I still believe it will be a cold day in hell before a fee wouldn't be charged to GA.
Mad Jock.
Having joined the scheme, why would the airport charge anyone diverting in an emergency?
As for the taxiways, any spare tarmac is most welcome the next time you are down or way
Next we have to send our comments (objections!) to the applicant but there is no guarantee the applicant will include all submissions (does a turkey vote for Christmas?).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).
WH.
1. It has been clearly stated on this thread that all the submissions go to the CAA and the DAP, if you have any evidence to the contrary then you are perfectly entitled to make your complaint to the CAA.
2. As an ATCO at Norwich, I've never heard or seen any of my colleagues state that GA are any sort of "problem", again, where's your evidence?
3.Your WHY questions have frequently been answered on this site, however it seems that most of the time the answer doesn't suit you. The size of the area of airspace applied for was decided by to be the applcant, i.e Airport Authority, not ATC, so why expect a response from us?
We have got an excellent working relationship over the airspace design with the military, again that has been stated on the site previously.
Your obsession with ROCAS when the airspace isn't even there yet and your repeated assumption that we will do everything within our power as ATCOs to keep anything other than airliners outside the zone, is beyond comprehension.
All said, I am glad you started the thread, it's kept many people occupied in the wee small hours thinking of vacuous insults to hurl in our direction. 