Coventry - is this usual for GA traffic?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Last week I had a meeting in Coventry, and since it was a nice day elected to fly rather than drive.

Turned up, visual right base join, was asked to park on the grass next to Air Atlantique's fascinating collection of vintage aircraft (although gratified to note that my own taildragging steed was older and rarer than most of them). No problems so far.

Now what? No indication of where to go. Lacking guidance of any description walked to the tower. Waited 5 minutes for somebody to talk to me, eventually told "not here, somewhere the other side of your aeroplane". About ten minutes later, after several confused directions from passing airport staff who didn't seem to know either, eventually found my way to a place called "Anson House". Where, I must say everybody was very friendly and helpful - even got a free cup of Earl Grey tea, and a taxi ordered for me. However the £30 for landing + parking (from about 1100-1600!) was rather steep for a light single.

Went off to my meeting, got "stuff" done, returned to airport.

Sign out was easy enough - just phone the tower on a dedicated phone and pass my details. Five minute walk to my aircraft, start up, taxi to A1 hold, run-up, call ready for departure.

... and wait whilst they clear a couple of landing light aircraft
... and wait for several minutes whilst an A109 is hover-taxied across the runway for fuel.

This was about five minutes, fair enough.

... then wait (approx.) ten minutes whilst they decided to send various emergency services out on the runway to remove some "boards" (not entirely sure what).

... then remind tower I'm still waiting, told to wait for a 737 on the ILS.

... wait several minutes longer (plenty of time to get out), watch 737 land, told to line up and wait. This is 19 minutes after I originally called ready for departure.

... Now sit and watch 737 turning, backtracking half of the runway and turning off because it seemed to have landed long (I'm sure when I've been a pax in a full 737 it didn't need nearly all of 2km of dry into-wind runway to stop - brake saving measures possibly?).

... Finally, roughly 23-24 minutes after I'd called ready for departure (and after watching five aircraft movements) given take-off clearance. As a result, arrived back at my home airfield 5 minutes after closing time - not a habit I like to make.


I'm sure that every individual action that held me up was justifiable in some way (except for the lack of any clear signeage for visiting pilots to sign in), but it did appear that the general management was somewhat shambolic. Certainly inconsistent with the highest landing fee that I've paid in a couple of years, and irritating that it all made me late at both ends of my journey.

Or am I just turning into a grumpy old man?

G

[2Donkeys]

Sounds like your study of the NOTAMs wasn't as thorough as it might have been. Sorry if that sounds unduly harsh.

In particular the reason for the 737 landing long:

E)DURING DISPLACED THR RWY 05/23 OPR, BEGINNING OF LDA FOR DISPLACED
THR SHOWN BY BLACK AND WHITE MARKER BOARDS AT EDGE OF RWY.
BEGINNING OF TORA/TODA/ASDA FOR DISPLACED THR SHOWN BY ORANGE AND WHITE MARKER BOARDS AT EDGE OF RWY.



and the reason for your delay that had "something to do with boards"

E)DURING RWY WIP THE RWY WILL BE CLOSED 10 MINUTES PRIOR TO
IMPLIMENTATION OF REDUCED DISTANCES AND 10 MINUTES PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF REDUCED DISTANCES

[Genghis the Engineer]

No, I was well aware of that - other than not paying much attention to exactly what sort of boards they were. Can't say it really changes my views - I was waiting for well over double that time anyhow, and saw nothing that would have stopped them asking me to expedite before or after they did their stuff with the boards.

Put another way, what about the other 14 minutes?

G

[2Donkeys]

OK then... so you understood why the 737 landed long, turned where it did and backtracked, and why there was a 10 minute wait for the boards to be put in place.

That leaves, by your own maths, only a fairly modest wait.

I think Coventry probably are unduly protective of their Commercial Traffic - a syndrome that most will recognise when any small airport suddenly starts to get proper passengers flying in and out. Cranfield gets similarly panicky when METMAN is out and about.

That may well be reflected in a slightly slow departure when commercial flights are around... but your original posting doesn't do justice to your knowledge of the WIP at the field at the moment, and the procedures associated with it.

2D

[Genghis the Engineer]

You don't work there do you?

I fully accept that everything they specifically did was necessary. I just considered that the lack of any attempt to get me out at a convenient juncture somewhere in that 24 minutes was somewhat less than user-friendly.

Plus the lack of signeage at the parking, plus the extortionate landing and parking fee (£16+VAT is high but reasonable for a big airport, but £10 for 5 hours parking I felt a bit OTT given I apparently received no special service for this).

G

[2Donkeys]

I don't work there, but I do know a man that does, and have been hearing of the problems that they have been having from the other side. This includes aircraft disregarding the revised runway lengths and causing chaos.

Of the comments you make, the one I most whole-heartedly agree with has nothing to do with the delay. Rather, the total lack of organisation around getting visiting pilots from their aircraft, and out of the airport (and back again). Since the repainting of the Western Apron, that doesn't seem to have been given a moment's thought.

2D

[helicopter-redeye]

If you called for 'start permission' then they should probably have advised you to delay start for n minutes pending landing traffic/ inspections/ etc/ etc.

There seems to be a general 'flexing of the mussels' in the area, incl in the Class G ....

[Genghis the Engineer]

If you called for 'start permission' then they should probably have advised you to delay start for n minutes pending landing traffic/ inspections/ etc/ etc.
There seems to be a general 'flexing of the mussels' in the area, incl in the Class G ....

Called for taxi clearance, no such advice given.

Frankly if I'd known, at-least I could have shut the engine down for 20 minutes!

G

[AppleMacster]

Genghis,

Unfortunately, your experience is not atypical at Coventry. I've known cases of people being held for over half and hour at A1 and C2. I once went on a short, half-hour training flight only to return and orbit for ten minutes whilst the aircraft which had started up at the same time as me was still waiting for an airways clearance to be relayed from Birmingham on the runway.

Part of the trouble is the interminable runway closures which have been going on since last Autumn, including taxiway closures which create terrible bottlenecks. As a result, the commercial traffic does seem to get priority. Fortunately, my training has finished at Coventry, but it was a bit of a headache.

Generally the service at Coventry is good. During the summer, when hour-building, I visited several times and had no complaints. It is the WIP which has created a number of problems which each have a knock on effect. The only answer is to plan for it, but it's not necessarily easy to know as the WIP plans seem to change at short notice.

[AerBabe]

GtE - I learned to fly at Coventry ... fortunately well before it got busy with Thompson. It was never too bad, although the landing fees were steep for visitors and there was a lack of guidance on the ground. Sounds like I did well to move away before it got like this!

[squawking 7700]

As a complete contrast I went to Doncaster/Sheffield last Sunday
(I also went last year before they opened fully) £7.55 for the landing (PA28R) and an hours parking - I think it was 5p/hour for the parking.
Picked up by car from the GA parking area and very professional all round -
ground staff and ATC.
An ILS approach would've been 3 quid!!! That's for next months visit.

If you've got business in the area or just want a jolly to an 'international'
airport that welcomes GA, I'd recommend it.

7700

[mrgaviates]

Comments ref. Cov agreed. Good experience v. helpful ATC but fees and parking not good value for money. Tried to haggle a discount for having to park on muddy grass and long walk. No chance. Try Kemble, really helpful, friendly excellent bar/restaurant and you get to do circuits with a Hunter :) .
MRG

[neilmac]

I remember 2 yrs ago flying well in open FIR from a southern airfield to midlands, calling East Mids for them complaining was I the traffic that flew near Coventry approach lane. Yes I was visual with the BAE146 but why whinge they had at the time an ATZ(2NM 2000FT) and I was 10 miles to the east!! If they are a major regional airport let us know at the time I said!! Airport operators in open FIR

[ShyTorque]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that Coventry are becoming over protective of "their" aircraft when it comes to transit traffic. It isn't uncommon for them to "control" passing VFR aircraft in Class G, in some cases to give 5nms separation.

This will result in some pilots choosing not to talk to them at all, as they are at liberty to do, which is counterproductive.

It is worth looking at the proposed large chunk of regulated airspace Coventry are demanding. The airspace they now wish to control is a main VFR and IFR GA transit route, if not THE main transit route of central UK. The proposal, if approved, will effectively close the gap between Brum and East Midlands airspaces and will cause a choke point to the east of Coventry where pilots aircraft cannot make MSA (1700 feet) but will be tempted to go under the CTA (below 1500 feet) to avoid delays.

[airac]

shy torque separate VFR by 5 miles :confused: don't think so ,unless it isn't idented
MSA oops :mad: wrong again ,but thanks for your comments obviously your years of experience have paid off:yuk:

[ShyTorque]

airac,

I'm not sure what your almost unintelligible post is really supposed to mean, all those "smilies" don't help. Please explain further, perhaps without so much apparent sarcasm.

The 5nm separation whilst VFR in class G has been my personal experience (and that of other pilots I have spoken to) on more than one occasion since Thompson began operating there.

Having previously looked at how the proposed new airspace interacts with the real world in the area I refer to, i.e. the choke point under the eastern end of the proposed CTZ, the MSA of 1700 ft appears correct. It certainly is no lower!

[airac]

shy torque. It was meant to be a short reply to your posting with reference to controlling VFR tfc "in some cases providing 5nm separation". That simply would not happen .IFR tfc may be vectored away from vfr a/c , if that VFR tfc was not identified ,but we in the uk have no requirement to provide standard separation between VFR flightsand or any other flights.
Your second point about the MSA .I was pointing out that yet again you were wrong ,if Rugby masts are 1122' you would not have a MSA figure of 1700' also under what rules do VFR flights have to comply with the MSA anyway??
apologies if you thought I was speaking in a foriegn tongue:ok:

[Kanu]

We had a 20 minute wait at the hold while the firecrew filled these marker boards up with water to stop them blowing away! 20 mins at £200 per hour gets a little upsetting, when a GA a/c poses little threat to a big fire engine! especially when there's still 900 metres of fine tarmac ahead of us.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Yup.

Fortunately, my steed is on a tacho not a hobbs, so only accreted 0.1 in that time, but I'd still rather have been told "you will be holding for 20 minutes" and just shut down for a while.

Actually, I'd rather have held for five and been told to expedite before they closed the runway for a while.

G

[Kanu]

I know where you're coming from though. I don't know what was said to you but when we called up the tower (by phone) nothing was said to us about any 737 inbound or reduced distances. Even the Atis doesn't report it on occasion.

Granted its NOTAM'd - but its completely intermittant when they decide to enforce these reduced distances (could be wrong - just seems it:bored: )

[BEagle]

Coventry appeas to be kow-towing to the commercial aspirations of ThomsonFly at the expense of GA. I urge everyone to object to the aerodrome's attempt to achieve more airspace regulation; view http://www.wellesbourneairfield.com/egbecasconsultation.pdf and send your comments to [email protected] , copied to the Head of the Directorate of Airspace Policy at [email protected] .

[ShyTorque]

Quote:
Originally Posted by airac
shy torque. It was meant to be a short reply to your posting with reference to controlling VFR tfc "in some cases providing 5nm separation". That simply would not happen .IFR tfc may be vectored away from vfr a/c , if that VFR tfc was not identified ,but we in the uk have no requirement to provide standard separation between VFR flightsand or any other flights.
Your second point about the MSA .I was pointing out that yet again you were wrong ,if Rugby masts are 1122' you would not have a MSA figure of 1700' also under what rules do VFR flights have to comply with the MSA anyway??
apologies if you thought I was speaking in a foriegn tongue


airac,

Well, I must disagree. I can certainly give one recent example where this definitely happened to myself and a colleague in class G after requesting only a FIS. In view of your robust comment denying this possibility I have checked the detail of the route we were flying, which was planned to avoid Coventry and Brum's airspace. I have measured the separation directed - ATC turned us off track to go to Draycott Water VRP - which was no closer than 6nm to their inbound IFR traffic on the ILS to 05. We (two pilot ops) were bemused by the demand and discussed it as we continued to the VRP. We remained VFR/ VMC in good visibility at 1500 feet, below cloud at all times (icing was very likely that day) and we watched and listened to the progress of the IFR traffic, also seeing him land.

I can give at least one other example and will do so for further discussion if you so wish. I presume by your response that you are a bona fide ATCO at EGBE. In any event, I think better only by pm, rather than in public.

The 1700 feet MSA comes from plotting the boundaries of the proposed new Class D airspace on the CAA half mil chart. It is based on the 650' mast in the northern part of Leicester city. I didn't include the Rugby masts, although I am well aware of them as I have to overfly them about twenty times a week, I was referring to avoidance of the proposed new airspace which will send pilots even further east and thus likely to be more than 5nm from Rugby. If a pilot flies within 5nm of Rugby then yes, certainly that further increases the danger of attempting to remain below the south eastern part of the 1500 ft CTA and actually reinforces my point, rather than detracting from it (although you were just taking a snipe at my credibility).

Of course VFR flights don't have to comply with MSA - please give me some credit - I'm not completely ignorant, for goodness' sake! However, basic airmanship dictates that a pilot flying VFR, especially in marginal weather (as he is entitiled to do) must be aware of MSA, or at least SSA off the chart at all times. A poor weather situation is exactly when the biggest danger of underflying the CTA chokepoint will occur - scud running in poor vis, possibly with unknown opposite way traffic. My concern about ATC "overcontrolling" traffic in Class G is this: it makes a pilot think twice about talking to that ATC unit at all, increasing the chance of a conflict.

[airac]

Shy torque pm by all means, but do not make assumptions.
BEagle I can accept that people like you object to airspace changes and always fear the worst, don’t. A known traffic environment is safer for all concerned. I personally just cannot understand why people on these forums offer sympathy to family and friends etc (most of the time when they have absolutely no idea who or what type of persons they were) when pilots die in mid air collisions, and yet when organisations endeavour to make the whole thing safer cry like stuck pigs.:confused:

[ShyTorque]

Airac,

I was going by your profile, which says you are in ATC (although I did wonder about the location stated as "North"). Your responses to this particular subject came across as strongly authoritative, as if you knew the situation from an informed and local view.

If that isn't the case, there is no point us discussing it further, so I won't. :hmm:

[Genghis the Engineer]

Shy torque pm by all means, but do not make assumptions.
BEagle I can accept that people like you object to airspace changes and always fear the worst, don’t. A known traffic environment is safer for all concerned. I personally just cannot understand why people on these forums offer sympathy to family and friends etc (most of the time when they have absolutely no idea who or what type of persons they were) when pilots die in mid air collisions, and yet when organisations endeavour to make the whole thing safer cry like stuck pigs.:confused:

This is getting somewhat off my original topic, but what the heck.


Your post seems to assume that all GA traffic simply wishes to take-off from point A, fly by a predetermined route to point B, then land there. This is far from true of a great deal of GA traffic.

To refer to class A or class D as a "known traffic environment" isn't really true - it is a controlled environment. Open FIR with RIS or FIS is arguably a "known traffic environment". Mind you, to a large extent, so is a competent lookout and good visibility.

We are all in favour of the maximum available information about "known traffic", what we don't wish is to be controlled.

G

[BEagle]

airac, there is no justification whatsoever for any change to the airspace in the vicinity of Coventry. The fact that ThomsonFly operate a few 737s for CAT purposes does not justify the attempted lebensraum airspace-grab which Coventry are proposing. Your emotive safety scaremongering is nonsense; if ThomsonFly think that it's so hazardous to operate from Coventry, then they should move their operations elsewhere.

Known traffic environment, my eye. Exeter, Newquay and Humberside cope without Class D airspace - you at least have the Birmingham CTA. So it costs a few minutes of flight time for ThomsonFly. Tough!

[airac]

Your post seems to assume that all GA traffic simply wishes to take-off from point A, fly by a predetermined route to point B, then land there. This is far from true of a great deal of GA traffic.
To refer to class A or class D as a "known traffic environment" isn't really true - it is a controlled environment. Open FIR with RIS or FIS is arguably a "known traffic environment". Mind you, to a large extent, so is a competent lookout and good visibility.
We are all in favour of the maximum available information about "known traffic", what we don't wish is to be controlled.
G

I can accept the fact that you don't want to be controlled, that is why generally you are provided with a FIS, which incidentally, is about as good as a chocolate tea pot when half the TFC isn't actually talking to you. If pilots request a radar service the majority of controllers would endeavour to provide it.
All I am saying is, is it not to every bodies benefit to take the odd turn to allow safe passage through a known approach path. It is not necessary to talk to Mil controllers if you wish to transit through a MATZ, but most pilots would consider it folly not to do so, so why all the moaning just because it is a developing civil airfield. I do not wish to spoil anybodies flying by being awkward and putting unnecessary restrictions to your particular route or preferred track, but you must surely accept that sometimes just sometimes mind that it is for the best reasons.
As for your comments re A and D airspace, since an A/C cannot fly in such airspace with out ATC permission, it is a totally known TFC environment.
Half the problems with new "restricted" airspace is pilots fear that it will become a totally no go area. From my perspective this would not be the case,
all I can suggest is that you contact the unit concerned and ask for a group visit, you might find , contrary to popular opinion ATCO's actually enjoy providing the best service they can and what’s more are only to pleased to accept such visits in order to allay PPL's fears.
Shy Torque, you must do what you feel is right for you .The problem is with these forums that the written word can often be misconstrued and since they are in theory anonymous people often use that in order to slag one another off .That has never been my intention.
:)
BEagle great word but so is bxxxxcks ,how can you use possibly justify it's use

[Genghis the Engineer]

I regret Airac that to me your comments still seem to be based upon a total misunderstanding.

The only time that I can comfortably accept flying in what you regard as a "totally known environment" is the occasions when I'm flying A-B on a known and pre-planned route. The rest of the time I am constantly manoeuvering, changing height, changing my mind, sometimes very low level. The burden upon RT of the amount of GA traffic remaining "totally known" during such flying would bring the whole thing to a halt.

The reality is that expanding controlled airspace for a minimal amount of instrument traffic serves to make life a lot easier for ATC, very slightly more expensive for a very small amount of commercial traffic (who will simply pass the costs onto their customers anyhow), and extremely difficult for a large amount of GA, many of whom are paying for their own flying. Put bluntly, it's unsupportable from any neutral viewpoint; ATC are there to work with the available environment I'm afraid.

G

[WorkingHard]

For what it is worth I agree entirely with Beagle's last post. How do we object to this airspace grab? Airac please remember that CAT are in the MINORITY and you should remember that when defending such things as airspace changes.

[Punditgreen]

Working Hard, Genghis, BEagle et al
Whilst the number of CAT aircraft may be less than GA the total number of human beings involved is considerably higher.
The safety of the travelling public is what drives the Regulators, who (among many other Government Agencies) drive the Airports to deliver the safest possible environment for all aviation. (my emphasis)
The only safety case an Airport in class G can make to mitigate against close encounters is proscribing the provision of a RAS to CAT aircraft. For the very reasons that you all tub-thump, GA has freedom to do what it wants in Class G; so if a GA pilot wishes to fly through the FAT to an Airport and in doing so conflicts in any way (under RAS conditions) with the CAT traffic, the safety case is shot to bits.
The only way a legal requirement is placed on the GA (or any other traffic) is to establish CAS.
I have controlled in Class G for 33 years, both Mil and Civil, and I do not wish the establishment of CAS at my Airfield. I have many cubic miles of air in which to vector 737s to avoid GA traffic but eventually that aircraft will have to land at my airfield or divert at great cost. We have an extremely good relationship with GA operators at local (within 30nms) light airfields and with few exceptions they call us, wear one of our squawks and, being known traffic allow us to reduce the RAS separation requirements. Some still want to fly though the ILS at 2000ft at 7nm final, and these I ask to descend/climb/reroute slightly, seldom with any demur. But if they refuse or are not speaking to me the CAT cannot make the approach. Over the last couple of years the number of transit aircraft doing this has noticeably increased.
I fly, and have owned my own aircraft, and I am irritated when "told" to re-route in class G, but I always did it if it was legally possible to do because I could not see the traffic situation and I knew full well that the guy had little other recourse if I didn't. I like to call it airmanship.
Air travel is with us to stay; it is not just the preserve of people lucky enough to hold Flying Licences and having access to light aircraft and the joy that brings. To say the TUI/MYT/EZE etc can go somewhere else if they don't like it is failure to grasp facts. Equally, to say that CAT should accept the Airspace divisions as they are, and to confine themselves to protected airfields is failing to see that the airspace surrounding those airfields evolved through similar conflicts. Many of us faced with daunting task of applying for CAS at the insistance of the Regulators might secretly wish for a "nasty" - Not at their Airfield, of course, but it would sure as hell speed the process!
The groundswell of feeling against being "controlled" in Class G has always been there, but pilots should try to cut ATC some slack. We have more masters than you sadly.

[WorkingHard]

Punditgreen - very well put and I concur with most of what you say. HOWEVER, it is my experience (I should like to hear from others) that some ( note some only) atc are trying to issue too many "instructions" to traffic in class G. There are also many many controllers who simply do not allow GA into their airspace. Now the remedy for both is in your (ATC) hands not ours but when something like Coventry airspace grab crops up, do not be surprised at the reaction. I also have avery good relationship with local ATC and try whereevr possible to accomodate directions from ant ATC unit. I never fly without a xponder. A couple of years ago in class G, I was "instructed" to "descend immediatly to 500 feet" which I declined but offered to take up whatever heading was requested. They are the people that give ATC a bad name. BTW a chat later with the SATCO illicited that it was more convenient for the controller to get me down and out of the way of someone inbound on a very long ILS descent.

[PPRuNe Radar]

There are also many many controllers who simply do not allow GA into their airspace.

As the CAA have asked the pilot community to report any instances where GA flights were refused entry to Controlled Airspace, I presume their desks are sagging under the weight of your reports ?? Or is it all anecdotal and slightly exaggerated ?? ;) I would expect some action if the situation is as you describe.

Personally, I think the airspace volume being asked for is too much, compared to some other busier airports with CAS already who seem to manage OK. Hopefully the proposal will become something more reasonable as the horse trading begins within the consultation process.

As a general aside, I think we should learn the lesson from our trans Atlantic cousins and introduce Mode C 'veils' around such airports and TMAs. Cue more gnashing of gums :}

[DFC]

Some very interesting comments. I like the one about the safety case regarding VFR flights in class G. How could one be successful in proving the the see and be seen concept is unsafe while at the same time not having any effect on the safety status of the current activities in class G such as low level high speed military flights with no NOTAM or other notification and no radar services?

Yes it is true that a safety case could easily be established which required some control over IFR flights.

Given the numbers of movements at BE, one would expect that the airspace would suit Class E. That would achieve everything that ATC seem to want without having any restriction on the routes available to GA in the airspace concerned.

Having read the previous ATC comments I can not see how they could say that Class E would not suit their purpose?


Regards,

DFC

[Genghis the Engineer]

Genghis:
The only time I've flown into Coventry was probably in the summer of 2004 when three of us Aeronca's called in. I think the landing fee was free for pre-1960's aircraft. I remember not knowing where to park etc. but we ended up booking in at a/the flying club. I wonder if you inadvertently ended up booking in at some expensive "compulory handling agent"? Everyone was fine on our visit, but I've had days like you had at other airfields and they leave you very p***ed off!
I hope Coventry hasn't changed that much since my visit, which was enjoyable, as I intend flying in again soon.
(I haven't read all the earlier posts, so sorry if I've dived in!)

Well one thing has presumably changed - my aeroplane was built in 1947 and I had to pay the full landing fee!

G

[foxmoth]

Seems to me that you got the 10 mins prior for removal of restriction, 737 landing, then 10 mins prior to reintroduction of restriction so with a couple of aircraft landing as well that comes to about the 24 mins wait you had - but I do not see any reason ATC could not have mentioned it to you, maybe they were too busy making tea as they had nothing else to do while this was all going on:}

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I was "instructed" to "descend immediatly to 500 feet" which I declined
What, without knowing why? What if it was the controller's best guess as to how to get you out of the way of a fast jet he wasn't talking to?

Would it not be prudent to act on an "immediate" first and argue later, after pointing the aircraft in the different direction? Or are there controllers in the habit of routinely saying "immediate" unnecessarily?

[helicopter-redeye]

This is probably going to be more and more of a problem with the introduction of 'low cost airlines' seeking to fly into unknown and under used airports because it's ... lower cost than real (sorry, controlled airspace based) airports.

"London Coventry" and "London Doncaster" and "London Girona" (and others) will be demanding Class D airspace and start to push the prices up.

And then, the LCA's will be off to "London Gamston" and "London Catfoss" in order to get the price performance again.

I'm sure there was a reason why airlines used to fly into major established airports, with controlled airspace around them but like Boxer, I can't quite remember why ...

[WorkingHard]

Gertrude - you may be correct but an immediate drop of 2500 did not seem reasonable without an explanation which was NOT forthcoming. Brilliant viz and class G, it did seem odd to put me into the well known path of FJ traffic which abounds in these parts.

[EESDL]

In reply to your actual question - guess that's a big fat yes!!!

like I've mentioned elsewhere - it amazes me what a company will accept to try and make a 'market'.
Often witness airliners flying outside cas, cutting the corner - often through an AIAA - with fare-paying pax onboard.
Great effort and industry is made ensuring that aircraft operate to class 1 perf but seem happy to take lumbering aircraft into in class G airspace where their only defence is to see and avoid.
Whether they 'see' by remaining fixed to the TCAS or actually look out of the window is of little help to those of us who are also trying to make a living but actually not impinging on anyone else.

Coventry -
Not sure what incentives were given to get commercial airliners operating into EGBE but who did the risk assessment for such an operation -
you must wear a hi-viz vest on the apron but feel free to pay for a trip on an clumsy aircraft making a prolonged approach into an airfield offering such indequate protection for such a flight.

Next thing you'll find is that they want to enlarge the atz to justify such insignificant traffic................................

Those of you that use low-cost carriers from 'regional' airports needing to justify larger cta will have helped to choke up the country.

[ShyTorque]

"Next thing you'll find is that they want to enlarge the atz to justify such insignificant traffic....."

It's not just a larger ATZ they want......if only it was! Very soon, if Coventry get their way, almost the whole of the Class G "Midlands transit area" (my description) will be Class D, which will be of some benefit to the large Coventry operators (don't see it benefitting the smaller operators or training aircraft), at the expense of everyone else trying to transit that area. :(

Thompson knew this when they began operations there, it's not that the transit traffic has increased significantly since.