Doncaster Sheffield Airspace Grab

[GyroSteve]

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but here's a copy of Doncaster's proposed airspace grab. Where's Robin Hood when we need him to protect us from the Sheriff of Nottingham,who evidently currently works for Peel Airports?


http://www.brobdignag.flyer.co.uk/RHDS%20Proposed%20Airspace.jpg

[bigfoot01]

Well that's going to increase the work load flying out of Sheffield City to Sandtoft for me lunch!

[BEagle]

Robin Hood Doncaster Finningley Sheffield Arthur Scargill International is currently in Class G airspace. As a GA pilot, I will resist ANY attempt to increase the level of Class D airspace in order to facilitate the wholesale loco airline transport of the pierced, tattooed, shell-suited dregs of society to some Mediterranean destination where they can drink and drug themselves into oblivion!

The airport's business plan should not assume any increase in the level of airspace beyond a 2.5 mile Class G ATZ merely to suit the commercial aspirations of Chavair - we have already seen this being attempted at Coventry.

How is it that Humberside manages without the size of airspace grab proposed for Finningley?

[GyroSteve]

I've heard that Humberside want something along these lines too ....

[BEagle]

In the Peel Group's Airspace Grab document they state:
The ATZ extends to a radius of 2½ nm from the centre of the aerodrome up to 2000 feet above aerodrome elevation. The airspace within this ATZ is also Class G although pilots must obtain permission from ATC to enter the ATZ. In the local area there is a profusion of GA activities associated with Sandtoft airfield, which also has an ATZ, located only 7 miles from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Other airfields in the vicinity include Gamston, Sheffield, Sherburn-in-Elmet and Netherthorpe embracing myriad aviation activities. Moreover, there are numerous gliding and microlightssites plus parachuting takes place at nearby Hibaldstow. The nearby military airfields of RAF Waddington, RAF Coningsby, RAF Scampton, RAF Cottesmore, RAF Cranwell and RAF Barkston Heath generate considerable traffic, much of this operates at low level. The Lincolnshire Area of Intense Aerial Activity (AIAA) is situated to the south of the Airport and the Yorkshire AIAA is to the north. In summary there are a multitude of disparate aviation operations in the area and this is now further complicated by the ever increasing operations from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield.

Actually, it just indicates that it was a stupid place to put a new airport!

They also state:

The plethora of flying activities described above taking place in uncontrolled
airspace has led to a number of safety-related incidents which together with the illustrations of predicted growth underline the pressing need for a revision in the airspace arrangements.

But they haven't substantiated their claim that 'a number of safety-related incidents' have occurred with any examples.

I have also been told that they are planning an increase in training movements - including RAF - and other ways of increasing their commercial development. Although that is supposed to be 'rather hush hush for the moment'. Clearly the intent is to say "Look how busy we are - we really need all this Class D airspace we've asked for!"

You can read the whole Airspace Grab proposal at http://www.robinhoodairport.com/page_airspace_change_proposal_consultation_94.html .

[Single Spey]

I think that it is about time that as many GA pilots as possible started to plan flights though these Class D zones that are springing up and when refused access put in a complaint to the CAA. I have no major objection to the establishment of CAS where there is free and equitable access for all airspace users. Where the service provider is unable to accommodate traffic then they are failing in their obligations to the CAA to run airspace and should thus be reported accordingly.

Its time for GA and non-commercial airspace users to start making noises - in much the same way that NATS have started their enhanced airspace infringement reporting process.

[jonkil]

Info on this proposal can be seen at the following:
http://www.primarysolution.co.uk/Data/index.htm

[Chilli Monster]

Actually, it just indicates that it was a stupid place to put a new airport!

Couldn't agree more - the CAA should have stamped on this from the very beginning, in an area served more than adequately by three other airports (East Mids, Leeds and Humberside). Peel should never have been allowed planning permission.

In fact - let's go one stage further

The plethora of flying activities described above taking place in uncontrolled airspace has led to a number of safety-related incidents which together with the illustrations of predicted growth underline the pressing need for a revision in the airspace arrangements.
Who was there first? This smacks very much of the "bully" moving into the neighbourhood and demanding everyone bow down to them

I have also been told that they are planning an increase in training movements - including RAF - and other ways of increasing their commercial development. Although that is supposed to be 'rather hush hush for the moment'.

Have heard the same thing - their current movement totals are paltry and in no way require all the airspace they are asking for. It's time for everyone who reads this proposal to put in their opposition to DAP

Clearly the intent is to say "Look how busy we are - we really need all this Class D airspace we've asked for!"

Come and look at the radar picture someday - you won't see a lot happening there I can assure you.

I think that it is about time that as many GA pilots as possible started to plan flights though these Class D zones that are springing up and when refused access put in a complaint to the CAA.

Surely a better solution would be to complain about it so it is not established in the first place.

I have no major objection to the establishment of CAS where there is free and equitable access for all airspace users.

That's the major problem - too many airports think they "own" the airspace, where in fact they are merely "custodians" of it

Where the service provider is unable to accommodate traffic then they are failing in their obligations to the CAA to run airspace and should thus be reported accordingly.

Be careful, that's a dangerous line to follow to its natural end. It's necessary to remember why the airspace was introduced in the first place (known traffic environment) and as such there will be times when safety requires a judgement call that may not enable a transit. A more balanced view would be that the service provider attempts to allow free and equal access, bearing in mind that it is better to slightly re-route a GA transit rather than having 200 tonnes of kerosene burner going around ;)

[chevvron]

During the 'Informal Consultation' period required by DAP in the airspace change process, all the above comments HAVE to be addressed by Peel; if they're not, DAP will merely chuck the application back and say try again.
Any establishment of regulated airspace requires the operating authority to make provision for access to other users eg transits from Sheffield to Sandtoft, plus Sandtoft MUST be allowed free operation within their own ATZ, and allowed access to/from that ATZ to the surrounding class G airspace. Peel must also supply statistics regarding transits, incidents etc. to 'make their case'. Believe me I've done it and it's a long drawn out process taking at least 6 months, normally double that.

[skydriller]

It's necessary to remember why the airspace was introduced in the first place (known traffic environment) and as such there will be times when safety requires a judgement call that may not enable a transit. A more balanced view would be that the service provider attempts to allow free and equal access, bearing in mind that it is better to slightly re-route a GA transit rather than having 200 tonnes of kerosene burner going around ;)

I am in two minds about this whole issue. On the one hand I like to think that GA should be treated the same as CA... but on the other hand I understand if I in my itsy bitsy DR400 get asked to route slighty left or right of a direct transit to make separation with a big 747 on final easier then thats the way it is, especially as many point out, because CA pays. I do, however, wonder if a 747 gets given a higher priority than a 737 on the same size issues? Or if the higher payer gets priority, ie does Ryanair with its "Low cost deal" get shunted back in the line in favour of full paying Lufthansa or BA??

I have been held both in the UK and France at regional airports with only a few commercial flights per day due to the landing 737 (ie its about 5-10mins away), and it only really bothers me if I get charged a fortune for the landing and parking - guess which country? As for being denied controlled airspace access, its never happened in France yet, but on my infrequent visits to the UK, it has happened for about 50% of the time....

Whats the betting that this new peice of airspace, if approved, will be one of those where everything stops for the commercial movement of the day, and where an attitude, of 'this is MY airspace' will prevail for transits?

Cynical.....moi??? Regards, SD..

[chevvron]

It is regretful that some ATC units in class D airspace seem 'unable to handle' a mixture of IFR arrivals and departures mixed with VFR transits and end up 'instructing' the VFR transits to remain clear. The procedures for handling transits with minimum disruption are clearly laid down in the MATS Part 1, and as I said, DAP require the airspace controlling authority to make provision to allow access to other airspace users.
Interestingly I note from AIP amendments that SRA's are about to be introduced at Robin Hood; does this mean they've got an on-site radar now? If so, this should be used to facilitate VFR transits now, not just if class D is introduced. This will give the local GA fraternity more confidence in the ability of the ATC unit to facilitate transits mixing with their IFR traffic.

[Chilli Monster]

Interestingly I note from AIP amendments that SRA's are about to be introduced at Robin Hood; does this mean they've got an on-site radar now?

I don't think it's installed yet. The airspace proposal states they're getting one (future) with SSR from Claxby. Still to be controlled from Liverpool though.

[chevvron]

Ain't no way they can do a 2nm SRA using a radar at Liverpool!

[SFCC]

Yes, there is an on-site radar head now.
Can't see a problem with the whole class D issue myself.
As both an airline and private flyer, I can see both sides of the coin, but I consider airspace protection for heavy IFR traffic in the terminal area to be vital.

[chevvron]

There should be no problem with class D provided the controlling authority operate it in the correct manner, but as I said, other units apparently don't.
One of the conditions from DAP for its approval will be not to deny access for transit traffic.

[scooter boy]

Yes, there is an on-site radar head now.
Can't see a problem with the whole class D issue myself.
As both an airline and private flyer, I can see both sides of the coin, but I consider airspace protection for heavy IFR traffic in the terminal area to be vital.

Couldn't agree more.

I have used the airport several times since it opened. The last time I flew in there was 2 weeks ago under IFR and have found both its opening hours and service excellent - with the exception of the lack of avgas (compared to its close neighbours who close early for tea). Yes there is a handling charge but I don't mind paying this provided I am given a good service. (Cost me £65 or so for landing handling, departure, 3 nights parking etc..).

I don't see the problem with more class D and welcome the enhanced safety that having more controllers watching more scopes brings to the area. I can't remember the last time I was refused a class D transit or sent around the houses by a controller.

Let's not all get so negative and get our knickers in a twist in such a hurry - there are positive safety aspects to be gained out of this.

SB :=

[Chilli Monster]

and welcome the enhanced safety that having more controllers watching more scopes brings to the area.

As that isn't likely to happen (it'll be the same person sat at the same screen) I fail to see your point.

And just wait and see how difficult it becomes to route from the south of the country to the north when this occurs. In one swift blow, unless the dimensions are changed, you will cut the country in half as far as GA is concerned.

[scooter boy]

As that isn't likely to happen (it'll be the same person sat at the same screen) I fail to see your point.

And just wait and see how difficult it becomes to route from the south of the country to the north when this occurs. In one swift blow, unless the dimensions are changed, you will cut the country in half as far as GA is concerned.

Chilli, I disagree with your sentiments.

I frequently travel Southwest to Northeast from Plymouth to Humberside and transit Bristol, Birmingham and East Midlands airspace without let or hindrance.

All you need to do is ask and you will get a transit. ATC are invariably professional, courteous and accomodating - they are on our side as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps I am missing something but AFAIK:

More controlled airspace = more controller workload = more controllers = more safety.

I would far rather Finningley be used as a regional airport (with late opening hours ATC and an ILS) than that beautiful long runway have weeds grow through it and be allowed to decay (a fate that has befallen far too many ex-military airfields in this country).

Expansion of the controlled airspace around it for heavy/light traffic separation was always inevitable from a safety point of view.

SB

[London Mil]

More controlled airspace = more controller workload = more controllers = more safety

An entertaining but incorrect hypothesis. :D

[S-Works]

personally I quite like controlled airspace. I turn on my Mode S (that no one can actually see..) and ask politly for a crossing and get a nice easy crossing. East Mids are exceptionally accomodating (allthough I do have 5 months and 21 days before Chilli will give me my next airways join.. :O ). I can see Chilli's point about the country being cut in half with the Doncaster airspace but lets hope the controllers responsible for Doncaster appreciate that they are the new boys in the area and accomodate the little guys.

whatever we may think chav air will continue to grow and so will the use of the regional airports. as pointed out earlier at least it keeps airports open and available even if it is at a price.

[robin]

Perhaps I am missing something but AFAIK:

More controlled airspace = more controller workload = more controllers = more safety.

SB

In my limited experience, more controlled airspace = fewer movements.

When controller workload gets too high, they don't put on more controllers, they start blocking access. True, this means more safety as there are fewer aircraft in their airspace - we are all around the edges of their zone trying to avoid each other.

[dublinpilot]

I may be remembering this incorrectly.........is this the airport that welcomed GA with open arms prior to opening to commercial traffic, as it needed GA to help train up it's ATC'ers and sort out local procedures before the heavies moved in?

I seem to remember a lot of complaints about forcing out GA by high landing fees and impossible security policies shortly after it opening.

I may be remembering this incorrectly, or maybe someone's unreasonable complaint about fees/security may be just sticking in my memory.

But if I am remembering that correctly, would you trust anything they said about it not being a hindrance to GA traffic?

Scotter boy, are you flying IFR when doing these transits, or are you trying to transit low level VFR?


dp

[RAC/OPS]

bose-x, new boys to Doncaster we may be, but I hope that our record of not denying clearances to the little guys through Liverpool airspace speaks for itself.

dublinpilot - I say nothing about the airport's policy for landing fees, security procedures, not allowing first solos etc, but rest assured there will be no pressure from the airport about not allowing transits through controlled airspace. That's not how ATC works!

[Chilli Monster]

Chilli, I disagree with your sentiments.

I frequently travel Southwest to Northeast from Plymouth to Humberside and transit Bristol, Birmingham and East Midlands airspace without let or hindrance.

Then no doubt we have probably spoken (your postings suggest you haven't guessed what the day job is)

Perhaps I am missing something but AFAIK:

More controlled airspace = more controller workload = more controllers = more safety.

ROFL - sorry, it doesn't work that way. Beancounters rule, and Doncaster's ATC was done "on the cheap" from day 1

I would far rather Finningley be used as a regional airport (with late opening hours ATC and an ILS) than that beautiful long runway have weeds grow through it and be allowed to decay

I would rather we had more reasonably priced GA airfields with Pilot Controlled Lighting for night flying, far more useful - but - c'est la vie.

Let's look at this logically. How big a country do we live in? Much as the "save the runway" sentiment is lovely this one we could really have done without. There are better places the money could have been spent than right in the middle of 3 Airports already operating CAT , on the main military north south route, on the doorsteps of 4 GA airfields whose activities will be severely curtailed.

Bose - It's a New Year, the ban's cancelled mate :ok:

[scooter boy]

Dublinpilot,
Most of my crossings are low level VFR however I was permitted an IFR transit last week without having previously filed a flight plan.

Chilli,
Just realised you are an ATCO! :ouch: - good thing I was polite about you guys!
Sad to hear that the same flawed employment logic pervades NATS as pervades the NHS (one of my employers) - i:e flog them til they drop.

Ho Hum,

SB

[Chilli Monster]

SB - don't work for NATS, neither do the boys and girls who work for Doncaster/Liverpool.

[HR200]

I fly out of Leeds most of the time and when flying south or south east, its a pain in the ass anyway making sure you dont climb into the vast amounts of class A airspace. Adding this Class D control zone and area into the equation is just going to make everyone's life much harder for a GA pilot.

[machinehead]

I fly out of Leeds most of the time and when flying south or south east, its a pain in the ass anyway making sure you dont climb into the vast amounts of class A airspace. Adding this Class D control zone and area into the equation is just going to make everyone's life much harder for a GA pilot.

As my main man RAC/OPS said, we're experienced controllers and rarely refuse crossing of controlled airspace at Liverpool.
It will take time for all of us to become familiar with the new airspace and the procedures but we'll soon become familiar with it all.
Just wait for the airspace to established and everything settle down and then see what you think.:ok:

[bogbeagle]

From the instructors' point of view, I think that the class D airspace will be quite advantageous...so too from the students' viewpoint. Years ago, I worked out of Cumbernauld and penetrations of Glasgow and Edinburgh zones were commonplace...and easy.


Like SB, I can't recall when I was last refused entry to controlled airspace. I'm confident that, once the dust settles, an amicable accommodation will be reached. And, of course, controlled airspace doesn't offer protection solely to CAT, but our spam cans, too.

Yes, there will be an increased pilot' workload during zone transit/penetration, but I predict that a "standard form" will be adopted which will provide a fuss-free service for all the local pilots.

[ProfChrisReed]

Will ATC be able and willing to let gliders fly through the proposed Class D? I estimate that each year there are several thousand glider flights which currently transit that area, and from the map I can't see any easy way around.

[machinehead]

Will ATC be able and willing to let gliders fly through the proposed Class D? I estimate that each year there are several thousand glider flights which currently transit that area, and from the map I can't see any easy way around.

Probably best if you contact your club or the BGA.:ok:

[Lucy Lastic]

Could someone confirm or deny this...

I was speaking with an ATCO who told me that on landing the on-board data is uploaded to airline company computers and, should separation not be maintained, even if the aircraft are under ATCO control, the pilot will need to account for failure to keep separation.

So part of the reason for denial of service, as I have experienced, might well be to ensure that commercial pilots don't get a rollocking,

[Midland 331]

Please excuse any ignorance here, but didn't Finningley used to have a MATZ? Was it such a pain to deal with then, and will the DSA proposals be worse than the military days?

r

[Floppy Link]

...on landing the on-board data is uploaded to airline company computers and, should separation not be maintained, even if the aircraft are under ATCO control, the pilot will need to account for failure to keep separation...
.
But the kit taking the data doesn't (or it certainly didn't in my previous airline [320/321/757/767]) measure separation as it is an external value - only a lot of things like bank angle, IAS, pitch angle, groundspeed, engine parameters, rad alt values, glide slope deviation etc etc. If the PF responds to a TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA), then obviously the internal parameters will show that, but very unlikely that ...the pilot will need to account for failure to keep separation...
.
Methinks said ATCer is misinformed.
.
The pilot would possibly need to account for loss of separation if he/she does a visual approach "with number one in sight" and gets too close and thus has to go around due to runway occupancy, but in most good airlines there should be a no blame go around culture i.e.
.
Chief Pilot "Why did you go around"
Captain "I had to, cocked up the visual"
Chief Pilot "OK, don't cock up the visual again, but if you need to go-around, do it""

[IO540]

Who is responsible for separation (from (a) traffic and (b) terrain) when being vectored by ATC?

[Chilli Monster]

Midland

Finningley MATZ was smaller than the proposed class 'D', plus it was normally only Mon-Fri 8 - 5 instead of H24. As most GA operates at weekends now you see where the concern comes in.

IO

ATC responsible for terrain separation whilst vectoring, hence you won't be vectored below MSA. As for aircraft separation - airspace type / service type / flight rules apply (though over control in class 'D' is not unheard of).