chrisN
Thanks for an excellent example of a flaw in the system. Norwich can produce aircraft movement & pax figures on demand. Your individual case has much merit but on its own I suspect would not carry much weight without many more concrete examples whilst DAP are faced with the "I am not inclined to spend 10 minutes orbiting whilst waiting for many Class D units to get around to granting a transit" argument.
gasax
Re the above, taken from your last post - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now !
Quote" Well why has the application completely ignored the effect on adjacent GA traffic? Norwich could have (and indeed should have) considered this - but it would be a negative factor so of course cannot be presented in what is nothing more than a 'sales speil'."
Are we reading the same document ? Para's 6.5, 6.6 & 6.7 deal specifically with the GA airfields in the area & LoA's with them, together with a statement of intent :- 'NIA does not envisage any capacity problems in the integration of VFR flights, including transit flights, into the traffic flow.'
Yes, I know you posted "well they would say that, wouldn't they". What else would you expect ?
I will repeat what I said on the ATC thread -
'There are obviously some well reasoned objections to new CAS aired on PPRuNe but I reckon these are mostly by pilots who are interested enough in flying to bother to look at the website in the first place. I fear like many things in this country nowadays, the many have to suffer for the transgressions of the few.
Perhaps we should just be grateful that Joe Public in his airline seat isn't canvassed on what protection he wants while flying - no prizes for guessing the answer ! '