PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Forgotten your Username/Password?
Register FAQ Calendar Advertise Mark Forums Read

ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4th July 2009, 02:05   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 90
London city CTA

A quick question guys. Looking at my chart got me thinking, what is the point of the City CTA? It extends probably about a mile out from the CTR, why not get rid of it or just make it all a CTR?

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but I can't see the point of it, and I'm curious! Can any of you guys shed some light?
mike172 is offline   Reply
Old 4th July 2009, 02:49   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 55
Posts: 492
A very good question indeed. The extension to the London City CTR was originally designed to add a extra 1 nautical mile to the North and South of the existing CTR, and 1.5nm to the East. This was to protect a greater variety of IFR traffic with different performance characteristics, since the original CTR was soley designed for the Dash 7, the only aircraft originally certified to operate into London City Airpiort. On hot days, departing aircraft were going outside CAS on the SIDs, and when vectoring for runway 10 (now 09 by the way),arriving aircraft had to be kept three miles away from traffic on the 10 ILS, which with a 4nm CTR either side of the centreline meant that they were right on the edge of CAS. When the plans for the new expanded CTR were put out to consultation as part of the Airspace Change Proposal, there were various objections from airspace users and other agencies. Therefore the ACP was "watered down" and the CTA was established around the existing CTR. To all intents and purposes the airspace beneath the CTA is more or less sterile, although we do notice some 7000 squawks sneaking under the Eastern edge at 1400ft!
ATCO Two is online now   Reply
Old 4th July 2009, 17:59   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: To close for comfort
Posts: 4
As ATCO Two states, the CTA idea helped NATS overcome the objections from several agencies. We didn't want to narrow the "gap" between Stansted airspace in the vicinity of Stapleford, and we kept some unregulated airspace available to the north of Biggin Hill.

The CTA was also introduced at the same time as the change to the low flying rule (now 1000ft over....rather than 1500ft over highest point etc.), thus allowing light aircraft to legally fly below the CTA (as long as they can alight clear of the built up area).

It was a compromise between the ideal and the access issues, and in my experience, people have been able to take advantage of this unregulated airspace.
ThamesOperations is offline   Reply
Old 4th July 2009, 22:15   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 90
Thanks for the answers guys. Can't believe people would fly under the CTA though! Just a little bit off course and a man with a clipboard would be knocking on your door no doubt!
mike172 is offline   Reply
Old 6th July 2009, 23:36   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 430
I would, my house 200m from where the CTA extends to ground level - means I can buzz my folks without bothering Thames

Horgy
MrHorgy is offline   Reply
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7
© 1996-2009 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.

*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".