Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1694479
CloudHound wrote:The Air Navigation Order gives the CAA power to direct an air traffic service be provided.

More importantly a 'particular level of ATS' whether AFIS or ATC, plus with ATC they can also direct whether just aerodrome control or aerodrome and approach control be provided; I once witnessed an ATS inspector saying this to an aerodrome operator.
By johnm
#1694617
The emerging solution is remote tower technology, from a control room controllers can provide traffic sequencing to a number of airports. If we lived in a well ordered world then for example Brize could provide ATC for Brize, Oxford, Gloucester, Kemble, Fairford and Benson using that arrangement.
By chevvron
#1694620
johnm wrote:The emerging solution is remote tower technology, from a control room controllers can provide traffic sequencing to a number of airports. If we lived in a well ordered world then for example Brize could provide ATC for Brize, Oxford, Gloucester, Kemble, Fairford and Benson using that arrangement.

I think you'd find both Gloucester and Oxford would be far too busy for that and Kemble being AFIS the CAA are unlikely to approve a 'mix' of types of service, all this apart from the fact Brize is RAF anyway.
By johnm
#1694622
chevvron wrote:
johnm wrote:The emerging solution is remote tower technology, from a control room controllers can provide traffic sequencing to a number of airports. If we lived in a well ordered world then for example Brize could provide ATC for Brize, Oxford, Gloucester, Kemble, Fairford and Benson using that arrangement.


I think you'd find both Gloucester and Oxford would be far too busy for that and Kemble being AFIS the CAA are unlikely to approve a 'mix' of types of service, all this apart from the fact Brize is RAF anyway.



You highlight the problem in a nutshell. It would be perfectly possible to do what the US do and the French do. Sequence traffic from a regional centre and provide FISO cover or remote tower cover as makes most sense. it's politics and regulatory and organisational ineptitude that stops us being able to use the technology in practical and manageable ways. If we followed the pattern I suggest we could establish a critical mass of ATCO skills in one place and thus sickness, training cover etc. could be dealt with sensibly. At busy fields remote tower would be needed alongside approach control, at the less busy fields traffic could be sequenced and left to its own devices as is done in the states, where one can be vectored onto an ILS approach to a deserted field by someone 300 miles away.
#1694646
NDB_hold wrote:True but the USA has the advantage of blanket Class E - which is fine if you have blanket ATC cover - so you know if you are IMC, no one else will be in the same airspace at the same time.

Plus the FAA controls all area radar traffic unlike in the UK where Swanwick or Scottish Mil controls military traffic outside regulated airspace.
#1694656
and Kemble being AFIS the CAA are unlikely to approve a 'mix' of types of service, all this apart from the fact Brize is RAF anyway.

Good news is that Kemble and Brize already have an excellent working relationship covered by a Letter of Agreement.

As part of the CAP1616 Airspace Change Proposal an enhanced form of cooperation is envisaged. The CAA are fully aware of plans and these will be more fully elaborated in the public consultation on Kemble's proposed approaches.

More here https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/organizationsearch/ search Kemble on the drop down box. :thumright: