Near misses at Doncaster / Robin Hood

[JohnnyRocket]

Investigations are taking place into four near misses involving planes flying to Doncaster's Robin Hood Airport. One took place just twelve days after the airport opened.

Three of the near misses have taken place close to the airport and involved jets coming into land and light aircraft.

Two of those were within two weeks of the airport opening. In all of those the jets were taking air traffic control orders from Robin Hood.

The fourth incident took place above the skies of Derbyshire at around twenty thousand feet.

A jet heading for the airport was involved in a near miss with a military plane.

The civilian jet in that case was taking its air traffic control from Manchester.

All these incidents are now being investigated by the independent UK Airprox Board.

In a separate inquiry, Department of Transport officials are to examine cargo planes used by Ghana based Johnsons Air, which land at Robin Hood, after the airline was banned from landing in Belgium.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<In all of those the jets were taking air traffic control orders from Robin Hood. >>

But what about the light aircraft?

[helicopter-redeye]

The 'light aircraft' were probably getting a radar service from Waddington LARS, whereas the commercial jets would not have had any radar direction/ RAS.

But then again it's class G airspace.

[MyData]

Last Sunday I flew my dual PPL QXC in preparation for the real thing this weekend - fingers crossed. Final leg was Tatenhill to Sandtoft (my home base at the moment). Draw a direct line on the chart and I'm straight through the Doncaster ATZ (but at +2000ft of course).

On the southbound outbound from Sandtoft we had used Waddington LARS but on return were handed to Doncaster from East Midlands. It was quiet but there was still a few other R/T conversations going on that made us both alert and keeping a good lookout.

As we passed abeam the runway to the south we both commented on how unbelievable it was for GA aircraft to get so close - we were perhaps 2 or 3nm at 3000ft, especially as a 737 (I think) was holding and was warned about us. The 737 in turn was holding short for an Hercules C130 inbound from the north into Doncaster.

Less than 10nm to the north east is Sandtoft, our destination, and we left Doncaster Approach to switch back to Sandtoft - and again were given notification of the C130.

During my training I've been getting familiar with LBA and the controlled airspace. It really is incredible that Doncaster doesn't have a wider Class D around it.

[Sliding member]

I wouldn't of thought FYY justifies class 'D' airspace there's enough of that already. EXT airport I would think is far busier and there is no airspace around there thank god. There's also gliders and a GA field near there and everyone seems to get on ok.

[7006 fan]

One of the incidents was, I gather, a rotorhead from Sandtoft, popping up into the path of an approaching 737. it does bring into question the safety case for Doncaster.
( I mean that not in a partisan HUY supporting mode, but as a concerned member of the 'global flying club' that is Civil Commercial Aviation, we have a duty to our customers to get them from A to B in one piece if we can, it is tough enough anyway without this sort of thing).
Again, I ask, what was the Safety Case that sanctioned Operations at DSA and what was put in place to manage the light aircraft bases in the area? Pretty fundamental I think to ensure a safe playing field for all concerned, GA and Jet alike?

:confused:

[HOODED]

Don't worry 7006 fan I'm sure it's only a matter of time before GA has another load of Airspace to keep it away from DSA. The private aviators have enough no go zones without another and this one will hit the cross country Glider pilots hardest but I'm sure it will come in time even if all these GA airfields and gliding sites were there before DSA. Finningley had a MATZ/ATZ which wasn't too much of a problem but the huge amount of Airspace DSA will insist it needs is another matter. Rant over!

[WorkingHard]

7006 fan wrote "Again, I ask, what was the Safety Case that sanctioned Operations at DSA and what was put in place to manage the light aircraft bases in the area? Pretty fundamental I think to ensure a safe playing field for all concerned, GA and Jet alike?"
Well we all like as safe a playing filed as possible of course. Perhaps you could just elucidate on the bit about managing the light aircraft bases in the area. For those of us using class g for GA operations (please note GA not just "light aircraft") then why should we have to suffer (and suffer it always turns out to be) class D so that a few pissed up holiday makers can go in and out a couple of times a week and us poor lot on business have to put up with it? NO NO NO - no more unwarranted controlled airspace.

[7006 fan]

Sorry guys I meant recreational flyers.

[qcode]

20,000 ft wow, who was proviiding the ats. was it doncaster area centre or military. if you look on any airspace map you will find that above doncaster there is not any cas until fl245 therefore no control, the only services provided will be ras and ris.

[turn right heading 365]

JohnnyRocket said that one of the incidents took place at 20000 feet above Derbyshire, and without checking a map a lot of that is CAS. Qcode, DSA is in South Yorkshire, and in any case ATC have got it really wrong if an inbound is still at FL200 at the FNY!

Not sure of the helicopter incident you are talking about, 7006. There was one where an inbound broke off the approach because, having been warned about the helicopter, he was not visual with it and was more than 1000ft above it. Heli was VFR, in contact with DSA and the inbound was on a RIS for the final approach. Only a "near miss" in the juicy speak of journo. Anything seems to qualify these days!!:{

[TCAS FAN]

Sliding member

Agree with you and the sentiments of others, given the type of operation that at Robin Hood, there should be some form of protection for PAX flights. To get this, ie a minimum of Class D airspace, each airport has to reach an apparently secret level of annual air transport movements and passenger through-put. Last time I heard it mentioned the PAX through-put was 300,000+, at the time leaving places like Exeter out in bandit country- the open FIR. Hopefully Flybe's expansion at EXT will now help them to reach the required level.

I have never seen the magic formula published for consideration of controlled airspace applications by the CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy, when I last enquired it was indicated that I was not to reveal my source!

If Robin Hood expects to acheive at least Class D airspace, if they haven't yet started work on it, they should now. From what I have seen of another major regional airport's current attempt to extend their airspace, the process is tortuously long with the airport having to go through many processes, including consulting everyone from parish councils upwards. In Robin Hood's case they will come up against MOD, who are not noted for their genorosity on controlled airspace matters.

A conservative estimate to accomplish the objective, assuming that the magic formula PAX/flights has been acheived, 3-4 years!
Best of luck all who fly there, and the poor controllers that are trying to keep it safe.

[qcode]

In todays safety concious environment you woul have thought that the CAA would automatically put some sort of controlled airspace (i.e. class D) around the airport. Unfortunately this is not the case and can take up to 2 years to implement, that is if the military do not fight it. Unfortunately there could be more serious incidents occuring before any controlled airspace is put in place, even loss of life. Hopefully not a major catastrophe. In any event I would not fly from an unprotected airport, would you?

[Chilli Monster]

20,000 ft wow, who was proviiding the ats. was it doncaster area centre or military. if you look on any airspace map you will find that above doncaster there is not any cas until fl245 therefore no control,

Doncaster area centre - wow, that's a new one! No control up to FL245 - what about the surrounding airways?

Does qcode actually know what he's talking about I wonder?

[PPRuNe Radar]

In todays safety concious environment you woul have thought that the CAA would automatically put some sort of controlled airspace (i.e. class D) around the airport. Unfortunately this is not the case and can take up to 2 years to implement, that is if the military do not fight it.

The requirements for obtaining new airspace classification are detailed in the UK Airspace Charter. As the CAA is the regulator and arbiter of UK airspace allocation, it is not for them to decide on the need for any airspace. That responsibility lies with those who use the airspace or provide services within it.

If Doncaster thinks it has a case for airspace, then it has to provide the justifications and consult with other airspace users as part of its case. It needs to reach an agreement with other users so that their needs are also addressed. Only then can it make an application.

The airport did not just open up overnight, it had been planned for for many years. It was mooted as far back as 2001 I think and was given the go ahead in 2003. That's more than enough time for any planner to have made all the appropriate airspace cases to other users, so that when it did open the formal case could be presented to the CAA. It could perhaps even have been presented before opening if the CAA accept predicted traffic figures as part of the submission (I do not know if they currently do).

Is it 'dangerous' in the meantime ? Not necessarily. There are millions of aircraft movements in Class G airspace every year. Yet the number of 'airprox' in Class G is very low when compared to the total number of movements. That isn't complacency, just an acceptance that there is a risk in anything we do balanced by the probability of anything happening being extremely low. The judgement call has to be made by every pilot who operates in Class G. It comes with being in command of the aeroplane and accepting the responsibilities that brings.

A major factor I see is the lack of awareness on the part of airline pilots about Class G airspace and how it is supposed to work. How many of them keep a good look out continuously (an integral part of airmanship) ? How many assume that the radar controller knows about everything and will keep them safe, and so continue with a 'heads in' operating technique ? How many apply the Rules of the Air for avoiding collisions in Class G airspace ? If the airliner is on the ILS at 2500' descending and a light aircraft is approaching from the right, it doesn't give the airliner any special rights or priority. The Rules say it is for the airliner to avoid the light aircraft. And why not ? It's Class G airspace, it's see and be seen, and it's a freedom we enjoy in the UK and is part of our heritage. If airlines can't cope with it then there are two choices. Don't operate in Class G ... or else have a robust and justifiable case for Controlled Airspace which is put to the CAA.

I am not fully aware of the traffic levels for Doncaster currently, but would be surprised if they meet a critical mass to justify a Class D Control Zone. A handful of movements every hour shouldn't disadvantage an extremely large number of GA, gliding, and military operators without good reason.

The nanny state we now unfortunately live in will no doubt argue otherwise !!!

[windy1]

There are several airports in East/S East with commercial jet traffic (Humberside, Cambridge, Norwich, Southend) which have managed without Class D for years and which have active GA fields very near. Seems to me any suggestion of Class D is rather premature.

[Riverboat]

As usual there is plenty of hype here. One factor that no one has so far mentioned is that for quite a while Doncaster did not have its own radar. It does now.

I think you will now find that there is a much better known environment than there was for the first 3 or 4 months of DSA's operational existence, and in the immediate local area there should be no more problems than BHX or STN get with light aircraft not being navigated correctly.

Sandtoft and Gamston are well aware of DSA, and are acting responsibly, and the few farm strips in the area are no problem.

I believe it would be best not to over-react, but see how things go now the radar is working.

I fully agree with the comments about Class G airspace - it is a safe environment thesedays - TCAS and generally available radar has made a huge difference. Of course if the Air Force don'e have serviceable transponders, that doesn't help!

[spekesoftly]

PPRuNe Radar wrote:-If the airliner is on the ILS at 2500' descending and a light aircraft is approaching from the right, it doesn't give the airliner any special rights or priority. The Rules say it is for the airliner to avoid the light aircraft. And why not ? It's Class G airspace .......

Doesn't the ANO cover this ?

"An aircraft while landing or on final approach to land shall have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight ......... "

[Cuddles]

Any truth in the RUMOR that a Finningley approach ATCO calmly set their headset on the console, and said something along the lines of 'bugger this for a game of soldiers, there's too much traffic in the FIR for me' and promptly departed the building?

[bundybear]

PPrune Radar,
1. Even partially configured at the top of an ILS, a 737 will still be doing 3nm/min. Small windscreens and high workload = difficulty in aquiring visually, light traffic.

2. When fully configured, a 737 is not very manouverable, and in fact, any requirement to deviate off a stable approach would almost certainly require a go-around. Any TCAS RA when fully configured does require an immediate go-around. There goes a tonne of fuel, now even higher workload, still with the conflicting traffic in the area.

I would suggest that airmanship would dictate that a light aircraft approaching a jet on approach to an airfield, from whichever direction, should give it some room. You will be able to see us well before we can see you.

Also TCAS is only able to provide us with a traffic RESOLUTION, if both aircraft are using mode C.
Even in the circuit at Sandtoft, Mode C helps the aircraft and radar.

Plenty of space out there, we just need to learn to share it.

[PPRuNe Radar]

spekesoftly

The ANO entry you quote is concerned with:

(6)__Order of landing

(a)__An aircraft while landing or on final approach to land shall have the right of way over other aircraft in flight or on the ground or water.

The light aircraft operating outside the ATZ is not concerned with the order of landing. He isn't operating at that aerodrome. He is 8 miles away from it.

But let's assume he is looking at his half mil UK ICAO Topographical chart. He might see an IAP chevron associated with the aerodrome (but of course the chevron is only shown on the prevalent instrument runway, he might be on the other approach and not notice it on the chart). That will strongly recommend that he contacts the ATSU if within 10NM of the aerodrome concerned. However, he is under no obligation to, and may not even have a radio. The light aircraft is 100% entitled to be there and the aircraft on final has to be ready to meet unknown aircraft within Class G airspace. It's just something operators in Class G have to be aware of and cope with.

This could apply though:

_(5)__Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome

Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39, a flying machine, glider or airship while flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably to know to be an aerodrome, or moving on an aerodrome, shall unless in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:

(a)__conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome, or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and

But the interpretation of pattern is the circuit I believe. It certainly doesn't mean someone on a 8+ mile final (as an aircraft at 2500' on the ILS might be). Otherwise you could go to the other extreme and deem the 'pattern' to commence from the top of descent. And no one would be able to fly anywhere ;)

bundybear

1. Even partially configured at the top of an ILS, a 737 will still be doing 3nm/min. Small windscreens and high workload = difficulty in aquiring visually, light traffic.

I don't think there is any argument that there are practicalities which make things difficult for airline pilots. But such difficulties are no defence for not complying with the Rules of the Air, otherwise there would be exemptions granted from the rules. As I said before, the awareness factor seems to be lacking with some, and hopefully a very small number of, commercial crews. A lack of awareness of the airspace they operate in, and a therefore a lack of awareness of what they might encounter and how the law dictates that collision prevention should be carried out.

2. When fully configured, a 737 is not very manouverable, and in fact, any requirement to deviate off a stable approach would almost certainly require a go-around. Any TCAS RA when fully configured does require an immediate go-around.

If that's what it takes to avoid a collision, then it must be done. It's what crews are trained for and will be able to do almost instinctively.

There goes a tonne of fuel, now even higher workload, still with the conflicting traffic in the area.

I would hope the burning of a tonne of fuel would never be a factor in making any decision concerning flight safety.

I would suggest that airmanship would dictate that a light aircraft approaching a jet on approach to an airfield, from whichever direction, should give it some room. You will be able to see us well before we can see you.

The problem with this is it depends on circumstances and geometry in each individual case. I am sure most light aircraft pilots, myself included, would do so provided it did not affect our own flight safety, and provided we see you in the first place. I might be crossing your track at an acute angle. That puts you approaching from my 8 o'clock. Maybe my aircraft type has a poor view in that quarter, particularly if I have a high wing and you are descending towards me. For example, I might be operating 1000' below cloud in VMC in my non radio Piper Cub (I wish !!) crossing you at right angles 8 miles out on final at 2500'. You pop out the cloud at 3500' just over 3 miles away from me - or about a minute from our flight paths crossing. I am high winged, I am slow, I am tracking at 90 degrees to your track but actually pointing 20 degrees to the right of my track to combat drift. You are out of my line of sight. I can't see you at all, never mind before you can see me. Meanwhile one of you is heads down flying the ILS, the other is doing pre landing checks or other tasks. So who is looking out of your cockpit ?? It's a worst worst case, but totally feasible.

I guess all I'm saying is that even with the 'difficulties' jets have with sighting and manouevring to avoid other aircraft, there is no absolution from the law and it describes how aerial collisions are to be avoided in terms of rights of way. Sometimes you are going to have to take control of the situation and spend extra fuel to keep yourselves safe.

Also TCAS is only able to provide us with a traffic RESOLUTION, if both aircraft are using mode C. Even in the circuit at Sandtoft, Mode C helps the aircraft and radar.

Agreed, however as you are no doubt aware, the mandate for SSR carraige is non existent in Class G in the vicinity of aerodromes. You have to be ready to counter non transponding non radio aircraft in that environment. Any pilot placing a blind reliance on the 'fish finder' and not looking out the window is setting themselves up for a potential scare ... or worse.

Plenty of space out there, we just need to learn to share it.

Absolutely, but it's give and take. Commercial operators have no right to expect the waves to part for them all the time just because they have fare paying passengers on board or because it costs £££££ per minute they are flying. Airspace is a shared resource and Farmer Joe in his Piper Cub who is also paying £££££ in terms of his own personal budget has equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Pilots on both sides of the equation should sometimes accept that the best course of action is to forego your legal right and be flexible. The problem is that the airlines expect it to always be the little guy :(

Perhaps this would be a good thread for Flying Lawyer to comment on
:E

[055166k]

Don't know why there is so much ill-feeling about protection and safety; regulated airspace merely provides a known traffic environment and is not an exclusion zone. As for traffic levels versus safety case have a look at the Bristol Zone.....just about wider than a 737's wingspan [artistic licence]; besides which it has taken 60'000 air transport movements a year and at least a decade of asking before they get a little bit more protection next year [hopefully].
No competent pilot should fear change, but beware the bar-prop bore who hasn't read a document or bought a new map for many a day as he does his thrice yearly spin in the cobwebbed hangar queen and then says.....Gosh, is that airfield active?...must write to my MP.....outrageous!

[2 sheds]

"Don't know why there is so much ill-feeling about protection and safety; regulated airspace merely provides a known traffic environment and is not an exclusion zone."
____________________________________________________

Couldn't agree more, 055.

It does behove ATC to play the game, but morally - never mind all the claptrap from DAP - should not the occupants of an IFR flight flying an instrument approach to an instrument runway, regardless of the number of such movements, regardless of the aircraft type, expect a degree of protection while flying IMC, i.e. separation from other IFR flights and at least a known traffic environment as regards other, VFR, flights?

I think that the correspondence above indicates what a complete pig's breakfast it is conducting IFR flights in Class G airspace, and I do not accept that vectoring traffic, either under RIS or under a necessarily limited RAS on the intermediate and even final approach while still "calling" unknown traffic should be an acceptable method of operation.

This is the aspect that DAP does not seem to appreciate - they seem to actually want airproxes or worse before they will accept that some legal protection is necessary. Do they really think the flying through the holding area at FL35 or making initial contact at 1500 ft crossing final approach at 5 miles final is an acceptable practice?

At the very least, they could do a lot better that the stupid little "feather" on the charts to indicate one end of an instrument runway. It would be useful if there were an indication of each instrument runway final approach, out to about ten miles plus an indication of the airspace commonly used for holding, IAPs and radar vectoring. At least the military aerodromes attract a MATZ, not big enough to enclose all the airspace indicated above, but a start - civil aerodromes in class G have no "line on the map" outside the ATZ.

[Riverboat]

If a large commercial aircraft is operating in Class G airspace, it might only have protection once it reaches the ATZ.. There seems to be an argument for the airlines flying through Class G airspace to airports such as Doncaster to consider making a visual approach, and to make a visual circuit as well. (Yes, I appreciate that they would most likely be outside the ATZ).

Thomsonfly seem to like to make 10nm straight-in approaches, or at least procedural approaches, and never adapt to visual flying. They are probably not allowed to, because some bright spark has written into the OM that is it forbidden.

If this is so, it's a pity, because aircraft from Sandtoft, Retford etc will most likely keep clear of DSA up to 4 or 5 nm out, but might well cross an approach path at 6 or 7 nm. Maybe they shouldn't, but they might.

If the B737 joined downwind, and conducted a visual circuit (when wx permitted) it would be in a safer environment than if it carried out a long final approach.

What I am saying is that the airlines could help themselves if they were a bit more flexible.

[RAFAT]

Riverboat - regarding your Thomsonfly 10nm final point, from what I've seen that does appear to be the case. The aircraft begin their turns onto final approach to rwy 20 at exactly the same point (over my house) whatever the weather conditions, and I very rarely (almost never in fact) see any other Finningley inbound traffic doing likewise.

[bundybear]

It seems to me that there are several misconceptions about commercial jet operations. And a frank discussion from both jet and light aircraft operators may be of some benifit. So on my part then, just to clarify a few things.
The procedural arrival for 20 dictates that the base turn is commenced at 10.6 DME of the IFNL. So yes 10 miles out. This turn can be commenced earlier traffic and PROFILE permitting.Nearly always kept high when inbound to the FNY by Manchester radar. So, when passing overhead often need to fly the whole procedure for the track miles to "come down and slow down".
With regards to the visual, if being high is not an issue, and wx permitting, most guys would do a visual. The closer we are to the field the happier we all are, but, we are required to be established on the final approach course by 1500' for noise abatement reasons. This equates to 5 miles for a jet. This makes visual manouvering at night difficult as descent from the MSA cannot be commenced until within the circling area, again 5 miles.
Most days now though, with DSA radar operating, the controller vectors the aircraft, so if it is a 10 mile final its a 10 mile final.

PPrune radar, the "fish finder" resolves conflicts all over the world every day, despite pilots looking intently for traffic and even ATC scanning a scope. It is vital kit and maximising its use is essential. Of course a go around would be conducted whenever required, but if you think the fuel for this is not a major consideration, you really do not understand jet operations. Not the cost of the fuel, but just how much do you think will be in the tanks on the 2nd approach?
Wx aside, the JAR required fuel at your destination after 1 approach would be the trip fuel to your alternate and 30 mins holding at the alternate. Subtract a 1000kg's or there abouts and things get a little stressfull. That doesn't mean that when planning into somewhere like DSA, extra fuel, would not be carried, but, a go-around can have very a very serious impact on your fuel based options.

Traffic @ ......


BB

[Kilo-club SNA]

Hello fellow aviators!

It sometimes feels like we forget tja twe are all on the same side
While starting as a glider pilot , spent a few years instructing in GA and is now handeling jets.....and soon into Doncaster


What we all have to remember is that class C airspace doesn't meen that we can relax "puh! out of the copntrolled airspace"
It is more beneficial to everybody to have controlled airspace BUT it requires that atc really act as a helper than a stopper. Now, I'm the first to admitt that atc are probably the hardest working people in aviation it's still important to try and facilitate the odd VFR flight that is zick zacking towards it goal. If pilots would feel less intimidated by the thought of talking to atc they would be more likely to just call upp and say "I'm outside the airspace, about to pass through the extended centerline...any other a/c around". Just because you have the right to fly there doesn't mean that it's suitable right this second.

In the US they have a very relaxed way of viewing airspace and I don't really think I've ever been told "no you can't do that" it would more likely be "ok, can you keep east of the highway for another two miles than towards destination?"

The controlled airspace really means communication airspace! with a little bit of flexibility it can be done, not a problem.

Another thing that they have in the US around airfields are sectors covering the extended centerline which prevents a VFR aircraft to cross it in bad wx (requires higher cloud separation and visibility), If the wx is good, just sail through. And most airlines pilots won't mind to adjust their path if tey are in a gin clear day. But not while in IMC on a non precision apch.

Ok, more than I meant to say, be safe out there!

[ebenezer]

...should not the occupants of an IFR flight flying an instrument approach to an instrument runway, regardless of the number of such movements, regardless of the aircraft type, expect a degree of protection while flying IMC, i.e. separation from other IFR flights and at least a known traffic environment as regards other, VFR, flights?

CORRECT!

The ICAO Recommendation is that all instrument approach procedures shall be protected by controlled airspace (Class A, C or D). Regrettably, the UK does not comply with this Recommendation.

The provision of radar advisory whether or not aircraft are equipped with (a) SSR, (b) Mode-C encoding and (c) TCAS is NOT a substitute for the known-traffic KNOWN-INTENTIONS controlled airspace environment it offers ATC and flight crew.

The CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy is staffed predominately by serving and ex. military personnel none of whom have a clue about public transport flights operating in Class G airspace.

The CAA's Director of Airspace Policy (an ex. RAF type) claims to be the guru of radar advisory but providing this service to a military fast-jet or helicopter is completely different to providing it to a Boeing 737 or Boeing 757 full of fare-paying civilian passengers.

Unfortunately, the CAA (supposedly the UK Safety Regulator...) just slopes its shoulders saying that it's "...up to the airline operator to satisfy itself as to the suitability and safety of a particular airport having regard to its planned operation." This is complete bull**** and the CAA knows it!

The trouble is that the advice given by the staff at the CAA to the Minister and the Department of Transport is that radar advisory provides the necessary safety assurance and that everything's 'hunky-dory'.

Try telling Eastern Airways, Flybe or the crews involved in various AIRPROXs at Doncaster/Finningley and Coventry...

Interestingly, this autumn, the Class D CTR at Brize Norton is being retained whilst the station's fixed-wing aircraft are detached to nearby Fairford during re-surfacing of the Brize runway, in the words of OC Brize "...for the protection of our aircraft into and out of RAF Fairford."

Quite.

Of course, controlled airspace doesn't have to exclude VFR ops by GA because Flexible Use of Airspace agreements can easily be put in place.

But it needs the CAA to pull its collective head out of the sand!!

:hmm:

[2 sheds]

Well said, ebenezer.

I really think that DAP needs to be publicly taken to task for their attitude over this. How on Earth can they justify the minimum number of IFR movements/pax criterion? Where do these figures come from. How do they measure safety to be able to smugly say that an acceptable level exists? Acceptable to whom, pray?

Interesting point - whenever I have conducted pilots around ATC and shown them the radar picture of Class G airspace, they usually sh*t themselves! What do they think we are doing much of the time?!!

[qcode]

Also separation is not mandatory in class d airspace the uk. Mandatory separation is only required between IFR & IFR, IFR & SVFR.

[WorkingHard]

Ok so if we want controlled airspace to protect passenger flights how about all of us in GA applying for at least class D where we have aircraft operating on an AOC? Passenger flights, yes of course they are. But that would not be playing the game as far as the big boys are concerned. Imagine the problems you would then have getting into Doncaster with your tubes full of drunken holiday makers.
PPrune radar your summation is spot on, I am envious that I cannot put it so eloquently.

[niknak]

When, not if, Peel apply for the protection of class D airspace at Donny, they will have to undertake and pay for an extensive (about 18 month) consultation process alongside the CAA and DAP.

The consultation is not exclusive to aviation, but also includes environmental bodies, local councils and local people.

Whichever side of the fence you sit, now's the time to polish up and prepare constructive and balanced arguments, and having been involved in the process before, I know that you won't achieve anything without a good case presentation.

Procrasternation and inaccurate theory as has been occasionally posted here will achieve nothing.

[turn right heading 365]

qcode you are right, but MATS part 1 says "The classification of the airspace within a flight information region determines the
flight rules which apply and the minimum services which are to be provided." Note use of the word minimum .

[qcode]

trh365
yes i agree, i was only pointing the point that somebody mentioned about all ifr a/c carrying out an instrument approach should be afforded protection. in the case of donny they are not, however i'm sure that if one of the radar controllers saw a primary return heading to cross final approach ahead of an inbound ifr a/c then the appropriate traffic would be given. Another point regarding the icao reccomendation, it is a reccomendation and does not have to be complied with by any member states. remember egsy, well it is still there, but many a time pilots flying passengers ifr on final approach would break cloud and see a ga a/c passing in front of them. to me its pretty scary, i prefer ifr inside cas (a,b,d) at any time.

[B-Chops]

Just read this thread with interest. I was working on a Sun for a Families Day and through the ignorance of a couple of airpsace users the main attraction was a disappointment for the families. All formalities were put in place i.e. NOTAMS, local aerodromes phoned to reiterate the TRA - everything possible to inform one and all but still we had aviators call on frequency unaware of the avoid. At a guess about 75% of calls. I would say it surprised me but it didn't. It amazes me that people jump into their aeroplanes and fly around the countryside oblivious of avoids, danger areas, restricted areas, major airports etc. I understand that there is alot to read and take in prior to getting airborne but surely the major ones would stick, especially ones where fast jets are involved and airports with passenger aircraft. Yes, the Class of airspace implies as such "free for all" but I do think that some people take it too literally. Just the minority who are unaware of their environment spoil it for the majority and cause more trouble than required.

[WorkingHard]

B-CHOPS please do not assume that GA is the only culprit. Please refer to official statistics for airproxes, level busts, unauthorised entry into cas etc. and you will see that commercial air transport and military are guilty of such things. Your "free for all" is very much a misnomer and very few pilots would treat class g as such. Please also be aware that by a very large margin GA accounts for the majority of aircraft movements in the UK and therefore places such as Doncaster, should it aquire class D will do so at the expense of the MAJORITY of airspace users.

[CAP670]

In respect of applying for airspace changes, see the thread: PPRuNe Forums » Ground Ops Forums » ATC Issues » IFR departures NOT on a SID.

Whichever side of the fence you sit, now's the time to polish up and prepare constructive and balanced arguments, and having been involved in the process before, I know that you won't achieve anything without a good case presentation..
niknak, also having been involved in two such 'airspace change' proposals, whilst I'd very much like to agree with your reference to "constructive and balanced arguments" I'm afraid that this whole issue has become such a political football that no matter how constructive and balanced the arguments in favour might be, the CAA (acting on the Direction of the DfT which itself is necessarily a political animal) now attempts the impossible task of trying to please all of the people all of the time whilst also trying to be mindful of the Government's not unreasonable desire to be re-elected.

The result is all too often an inadequate solution to an issue which is primarily one concerning
the safety of the travelling public.

Whilst some/many of the aircraft involved may indeed be mere "...tubes full of drunken holiday makers" as WorkingHard opines, these people have nonetheless paid the airline or tour operator for a ticket and they are entitled to the same level of safety and protection whether they're flying from Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Doncaster, East Midlands, Exeter, Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Newcastle, Luton, Norwich, Stansted, Teesside (DTV), etc.

The whole ethos in the UK in regard to this issue is hoplessly out-of-date, utterly confused and patently not delivering an acceptable target level of safety.

The 'protection' of an ATZ - being unchanged in its concept for over 50 years - is non-existant for large public-transport aircraft. The military recognised this shortcoming years ago when the standard MATZ was introduced as applying to all military flights.

The growth of airline operations from many previously minimally-used regional airports in Class G airspace has changed the operational landscape and the speed at which such operations can quite literally mushroom from virtually nothing has left the CAA and its hoplessly inadequate civil-service processes far behind.

The notion that all airspace users have equal rights of access is simply untenable in 21st Century Britain - we do not for example, permit learner drivers or motorcycles below a specified engine capacity to operate on our motorways, neither would we/do we allow the owners and operators of privately-owned trains to run on the national rail network without regulation, integration and control; and the idea that UK airspace can be operated in a similar fashion to for example, yachting and boating in The Solent, whilst ensuring that the travelling public is afforded a safe passage, is just not realistic.

The Government champions the development of regional air services yet fails lamentably to facilitate the necessary safety-orientated infrastructure. What the UK urgently needs is a completely new approach by the Government through the DfT that recognises the need to put the safety of the travelling public (who after all, have the vote...) at the top of the agenda whilst also ensuring that where it's reasonable and practical, others are not unduly restricted. The Flexible Use of Airspace concept embraces this latter issue and offers one way ahead.

Whilst one should not really be emotive or sensationalist about this if - God forbid - we were ever faced in the UK with a midair along the lines of Cerritos* (which admittedly, happened inside CAS albeit Class 'B' but a similar concept to the provision of RAS and RIS in UK Class 'G') we would find that the necessary airspace and ATC measures would be introduced virtually overnight (assuming that is, the Government left anyone responsible, still employed in the CAA and so able to do it).

---------

(*At approximately 11:40 am PDT on August 31, 1986, a Piper Archer departed Torrance, California, for a VFR flight to Big Bear, California. A flight plan filed, but not activated, with the Hawthorne Flight Service Station showed the proposed route as direct Long Beach to Paradise VOR and then direct to Big Bear at a cruising altitude of 9,500 feet. Radar showed that the Piper turned east toward Paradise after takeoff with the Mode-A transponder [i.e. non altitude reporting] set to the VFR code of # 1200. The pilot did not request ATC assistance or clearance into the TMA. [In 1986, what is now Class B airspace was designated as a TMA.]

Aeromexico 498, a DC9 with 58 passengers and a crew of six, was inbound from Tijuana to Los Angeles (LAX) on an IFR flight plan. Flight 498 reported out of 10,000 feet at 11:46 a.m. and was instructed to contact LAX Approach Control. About one minute later, the flight reported level at 7,000 feet, and at 11:50 approach control asked for a speed reduction to 210 knots, which the crew acknowledged.

At 11:50:46, the controller advised Flight 498 of "Traffic, 10 o'clock, one mile, northbound, altitude unknown." Aeromexico 498 acknowledged the call but did not report the traffic in sight.

However, this was not the Archer target.

At 11:51:04, the flight was cleared down to 6,000 feet.

ATC then noticed that the radar was no longer tracking Flight 498 and after several unsuccessful attempts at radio contact, notified the arrival coordinator that radar and radio contact was lost. At 11:52:09, Flight 498 and the Piper Archer collided over Cerritos at about 6,650 feet. The Archer had inadvertently penetrated the 6,000-foot floor of the TMA without a clearance. The sky was clear with reported visibility of 14 miles. There were no survivors on either aircraft, and 15 people were killed on the ground. Five houses were destroyed and seven others damaged by wreckage or post-impact fire").

[Widger]

Imposition of class D is all well and good but, the problem then becomes access. Several airfields in the UK operate with quite tight margins and employ limited staff. That lone controller, up to his eyeballs with inbounds can (and often do) refuse transits because they are too busy.

KEEP CLEAR OF CONTROLLED AIRSPACE....GET ORF MOI LAAANND!

[Sven Sixtoo]

Going back a few posts, and just in case anyone is unaware, a MATZ provides protection only for military / military traffic.

Legally, civvie traffic only has to observe the ATZ, which is the much smaller 2000' / 2 or 2.5 mile cylinder.

It may not be sensible to drive your puddle jumper across a MATZ at 4 miles out, but its not of itself illegal.

Sven

[off watch]

Workinghard :-
You say "Please also be aware that by a very large margin GA accounts for the majority of aircraft movements in the UK"..... That may be so , but it would need an awful lot of GA movements to equate to the number of people on a B737 wanting CAS protection. As CAP670 rightly says, it is "an issue which is primarily one concerning the safety of the travelling public. "
The military & AOPA are currently on a winner because no MD can afford to shout about lack of protection around his Airport - but I bet if a crusading Sun reporter told Joe Public what goes on , there would be a lot more CAS very quickly !!

You also say "and therefore places such as Doncaster, should it aquire class D will do so at the expense of the MAJORITY of airspace users."
Why do you say "at the expense of" ? Maybe in some areas , GA is delayed or kept out of CAS for traffic reasons, but if it's that busy, can you be confident you can fly safely through it anyway if CAS didn't exist ?
Supposing Stornoway wanted Class D airspace to protect it's instrument approaches - who would be the majority affected by that ? The blanket objection to CAS by certain organisations does them no credit !!
Rant over :-)

[Riverboat]

The whole question of ATS outside controlled airspace is being discussed at the moment, and there will no doubt be a variety of views, with justification.

I am inclined to think that what we need is not more CA, but a known environment. There is plenty of space in Class G airspace, and the RAF seem to manage to make approaches into aerodromes without too many problems.

A known environment can be achieved by several means, including a mandatory radio area (like used to surround Upper Heyford years ago), by all aircraft having finctioning transponders and being obliged to switch them on, or by having a radar flight infomation service, like in France, with a promulgation that within (say) a radius of 10nm of any busy aerodrome in Class E,. F, or G, there is an obligation to call them. Or, better still, an obligation to call the AD concerned, to avoid frequency separation.

In other words, there are more ways to skin this cat than just adding more and more Class D airspace.

All ATCOs familiar with Class D, and users, know that Class D airspace usually ends up an impediment to transiting GA, even though it ideally should not. Not as often as it is, anyway.

But aircraft flying into DSA have to be protected one way or another - simple as that.

[2 sheds]

A known environment is not much good if half-a-dozen of the "known" aircraft are fannying around on the final approach track!

[WorkingHard]

off watch - I take the points you make and cannot argue. I would however suggest that not all delays to GA are because of traffic densities. There are of course occasions when atc staffing means GA does not get the service it should or is denied access because of controller workload etc etc. Now in those and many other circumstances GA "suffers" through no fault of its own making and the CAT has nothing to worry about and no cost implication. Now perhaps one might look at the possibility of a minimum service to be provided by those who want control the airspace and further more pay a "rent" on the volume of that airspace. Do you think that might result in s different level of service and a reduction in volume? You see by and large I really do believe that GA and ATC (in my experience) have an outstanding relationship and try so hard to accomodate each others needs, it is just such a pity that a very few from each side need a bit of "education"

[CAP670]

..... the RAF seem to manage to make approaches into aerodromes without too many problems.

Riverboat - that's because the majority of RAF fast-jet aircrew fly around wearing inflatable trousers and so can execute an ATC 'avaoidance action' instruction with a tad more angle of bank than a civil airliner with maybe 100+ punters (most unsecured in their seats) can in a Rate 1 turn.

Where the RAF operates 'heavy transports' of the multi-engined variety, they too have Class D controlled airspace (Brize & Lyneham).

Years ago, they even had the Honington Military Control Zone.

Then there's CAS-T (aka 'Purple Airspace') for Royal (Fixed-Wing) Flights (so clearly RAS isn't THAT acceptable...).

This has b**ger all to do with what GA, the MoD, the pilots, the controllers, the DfT or the CAA want - it's simply an issue about ensuring in so far as is practicable, the safety of the travelling public who still it appears, choose to fly and in doing so, place their trust in a safe and regulated industry.

At a notional value of approx $2.4M per life, if we do in the UK, ever suffer a midair in Class G involving a civil airliner, the only people to gain anything will be the 'no win - no fee' lawyers; and the corridors, offices and car park at CAA House will be strangely silent...

:hmm:

[ILS 119.5]

DSA should be protected. It is up to PEEL and the CAA to get their act together and obtain CAS. If the passengers knew the type of airspace they are flying into then they would not travel, therefore the airport and airlines would lose money, simple. But it is the old scenario, money before safety. If you think safety is expensive then wait till you have an accident. What I cannot understand is that some or most airlines cannot accept anything less than a RAS outside CAS. What if the radar controller is too busy to provide a RAS? Does this mean that the flight cannot depart? I think that the journos among you should pick up on this and highlight the safety issues. I would certainly not fly from an airport which does not have CAS.
Rgds
ILS 119.5

[NorthSouth]

ILS 119.5:some or most airlines cannot accept anything less than a RAS outside CASLike who? What surprises me is there are so many that do.
I would certainly not fly from an airport which does not have CASSo, no flights from Norwich, Humberside, Exeter, Plymouth, Newquay, Blackpool or any of the Scottish highlands and islands airports except Sumburgh? I suppose it just depends where you live.

NS

[M609]

I'm amazed that the UK retains an airspace system that most comparable nations binned in the 70s.........

......you don't want to be compared to some African nations, or do you? :}

[skyman1]

In the fullness of time I think you'll discover that the "near miss over Doncaster" actually occurred over East Midlands in class A airspace, involving a Doncaster inbound which was involved in an incident with a military jet on QRA. The airspace around Doncaster has attracted more than its share of incidents - this was not one of them.