Radar requirement in CAS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the north
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radar requirement in CAS
Have been watching the NATS/Infringement/AWARE converstions on various forums and it has left me wondering whether a working and manned radar with transponder interrogation facility is a requirement for controlled airspace?
I imagine so and would expect that if something isn't available then all commercial air traffic stops or is diverted.
But am I correct?
I imagine so and would expect that if something isn't available then all commercial air traffic stops or is diverted.
But am I correct?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are incorrect. There are plenty places (North Atlantic tracks for instance) where radar cover is not available or not sufficiently reliable. In that case the controllers and pilots work procedure-based, with fixed tracks and speeds, mandatory position reports and such.
Having radar allows for giving vectors though, which greatly increases the capacity of a terminal area, and places like the London area would not be able to handle the amount of traffic they do without it. But radar is not an absolute requirement for controlled airspace.
Having radar allows for giving vectors though, which greatly increases the capacity of a terminal area, and places like the London area would not be able to handle the amount of traffic they do without it. But radar is not an absolute requirement for controlled airspace.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
In the UK the CAA will not grant an application for new terminal controlled airspace unless the airport concerned has radar, and that means both primary and secondary. Airports with CAS are allowed to operate with the radar temporarily unserviceable but not on any long-term basis.
According to the Eurocontrol Surveillance Standard, all en route controlled airspace must have duplicated SSR coverage. In the UK en route airspace has primary cover as well.
NS
According to the Eurocontrol Surveillance Standard, all en route controlled airspace must have duplicated SSR coverage. In the UK en route airspace has primary cover as well.
NS
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Europe, more or less all "airways" flight is under radar control the whole time. I have flown a few procedural approaches but don't recall a single instant where it appeared that I was not under radar control.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK is the only country in the world that donīt let the airspace determine the level of ATS service provided. Instead of the
"Nothing -> Procedural ATC with ATZ -> Radar ATC with ATZ -> Radar ATC in CAS
the rest of the world do the
"Nothing -> Introduce ATC in E or higher airspace -> Determine if surveilance is required -> Move from procedural to radar ATC
bit
Would make the UK APOPA and MOD go ballistic Iīm sure
"Nothing -> Procedural ATC with ATZ -> Radar ATC with ATZ -> Radar ATC in CAS
the rest of the world do the
"Nothing -> Introduce ATC in E or higher airspace -> Determine if surveilance is required -> Move from procedural to radar ATC
bit
Would make the UK APOPA and MOD go ballistic Iīm sure
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
M609:
Not sure I understand you.
Class A: radar service at all times
Class C: radar service at all times
Class D: radar service at all times
Class E: radar service at all times (for those aircraft receiving a service)
Class F: radar service where available; otherwise procedural (for those aircraft participating in the service)
Class G: anything from radar service to nothing
How's that different?
NS
The UK is the only country in the world that donīt let the airspace determine the level of ATS service provided
Class A: radar service at all times
Class C: radar service at all times
Class D: radar service at all times
Class E: radar service at all times (for those aircraft receiving a service)
Class F: radar service where available; otherwise procedural (for those aircraft participating in the service)
Class G: anything from radar service to nothing
How's that different?
NS
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure of exactly what M609 was saying, but I think the gist of it was that other countries do it differently.
Eg. Ireland:
Class A: Do we need radar? If so put it in. If not, then don't bother, and just control procedurally.
Class C: Do we need radar? If so put it in. If not, then don't bother, and just control procedurally.
Class G: Do we need radar? If so put it in. If not, then don't bother, and just provide a non-radar based FIS.
Eg. Ireland:
Class A: Do we need radar? If so put it in. If not, then don't bother, and just control procedurally.
Class C: Do we need radar? If so put it in. If not, then don't bother, and just control procedurally.
Class G: Do we need radar? If so put it in. If not, then don't bother, and just provide a non-radar based FIS.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an example, most large UK airports are in Class D airspace (apart from the London TMA ones). If the radar failed, most of those airports' ATC units have procedures to continue "procedurally" ie without radar. It's slow and inefficient, but safe if done properly, as the airspace is a known traffic environment (ie all a/c need permission to enter, therefore ATC know who's there). So no need to send everybody away, but if you're only landing one every ten minutes (for example), anyone who's not in the first 4 or 5 of the sequence probably won't have the fuel to hang around to enjoy it!!!!!
(although some ATC units can use mosaic or composite radar pictures, from a number of sources, thus improving reliability)
(although some ATC units can use mosaic or composite radar pictures, from a number of sources, thus improving reliability)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather that the London airports have multiple radar backups, because they would never be able to handle more than a fraction of the traffic procedurally. The system would collapse without radar.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
The London control units would indeed collapse without radar. Its bad enough just trying to get a call in on some of those frequencies such is the traffic volume never mind pilot interpretated seperation and arrivals/departures.
Most airports take aircraft off the Stars and Sids with vectors in the UK especially around London.
The controllers can control seperation by controlling speed to space out aircraft by using radar.
Abroad there seems to be a much larger use of pilot interpretated approaches and departures while in the UK ATC rely more on radar.
Pace
The London control units would indeed collapse without radar. Its bad enough just trying to get a call in on some of those frequencies such is the traffic volume never mind pilot interpretated seperation and arrivals/departures.
Most airports take aircraft off the Stars and Sids with vectors in the UK especially around London.
The controllers can control seperation by controlling speed to space out aircraft by using radar.
Abroad there seems to be a much larger use of pilot interpretated approaches and departures while in the UK ATC rely more on radar.
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the level of ATS service provided
Level of service IMHO has nothing to do with what tool atc uses, but the level of protection given, in other words separation, advisory or information in accordance with the given airspace class.
dublinpilot got my point actually
In other words, if you want a controller doing any kind of controlling you need class E or higher. Controller working aircraft in class G will never give service abouve flight information in the ICAO world. Will the flight information service be better if based on radar og ADS-B etc? Sure. But itīs still a flight information service.
ICAO, need a controller: get the airspace
If you have a quiet regional airport that you need controlled, because the customer (airline or whatever) wants/needs it, you publish the required amount of controlled airspace to protect the customers flight, and get approach and tower monkeys to provide service in it.
If the airport is really quiet, the local flyging club and glider mob can still get into the airspace if itīs say Class D/E even without the approach monkey getting a radar scope to stare at. If the nasty Irish fellow and his airline decide to kick off big time at your regional airport, you might have to fork over some cash to some CNS company to buy the scope for the approach monkey to avoid delays.
Airspace/level of protection first -> Tools to achive that is a secondary concern.
M609, radar approach monkey in Class C TMA with multiple MSSR and dual PSR coverage. Any failure of those and we move from 3 to 5nm radar spacing.....and welcome significant delays.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by M609
Level of service IMHO has nothing to do with what tool atc uses, but the level of protection given, in other words separation, advisory or information in accordance with the given airspace class.
Without going into lots of generic detail, this problem is illustrated quite simply. Whilst many States allow IFR flight outside CAS, few permit an ATC service to be provided without CAS. However, the UK has grown up with various levels of ATC service - some unique to the UK because they had to be invented to deal with the problems that arise from not applying all of the 'rules'. As a result, it has been accepted practise for commercial fare-paying passengers to travel through some parts of UK airspace without the protection that the international rules (mainly the ICAO SARPs) are designed to provide.
There have been long periods during which airports with significant amounts of commercial traffic using big, fast moving aircraft types have not been connected to the airways system (Newcastle and Bristol spring to mind). Consequently, to use these airports, the carriers have had no option but to fly though 'injun country' without the protection provided by any form of CAS.
Sorry to take the thread off at a tangent but what I'm really trying to say is that people with experience only of UK airspace and ATS arrangements may not immediately recognise the principles upon which airspace structures and levels of ATS are more normally based.
But don't worry, in a few years, EASA will set the rules and the whole of Europe will operate to a single set of rules. Let's hope EASA gets those rules right though!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I doubt if we can ever get to the sort of ICAO-definition airspace/ATC system in the UK that M609 describes. One of the biggest difficulties is that the UK is a small place with a (relatively) big air force. Introduction of the Typhoon has swallowed up enormous swathes of airspace in the North Sea. Elsewhere, especially up and down the east coast where most of the military operates, attempts to expand CAS around regional airports in Class G have come up against strong MoD resistance - Doncaster Sheffield (CAS to the east chopped due to MoD pressure, forcing IFR traffic to/from east into extended routings); Humberside (proposed CAS not connected to airways), Norwich (proposed CAS not connected to airways), Inverness (proposed CAS not connected to airways).
It may be that the forthcoming inevitable cuts in the size of the air force might allow more room for more CAS, but I doubt it. And that's without taking account of GA opposition to CAS expansion.
NS
It may be that the forthcoming inevitable cuts in the size of the air force might allow more room for more CAS, but I doubt it. And that's without taking account of GA opposition to CAS expansion.
NS
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A RAF controller once tried to tell me why CTR/TMA world never work around an RAF base, the lack of any real arguments was evident.
Funny how well the Uk MOD manage to operate in CAS when they go abroad, even if they are record holders for busting airspace..............
The outdated focus on low level ops probably makes them feel they need glass G all over.
Someone should call their bluff one of these days, MIL ops donīt need class G, MIL ops need airspace alocated to do training, and if Flexible use of airspace did get implemented in the UK (Instead of just saying "Itīs done" and keeping almost everything the same......) the civilian traffic could enjoy more of "the militarys airspace" when they dontīt fly!
Funny how well the Uk MOD manage to operate in CAS when they go abroad, even if they are record holders for busting airspace..............
The outdated focus on low level ops probably makes them feel they need glass G all over.
Someone should call their bluff one of these days, MIL ops donīt need class G, MIL ops need airspace alocated to do training, and if Flexible use of airspace did get implemented in the UK (Instead of just saying "Itīs done" and keeping almost everything the same......) the civilian traffic could enjoy more of "the militarys airspace" when they dontīt fly!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the two posts above resonates with a lot of other stuff I've heard from UK ATC insiders.
It can rarely be discussed openly in the UK, without one getting jumped on, because of rank-closing by military and ex-military people involved in aviation.
The UK may think it has a big air force but surely a much more accurate description is that it instead has very well placed people safeguarding its interests.
The UK doesn't really operate airspace according to ICAO. UK Class D is operated more or less like Class A (with the proviso that it is possible for an IMC Rated pilot to get an "IFR" crossing of UK D).
UK Class A should be Class C but the powers to be don't want to provide a service to non-airways traffic which they would have to provide if it was Class C (VFR is possible in C).
The new UK privatised ATC system has screwed up everything. You can forget GPS approaches ever becoming useful, because the company which the approach controller works for is going to invoice the airfield (per approach or per year) and all but the biggest GA airfields with high net worth bizjet clients (e.g. Biggin Hill) cannot afford that.
The only consolation we have here is the widespread Class G, which is practically totally unregulated and unsupervised (if you are a bit of a cowboy you can operate "VFR" to/from from any Class G airfield under OVC005) which is safe if one doesn't hang around below ~ 1500ft enroute, and the issue with hitting jets in Class G goes away if one has a Mode C/S transponder
It can rarely be discussed openly in the UK, without one getting jumped on, because of rank-closing by military and ex-military people involved in aviation.
The UK may think it has a big air force but surely a much more accurate description is that it instead has very well placed people safeguarding its interests.
The UK doesn't really operate airspace according to ICAO. UK Class D is operated more or less like Class A (with the proviso that it is possible for an IMC Rated pilot to get an "IFR" crossing of UK D).
UK Class A should be Class C but the powers to be don't want to provide a service to non-airways traffic which they would have to provide if it was Class C (VFR is possible in C).
The new UK privatised ATC system has screwed up everything. You can forget GPS approaches ever becoming useful, because the company which the approach controller works for is going to invoice the airfield (per approach or per year) and all but the biggest GA airfields with high net worth bizjet clients (e.g. Biggin Hill) cannot afford that.
The only consolation we have here is the widespread Class G, which is practically totally unregulated and unsupervised (if you are a bit of a cowboy you can operate "VFR" to/from from any Class G airfield under OVC005) which is safe if one doesn't hang around below ~ 1500ft enroute, and the issue with hitting jets in Class G goes away if one has a Mode C/S transponder
