Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1841277
...have the UK air traffic control service you would wish for.

Having just seen this on a different thread...

T67M wrote:If only we had integrated air traffic control services in the UK working together to expedite ALL flights rather than a whole collection of groups saying "gerouttaMYairspace".


...please excuse the indulgence of my posting this from the Gatwick ATS thread as a stand-alone. Possibly an indulgence too far, in which case no issues from me if it disappears, but it is relevant to the future of air traffic service provision in the UK, and how said provision is unlikely to see much if any improvement in the offering to GA going forward. Indeed the pessimistic would probably say if you think it’s poor now...

—-

NATS Solutions (new Gatwick aerodrome ATS provider from late 2022) is a subsidiary of NATS Services and was incorporated circa 2014 to transfer into the NATS fold staff from some other smaller, previously non NATS, units and operates with different staff T&Cs to Services and NERL.

What with this move to use Solutions at Gatwick rather than Services, plus staff in the wider NERL/Services world recently entering a formal trade dispute with the company as it chooses to walk away unilaterally from a number of employee/employer industrial agreements, there are interesting times ahead.

Does any of this mean anything to GA pilots here though?

Yes, it does. The chances of you ever seeing the integrated seamless UK ATC service you would like GA to have fair and equal access to are further less than zero than they’ve ever been. The business model of the main air traffic control service provider the country has chosen to operate is based purely upon minimising costs to the airlines whilst maximising profit to the shareholders (who also include the airlines). As it now seeks to start tackling more aggressively, in an industrial relations sense, its biggest cost (staff), services to users on the periphery of the airline core, except where minimally required by law or licence, seem somewhat superfluous.

UK ATC and the principal of equal access to all operation of what should be a freely available piece of national infrastructure, the airspace above you, is broken. It’s so broken and fragmented that the biggest ANSP in the country is itself now operating services in full or in part by utilising at least four different subsidiary or partner company entities that I can think of, never mind all the other providers available. How, within such a structure, can there ever be anything other than a disjointed and disconnected mess?

It’s a joke.
johnm, Rob P, G-BLEW and 7 others liked this
#1841279
Let’s face it, the whole commercial aviation sector is pretty screwed right now and the government appears to have taken a strategic punt not to particularly help out. NATS are probably just responding to market conditions and using commercial mechanisms to try and win a competitive tender / stay afloat. If ATCOs decide to try and take industrial action with views to a return to past nationalised halcyon days, I doubt it will end well for them [not trying to be harsh but I think that’s state of the nation]
#1841284
File/report every transit refused.

Get AOPA/GA Council to start poking the DfT with a sharp stick using these stats and try and force them to write into the operability standards/conditions of licence that refusals above a certain level are to have commercial (ie, cost) implications.
ie, once X number of refusals in a given airspace are logged in a year, each further refusal costs 20% of the cost to employ salary of another full time controller.

Unless there's a financial driver, we're pissing in the wind....

Andy
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841286
have the UK air traffic control service you would wish for.


Well because ATC serves primarily the users of the larger airports, and the larger airports primary users are the airlines.

Nobody will do more than is legally required.

So reform has to start from ground up which means better legislation and regulation.

Air traffic services and airspace only is a side effect of what’s is happening on the ground at the airport.

So GA needs to keep fighting for every reasonable access to available runway, ramp, and airspace capacity.

We got empty skies full of inaccessible Class A airspace with threats of license suspension if infringed, and empty runways with total fees of £100+ for sub 2MT off-peak.

It’s a complete joke.

Don’t do this: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=106442
#1841321
MattL wrote:Let’s face it, the whole commercial aviation sector is pretty screwed right now and the government appears to have taken a strategic punt not to particularly help out. NATS are probably just responding to market conditions and using commercial mechanisms to try and win a competitive tender / stay afloat. If ATCOs decide to try and take industrial action with views to a return to past nationalised halcyon days, I doubt it will end well for them [not trying to be harsh but I think that’s state of the nation


The pandemic situation is to a degree irrelevant, it’s only effect has really been to accelerate a process that was already in place.

Ergo the point I was trying, not very successfully, to highlight wasn’t really about the T&Cs of NATS staff. Rather more that there is an ever greater and accelerating systemic shift away from any semblance of a UK air traffic control system that is in place for the benefit, fairly and equally, of all its potential users.
T6Harvard liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841341
Our problem is a very simple one, the whole of policy development is essentially penny wise pound foolish because no-one looks at long term value and no-one looks at the overall strategic picture.

That's why we see Farnboro' granted and Brize Oxford rejected when the issues are similar.

At this point CAA guided by the DfT has only 2 interests, CAT and drones, everything else is just a nuisance.
T6Harvard liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841350
James Chan wrote:and empty runways with total fees of £100+ for sub 2MT off-peak.

If Bournemouth wasn't like this, I'd go there every couple of months, probably, and they'd get two landing fees, as I'd go flying with someone that I'd then need to drop off afterwards.

I wish I understood how even the bean counters justify the fee structures, when the cost to the airport of a light aircraft landing, self-handling, and then taking off again is literally zero, if the services all have to be there anyway and there's loads of spare capacity.
#1841361
UK ATC never has been fully "nationalised", and nor has there been a "national ATC System" as per the USA or France.

Last time i looked there were over 50 separate Air Traffic Service providers in the UK.

Successive UK Governments are responsible for this. It is they who have had the policy, rightly or wrongly, that "user pays" and have never funded a truly national ATC service.

Fully joined up service? Yes, when the government decides to fund it.... can't see that happening anytime soon, can you?

BEX
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841363
There is no reason why there can't be a joined up system with multiple suppliers, it's the structure of airspace and the model for ATC services that's wrong, not the supply mechanism necessarily.

The problem is the lazy and simple minded attitude of successive regimes (especially since the 1980s) which likes to think that that you can create a market that will magically deliver a suitable service. Where there is a real market that can work reasonably well and may only need light touch regulation to keep cowboys under control, but otherwise it's just lazy, simple-minded and delivers an expensive dog's breakfast.
#1841364
Good point. Getting all those 50+ suppliers to agree (or accept) a common standard would be one of the first challenges. Most of the systems employed are bespoke and don't "talk to each other".

Much easier of course if all the ATC suppliers are all from the same (government) supplier.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1841365
I have mentioned elsewhere before - one can also look at the telecoms and utilities sector and see the legislation and role of the regulators to "join up" the services.

Also just because the M6-toll road and other motorway services stations are owned by private companies, does not mean it runs into difficulties "joining up" with the rest of the road network.

Corporate entities may have a hierarchical structure for a variety of reasons but the service as seen to the end-user needs to be satisfactory.
#1841367
I got a transit through the LGW overhead at the weekend but I suspect that was only because the ATCOs were twiddling their thumbs and welcomed some GA to talk to.

Going back 40 years, they had no issues with me in a Turbulent crossing North to South over the terminal with a hand held radio and no transponder.

That’s progress in the UK for you!