Thomsonfly - CVT

[martinhardy]

Hi,

Im flying out of CVT with Thomsonfly soon, this forum has made me nervous about flying out of Coventry!!

Should i be?

I just feel apprehensive about flying out of CVT with Thomsonfly!


Thanks

Martin

[Flying Boat]

Why!!??

Perfectly OK.

:confused:

[small4]

Martin

Sadly you have become yet another victim of either the scaremongering tactics used by persons unknown for personal or commercial reasons, or the postings of persons who just plain don't know.

The flight operations of Thomsonfly are conducted by Britannia Airways, one of the largest, longest standing and most experienced charter operators in the UK. For both commercial and professional reasons they would not put their name to something which was even remotely unsafe.

Professional pilots also are, by selection and nature, very conservative beings. They like to go home at the end of the day having done a good job rather than having been frightened to death. Again, they would not repeatedly expose themselves to a situation which was patently unsafe for both personal and legal reasons.

I hope you will be reassured and enjoy your flight come the day, just as you would out of any UK airport flown by any UK airline.

[stretton boy]

Martin

What exactly are you nervous or worried about???

We don't bite.

[martinhardy]

Hey,

A few things im worried about, im never afraid to fly, i think its the most wonderful way to travel. However, as im in touch with forums like this, regularily watch commerical aircraft programs. I think i perceive a slightly different view to those who are just normal passengers who dont get to hear what i hear. You with me? :>


This is what worried me, however minor -->

Security

Birdstrike

Flapstrike

Airprox

To me from an outsiders point of view, it seems too much for an airline that only started about two months ago.

Is this just people scaremongering and this sort of stuff happens at BHX but goes unreported, or is it just fact.

As long as the security, air traffic controllers, engineers and crew are ok im ok.

I have no doubt that the crew are just excellent, Britannia are a great charter company, as with mytravel.


Well thats what i think, i just know i will be nervous, taking off and landing at CVT.


cheers


Martin

[Skypartners]

The planes are safe. The airport is safe. The pilots are safe. The airspace is safe. Even the birds are safe if they look where they are going! And the security crticisms posted here about about them being too strict.

The coffee is damn good too. See you soon at CVT - the friendly airport that you'll want to visit again and again.

[Arkroyal]

The airspace is safe But not, as safe as in some other places. All arrivals must transit some uncontrolled airspace, and this time of year that contains gliders. They are very hard to see, and are almost invisible to radar.

[BE happy]

The airspace is safe, if it wasn't safe the CAA would stop the aircraft from operating. The CAA are content with the fact that Coventry ATC provide the aircraft with a Radar service outside controlled airspace. The passenger aircraft never just rely on the see and be seen principle as they have the additional safety feature of a radar advisory service.

[Arkroyal]

Don't worry then BE Happy

It is a FACT that operating outside controlled airspace is less safe than operating within it.

The nearby gliding club which shares its name with the airport put a lot of gliders into the air this weekend, and although they were briefed about the increased activity near CVT, had no legal reason to avoid the airspace close to CVT. They are almost invisible to radar, carry no transponders. How much is the radar service given to airliners worth in this environment?

[BE happy]

Arkroyal

"it is a FACT that operating outside controlled airspace is less safe than operating within it."

Of course, else why would we have it, but that does not mean that operating outside controlled airspace is necessarily unsafe. The inbound 737's of Thomsonfly get nowhere near Husbands Bosworth, in fact if other traffic dictates that a wider radar circuit is required the aircraft simply go right hand from the CT beacon. This area of airspace to the North of Coventry is extremely quiet with no GA airfields nearby.

The majority of gliders out of Husbands Bosworth do paint well on the radar, in fact they can be seen on their cross country sorties routing from HB down to Daventry and across to Edge Hill etc. We see very few gliders routing near Coventry's final approach and for that we are very grateful, if you do know the pilots over there pass on our thanks. Like you say, they have no reason to stay away but common sense thankfully prevails.

In time, if flights continue to develop, Coventry will get controlled airspace, however the lack of it should not imply a safety issue. It just means that Coventry ATC have to be more alert to the possibility of unknown aircraft on radar, with the present levels of IFR traffic this is well within the controllers capacity.

BH

[almost professional]

hell will freeze over before coventry gets controlled airspace

[BE happy]

AP

Why you say?

[almost professional]

knowing the hoops that you are required to go through to get it-including consultation with all the local authorities-plus the gliding fraternity and anyone else with a possible axe to grind
enough airspace to encompass the 23 approach would really eat into the north south routes abeam birmingham-an area already considered to be 'squeezed' by CAS, also the level of ATM's/passengers required is I guess well beyond that likely to be allowed at BE

[BE happy]

I didn't say it was going to be easy, nothing is, I think we are looking at at least a couple of years down the road.

"knowing the hoops that you are required to go through to get it-including consultation with all the local authorities-plus the gliding fraternity and anyone else with a possible axe to grind"

True but if other airports can do it so can CVT, don't forget TUI have very deep pockets and can get the right people in for the job.

"enough airspace to encompass the 23 approach would really eat into the north south routes abeam birmingham-an area already considered to be 'squeezed' by CAS,"

Sorry but is this CVT's problem? the present squeezing by BHX and EMA's CAS is exatcly the reason why we may need it as it channels VFR's down the LIC-DTY route. A VFR corridor via Bitteswell VRP could work well with little disruption to transits.

"also the level of ATM's/passengers required is I guess well beyond that likely to be allowed at BE"

The planned terminal has a capacity of 2 million a year i.e. about Leeds Bradford's present throughput - last time I looked they were in class D. True we are still awaiting planning permission for the terminal but the govt White Paper does see development up to this level at Coventry.

Perhaps we should come back to this in a few months time, I think the ball will be rolling by then.

[almost professional]

Yes IT will be cov's problem, controlled airspace for the sake of it is no longer an option and excuse my cynicism but looking at the totality of everything with Birmingham development likely including airspace for RWY2, and increased movement rates at NEMA the chances of BE growing to those levels is a pipedream-the potential problems in the DTY CTA around SAPCO for instance would be a big limiting factor

[BE happy]

So we'll agree to differ, like I say maybe we'll come back to this in a few months.

"Yes IT will be cov's problem, controlled airspace for the sake of it is no longer an option"

The CAS is not for the sake of it, it is for the protection of Coventry's flights, as any increase in controlled airspace anywhere is for the protection of that airport's IFR traffic. Coventry is no different, it is a commercial airport developing pax flights, if they justify it, they should be given the CAS protection. The fact that VFR traffic is forced down the LIC-DTY route is even more reason for CVT to get this protection, CVT do get several aircraft routing via the CT with no radio contact, are you saying that is a good idea with pax flights around? At the moment the traffic levels are such that the CVT controller can restrict releases and inbound routings to accomodate unknown transits but this will not be possible if CVT gets busy.

"looking at the totality of everything with Birmingham development likely including airspace for RWY2, and increased movement rates at NEMA the chances of BE growing to those levels is a pipedream-the potential problems in the DTY CTA around SAPCO for instance would be a big limiting factor"

So this is what it comes down to then, BHX and NEMA are getting busy so CVT can't...There WILL be ways that the airspace can be reorganised to assist TC and BHX. CVT having it's own CAS will help as it will mean that CVT traffic can dep on SID's that provide some lateral sep from BHX's. At the moment, BHX controllers try to get CVT's traffic into their airspace for protection, the consequence being that CVT's aircraft enter airspace designed for BHX's traffic - not ideal. CVT's own airspace would mean that this would no longer be necessary and the SID's could go out on tracks with some lateral sep, the use of step climbs could also assist with the CVT / BHX interaction. I'm sure BHX ATCO's would prefer that situation.

Look anywhere else, if the traffic justifies it, the airspace is reorganised to accomodate it as best as possible...the phrase fear of change springs to mind when reading your comments. TC controllers have coped well with plenty of change over the past few years with some significant sector reorganisation, IMHO they will not need to reinvent the wheel with the procedures for CVT/BHX and NEMA. CVT's CAS will significantly help such reorganisation

[almost professional]

I know what the CAS is for, its just that in this day and age getting it solely for the reason you have some IFR ATM's is not deemed a good enough reason-ask Humberside, nor did I suggest that traffic routing through the CT not talking is a good idea-just that it is a fact of life, suprising how many transits I work say they did not speak to cov, but again is unlikely to sway the powers that be.
As for reorganising TC to make it work, well I do not think we would be talking about a little bit of tinkering, and nor do I see the possibility of SID's & STARS clear of Birmingham/NEMA traffic-how long would Birmingham as a competitor put up with delays to their traffic caused by movements into Cov?

[BE happy]

Sorry but IFR ATM's and many VFR transits not calling are exactly the reasons why CAS should be established, if not will we ever see any more CAS established around developing airports? I don't know the Humberside story well enough to comment but each application for CAS is different, CVT will have a strong case.

"how long would Birmingham as a competitor put up with delays to their traffic caused by movements into Cov?"

Now switch it around, if CAS can help with the interaction of the unit's there should be less delays for both CVT and BHX traffic. Don't fear change, this is going to happen eventually....

[almost professional]

Change doesn't worry me I just don't think it's likely to happen-and it would take a lot more to convince me, to go back to the CAS issue-the most vociferous campaigners are the BGA, AOPA, and the RAF, to give protection to 23 you are looking at what-10/12 miles deep 8/10 miles wide most of which would have a base at ground level, and would reach up to the DTY CTA-can not see the above organizations being too happy about that!
As for SIDS-how will you get a south bound SID off 23 through the arrivals 33 BIrmingham-certainly not without TOSR restrictions, from both BB and TC, which I guess would make life almost impossible if Birmingham got any busier(our north bound sids are TOSRed simply because of a technical confliction north of LIC with BB sids any out of Cov would be much more likely to conflict)
Also SID's would almost certainly require NPR's, again this requires consultation with parties on the ground, they may not take too kindly if the present opposition is anything to go by.

[BE happy]

1, BGA, AOPA, and the RAF - not one would be drastically effected by the 23 approach being in CAS, as I have stated a VFR lane via Bitteswell could work well for the transits.

2, Procedures for 23 vs 33 - would be much easier if CVT had CAS. At present, if the CVT dep has to level at 2.5A they go outside CAS.

3, We do already have noise abatement procedures off both runways.

I think we will just have to agree to differ on this one, it's not going to be soon but I think we will get CAS.

Cheers
BH

[Arkroyal]

Be Happy,

I do indeed know a lot of them, and are one meself.

They are quite worried about the extensions imminent for EMA's airspace, which will likely restrict gliding to the north of HB and east of Leicester.

As you say, the patch of airspace affected by CVT approaches is already a box canyon with BHX's zone, so most glider traffic is likely to route clear to the north or south.

I have told a few that they are unlikely to meet a 737 east of the M1/Rugby masts. Hopefully I am right.

Rest assured that the CFI is taking this issue seriously and has alredy issued a warning to club members to be especially careful due to this increase in daytime traffic.

Then, a lot of us would live to see a low fly by the clubhouse one evening. Can you fix?:E

[BE happy]

Arkroyal

Re the 737 East of Rugby, you are right, if the routing needed to be that wide we would usually go North of the final approach to 23 and then bring them back round, i.e. well away from Rugby.

Thanks to your CFI for that sensible approach, I cannot believe why pilots would want to shoot through the 23 approach and CT hold without talking to ATC, we have had to delay a number of departures today for just that reason.

Re the low-flyby at Hus Bos, would love to oblige but I may not be working at CVT after it!

Cheers
BH

[Arkroyal]

Thanks Be

Had to upset you guys once in Police 22, finishing off a job near the CT. Caused a go-around for Atlantic, but we caught the thieving swine, so it was worth it.

Don't do that any more though

[Richardms31]

If the airspace is soooo very safe, how come one of you pilots with over 20 years experience posted this recently? I don't understand half of it, but it doesn't sound very safe to me!


'With respect, there are SERIOUS issues with airspace!'

'TCAS warnings are of high possibility'

'The volume of traffic there (Daventry) in the summer has to be experianced and seen to be beleived. Again, most of it not in contact with either Coventry or Birmingham ATC, as in class G airspace, they have requirement to be!'

'Again, once abeam Coventry you are in the laps of the gods as to what traffic is there. Even positioning to a 4 or 5 mile final will have major traffic seperation/safety issues for regular commercial passenger flights.'

'Some folk may remember when British Midland used to run the DC-9's into Coventry at a weekend some 20 years ago. It scared the crews no end the countless light aircraft and gliders they came in close proximity to executing an approach to R/W23!!'

'there are MAJOR airspace issues surrounding this operation, which I hope I have highlighted. Issues that won't be fully appreciated at 'start up' as BHX traffic levels are not what they will be, come the summer months when the charter flights are at full strength, and levels of general aviation and gliders in the uncontrolled airspace take full advantage of better weather.'

'even for Class 'D'. CVT/TUI will not be anywhere the requirement.'

'in my opinion safe operation continuously from CVT does require airspace change.'

[Arkroyal]

BE happy PLease check your PMs

[Arkroyal]

In the light of BeHappy's posts, it's interesting that the 737s have been coming further and further east as time goes by.

A cynic might suggest that CVT ATC are attempting to build a case for a large wedge of CAS by using the presently uncontrolled airspace between the M1 and Market Harborough. Can anyone give a need to be so low, so far from CVT?

What they are actually doing is downright dangerous. With Husbands Bosworth winching to 3000' on a good day, it was somewhat dismaying to hear of a Thomson 73 overhead, reportedly at about that altitude last week.

The flight crew will, of course, go where vectored, unaware of the danger they and their pax are being placed in. He who vectors them is playing with fire.

[unwiseowl]

Agreed! Sending a 737 within five miles of Husbands Bosworth, below FL50 is a very serious risk IMHO.

[Arkroyal]

Methinks Be Happy's silence confirms a gag has been placed on him.

The SATCO now ignores calls from our very responsible CFI.

What are CVT ATC up to then?:(

[BE happy]

The only gags on this forum are the jokes that you keep on posting. I have seen no evidence of any 737's overflying HB and a quick survey of my collegues suggests likewise. That is not to say that it didn't happen because I am not there 24-7.

Your scaremongering is doing little to improve your credibility on this forum. Shame, as our initial exchanges were useful.

[Arkroyal]

And will hopefully continue.

I am not scaremongering, simply reporting what is happening.

[volrider]

For what its worth...I was not sure about CVT and the problems that would prop up. However I am won over my relatives have used this airport I have done the usual pick up and drop off runs, I found everyone at the airport very very helpful, I will be flying out of there in 2 weeks and I am not bothered as I know its a safe operation run by professionals.:ok: