Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

NATS not so keen on IFR GA

https://airtrafficmanagement.keypublishing.com/2018/09/10/breaking-out-of-the-blame-cycle-2/

For example, EASA’s aim to grant GA traffic greater access to IFR airspace is a fine notion in principle, but no consideration is given to the impact on commercial airline capacity and whether ANSPs will then be able to meet the requirements of the performance scheme. This kind of approach is driving the wrong behaviours and creating perverse outcomes.

The view on the above from IAOPA:

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Lord have mercy.

Why do I get the feeling that NATS and the CAA in the UK is always run by old crusty ex-military GA haters that are firmly in the pocket of airlines? It’s like that NATS video they keep releasing about every 2 weeks (they love it) showing how some GA aircraft interrupts the arrivals into Heathrow and they have to scatter them all over Greater Britain to avoid this “immense and imminent threat” from a transponder aircraft….. You can literally hear them wring their hands at any opportunity to shame their favorite nemesis, GA.

There’s a word for it: superiority complex.

My God, please relieve us from this incompetence. “Professionals” who find it so impossibly hard to manage even the lightest of GA IFR traffic alongside their little darling airlines. Maybe they should stick to driving minicabs with a GPS doing turn by turn in a female soothing voice if the air traffic burden is that overwhelming?

Now, that felt better!

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 28 Dec 00:12

Adam, as an ex-military man I take issue with your assertion. Perhaps you should submit an FOI request about the number of ex-military in the CAA (and NATS, if they would give you the information) before spouting-off a well rehearsed myth?

I’ll give you a hand.

NATS https://www.nats.aero/about-us/board-executive/

One ex-RAF on the Board and one in the Executive.

CAA https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/About-us/CAA-board-and-staff/

Two, one of whom is full-time RAF and there as part of the UK’s Joint & Integrated approach to ATM.

Last Edited by Dave_Phillips at 28 Dec 09:09
Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

But being “clearly in the pocket of airlines” is not a myth….

NATS: A public private partnership. NATS is a public private partnership between the Airline Group, which holds 42%, NATS staff who hold 5%, UK airport operator LHR Airports Limited with 4%, and the government which holds 49%, and a golden share.

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

Well, they are the majority customer, by an awfully long way.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

A bit of a circular argument, that. The main reason that they’re the majority customer is the success of the “establishment’s” efforts to cripple GA. If it weren’t for the CAA and NATS, GA would have a much easier time of it and be far more active.

Last Edited by Katamarino at 28 Dec 10:13
Kent, UK

It’s reasonable to say that the tens/hundreds of millions of people who use airspace as passengers should have a bit more ‘say’ than the few (tens) of thousands who operate PA28s etc.

Sticking with the circular argument, I speculate there are a significant number of people on this forum who benefit from being Airline Group shareholders, either directly or as part of an investment/pension scheme. That’s the way the world turns.

Last Edited by Dave_Phillips at 28 Dec 10:47
Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

You are technically right Dave, but if we accept this logic (their logic), we are dead in the long term.
UK has decided to give(sell at least) ATC to the airlines, I hope everyone was aware of the consequences when it was done.
That’s the current debate in the US and they fight hard to not get where you British are now.

Just read that Vinci has bought 50% of Gatwick and they want to increase traffic drastically (70 million passengers on 2 parallel runways WTF??). The more it goes, the more pressure they put on the ATC world to increase capacity, the more GA will be put in a corner.
FYI , Vinci is about to buy ALL the Paris airports (LFPT, LFPN, LFPL included).

LFOU, France

The logic is development of smart airspace management. EC, ADSB, Known Traffic environments etc. The logic is actually more regulated airspace with easier access.

Fly safely
Various UK. Operate throughout Europe and Middle East, United Kingdom

But when there appears to be a bias and view against more access to GA because they are viewed as a problem it seems wishful extra airspace would result in easier access

38 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top