Inverness ILS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inverness ILS
With the introduction of ILS at Inverness, to come on line shortly, how many of those that regularly fly into the airport would prefer to receive vectors, to intercept the Localiser from Lossie Radar, rather than continue in the same procedural vain as the VOR/DME procedures?
I don't care. Which ever one gets me onto the approach the quickest. Sometimes that's pilot interpreted using backcourse/DME ARC/direct entry from a fix/whatever, other times radar vectored. Mind you, I come from a system where it's not necessary to have ATC in attendance to do an instrument approach - precision or otherwise - so that colours my opinion.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think jack-oh was hoping for comments from Pilots who actually operate into INV!
Vectors are always welcome, that extra set of eyes watching over us is much appreciated from you Lossie lot! I would much prefer safety over speed onto the approach anyday!
Vectors are always welcome, that extra set of eyes watching over us is much appreciated from you Lossie lot! I would much prefer safety over speed onto the approach anyday!
re operate into INV. Yes, I do. INV is my usual alternate for Aberdeen. I said I come from somewhere etc etc. I did not say I'm still there.
As for your supposed safety argument: No accident statistics I've seen, whether from Oz, USA, Canada or UK show a different safety outcome related to whether or not ATC is present (all other factors being equal ie traffic density). Thousands of unsupervised instrument approaches are flown every day. How many come crashing to the ground because ATC weren't there to clear you for a pilot interpreted? Similarly, how do you feel about operating in IMC in the G airspace in Scotland?
Also, if you consider getting from A --> B quickly to be detrimental to safety do you fly around at reduced speed? Or take a longer way round if it's not necessary?
As for your supposed safety argument: No accident statistics I've seen, whether from Oz, USA, Canada or UK show a different safety outcome related to whether or not ATC is present (all other factors being equal ie traffic density). Thousands of unsupervised instrument approaches are flown every day. How many come crashing to the ground because ATC weren't there to clear you for a pilot interpreted? Similarly, how do you feel about operating in IMC in the G airspace in Scotland?
Also, if you consider getting from A --> B quickly to be detrimental to safety do you fly around at reduced speed? Or take a longer way round if it's not necessary?
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 18th Jun 2003 at 00:28.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh Tinny, ya can't reason with em, mate.
They are brought up with this WW2-style "talk the pilot down" radar vectors non-sense and they feel naked without it. Most of em couldn't manage to find the ILS without vectors.
They are, in effect flying with a full-time navigator - a ground-based navigator on the end of the radio.
It's inefficient and anachronistic, but they love it. And it creates employment, so I can't see it changing anytime soon.
In this day and age we should all be flying GPS arrivals to an ILS approach. This ground-based radar vectors stuff is past its use-by date.
They are brought up with this WW2-style "talk the pilot down" radar vectors non-sense and they feel naked without it. Most of em couldn't manage to find the ILS without vectors.
They are, in effect flying with a full-time navigator - a ground-based navigator on the end of the radio.
It's inefficient and anachronistic, but they love it. And it creates employment, so I can't see it changing anytime soon.
In this day and age we should all be flying GPS arrivals to an ILS approach. This ground-based radar vectors stuff is past its use-by date.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will probably be some time before that happens.
The CAA will have to approve any official procedures for vectoring on to the instrument approach at a civil airport by atcos who are not CAA licensed or validated at Inverness, and I'm not sure that as a fare paying passenger I would like to the aircraft I was flying in to take up that option just to save a few minutes.
I know that sometime ago, there was some talk of Lossi' providing "radar assistance" to aircraft operating in and out of INV, but thats a completely different matter to what's being discussed here.
The only real solution is for Inverness to install it's own radar and operate it with it's own staff, which is very unlikely.
The CAA will have to approve any official procedures for vectoring on to the instrument approach at a civil airport by atcos who are not CAA licensed or validated at Inverness, and I'm not sure that as a fare paying passenger I would like to the aircraft I was flying in to take up that option just to save a few minutes.
I know that sometime ago, there was some talk of Lossi' providing "radar assistance" to aircraft operating in and out of INV, but thats a completely different matter to what's being discussed here.
The only real solution is for Inverness to install it's own radar and operate it with it's own staff, which is very unlikely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: the far side of the moon
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your point about licensing NikNak however Mil ATCOs provide an ever increasing amount of services to Civil aircraft making approaches to Mil airfields. The difference between that and providing vectors within a well thought out framework of procedures eludes me. Furthermore, it seems quite odd in this day and age that the CAA still only provide licenses to ATCOs who ostensibly work for private companies, who operate for the sake of making profit, rather than ones that work for a different government department. On the topic of Inverness getting its own radar; they have looked at it and the same problems come up repeatedly: cost and coverage. In order to get the second the first is horrendous. From our point of view, we see so many delays that could be averted with a turn to the left or the right earlier on. Equally, as all this is done in class G airspace we often see conflicting traffic appear once the aircraft have gone over to Inverness for their procedural approach. We often tell Inverness about the traffic but there is very little they can do about it. As a personnel view, it would seem much safer and more expeditious to provide vectors to the localiser than continue in the present vain.
On the point about pilots not being able to find their own way, this is obviously nonsense. However, I haven’t met one yet who would sequence themselves as number 4.
On the point about pilots not being able to find their own way, this is obviously nonsense. However, I haven’t met one yet who would sequence themselves as number 4.
'Course we do. Happens a lot in Oz. An RPT Dash-8 inbound to Country Town, Oz, + their competition on a very similar timetable + a couple or few of charter a/c + an IFR training flight + departures etc etc.
We were all able to stack ourselves in the hold, adjust speed, wait for one guy to report departing to the south before departing to the north, set up on a DME arc while someone else took off etc etc.
ATC can make things more efficient. Not necessarily, but that's the intent, one hopes.
We were all able to stack ourselves in the hold, adjust speed, wait for one guy to report departing to the south before departing to the north, set up on a DME arc while someone else took off etc etc.
ATC can make things more efficient. Not necessarily, but that's the intent, one hopes.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point of order, Mr. Chairman!
BIK mate... how many places in Oz have an ILS without an ATC presence? All of them? Not really. Coming into YSSY, I've always been given vectors to a pilot intercept, unless coming in from Bindook, of course! 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In essence the answer is quite simple. The CAA [SRG] would have to approve the radar vectoring procedures in conjunction with the RAF.
A letter of agreement between Inverness and Lossiemouth would then be entered into.
The other solution would be to place civil approach radar controllers at Lossie, with ADC only at INV.
All this comes under the heading of Politics.
On over 50% of days into INV , I make a visual approach anyway.
A letter of agreement between Inverness and Lossiemouth would then be entered into.
The other solution would be to place civil approach radar controllers at Lossie, with ADC only at INV.
All this comes under the heading of Politics.
On over 50% of days into INV , I make a visual approach anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was recently flying from there as a PPL and was discussing this very subject with a couple of instructors.
During the "busy" period in the afternoon (7 or 8 movements per hour!) the procedural approaches seem to really tie things up. Due to lack of taxiways, nothing on the ground seems to be able to move between the time an inbound calls up approach and when it comes to rest on the apron. I'd have thought that if INV was to get much busier there would need to be some sort of radar service to relieve this pressure.
As I say, I'm just interested in this as an 'amatuer' with no IR and thus no real knowledge of procedural approaches, so feel free to put me right if required. Still, I enjoyed the novelty of sitting at the hold watching 737's join downwind rather than just suddenly 'appearing' on final.
During the "busy" period in the afternoon (7 or 8 movements per hour!) the procedural approaches seem to really tie things up. Due to lack of taxiways, nothing on the ground seems to be able to move between the time an inbound calls up approach and when it comes to rest on the apron. I'd have thought that if INV was to get much busier there would need to be some sort of radar service to relieve this pressure.
As I say, I'm just interested in this as an 'amatuer' with no IR and thus no real knowledge of procedural approaches, so feel free to put me right if required. Still, I enjoyed the novelty of sitting at the hold watching 737's join downwind rather than just suddenly 'appearing' on final.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inverness
A procedural approach service is slow due to the minimum separation required. [see Manual of Air Traffic Services part one]
There are however certain "tricks of the trade" which can be employed to increase the flow rate. VMC arrivals/departures. Visual approaches [still IFR], declaring VFR, when conditions permit.
Another factor is the way in which Lossie Radar operate as the quasi approach radar function. It is not all down to the ATC guys at Inverness.
Inverness in the main is quite, apart from the "teatime rush" which you have seen.
The timing of inbounds against outbounds is critical to the overall flow rate.
And finally, no question is stupid if it improves your understanding.
Keep asking - it is the only way you will learn. I am sure there are some excellent IMC rating books which will explain matters.
Please ask if you don't quite understand any matter. That is how I learnt. Next time you are in INV, ask if you can visit ATC.
There are however certain "tricks of the trade" which can be employed to increase the flow rate. VMC arrivals/departures. Visual approaches [still IFR], declaring VFR, when conditions permit.
Another factor is the way in which Lossie Radar operate as the quasi approach radar function. It is not all down to the ATC guys at Inverness.
Inverness in the main is quite, apart from the "teatime rush" which you have seen.
The timing of inbounds against outbounds is critical to the overall flow rate.
And finally, no question is stupid if it improves your understanding.
Keep asking - it is the only way you will learn. I am sure there are some excellent IMC rating books which will explain matters.
Please ask if you don't quite understand any matter. That is how I learnt. Next time you are in INV, ask if you can visit ATC.
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day OzExpat,
"...how many places in Oz have an ILS without an ATC presence?"
Off the top of my head, and just for starters, Canberra, Essendon, Avalon, Tamworth, Richmond, Newcastle (Williamtown) - all during non-tower hours when they become MBZs.
"...how many places in Oz have an ILS without an ATC presence?"
Off the top of my head, and just for starters, Canberra, Essendon, Avalon, Tamworth, Richmond, Newcastle (Williamtown) - all during non-tower hours when they become MBZs.
The Direct Arrival procedures at Inverness look pretty flexible and not significantly longer than radar vectors would be.
Is the issue the trajectory that has to be followed for a procedural approach, or is it separation in the procedure having to be one-at-a-time?
Is the issue the trajectory that has to be followed for a procedural approach, or is it separation in the procedure having to be one-at-a-time?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rumour is there is going to be 16 new plates issued for the new approaches.
Also there is a problem with a sensitive zone at the end of 24 at 06 threshold so everything will need to remain in the stack until the current plane is on the apron.
So I should imagine the usual suspects will go for the VOR/DME approach so they can be cleared outbound faster.
To be honest I don't know if the ILS will make much difference to the airport remaining open. We have had maybe 10 days last year with Haar and as its only Cat 1 I can't see it helping in those conditions.
H'mm the politics of Lossie and INV ouch.
No doudt once the ILS is operational the controlled airspace debate will rear its ugly head again. (Which I am all in favour for BTW)
MJ
And also they will be redoing the Runway numbers as well so good bye 06-24
Also there is a problem with a sensitive zone at the end of 24 at 06 threshold so everything will need to remain in the stack until the current plane is on the apron.
So I should imagine the usual suspects will go for the VOR/DME approach so they can be cleared outbound faster.
To be honest I don't know if the ILS will make much difference to the airport remaining open. We have had maybe 10 days last year with Haar and as its only Cat 1 I can't see it helping in those conditions.
H'mm the politics of Lossie and INV ouch.
No doudt once the ILS is operational the controlled airspace debate will rear its ugly head again. (Which I am all in favour for BTW)
MJ
And also they will be redoing the Runway numbers as well so good bye 06-24
Last edited by mad_jock; 24th Jun 2003 at 01:58.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inverness VOR/DME v. ILS
I would suggest that ILS availability will have a significant benefit to operators. Not a complete panacea, but certainty a major step forward when low cloud bases exist.
A reduction of about 50% in the decision altitude/height with the associated lower RVR minima is good news.
As for CAS, that is a separate issue all together.
A reduction of about 50% in the decision altitude/height with the associated lower RVR minima is good news.
As for CAS, that is a separate issue all together.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't know much about the history of INV's ILS but globally the hazards of non-precision approaches, especially when there's high ground in the area, are a hot topic. Think back to ZRH.
In these days of safety management INV certainly has a few hazards that will be reduced by the installation of an ILS. It may not be a simple matter of 'keeping the airport open'.
In these days of safety management INV certainly has a few hazards that will be reduced by the installation of an ILS. It may not be a simple matter of 'keeping the airport open'.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen the new minima so can't comment.
For those that don't know there is a huge amount of politics between Lossie and INV tower, rules for controlling RAF and rules for controlling for the Civi's.
And I presume if Lossie are aiming to get vectoring rights it will mean that the twr controllers will be grumpy feckers until its all sorted out.
MJ
For those that don't know there is a huge amount of politics between Lossie and INV tower, rules for controlling RAF and rules for controlling for the Civi's.
And I presume if Lossie are aiming to get vectoring rights it will mean that the twr controllers will be grumpy feckers until its all sorted out.
MJ
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: sector 001
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way forward ?
The status quo is likely to be the best short term solution to this issue.
"Communication" however, is probably necessary in the medium/long term, between the interested parties to understand more fully the issues involved.
The bottom line? Simple - protect the traffic in the vicinity of Inverness.
"Communication" however, is probably necessary in the medium/long term, between the interested parties to understand more fully the issues involved.
The bottom line? Simple - protect the traffic in the vicinity of Inverness.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree totally about protecting the IFR traffic.
But unfortunately its all class G.
I heared a EAZY skipper today enquire who was responsible for traffic seperation. After getting a bit nervous of a GA over the city.
And by the sounds of talking to the pilot of the GA he should have been.
A far better way to ensure the safety of traffic incoming into Inverness is not to vector it round the sky but organise some controlled airspace protecting the inbound routes and procedures. But of course the Mil dosen't like that idea.
MJ
But unfortunately its all class G.
I heared a EAZY skipper today enquire who was responsible for traffic seperation. After getting a bit nervous of a GA over the city.
And by the sounds of talking to the pilot of the GA he should have been.
A far better way to ensure the safety of traffic incoming into Inverness is not to vector it round the sky but organise some controlled airspace protecting the inbound routes and procedures. But of course the Mil dosen't like that idea.
MJ