NEMA delays flight path change

[Buster the Bear]

From the BBC:

Nottingham East Midlands Airport has postponed changes to its flight paths. The plans for a new flight path over eastern Leicestershire had been met with opposition from residents.

People living in the area said it would lead to increased noise levels, but despite this the Civil Aviation Authority approved the change in July.

Airport managers had welcomed the decision allowing them to move the flight path as they said aircraft would be higher and affect 75% fewer people.

They have now decided to postpone the changes and will consult further.

A rumour doing the rounds:

Phase 1 of the Midlands airspace development which involves the introduction of two new dedicated holds for East Midlands Airport and supporting changes to airspace and procedures and which was due to be introduced in November 2004 is rumoured to be likely to be shelved because a senior member of the Manchester Airports Group (which owns East Midlands) wrote to the CAA asking that the introduction of the Midlands airspace development be halted. This letter was apparently written following pressure from local residents and local organisations about the impact on the environment, and this despite the airspace expansion having received the approval of the CAA, which appears to have simply caved in because the Sponsor (East Midlands) has in effect, withdrawn its support. Can anybody confirm this rumour?

All very strange!
http://whipsnade.co.uk/picturelibrary/jpeg150/br/brown_bear_120_wide.jpg[

[CAP670]

If the CAA really has approved the change but is now withdrawing the plan, it begs the question just how badly was it needed in the first place? It also calls into question the CAA's and NEMA's arguments in support of the change.

Coming on the heels of the Judicial Review granted over the recent Clacton airspace changes, the CAA and its airspace policy staff's decisions are beginning to look pretty damn stupid, perhaps even unjustified.

Who just said "nothing new there, then..."??

And does East Midlands REALLY need the same number of holds as serve Birmingham, Stansted and Gatwick, not to mention Luton which amazingly, STILL shares the Lorel hold with Stansted???

:mad:

[almost professional]

implementation has been delayed to allow further consultation-CAP670 you would not be making those comments if you sat on the approach position weekday evenings on 09!

[Buster the Bear]

"And does East Midlands REALLY need the same number of holds as serve Birmingham, Stansted and Gatwick, not to mention Luton which amazingly, STILL shares the Lorel hold with Stansted???"

Well I would hate to think that there are delays inbound to Luton traffic as a result of co-sharing two inbound holds with its biggest, but more powerful rival! We must be looking at a combined through-put of these two holds in the order of 30 million pax per annum next year?

I am sure one of the reasons given by Luton Borough Council to giving up its airspace, was to improve efficiency. From reading many council minutes, those that advised LBC have long since gone!

One thing is for sure, there is no going back now for LBC!

[CAP670]

...you would not be making those comments if you sat on the approach position weekday evenings on 09!

That's as maybe, but the question still arises WHY does NEMA need two dedicated holds when for example, Luton and Stansted share one (Luton doesn't even have a dedicated hold) and the two airports in combination now generate more daily IFR movements than Gatwick!

One 'medium level' hold for NEMA must surely suffice - the fact that MAN ACC and LTCC feed inbound traffic independantly may have a bearing on it, but the issue certainly calls into question, the airspace planning and priorities of the CAA's so-called airspace 'experts' not to mention others who are charged with a controlled airspace oversight role.

The 'further consultation' exercise is a joke. If the proper consultation processes have been completed and the supportive arguments/evidence accepted (and they must have been for the proposal to have been agreed by the CAA) then there is absolutely no case whatsoever to go back for yet more consultation.

In doing so, the CAA has simply undermined its own position and NEMA has thrown into question, its own arguments for the additional airspace it sought

The whole sorry saga and the CAA's reaction in particular, just makes me weep.

:{

[Slaphead]

Buster/CAP670

Although it is true that GW and SS (and SC) traffic share the two Essex holds I don't think it necessarily true to say that as a rule of thumb GW traffic is delayed by SS traffic. It is still quite rare for GW arrivals to hold at Lorel due to the amount of SS traffic holding and it virtually never happens at Abbot. This is partly due to the distribution of traffic, the GW arrival peaks don't generally coincide with the SS arrival peaks and partly because some GW arrival traffic doesn't even get to the hold because it is subject to a full release.

If GW were to get a dedicated hold do you think that the staff in the single position paid for by TBI will be able to manage the stack and do the intermedaite and final vectoring?

[Buster the Bear]

I am more concerned that the Luton airport might dump the western airspace extension application due to a 'few' protesting vocally! (Or chose a useless hybrid in an attempt to appease all), hopefully the various local campaigners are not too influential, thus my orginal post relating to NEMA?

In regard to the service level given by NATS to Luton, I believe TBI actually gets far more than the terms of its contract dictates, close liaison between 'Essex', the 'TMA' and Luton seems to ensure an equitable distribution of flights in order to minimise delays. Name me however, another UK airport shifting 7-9 million pax without it's own unique dedicated hold?

http://whipsnade.co.uk/picturelibrary/jpeg150/br/brown_bear_120_wide.jpg

[CAP670]

If GW were to get a dedicated hold do you think that the staff in the single position paid for by TBI will be able to manage the stack and do the intermediate and final vectoring?

Slaphead - you really ought to get your facts right before making statements like this. TBI pays NATS £XXM/year for the provision of air traffic services. NATS chose to locate Luton Radar at LTCC and 'sold' the idea to TBI on the basis of improved service delivery. The contract price paid by TBI and agreed by both parties does not cover the cost of three GW ATCOs being simultaneously available as LTCC is an ATCO 2 unit and Area ATCO2s ain't as cheap as the Airport ATCO3s at Belfast and Cardiff.

However, NATS is contracted to provide a standard of service for which it gratefully accepts payment from TBI. If it cannot provide that contracted service, then there are reimbursement implications for NATS unless it can show that traffic increases are the primary cause, and not a failure to provide the required staff.

The shared hold (and unsuitable airspace configuration) are historic and pre-date the expansion that's taken place at both airports. It's patently obvious that you can't handle 900+ IFR movements a day with the the current inadequate infrastructure without increasing the risk of incidents.

Simply saying that TBI won't pay for more TC Luton ATCOs is like ignoring a catestrophic drop in your car's oil pressure because you've left your wallet at home!

And do please remind me - just how many TC Gatwick or TC Stansted ATCOs does BAA pay for?

To save you looking it up I'll provide the answer - none! The airlines and aircraft operators pay directly via their navigation charges.

Barring flood, earthquake, war or famine, Luton and TBI aren't going away and so the sooner the planners start planning instead of ignoring, the sooner the Essex and TC Luton operation will become less fraught for the flight deck and ATC alike.

:sad:

[GRAHAM]

Anyway, back to NEMA: having consulted the local authorities omitted in Round One (Oadby & Wigston) NEMA will press on with their plan in good time for the next AIRAC cycle. Is NEMA the monkey or the organ-grinder? I refer to the Grand Plan whereby the Midlands TMA will be created...

[slowfly]

Graham,
There is a paper been put to the NATMAC Committee on a Midlands TMA and it has been discussed elsewhere, but it is all a mess in the Midlands area at the moment Coventry are looking to apply for airspace, NEMA wants some more and have been approved to have some, but its on hold because it appears they have locals firing spears at them for shifting flight paths and expansion ideas, Birmingham will need airspace accomodation with their proposals for a new runway, etc... Military will need what they want etc.. Is there a clearer picture ...than that, I am not sure. A midlands TMA makes sense bring it all under one umbrella ...it has my vote but who would do it NATS????? under Bhx, surely not EGNX or Cov

[Slaphead]

CAP670,

Did NATS conduct negotiations with TBI or was it with the previous management, the one which chose to contract out ATC?

Isn't it true that the reason BAA Gatwick and BAA Stansted don't pay for ATCOs at TC becuase their contract with NATS is different to the GW contract and fees are paid by the user airlines?

Has there been a reduction in service delivery since the transfer of the approach function to TC and has there been an increase in incidents?

[CAP670]

Slaphead

The NATS/Luton negotiations began with the previous consortium management who represented LLAO which at the time included a number of companies, including TBI. Subsequently, TBI became the major shareholder.

The ATS contract is exactly the same as the contracts at CWL, BFS, and at for example, LCY.

All BAA London and Scottish airport contracts with NATS continue to be on a 'direct charging' basis.

NATS contracted with LLAO to provide ATS H24, 365 days a year and for the ATC services/times promulgated in the Air Pilot.

There has I think, been one break in service at West Drayton since the contract began.

There certainly hasn't been a degradation of service since NATS took over approach radar for Luton but the rationale for transferring to West Drayton argued by NATS at the time was to improve service by co-locating approach radar with the TMA.

There has not been a significant improvement simply because the airspace configuration and consequent ATC procedures have not been changed in the four years that NATS has run Luton ATC.

This is not necessarily NATS' fault because it's constrained by the need to not adversely affect its other London airport customers and to appease the CAA which now seems to act as an extension of the Dept of the Environment and the Deputy PM's Office.

You only have to look at the situation regarding interaction of SIDs from Northolt, City and Luton which in some cases necessitates TMA controllers treating all three as a single airport, to realise that the system is nuts and desperately in need of a radical re-think.

Whether or not Luton's arrivals often get routed direct (as much to avoid overloading LOREL as to benefit the pilots) is not the point. If NATS and the CAA can justify two separate holds for East Midlands which handles considerably fewer IFR daily movements than Luton, then there MUST be justification for at least one dedicated hold for Luton and arguably, two for Stansted.

If not, then the rationale behind the airspace and procedures planning smacks of smoke-filled room expediency and commercial manipulation...

:uhoh:

[Slaphead]

CAP 670

I'm not sure that life as is simple as saying 'East Midlands is going to get two holds and Luton is busier so they should get one or two holds as well'. As your point about the interaction between the departure routes demonstrates, the proximity of an airport and its route structure to other airports has a bearing on some of the procedures. East Midlands is sufficiently far away from other airports to permit dedicated holds and the owner/operator has presumably been able to demonstrate the requirement. Even if LLAO can demonstrate a need for a dedicated hold it is difficult to see where it can go without significantly penalising the operation of one or other airport in the TMA.

Perhaps when TBI and its predecessor thought it was better to be inside the NATS tent rather than outside and that is why they chose to outsource ATC?

[CAP670]

Perhaps when TBI and its predecessor thought it was better to be inside the NATS tent rather than outside and that is why they chose to outsource ATC?

I'm sure you're 100% correct in that assumption.

Maybe also, the time and effort that's been put into the NEMA airspace change and twin holds has something to do with NATS' aspirations for the ATS contract there? After all, Manchester Airport Group is already a long-standing customer.

Of course, this is pure speculation but you may be sure that if a Midlands TMA comes to pass and NATS got the contract, NEMA would like Luton (and City, Stansted, Heathrow and Gatwick) become another stand-alone control tower.

What's needed for Luton (and Stansted) is some more controlled airspace to the north but given the debacle over the NEMA airspace proposal, the judicial review granted over the new 'Clacton' airspace and the fact that Luton's had an application in for a minor CTA extension, for five years (!!) the likelihood of this happening seems remote.

Until that is, BAA at Stansted get stroppy because their traffic is being held up at LOREL by Luton's arrivals and start making representations!!

It's all very :suspect: if you ask me...

:\

[GRAHAM]

Ah so, Glasshopper! NEMA is but a small wheel in the great scheme of things. NERL, aka NATS (En Route) Ltd., aka the CAA, DAP and Uncle Tom Cobley are preparing for the expiry of the current price control system, late next year. How do you keep prices down and meet debt recovery? Simple! Expand controlled airspace and introduce as many new routes as you can with lots of new segments. I wouldn't be surprised if this little earner didn't stretch all the way back from Kingsway to Downing Street.

[slowfly]

item1 ..
Found this press release on CAA website could the new EMA airspace be available after March 2005, there are no clues on Airports website? Its been approved whats the real reason for the delay? Somebody somewhere must Know something.
item 2...
what did Buster the Bear mean about "the rumour doing the rounds about phase one "of the Midlands EMA airspace, is phase two the widely talked (about for at least 10 years I can remember ) the Midlands TMA (just curious) Buster the Bear seems a chap who knows. (come on rumour lets have some )

"Phase 1 of the Midlands airspace development which involves the introduction of two new dedicated holds for East Midlands Airport and supporting changes to airspace and procedures "


back to utterly boring item 1..
CAA PRESS RELEASE

East Midlands Airspace Changes Postponed At Airport’s Request 16 September 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The implementation of proposed airspace changes in the East Midlands area, which were approved by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in August, have been postponed at the request of Nottingham East Midlands Airport (NEMA).

NEMA requested a delay to the airspace change to enable it to carry out some further consultation on the proposal. The new timeframe is presently unknown, but it is unlikely that the airspace changes will come into effect before March 2005. Formal notification of the change will be issued when an implementation date is known.

Notes to Editors

The CAA is the UK's specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include: making sure that the aviation industry meets the highest technical and operational safety standards; preventing holidaymakers from being stranded abroad or losing money because of tour operator insolvency; planning and regulating all UK airspace; and regulating airports, air traffic services and airlines and providing advice on aviation policy from an economic standpoint.




http://www.caa.co.uk/caanews/caanews.asp?nid=954:ugh: :ugh: