 16:44
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
But this thread is about the situation where there is no local ATC operator and presumably making a let down commonly available. My point was that there would be no way of the remote radar unit coordinating with local traffic if there was no-one in the tower to phone.
An IAP is always commonly available, (unless they switch off the aids of course! which actually happened to me...) it is the clearance to actually do the IAP which seems to be the main reason why we haven't followed America / NZ / Oz / France and their GNSS / LPV approach at a large number of unmanned GA airfields.

Once established on any procedure, you change to the airfield frequency (be it A/G or A/A or ATS or whatever it may be) and you announce yourself, "G-ABCD established GNSS approach runway 03, 5 miles to run". Thereby informing "local traffic" of where you are, your intentions, and where you are going.

ATC generally only allows 1 clearance per airport at any one time, so you need to close the flightplan / call area ATC to tell them you're on the ground, and not coming back into the system so that the next plane can get a clearance to do the approach.

It works very well elsewhere - why can't it work here?
alex90 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 17:05
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
The problem I forsee with a remote radar unit guiding aircraft in to Shoreham is that other aircraft around the airfield might not be using that same radar service. Shoreham has an ATZ; there is no controlled airspace around it. A remote radar unit would have no idea if potentially conflicting traffic was on frequency and would have no way (practical or legal) of ensuring they were. The aircraft being vectored would still have to be given standard separation; the only way to ensure this would be a "deconfliction service" resulting in a lot of "break-offs" from the letdown being attempted.
Nothing to stop a 'condition' being inserted in the procedure like:
'When established in the procedure and within x miles from the airfield, standard separation from other Shoreham traffic cannot be guaranteed and pilots are responsible for their own separation from conflicting traffic in the visual circuit '.(or something similar)
The CAA has already stated there is no requirement for an APP unit to attempt to provide separation from transit traffic which is not working them.
chevvron is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 17:35
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by alex90 View Post
An IAP is always commonly available, (unless they switch off the aids of course! which actually happened to me...) it is the clearance to actually do the IAP which seems to be the main reason why we haven't followed America / NZ / Oz / France and their GNSS / LPV approach at a large number of unmanned GA airfields.

Once established on any procedure, you change to the airfield frequency (be it A/G or A/A or ATS or whatever it may be) and you announce yourself, "G-ABCD established GNSS approach runway 03, 5 miles to run". Thereby informing "local traffic" of where you are, your intentions, and where you are going.

ATC generally only allows 1 clearance per airport at any one time, so you need to close the flightplan / call area ATC to tell them you're on the ground, and not coming back into the system so that the next plane can get a clearance to do the approach.

It works very well elsewhere - why can't it work here?
Why can't it work here?
Because we don't have a blanket of Class E airspace (so all IFR traffic is 'known') covering the country where there is no Class A to D.
chevvron is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 05:39
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 934
For those unfamiliar with the overseas procedures described on this thread.
Watch some “Premier I Driver” videos on UTube. A Beech Premier jet owner flies single pilot IFR in and out of several USA airfields some with just A/G comms.
His Base airfield Indy Exec, a large airfield by UK standards with A/G only.
Shows what can be safely done with the right Authority attitudes.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 09:36
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Newick
Posts: 117
Much angst around the provision of qualified persons in the Tower flows from the fact that, once licensed/certificated, the CAA have a say about what you can and can't do.

The requirement to have a licence/certificate for certain operations was removed years ago and recent changes brought about by SERA have further widened the scope to operate from an acceptable landing ground.

Not only Shoreham but any similar UK aerodrome has a choice. Each has to weigh pros and cons before deciding.

Some issues against include the loss of ATZ, loss of certain types of training and loss of flights requiring the use of a licensed/certificated aerodrome. A fascinating issue would be the status of an existing RNAV(GNSS) IAP notified having used CAP1122 for the safety case. As you all know, the tables in that hallow'd CAP include all types of places and ATS (or not).

So, cost savings from staff reductions (Licensing fees, ATC, RFFS & Ops Staff) versus loss of certain income, though offset by increases in other movements.

Not donning tin hat, not ducking behind railway embankment.
CloudHound is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 10:43
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 442
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
Why can't it work here?
Because we don't have a blanket of Class E airspace (so all IFR traffic is 'known') covering the country where there is no Class A to D.
In NZ with surprisingly high volumes of traffic in certain parts, there is no blanket class E, and it works there! I am still baffled by why it cant work, it has nothing to do with "all ifr traffic being known", because all IFR traffic should have transponders and thus should all be known to whatever controller operates whatever area...


Originally Posted by cessnapete View Post
For those unfamiliar with the overseas procedures described on this thread.
Watch some “Premier I Driver” videos on UTube. A Beech Premier jet owner flies single pilot IFR in and out of several USA airfields some with just A/G comms.
His Base airfield Indy Exec, a large airfield by UK standards with A/G only.
Shows what can be safely done with the right Authority attitudes.
Or Matt Guthmiller flying IFR in a single engine piston aircraft in and out of uncontrolled airfields.
alex90 is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 12:00
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France / UK
Age: 65
Posts: 952
I have flown over the less-populated parts of the USA, like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, at FL400 and have heard ‘my’ controller (Salt Lake ARTCC) clearing an aircraft for an approach. I realise that the controller’s workload must be fairly low in those circumstances but it does show what can be achieved.
eckhard is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 13:23
  #35 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,647
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
Nothing to stop a 'condition' being inserted in the procedure like:
'When established in the procedure and within x miles from the airfield, standard separation from other Shoreham traffic cannot be guaranteed and pilots are responsible for their own separation from conflicting traffic in the visual circuit '.(or something similar)
The CAA has already stated there is no requirement for an APP unit to attempt to provide separation from transit traffic which is not working them.
Agreed - but then there is no big advantage in an aircraft with a good IFR certified GPS receiving vectors from the Radar unit in the first place. Just fly the whole procedure under a traffic service while ATC take no responsibility for separation, as per the status quo. Then call on the local frequency before entering the ATZ and hope any local traffic is on frequency and looking out for the aircraft about to pop out of cloud
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 14:22
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Alex, I know EGKB really quite well and carry out ILS approaches there on a regular basis; in the distant past I've been required to self position onto the ILS because there was no radar vectoring available. I've also had to carry out self positioned NDB approaches into Shoreham when there was no ATC cover.
That surprises me as at our unit, when operating without radar, you cannot self position to the NDB due to the lack of the safety range check (and we have DME); you have to do the full procedure.

Interesting . . . . .

fred
ATCO Fred is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 14:26
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: In the South !
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by cessnapete View Post
For those unfamiliar with the overseas procedures described on this thread.
Watch some “Premier I Driver” videos on UTube. A Beech Premier jet owner flies single pilot IFR in and out of several USA airfields some with just A/G comms.
His Base airfield Indy Exec, a large airfield by UK standards with A/G only.
Shows what can be safely done with the right Authority attitudes.
I think making like for like comparison between the vast skies of America and the crowded and confused state of UK Glass G airspace is a comparison on volume of airspace and NOT about "right authority attitudes". Even if the authority had the right attitude and instigated a restructuring of UK airspace the GA populous would be up in arms. Anything other than the status-quo is unpalatable.

Just my opinion

Fred
ATCO Fred is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 16:00
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
NOTAMs C1279 (A/G available) and L 1281 (pilots are not to fly iap profiles) published both valid 26 Mar - 20 Jun
chevvron is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 16:02
  #39 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,647
Originally Posted by ATCO Fred View Post
That surprises me as at our unit, when operating without radar, you cannot self position to the NDB due to the lack of the safety range check (and we have DME); you have to do the full procedure.

Interesting . . . . .

fred
Is that something to do with the fact that you have your own radar controller (and a military one in Class D very close by)?
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2018, 17:01
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 71
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by ShyTorque View Post
Is that something to do with the fact that you have your own radar controller (and a military one in Class D very close by)?
If you're talking Biggin, the radar controller is shared with City.
chevvron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.