COVENTRY
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear twostroke,
Yes, your theory is wacky.
The fact is jet transport aircraft are fast moving, not particularly maneuverable and don't particularly good visibility from the cockpit.
Light aircraft are relatively slow moving, and are usually flown by recreational pilots, who are often either not particularly current or who's skills are still developing. They navigate by ground features and therefore when viewed from a radar screen, their flightpath I would imagine can be quite unpredictable.
As airports without the benefit of being situated in controlled airspace, Coventry airport is pretty unique in that it has regular, scheduled passenger jet operations, is situated slap bang in central England between two major airports with a lot of controlled airspace around them, which recreational pilots are either unwilling or unable to fly through. Therefore there is sometimes a significant concentration of light aircraft activity (quite legally) in or near to the approach paths to Coventry airport who aren't in contact with Coventry air traffic control [ATC], which sometimes makes it problematic for ATC to guide the Thomsonfly 737s around them.
I hope this explains the frequency of airproxes around Coventry airport. By the way, please don't take my comments to mean I think Coventry airport is unsafe. Although the introduction of controlled airspace around Coventry would be beneficial to the airport and it's users, I consider the risks involved in operating into and out of an airport without controlled airspace in the same light as an airport with which it let's say is surrounded by high terrain, or is frequently subjected to very strong winds. Provided these risks are borne in mind, a successful result will occur.
Yes, your theory is wacky.
The fact is jet transport aircraft are fast moving, not particularly maneuverable and don't particularly good visibility from the cockpit.
Light aircraft are relatively slow moving, and are usually flown by recreational pilots, who are often either not particularly current or who's skills are still developing. They navigate by ground features and therefore when viewed from a radar screen, their flightpath I would imagine can be quite unpredictable.
As airports without the benefit of being situated in controlled airspace, Coventry airport is pretty unique in that it has regular, scheduled passenger jet operations, is situated slap bang in central England between two major airports with a lot of controlled airspace around them, which recreational pilots are either unwilling or unable to fly through. Therefore there is sometimes a significant concentration of light aircraft activity (quite legally) in or near to the approach paths to Coventry airport who aren't in contact with Coventry air traffic control [ATC], which sometimes makes it problematic for ATC to guide the Thomsonfly 737s around them.
I hope this explains the frequency of airproxes around Coventry airport. By the way, please don't take my comments to mean I think Coventry airport is unsafe. Although the introduction of controlled airspace around Coventry would be beneficial to the airport and it's users, I consider the risks involved in operating into and out of an airport without controlled airspace in the same light as an airport with which it let's say is surrounded by high terrain, or is frequently subjected to very strong winds. Provided these risks are borne in mind, a successful result will occur.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that might reduce the number of Airproxes at both Doncaster and Coventry would be if Thomsonfly plucked up courage occasionally and actually flew a circuit instead of insisting on 10 nm finals, most of which is conducted in Class G airspace.
Most GA steers clear of the immediate area around an airport, so if a circuit was carried out with a 4 mile final, this would largely eliminate the airprox problem.
Somehow, Thomsonfly aircraft (although I appreciate that it will be TOM's (BY's) inflexible SOPs that require it, don't seem able to make a reasonably short final approach, with the assciated consequences.
No problem with 10 nm finals per se. Great at Bournemouth, Birmingham, Jersey etc., but not at Doncaster or Coventry.
Most GA steers clear of the immediate area around an airport, so if a circuit was carried out with a 4 mile final, this would largely eliminate the airprox problem.
Somehow, Thomsonfly aircraft (although I appreciate that it will be TOM's (BY's) inflexible SOPs that require it, don't seem able to make a reasonably short final approach, with the assciated consequences.
No problem with 10 nm finals per se. Great at Bournemouth, Birmingham, Jersey etc., but not at Doncaster or Coventry.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...err, are you suggesting carrying out an overhead join procedure?
This isn't how jet transport operations are carried out.
Sounds like a recipe for unstable approaches and lots and lots of noise for CVT's neighbours.
This isn't how jet transport operations are carried out.
Sounds like a recipe for unstable approaches and lots and lots of noise for CVT's neighbours.
Thomson in the circuit
Now that would be a site to see, it'd make them Thomson jockeys sweat a bit, might have to put down their coffe cups!!
I can just see it now - "Thompson 49 - Orbit left a couple of times round Bubbenhall will you, you need to wait for HeliChopter in his R22 on finals for Grass 06"
Ahhh the power.
I can just see it now - "Thompson 49 - Orbit left a couple of times round Bubbenhall will you, you need to wait for HeliChopter in his R22 on finals for Grass 06"
Ahhh the power.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bundybear,
"The subsequent investigation by the UK AIB, determines the relevence or severity of the event"
If you are a professional pilot, I would hope you know that a UK Airprox is investiagetd by the UK Airprox Board, not the AIB as you suggest.
Actually, so many incidents filed over the time period involved IS a reason to be concerned. I agree that further CAS IS required, however operations were started without that airspace, and many predicted multiple Airprox problems.
Now, is it wise to continue operations with such a high number, befrore the safety risk can be lowered? I'm sure the full Hazard Analysis for operation from Thomsonfly would make interesting reading in this area, given this Airprox history - if indeed one has even been done?
For what it's worth however, I'm for extending the airspace to allow safe operation. Continuing with a large number of Airprox's however seems stupid, if not neglectfull to ignore......
30W
"The subsequent investigation by the UK AIB, determines the relevence or severity of the event"
If you are a professional pilot, I would hope you know that a UK Airprox is investiagetd by the UK Airprox Board, not the AIB as you suggest.
Actually, so many incidents filed over the time period involved IS a reason to be concerned. I agree that further CAS IS required, however operations were started without that airspace, and many predicted multiple Airprox problems.
Now, is it wise to continue operations with such a high number, befrore the safety risk can be lowered? I'm sure the full Hazard Analysis for operation from Thomsonfly would make interesting reading in this area, given this Airprox history - if indeed one has even been done?
For what it's worth however, I'm for extending the airspace to allow safe operation. Continuing with a large number of Airprox's however seems stupid, if not neglectfull to ignore......
30W
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helichopter - yes that would be rather fun! But what i meant was not quite what NDG implied. I am not suggesting that the B737s make a standard visual circuit, but something a bit wider and higher along the same lines.
At Coventry there is Class D airspace at 1500 ft, and if there is an airprox problem, why not make use of this controlled airspace, fly downwind descending, continue a descending turn on to finals at around the CA NDB, at which time the height will be about 1200 ft. This sort of approach is not difficult to do and is really not a problem from the point of view of a stabilised approach. Unnecessarily long approaches are unwise at Coventry.
Same goes for Doncaster. There is no CA immediately above the aerodrome, but the same pattern would certainly reduce the airprox numbers, Unknown light aircraft are not usually swanning around within 3 or 4 miles of an airport, but ARE at 7 or 8 miles.
Don't forget that it will be at least a year before new CA can be introduced at Coventry and Doncaster, and probably nearer two years at the latter. The proposal document has only just gone out for CVT, and nothing has yet come from Doncaster.
So why not make SOME ATTEMPT to help the situation, instead of TFly either keeping brain in neutral, or just presuming that everyone else is at fault? (Incidentally I am not getting at the overly well-drilled pilots, who don't seem to be given much discretion in BY.)
At Coventry there is Class D airspace at 1500 ft, and if there is an airprox problem, why not make use of this controlled airspace, fly downwind descending, continue a descending turn on to finals at around the CA NDB, at which time the height will be about 1200 ft. This sort of approach is not difficult to do and is really not a problem from the point of view of a stabilised approach. Unnecessarily long approaches are unwise at Coventry.
Same goes for Doncaster. There is no CA immediately above the aerodrome, but the same pattern would certainly reduce the airprox numbers, Unknown light aircraft are not usually swanning around within 3 or 4 miles of an airport, but ARE at 7 or 8 miles.
Don't forget that it will be at least a year before new CA can be introduced at Coventry and Doncaster, and probably nearer two years at the latter. The proposal document has only just gone out for CVT, and nothing has yet come from Doncaster.
So why not make SOME ATTEMPT to help the situation, instead of TFly either keeping brain in neutral, or just presuming that everyone else is at fault? (Incidentally I am not getting at the overly well-drilled pilots, who don't seem to be given much discretion in BY.)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
I had to set down my coffee cup and reply when I read your message!
Heading for a downwind or base leg would bring you out of controlled airspace around the Daventry-Draycott area, an extremely dense area for traffic, with a manoeuvring speeds of around 170kts and probably hand flown. The visual pattern can be a challenge to join in a light aircraft at half that speed with all the other aircraft around. A radar-to-radar join for a straight approach is by far the safer option. The aircraft is configured early and is stable, the automatics can stay in as long as possible, both pilots are alert, situationally aware with plenty of spare capacity, looking out, working with the controller and in a mindset to discontinue the approach with a plan at any stage. I know which one makes more sense to me.
Now back to the coffee!
FBN
I had to set down my coffee cup and reply when I read your message!
Heading for a downwind or base leg would bring you out of controlled airspace around the Daventry-Draycott area, an extremely dense area for traffic, with a manoeuvring speeds of around 170kts and probably hand flown. The visual pattern can be a challenge to join in a light aircraft at half that speed with all the other aircraft around. A radar-to-radar join for a straight approach is by far the safer option. The aircraft is configured early and is stable, the automatics can stay in as long as possible, both pilots are alert, situationally aware with plenty of spare capacity, looking out, working with the controller and in a mindset to discontinue the approach with a plan at any stage. I know which one makes more sense to me.
Now back to the coffee!
FBN
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I often fly patterns similar to that described at airfields such as LCA, PFO and various Greek airfields - and all with aircraft bigger than a 737.
Works very well and one joins finals at about 3 miles, having never ventured farther from the airfield than that! It's only a variation on the circuits you flew during 'aircraft training' during your type rating guys.
Perhaps a reversion back to basics needs to be considered? There is absolutely NO need to have to fly a 10 mile straight-in approach.
BE's traffic patterns need to be considered, and it's not suitable IF light aircraft are in the circuit. If they are, perhaps your using the wrong airfield anyway???
30W
Works very well and one joins finals at about 3 miles, having never ventured farther from the airfield than that! It's only a variation on the circuits you flew during 'aircraft training' during your type rating guys.
Perhaps a reversion back to basics needs to be considered? There is absolutely NO need to have to fly a 10 mile straight-in approach.
BE's traffic patterns need to be considered, and it's not suitable IF light aircraft are in the circuit. If they are, perhaps your using the wrong airfield anyway???
30W
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W30, that sort of thing is necessary in the Greek islands et al due ground equipment inadequacies and/or terrain, it isn't on the whole due to traffic problems, in fact quite the opposite to the issues at CVT.
Visual maneuvering would very close attention of both PF & PNF simply control and monitor the flightpath, to the detriment of looking out for traffic. In any case, British Wx would often make it unfeasible.
An ILS approach, stablised early on and flown with autopilot allows both pilots to keep their eyes outside of the cockpit, and allow the radar controller to do their job.
Visual maneuvering would very close attention of both PF & PNF simply control and monitor the flightpath, to the detriment of looking out for traffic. In any case, British Wx would often make it unfeasible.
An ILS approach, stablised early on and flown with autopilot allows both pilots to keep their eyes outside of the cockpit, and allow the radar controller to do their job.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomsonfly pilots are quite used to, and capable of, visual/circling approaches at weird and wonderful destinations, as are most charter airline pilots.
Contrary to what has been said above, Thomsonfly has no SOP prohibiting visual approaches. However I, and I imagine most crews, manage risk sensibly and opt for the safest option.
FBN
Contrary to what has been said above, Thomsonfly has no SOP prohibiting visual approaches. However I, and I imagine most crews, manage risk sensibly and opt for the safest option.
FBN
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make a fair point, Fly-by-Night, and at least it contributes to the discussion, unlike another comment!
In fact I did not really qualify my position very well, but it takes a long time to include all the ifs and buts , and it would all get a bit long-winded. The main point is, if there IS a problem with Airproxs at Coventry, one should carry out a risk assessment.
The comfort and convenience of pilots is not necessarily the most important thing, although I agree that it IS important. One has to analyse the risk. Are the long approaches a factor? (They may not be) Is it the intermediate approach that is causing the problem (it rather looks like it), could the aircraft be better protected by remaining within CA for longer? (yes) If so, how could they do this?
I still maintain that remaining as close as is reasonable to an airport located in Class G airspace is wise, for the reasons mentioned, and that a policy to try and achieve this in visual conditions would not be a bad idea. (All the airproxes would seem to have occured in visual conditions.)
At Coventry there is a lot of CA above and to the north of the airport. As many B737s (although there are only a few arrivals each day) come from the south or south east, could we not look at (for example) feeding them into the same approach path for BHX rwy 33, as they are on BHX's frequency anyway, and then pick them off over Leamington Spa, ie. before reaching HON, and take them RIGHT-HAND downwind for Coventry's 23, where they would remain in CA until they turned on to finals at (ideally) 4 miles. This would not cause BHX any problems. Bear in mind that aircraft departing CVT have to await release from Birmingham and effectively slot into their departures, so I don't see why they can't do the same on arrival, especially as we have been talking only 4 or 6 arrivals a day this winter. Different arrangements would apply when 15 was in use at BHX.
I am not PROPOSING this, per se, just saying that if the matter was thought through - by risk analysis - there just might be a better way found than the tradional very long finals in Class G (which requires one to fly to the 10nm intercept point through Class G as well as come back in on the approach path in Class G - maybe 20 miles in Class G for each approach to 23).
A good point was make by one poster who said that the only reason TFly and others do tightish visual circuits in Greece and other places is because of the mountains. Obviously it is done for safety reasons: it is safer to not fly close to mountains if one can help it. It is also safer, I suggest, to keep out of Class G as much as possible for the very same reason, and seeing Coventry's CA won't be around for a year or so, it wouldn't do any harm for Birmingham ATS, Coventry ATS, NATS and BY to sit round a table and see if there is a "better way".
In fact I did not really qualify my position very well, but it takes a long time to include all the ifs and buts , and it would all get a bit long-winded. The main point is, if there IS a problem with Airproxs at Coventry, one should carry out a risk assessment.
The comfort and convenience of pilots is not necessarily the most important thing, although I agree that it IS important. One has to analyse the risk. Are the long approaches a factor? (They may not be) Is it the intermediate approach that is causing the problem (it rather looks like it), could the aircraft be better protected by remaining within CA for longer? (yes) If so, how could they do this?
I still maintain that remaining as close as is reasonable to an airport located in Class G airspace is wise, for the reasons mentioned, and that a policy to try and achieve this in visual conditions would not be a bad idea. (All the airproxes would seem to have occured in visual conditions.)
At Coventry there is a lot of CA above and to the north of the airport. As many B737s (although there are only a few arrivals each day) come from the south or south east, could we not look at (for example) feeding them into the same approach path for BHX rwy 33, as they are on BHX's frequency anyway, and then pick them off over Leamington Spa, ie. before reaching HON, and take them RIGHT-HAND downwind for Coventry's 23, where they would remain in CA until they turned on to finals at (ideally) 4 miles. This would not cause BHX any problems. Bear in mind that aircraft departing CVT have to await release from Birmingham and effectively slot into their departures, so I don't see why they can't do the same on arrival, especially as we have been talking only 4 or 6 arrivals a day this winter. Different arrangements would apply when 15 was in use at BHX.
I am not PROPOSING this, per se, just saying that if the matter was thought through - by risk analysis - there just might be a better way found than the tradional very long finals in Class G (which requires one to fly to the 10nm intercept point through Class G as well as come back in on the approach path in Class G - maybe 20 miles in Class G for each approach to 23).
A good point was make by one poster who said that the only reason TFly and others do tightish visual circuits in Greece and other places is because of the mountains. Obviously it is done for safety reasons: it is safer to not fly close to mountains if one can help it. It is also safer, I suggest, to keep out of Class G as much as possible for the very same reason, and seeing Coventry's CA won't be around for a year or so, it wouldn't do any harm for Birmingham ATS, Coventry ATS, NATS and BY to sit round a table and see if there is a "better way".
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shlittlenellie, that was a a very reasonable and persuasive posting, and I accept much of what you write. In fact, I think you make a very fair argument. Please don't get me wrong: I am not having a go at pilots, nor am I really having a go at anyone. The question that originally arose was about airproxes, and I stated that (in my view) there would be less of them if arriving aircraft at CVT and DSA kept closer to the airport concerned, and that 10 nm finals in class G airspae was not basically a good idea.
I am sure you agree with the last aspect of that, but you have still felt it necessary to argue for the long finals approach in Class G.
Fair enough. No decent decisions are ever made without a full discussion of all the points, and you have made some good ones in respect of DSA. I did not know that because of noise abatement criteria you had to intercept the ILS at 2000 ft. But do you HAVE to do a full ILS procedure in visual conditions? Do DSA insist on this? If they do, then they are a significant part of the problem, and whilst they will have introduced the NAP for the best reasons, the Law of Unintended Consequences may have applied itself again.
So if there is a discussion about how to reduce airproxes, maybe DSA themselves should be sat round the table.
Dropping out of CA and finding onesself at 6000 ft over DSA is, I accept, a problem. It does make sense under such circumstances to carry out a tear-drop approach procedure, and it is bound to take you a long way out.
But I still maintain that, fundamentally, the closer you can keep to the airport, the less likely you are to have an airprox. You yourself stated that light aircraft could be at 3nm at 900 ft, 4 mile at 1200 ft, 5 mile at 1500 ft, but you forgot to mention that they could also be, and will more likely be, at 6 mile, 7 mile 8 mile 9 mile and 10 mile. In fact at more than 6 mile I bet most light aircraft pilots think they are far enough away from DSA to relax.
But I read too many PPruNe postings which are just snipings at other posters. I feel your argument is a decent argument with many good points. But we still have to tackle the problem, and it will be a while before DSA has CA. If we could just get the airlines concerned to discuss the problem from a non-arrogant position, it would help. (I am not suggesting that you, Shlittlenellie, are being in the least arrogant.)
I am sure you agree with the last aspect of that, but you have still felt it necessary to argue for the long finals approach in Class G.
Fair enough. No decent decisions are ever made without a full discussion of all the points, and you have made some good ones in respect of DSA. I did not know that because of noise abatement criteria you had to intercept the ILS at 2000 ft. But do you HAVE to do a full ILS procedure in visual conditions? Do DSA insist on this? If they do, then they are a significant part of the problem, and whilst they will have introduced the NAP for the best reasons, the Law of Unintended Consequences may have applied itself again.
So if there is a discussion about how to reduce airproxes, maybe DSA themselves should be sat round the table.
Dropping out of CA and finding onesself at 6000 ft over DSA is, I accept, a problem. It does make sense under such circumstances to carry out a tear-drop approach procedure, and it is bound to take you a long way out.
But I still maintain that, fundamentally, the closer you can keep to the airport, the less likely you are to have an airprox. You yourself stated that light aircraft could be at 3nm at 900 ft, 4 mile at 1200 ft, 5 mile at 1500 ft, but you forgot to mention that they could also be, and will more likely be, at 6 mile, 7 mile 8 mile 9 mile and 10 mile. In fact at more than 6 mile I bet most light aircraft pilots think they are far enough away from DSA to relax.
But I read too many PPruNe postings which are just snipings at other posters. I feel your argument is a decent argument with many good points. But we still have to tackle the problem, and it will be a while before DSA has CA. If we could just get the airlines concerned to discuss the problem from a non-arrogant position, it would help. (I am not suggesting that you, Shlittlenellie, are being in the least arrogant.)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a good way to "reduce" the apparently excessive airproxes would be to annotate on the charts airfields that have an instrument approach. Then all the pilots who wish to fly near there could talk to the relevent ATC and find out if there is any conflicting TFC. Job done 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Daansaaf
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airac - that's already done but I think I know what you're getting at. At the moment, the VFR chart only shows the IAP outside of controlled airspace symbol (chevrons) on one end of the runway and not both, even if there are instrument approaches on both ends. It would be a tiny effort to publish the symbol on both ends and as you say, GA pilots should then call when within 10 miles of each end of the runway and this would contribute to a decrease in potential conflicting traffic.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not another coventry airprox surely...
THE Civil Aviation Authority is investigating why an airline pilot had to take evasive action to avoid hitting a glider flying above Lutterworth.
The incident happened when a B737 pilot, who was undergoing training, was flying into Coventry airport at 2,000ft.
After picking the glider up on his radar he was advised to turn left to avoid 'direct conflict with the traffic', which was less than a mile away.
THE Civil Aviation Authority is investigating why an airline pilot had to take evasive action to avoid hitting a glider flying above Lutterworth.
The incident happened when a B737 pilot, who was undergoing training, was flying into Coventry airport at 2,000ft.
After picking the glider up on his radar he was advised to turn left to avoid 'direct conflict with the traffic', which was less than a mile away.
Just got my brand new, hot of the press, 1/2 mil chart for the South and Wales (Issue 32) which now has both approaches for Cov, 05 and 23 marked. Although only one for Doncaster.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story was in yesterdays 'harborough today'. (so must be true..
)
http://www.harboroughtoday.co.uk/Vie...icleID=1396635
) http://www.harboroughtoday.co.uk/Vie...icleID=1396635
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat...
And I thought the Coventry plates always said a min of 5NM for a vis join?
No, I thought the safety of the passengers was the most important thing.
There has been a conflict at CVT for the past few years with increasing heavy commercial traffic and GA traffic of mixed ability and awareness. Given some private pilots fear of talking to ATC -I used to see this at Derby, where they would try to avoid talking to East Mids - more incidents will occur as traffic flow increases unless the CAS is integrated with the two major airports around CVT.
GA, if it wants to survive there will have to learn better RT, situational awareness and understand how commercial traffic operates.
One thing that might reduce the number of Airproxes at both Doncaster and Coventry would be if Thomsonfly plucked up courage occasionally and actually flew a circuit instead of insisting on 10 nm finals, most of which is conducted in Class G airspace.
Most GA steers clear of the immediate area around an airport, so if a circuit was carried out with a 4 mile final, this would largely eliminate the airprox problem.
Most GA steers clear of the immediate area around an airport, so if a circuit was carried out with a 4 mile final, this would largely eliminate the airprox problem.
The comfort and convenience of pilots is not necessarily the most important thing,
No, I thought the safety of the passengers was the most important thing.There has been a conflict at CVT for the past few years with increasing heavy commercial traffic and GA traffic of mixed ability and awareness. Given some private pilots fear of talking to ATC -I used to see this at Derby, where they would try to avoid talking to East Mids - more incidents will occur as traffic flow increases unless the CAS is integrated with the two major airports around CVT.
GA, if it wants to survive there will have to learn better RT, situational awareness and understand how commercial traffic operates.