Carlisle-2
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carlisle is a near constant source of amusement. Two questions for anyone who can answer them.
1. NOTAM L4614 de-activates the ATZ and indicates no ATS provided in July. NOTAM L4612 mandates "NO AIRCRAFT IS PERMITTED TO OVERFLY THE AD AT LESS THAN 1000 FT AGL". What civil aviation legislation has been enacted to enable this to be mandated?
2. If there is no ATS being provided in July and at least part of the delay re-opening is caused by an ATCO shortage, is there going to be adequate time for ATC to train up new ATCOs (if indeed they have at last recruited any) to achieve Unit Endorsements for an apparent 1 September start of schheduled services?
1. NOTAM L4614 de-activates the ATZ and indicates no ATS provided in July. NOTAM L4612 mandates "NO AIRCRAFT IS PERMITTED TO OVERFLY THE AD AT LESS THAN 1000 FT AGL". What civil aviation legislation has been enacted to enable this to be mandated?
2. If there is no ATS being provided in July and at least part of the delay re-opening is caused by an ATCO shortage, is there going to be adequate time for ATC to train up new ATCOs (if indeed they have at last recruited any) to achieve Unit Endorsements for an apparent 1 September start of schheduled services?
2. How do the trainee ATCOs train with no traffic?!?
3. How are minimum hours achieved for existing ATCOs?
4.
5.
6....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it similar to the system used at EGVA during RIAT? ATCOs arrive before the event, they have to be valid to handle a/c on the arrival/show/departure days, but prior to that, there is little or no traffic to facilitate a validation board.
How did EGSY train its ATCOs prior to the commencement of operations?
How did EGSY train its ATCOs prior to the commencement of operations?
Is it similar to the system used at EGVA during RIAT? ATCOs arrive before the event, they have to be valid to handle a/c on the arrival/show/departure days, but prior to that, there is little or no traffic to facilitate a validation board.
How did EGSY train its ATCOs prior to the commencement of operations?
How did EGSY train its ATCOs prior to the commencement of operations?
To facilate its opening and service provision EGSY was handled as a "Greenfield Site" with one or more suitably qualifed and expereinced ATCOs being awarded what was referred to as "Greenfield Site Validations", also not relevant to EGNC.
1. NOTAM L4614 de-activates the ATZ and indicates no ATS provided in July. NOTAM L4612 mandates "NO AIRCRAFT IS PERMITTED TO OVERFLY THE AD AT LESS THAN 1000 FT AGL". What civil aviation legislation has been enacted to enable this to be mandated?
bb
bb
Ring Ops again and ask in the absence of an operational ATC Unit and an ATZ, what part of UK or EU legislation is the Aerodrome Operator using to be able to mandate minimum overflight of 1000 FT AGL? Just saying "'cos the CAA require us to protect the workforce" isn't lawful means of mandating the 1000 FT restriction. Am beginning to think that good egg's speculation of a "congested area" is the closest that there is to reality.
Ring Ops again and ask in the absence of an operational ATC Unit and an ATZ, what part of UK or EU legislation is the Aerodrome Operator using to be able to mandate minimum overflight of 1000 FT AGL? Just saying "'cos the CAA require us to protect the workforce" isn't lawful means of mandating the 1000 FT restriction. Am beginning to think that good egg's speculation of a "congested area" is the closest that there is to reality.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead I’d hazard a guess the CAA considers the airport a “congested area” whilst works are being undertaken therefore 1,000ft above is still required.
(It would, of course, not apply to aircraft landing/taking off IF the runway was open.)
i guess the worry is that people might fly approaches to the closed runway, but, as the restriction only applies to overhead the airfield this restriction would not prevent anyone from doing so.
bb
bb
The overflight Rule for congested areas is now embodied in Single European Rules of the Air (SERA) Regulation (EU) 923/2012.
SERA.3105 Minimum heights Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface......................
This superseded the previous UK ANO provisions.
Reference to this whole issue, at least, on my part, is tongue in cheek. Cannot imagine for one moment that the CAA would require it. If they did they would have originated the NOTAM citing the SERA Rule. Consequently IMHO EGNC management, in the absence of an operational ATC unit and ATZ are acting beyond their legal rights to mandate a minimum overflight level.
SERA.3105 Minimum heights Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except by permission from the competent authority, aircraft shall not be flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface......................
This superseded the previous UK ANO provisions.
Reference to this whole issue, at least, on my part, is tongue in cheek. Cannot imagine for one moment that the CAA would require it. If they did they would have originated the NOTAM citing the SERA Rule. Consequently IMHO EGNC management, in the absence of an operational ATC unit and ATZ are acting beyond their legal rights to mandate a minimum overflight level.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: EGCC
Age: 74
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just noticed AIP SUPPLEMENT 036/2018 with regards to CARLISLE AERODROME - EGNC - FULL REHABILITATION OF RUNWAY
As this is dated today does it have any influence on what has been posted recently on here?
As this is dated today does it have any influence on what has been posted recently on here?
Is it perhaps possible to contact the CAA (others on here seem much more knowledgeable about how the CAA usually act) and ask if they have been the ones initiating a 1,000 ft rule or whether they consider such a rule valid in the absence of ATC ?
Scotty dog
Nothing relevant to the current overflight issue. However, the new AIP AD2, AD 2.18, entries for EGNC included with the Supplement do not now include an Approach Control (APP) service, indicating TWR only. Who is going to provide this for arriving and departing IFR Public Transport flights?.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
It must also mean that the CAA has now signed off the EASA Aerodrome Certificate.
Still rather odd that it says only Tower is available although the aerodrome is available to IFR as well as VFR traffic and there are IFR approaches. Clearly no-one can use those until they get Approach controllers validated and an Approach Control service promulgated.
Also clearly some sorting out to be done given that first commercial services are due to begin 3rd Sept but apparently no Approach Service till some time after the 13th.
NorthSouth
If Approach Control is temporarily not available it would be reflected in a NOTAM. The revised AIP pages in the Supplement have actually deleted Approach Control from the ATS provided at EGNC. This would indicate a permanent/long term change. I therefore ask "who is to provide APP?"
If Approach Control is temporarily not available it would be reflected in a NOTAM. The revised AIP pages in the Supplement have actually deleted Approach Control from the ATS provided at EGNC. This would indicate a permanent/long term change. I therefore ask "who is to provide APP?"
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
notam l3966/18
q) egtt/qsplt/iv/bo/ae/000/022/5456n00249w002b) from: 18/06/01 08:00c) to: 18/08/31 17:00e) carlisle approach service and iap unavailable.
q) egtt/qsplt/iv/bo/ae/000/022/5456n00249w002b) from: 18/06/01 08:00c) to: 18/08/31 17:00e) carlisle approach service and iap unavailable.
NorthSouth
Was aware of the NOTAM which infers that the lack of APP and IAP is a temporary measure. As I previously mentioned the revised AIP pages (effective 13 September) included with the Supplement have deleted any reference to APP, however they still include reference to the IAP charts. Therefore one can speculate that if the IAPs are going to available an APP is to be provided, but apparently not provided by EGNC ATC.
With respect to your post 535, there is no basis for assuming that an EASA Certificate has been issued. Due to the lead time necessary to make AIP changes for 13 September it would have been assumed that the aerodrome would be licensed (either UK, or sometime later, EASA).
Was aware of the NOTAM which infers that the lack of APP and IAP is a temporary measure. As I previously mentioned the revised AIP pages (effective 13 September) included with the Supplement have deleted any reference to APP, however they still include reference to the IAP charts. Therefore one can speculate that if the IAPs are going to available an APP is to be provided, but apparently not provided by EGNC ATC.
With respect to your post 535, there is no basis for assuming that an EASA Certificate has been issued. Due to the lead time necessary to make AIP changes for 13 September it would have been assumed that the aerodrome would be licensed (either UK, or sometime later, EASA).
Flights from Carlisle Airport delayed until spring
I wonder if the recent Boardroom rows have contributed to a lack of focus?
Also, no mention of any delay in moving HQ staff into the office block.
I wonder if the recent Boardroom rows have contributed to a lack of focus?
Also, no mention of any delay in moving HQ staff into the office block.