New Land Smash And Grab By Glasgow ??

[Utrinque Apparatus]

I believe Glasgow Airport is planning significant airspace changes ? Anyone in the know ? Anyone unhappy about the prospect if true ?

[TheFox]

You imply in your post that you do not know what these changes are but you automatically assume that they are bad. Nothing like having an open mind.

DAP will tell you if it has went to the consultative stage yet, if Glasgow are wanting to change there controlled airspace.

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=7

[Ivor_Novello]

Are they building the third runway ? :)

[G-BMML]

As a local I have read in the local news rag that Glasgow airport is planning to close runway 10/28 due to lack of use and "security constraints!" Funny though just yesterday, Sat 2nd Feb, because of the wind conditions about 8 or 9 turboprop a/c used the said runway! C`est La Vie!

bilko.

[Utrinque Apparatus]

TheFox

"You imply in your post that you do not know what these changes are but you automatically assume that they are bad. Nothing like having an open mind"

Obviously as open as yours ?

I raised a question regarding the potential extension of controlled airspace around Glasgow, expecting comments on some rationale to it since I believe it to be unnecessary, yes.

['India-Mike]

An airspace grab doesn't bother me at Glasgow. NATS controllers are excellent and provide a friendly, helpful and efficient crossing service. So more controlled (class D) airspace wouldn't bother me. Edinburgh's grew a bit last year and that hasn't impacted any crossing service I've needed, and I hope that's true of other pilots too.

What does bother me is the loss of 09/27. That's a BAA thing, but then again I was once told by a BAA chap that they're running a shopping mall - it just happens to have a runway outside.

With that mentality anything's possible.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Airspace change proposals don't normally involve the grabbing of any land so the thread title is misleading.

BAA are planning to knock down the Loganair hangar and build more apron space with some new hangarage going up on land they own but not currently used for airfield operations .... which is what I thought the topic might be about.

The airspace proposal (if it even exists) will be conducted as a consultation exercise with public input possible. There you will have the possibility to explain why you don't agree with the proposed changes (assuming you read them), from an educated standpoint. If you can give a logical argument to back up any objections, then the CAA will listen to you and the authority making the proposal will have a duty to resolve it with you. If you simply say 'I don't like it', then the CAA will give your objection as much thought as that response takes on your part.

As suggested, check the CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy website. There you will find the procedure for 'Airspace Changes' and notification of any which are in process.

[xrayalpha]

CAA wants all UK Class E to be abolished.

To that end, Glasgow have started consultations with airfields/flying schools etc about the class E to the east and south of their zone.

Class E to be replaced by Class D.

One of the chaps in the talks is from Southampton, who recently wanted to ban VFR traffic from their Class D!

Talks about the Class E to the north and west will follow.

But you won't see the airspace being reduced now they have one less runway to worry about!



XA

['India-Mike]

Ban VFR from class D? Even with a transponder?

Glasgow and Edinburgh always ask me if transponder fitted. When I tell them 'no' I still get in the zone, I still get an accurate and timely service. Long may it continue.

Perhaps the big lump up front that is the Gipsy Major gives them enough of a primary return:ok:

[big paddy]

The CAA is not comfortable with Class E airspace on safety grounds due to the potential volume of unknown VFR be it civil or military traffic within it mixing with a known multitude of IFR or known VFR civil/military traffic. The outcome of this review could be an ACP following the CAA CAP725 process to enhance the airspace classification or the contrary, to return it to Class G as has happened in NATS ACP's before as there is an unwarranted amount of commercial flights to have Class E and actually it does little if anything for their protection.

The colleague is wholly incorrect about non access to Class D anywhere by anybody. Certainly banning it in Southampton region is totally unacceptable regardless of transponder equippage or not. Southampton has been commended in GA magazines for VFR access and ATC services provided in the last 6 months!! - perhaps investigate facts rather than trying to stir or listening to rumours would be advisable.

[quilmes]

.

Hey,


Where is this negativity about Glasgow Airport being unfriendly coming from?
EGPF, The Car Park with Shopping & Runway attached always welcomed the light side.
Are you shaved monkeys too young to remember the story of non-radio Slingsby Falke G-BAMB landing on the grass parallel to 24 (as was) at Abbottsinch? Maybe late '70s / early '80s?
Seemingly, had to dodge the VASI boxes. Possibly the last time the ATC lantern was used?
Changed days, eh?


Cya,
NDM

[xrayalpha]

Glasgow Airport, one runway or two, no matter to me - I am banned from the airspace three miles either side and five miles from the end of the runways!

Now as for the increased airspace, that I do have a problem with - as do the owners of all the private airfields ie Cumbernauld, Thornhill and Strathaven.

Quite simply, it forces increased contact with ATC or forces traffic lower over unfriendly terrain.

Of course, Glasgow NATS folk are fine people, but their equipment in regards to radio suitable for Scottish terrain is pants. And Scottish Info's is not much better in many areas.

So getting a clearance can be difficult if below 3,000ft.

That leaves one with low over hostile terrain.

Very best,

XA

[fisbangwollop]

Quote..."Of course, Glasgow NATS folk are fine people, but their equipment in regards to radio suitable for Scottish terrain is pants. [B]And Scottish Info's is not much better in many areas."

XRAYALPHA...I think you will find Scottish info coverage 119.875mhz pretty good in general, with a tx/rx site 2000ft up on the top of lowther hill this gives pretty good coverage above 1000ft over most of southern Scotland, TX/RX sites at Craigowl hill in Fife and windy head on the north Moray coast also gives good coverage to the north of the area. The only real poor spot is if below 1500ft in the oban area.....then of course it depends on how good your own equipment is!!!

[xrayalpha]

Hi all,

Have a look at Who owns airspace, and why can't they charge? in the ATC section for what I think is an interesting query!

Fisbang.. My personal experience, due to cr*p equipment, is that I can't talk to Glasgow or Scottish when over the Carse of Stirling, ie in the Loch Lomond to Stirling Castle area - which is just where one would want to talk to Glasgow to get clearance to climb up into what is proposed to be Class D over the Campsies to give a decent but of terrain clearance.

When I flew out of Cumbernauld, I would speak to Glasgow past Fintry way, then lose them on the way back from Loch Lomond. At Stirling Castle, I would call up Cumbernauld and ask them to phone Glasgow to let them know whose frequency I was on because I still couldn't get Scottish.

Now I fly a microlight with a hand-held Icom plumbed in to a decent aerial.

Yes, cr*p equipment. But with weight rules, etc this is often what we are forced to use.

And since, according to Flight Training News, there are now as many microlight schools as light aircraft schools (albeit none as big as Cabair!), this is the equipment many of your customers will be using in future,

Hope that helps, and sorry I didn't call you at Xmas - there were three of us flying locally at Strathaven on Xmas Day afternoon!

Very best,

XA

[PH-UKU]

Have to agree with X-ray Alpha -

1 - coverage of 119.875 is poor below 3000 in general. Which is only to be expected in and around 3500' mountains. Not good below 3000' in the Oban area - you'd be better having a transmitter on Ben Nevis ;)

2 - poor coverage from Loch Lomond to Stirling (where you get a constant clicking on 119.875 - this I believe is heterodyne interference which can affect GPS signals on some boxes)

3 - NATS Glasgow are excellent and very accomodating, they understand GA better than the airport owners. I operate freely in and out of Class D without a transponder (never causes a problem), and they are flexible enough to offer the short runway for expedition ..... which brings me onto another point .... in fact I'll open another thread for this ...

[fisbangwollop]

PHUKU.........My own experiance of the last 13 years of working the FIR sector from Scottish on 119.875 is that the coverage around Stirling at and below 2000ft is far better than Glasgow on 119.1. The majority of flights call us as they climb out from PG and then operate in the Stiling Dunblane area, only an hour ago I spoke to a helicopter at 800ft over Loch Lomond and maintained 2 way contact till landing at Perth.My own experiance of providing a FIS over the last few years is coverage around Oban below 2000ft is poor and between Ballantrae and Stranraer also below 2000ft poor. It is often the case aircraft will call Scottish 119.875 as they are unable to contact Glasgow on 119.1. A frequent user is a private owned Iquarus Micro that always calls when he operates from his private site at Blair Drummond and always maintains good 2way contact. At times Glasgow require to operate the traffic around the PG area but now with the FIR sector squack 7401 at least if they see that squack on radar they know the aircraft is in contact with Scottish 119.875.

['India-Mike]

fisbang's assessment is consistent with mine - I've been over Kippen at 800' talking to Scottish but not capable of talking to Glasgow. That whole 'valley' has never been a problem for me.

Scottish isn't the problem - line of sight in hilly/mountainous country is the issue. Not helped by people using Icom's - jeezus...what do you expect?

[PH-UKU]

FISbang and IM - sorry if i sounded a bit moaney :ouch:

OK, yes, I do actually agree that coverage along the Forth Valley is much better on 119.875 than from Glasgow 119.1 - as you say IM, line of sight and handhelds are limiting factors :) I can usually maintain 2-way with 119.875 for 2000' transits up to Perth, but I think there is an 'interference' issue with some radios blanking some GPS units on 119.875.

There was a thread about that a while back - if you get a rhythmic 'clicking' on 119.875 check to see if you have lost the GPS signal in the Thornhill area. I believe it happens on some KX125s and KX155s, and you only need to have 119.875 selected - even on box 2.

Probably to do with interference between transmitter sites ?

Read here for a wee bit of frequency tech talk. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=304765) Although it doesn't specifically mention GPS problems.

In all honesty I don't generally call now (I'll either listen out or have 127.27 selected to get a higher level relay, just in case) -most of my ops are in the valleys to the north -and it just gets frustrating for both the FIR and me if I drop out of coverage and either have to climb back up (watch those CHTs) just to say I'm descending again and going off frequency, or equally for the FIR having to find out where I've gone.

Keep up the good work Wilfie ;)

[fisbangwollop]

PHUKU.......Dont worry about losing contact with Scottish, we tend to know the area's that this will happen but if we do it is no hassle to try and find out where you are.......one day you may be glad of that!!!......as to listening out on a frequency, that's my pet hate!! what if everyone did that!! no information could be gleaned....no if your going to the bother of selecting the frequency try pressing the PTT button and say hello!!

As for Wilf I will pass on your regards when next I see him!!

[bad bear]

here is an extract from the BAA Glasgow 2015 plan;


6.8 Aircraft Maintenance
6.8.1 Two replacement maintenance hangars are likely to
be needed as a result of the western expansion of the
terminal and apron area. An indicative development zone
of approximately three hectares for these hangars is
reserved to the east of the runway 09/27, adjacent to the
General Aviation area (see Drawing 4). It is anticipated that
these hangars would be used to maintain small or medium
sized aircraft such as the SAAB 340, Embraer 135/145,
Boeing 737 variants and Airbus 319/320.

so no secret.
BB

[Ops and Mops]

It seems that some of the contributors on this thread need to revisit their radio theory and remember that VHF works on line of sight. :rolleyes:

The transmitting antennas at Glasgow are situated in perhaps the worst place (next to the airport Police Station at Dumbarton Court), surrounded by buildings, the M8 flyover and terrain surrounding the airfield. Is it any wonder that when VFR traffic is flying at low level, down a valley with a range of hills between it and the antenna that RT coverage is poor? Given the location of the transmitters, I actually think the performance of 119.1 is fantastic and that any reception of any signal outside of 10nm of PF below 1000' is incredible!

Glasgow is primarily an International Airport and their RT and Radar coverage is optimised to provide the airport traffic with the cover required by the CAA. Unless someone pays for Glasgow to become a LARS unit and pays for the siting of suitable TX/RX to carry that task out, things will not change. The controllers at Glasgow provide a fantastic service to the local GA community within the limits of their equipment, and encourage GA pilots to call to increase safety in a very busy piece of VFR/IFR mixed airspace.

The only solution to the problem is to have the TX/RX antennas co-located on top of the Gleniffer Braes or the Kilpatrick Hills, but the chances of this happening are next to zero due to the cost implications.

With regard to the airspace changes, these are being pushed by the CAA/DAP and the airlines as well as NATS on safety grounds. The mentality of "we won't speak to Glasgow because we don't have to" is slowly dissapearing as more GA pilots realise that it is actually in their interest to call! The number of Zone Infringements have reduced dramatically in the last 12 months, and more and more aircraft are getting the zone transists they want by speaking to Glasgow, rather than fighting them and being stubborn.

Glasgow have been promoting GA relations over the last 2 years with some sterling work done by their NATS Infringement Group team, hosting visits from the local flying clubs, and trying to promote understanding of the difficulties of unknown VFR traffic operating in and around the Glasgow Zone. Until you see the radar picture for yourself, you will never fully understand the issues affecting traffic an and around the Scottish TMA. You will also never understand that the airspace Glasgow DOES have isn't really big enough for the job, especially during the summer. The narrow strip of Class D/E between Glasgow and Edinburgh can become very full, very quicky, especially if Glasgow are on 23 and Edinburgh are on 06.

Class D airspace is not a "no go area", but it does require an ATC Clearance, and it DOES require you to comply with ATC instructions when inside it. You can only meet these requirements by speaking to ATC. If you can't speak to ATC by RT, why not try phoning before getting airborne, getting a clearance to enter at a specific point and time, and establishing 2 way RT contact ASAP. Adjacent units (Scottish Info, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Cumbernauld) all have direct lines to the GLA Approach controller, so they can even co-ordinate a clearance on your behalf if en route and out of Glasgow RT coverage.

So why don't some of you "anti air-traffic" guys actually take the time to learn a bit more about the problem, rather than lambasting it? Air Traffic Control is a concept provided for safety. Be thankful that for VFR/GA traffic in this country, the privilege of being looked after by ATC is one that is paid for by the Airlines and IFR traffic, not directly by you.

:ok:

[NorthSouth]

Coming back to the original Q, airspace changes around Glasgow will be coming and in my view not before time. How the authorities have condoned lots of commercial traffic in IMC operating in the same airspace as VFR traffic not in contact with anyone I don't know. Edinburgh got rid of its Class E a couple of years back and it has had no impact on GA mainly because they raised the base by 1000ft - although I have to say that when a conscientious GA pilot requests clearance to operate above the base of the Class D it would be nice to have a clear response from ATC.
Glasgow's current zone is a peculiar shape and if they're getting rid of 09/27 (here we go again! Edinburgh, Leeds Bradford, Birmingham) then the CTR should revert to a lozenge shape.
NS

[bad bear]

your chance to comment on the proposals on the ATC thread
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/360660-glasgow-egpf-atc-needs-your-help.html

b b

[Say again s l o w l y]

I was CFI at Cumbernauld for a few years and I can assure anyone that Glasgow App on 119.1 is often extremely difficult to contact. 119.87 is often not a huge amount better in certain areas, though it isn't bad. Certainly in the area to the North of the Campsie Hills, unless you are above 3000' then you have no choice but to talk to Scottish, not Glasgow, even though Glasgow were constantly asking us to contact them.

These problems have been pointed out on numerous occasions, but nothing has been done about it.

As Xray Alpha mentions, GLA are sometimes loath to let people transit their airspace. So I wouldn't welcome any increase in their boundaries. Though anyone who enters that class E without talking to anyone needs their head seen to, but surely there is a more a need to look at all te airspace around there, not just changing the classification of one bit?
Edinburgh have never been an issue and I have never been denied a transit, though I have taken some odd routings, but that's just part of the fun!

['India-Mike]

I have never experienced reception problems in the area that this airspace change will affect. Also I have never been refused a transit of the zone/area, even in non-transponder equipped aeroplanes. Any service Glasgow has provided me has always been top-notch; friendly but professional, efficient and effective. Certainly I do agree that to the north of Glasgow anything below 2000' does mean loss of comms with Glasgow ATC, but I'm in the open FIR there anyway and see-and-avoid has worked well for me so far. I'm afraid I'm therefore ambivalent towards this 'land grab'.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not really a "land grab" is it!

GLA are very good usually, but they have had their moments. However, this isn't about that. Personally I see no issue with changing the class E to class D.

I know class E gives most of us the willies in busy areas!

[xrayalpha]

Now the proposal is out.

My objections.

Primarlily at Strathaven Airfield elevation, 847ft. So standard overhead join at 2,000ft above the field would be inside the new Class D.

Yes, ideal to call Glasgow if in the Class E. But at Strathaven, there is never any traffic from Glasgow in the Class E to the immediate north of the field. So we don't. And we listen out on safety.com to hear for traffic at Strathaven. With 24 aircraft based there, and planning submitted for two new 10,000sq ft hangars last week, we are well on the way to becoming one of the top three Scottish airfields for based aircraft. So crazy to fly in from the north - Cumber, Glenrothes, Perth etc - and be on Glasgow until in the circuit at Strathaven! (most aircraft don't have two boxes!)

The NATS charts of radar returns of traffic on a typical day and in a typical month have the Class E in the wrong place! Look at where Kilmarnock is on the main chart extract and then extrapolate a line from the coast inland on the radar return pix and you'll see there is never anything over Strathaven!

So we have asked for a triangle of the Class D at 4,500ft immediately overhead and to the south of the airfield to be extended to East Kilbride and Stonehouse.

I would be also more comfortable with a higher base - say 3,500ft - in central Scotland for the new Class D since there is some high remote ground there and some nice high masts at Harthill (2,000ft agl).

It would also allow a standard overhead join at Cumbernauld at 2,000ft - ie 2,330 amsl - without a student drifting 200ft and into CAS.

Or allow transiting non-radio - perhaps with radio failure, perhaps old and without a radio - to overfly Cumbernauld's standard overhead join by 500ft without infringing CAS.

It is also nice, in lighter aircraft, to get above the worst of the thermic activity.

Since Glasgow's favourite response to an FIS is clear of Class D and not above 2000ft, will we expect - and get - clearances to fly at 4,000ft in Class D just because we don't like the bumps?

And when we fly over the Whitelees wind farm, right through Class D, we get "not above 2000ft" as standard. Well, I'd rather fly via Kilmarnock and outside Class D (and not talk to Glasgow 'cos they can't hear me) than fly so low over the hostile terrain up on the moors.

Oh well, the other point that aircraft numbers were going to rise and rise has also come to a halt with the recession.

Altogether, an inappropriate extension of the Class D which is reducing safety at smaller airfields.

How many cubic metres of airspace has Glasgow got per movement compared to Gatwick or Stansted? Just a thought!

[Say again s l o w l y]

Actually, scrub that last comment for me. This would be a right old pain for all of us. I would certainly have had a nightmare with students when trying to teach instrument procedures from CBN. You'd pop straight up to 3000ft over Cumbernauld, whilst I'd alwayd give them a bell and use the transponder, it would be an imposition.

Oh dear, this hasn't been well thought out.

I reckon I'll have to have a good look at it again and then join in the consultation.

Colin, have you read this bit?

Strathaven Airfield - supportive of change, but objection over SW
corner of proposed change re airfield height versus base of Class
D with the guidance from CAA re circuit overhead join vertical
spacing. Glasgow ATC are actively working with locally-based
Strathaven pilots to alleviate these concerns.

[PPRuNe Radar]

It is important for everyone who is affected by (or may be affected by) this proposal to put pen to paper and submit their thoughts during the consultation.

I agree that the change from Class E to D makes sense and is necessary to improve overall safety but I don't necessarily agree that the airspace shape and volume which will result in toto is acceptable from a GA flyer point of view.

If you read the post by PH-UKU on the ATC thread, he makes many valid and relevant suggestions for trimming the existing airspace as part of any proposal. Glasgow accepting this horse trading would give something back to the GA community in return for their support for the airspace change. That I would support.

Get writing folks, your voice does count.

[serf]

Craigowl is North of Dundee I think, fisbang.

[bad bear]

I see why some piilots dont seem bothered by the ACP

Other airspace users
5.4 All potential users of the airspace would be permitted to fly through the
airspace, but must be in radio contact with ATC and obtain a clearance
before entering the airspace.

Now could somebody try getting a clearance through the proposed airspace from north to south at 4,000' or 5,000' between 1500 and 1800 during the summer timetable when 23 is in use and let me know how it goes. The diagram on P14 might give one an idea of what the answer could be. There could be a stream of inbounds descending from 6,000' to 3,000' and it would simply not be possible for the pilot of a C150 to be given a clearance. So where would that leave the guys who thought they could still fly through? Under the airspace below 2,500' !

Perhaps the solution is for VFR corridors to be created that still allow transit at up to 6,000' but the routing would vary depending on the runways in use, any thoughts?


I should add that I am very keen for this ACP to go through but there are issues that need to be realised and dealt with now and not later.

b b

[dont overfil]

I see no point in having class E airspace at all so I understand the direction this proposal is going, however there can be no justification for class D at such low levels that contact cannot be guaranteed with the airfield ATC

In the USA they would get round some of the problem by making it a mode C/S transponder mandatory area without the need to speak to anyone. In our country this kind of freedom would be unlikely.

There is a large volume of GA traffic using this piece of airspace at the moment who are speaking to nobody. If this proposal was carried forward I suspect more staff and possibly another frequency would be required at Glasgow. One only has to see what has happened at Doncaster when now on a good weather weekend one can barely get a word in. 99% of the controllers job is controlling light aircraft for the sake of two commercial aircraft a day. Clearly Glasgow is much busier so the result will be a lot more transit refusals.

DO.

[Say again s l o w l y]

One thing that hasn't been made clear, is that whilst the idea of class E maybe a bit silly, how many incidents or airproxes have there actually been?

Most of us know full well the potential dangers of flying in class E and so will either use the little box of tricks known as a transponder or talk to someone. The problem around there has always been, who to talk to.

Glasgow constantly bang on about talking to them, but then seem utterly disinterested when you do try, Scottish are always good, but they are FIS. Edi are usually the most helpful.

[xrayalpha]

SAS,

The report says:

Strathaven Airfield - supportive of change, but objection over SW
corner of proposed change re airfield height versus base of Class
D with the guidance from CAA re circuit overhead join vertical
spacing. Glasgow ATC are actively working with locally-based
Strathaven pilots to alleviate these concerns.

Our view:

No objection to the removal of Class E since no-one really knows what it is anyway.

Support replacement - of part of it - by Class D. Perhaps extend the Class D to 4500 a bit north?

Have objections to the SW corner - there is no traffic there. NATS have got the Class E on the radar return pictures in the wrong place (check nav features like Kilmarnock!)

CAA and NATS have not worked with any Strathaven pilots in any way since the initial "scoping" meeting, although we did have a club visit to the tower at Glasgow.

So, if you ignore my caveats, then NATS speak truth.

Otherwise, they are being too economical for my liking.

ps. Traffic forecasts are a little out too, bearing in mind the new economic climate! (and the reality of the past few months!!)

[NorthSouth]

XA:NATS have got the Class E on the radar return pictures in the wrong place (check nav features like Kilmarnock!)You're right! On Figures 3 and 4 the whole airspace segment ought to be moved SE by about 5nm. That's pretty shoddy preparation, particularly since it portrays a lot of IFR traffic as being in the current Class E which is actually inside the CTR.

My view is:
1) Absolutely support changing Class E to Class D. Always thought it was mad to mix CAT a/c in and out of IMC at 250kts with VFRs talking to no-one
2) When they changed Class E to Class D around Edinburgh a few years ago it was very well done because they upped the base of CAS by 1000ft all round. No such clawback here
3) Most Glasgow inbounds for r/w 23 enter the south end of this airspace at 7000ft. That leaves plenty room to raise the base at the south end to 4500ft then 3500ft, with the drop down to 2500ft probably around Coatbridge-Airdrie, still giving plenty room for descent to 3000ft inside CAS before they turn left towards the ILS
4) Similarly at the north end, there's no need for a 2500ft base over Stirling and the Earlsburn wind farm. Glasgow's minimum vectoring altitude is in any case 4900ft in this area so they can't use any airspace below that. Making it a 3500ft base with Class G below would give more room for VFR transits across the hills and the wind farm (1771ft)

NS

[xrayalpha]

NorthSouth

Shoddy preparation is behind the whole scheme.

After an initial "scoping"eeting, there were meant to be further discussions with NATS.

They never happened.

The last email was sent by me last year asking for them, action by me not NATS!

Here it is:

Andy,

Happy New year!

Steve emailled me after our meeting to say:

agree we need to have further discussion in the south west area as you mention below, and also recorded this as action on Glasgow ATC to set this up in the circulated notes– I have asked Andy to endeavour to do so prior to Xmas
I wondered, since the club is visiting ATC on Weds 13th Feb at 7pm-ish whether you wanted to kill two birds with one stone and maybe meet with me on your home territory beforehand?
very best wishes,

Colin
ps. I have had a cryptic email from elsewhere. Are you the "top man in NATS" who thinks I fly through controlled airspace below the radar?

[fisbangwollop]

I guess the majority of GA aircraft operating in the PF-PH gap operate at and below 2500ft. Anything approaching the gap from the south VFR that is in contact with Scottish Info will always without exception be handed off to PF or PH approaching the lanark/Douglas windfarm area.

Most of the Cumbernauld VFR training traffic operates to the north of the field in the Stirling Dunblane area will in general operate at and below 2500ft. The majority of this traffic will use Scottish info 119.875mhz A very friendly service can be assured!! ( PF ATC at times too busy to talk...that is if they can hear them in the first place!!) and can be identified to PF ATC by the FIR conspicuity squak 7401....if at any time PF ATC need to work a quick call to the FIR sector will have them transferred in jig time.

I wish PF luck with their proposals....safety can only be increased with only a very minimal impact on GA traffic but as PPRUNE Radar says maybe a bit of give and take will help and in the end keep all sides happy.:ok:

[xrayalpha]

FBW said:

I guess the majority of GA aircraft operating in the PF-PH gap operate at and below 2500ft.

XA replies:

Probably correct. But just as Glasgow doesn't take traffic in the Class D 4500 upwards below 5000ft, if the new Class D is from 2500ft up then many GA would not want to go above 2000 in case of busting the airspace.

And that 500ft can be crucial in avoiding the Blackhill TV tower in poor viz, for instance!

Or just general "glide clear" to safe terrain.

That's why I - and most others - are not against this, we are just against the details.

And there has been little chance - despite promises - to have a proper input before the proposals were finalised.

Which makes one suspect that little regard will be given to anything said now - unless it is screamed from far and wide!

[Ivor_Novello]

How many cubic metres of airspace has Glasgow got per movement compared to Gatwick or Stansted? Just a thought!

Gatwick CTR is small, ok, but it's simply the area surrounding the extended centerline to allow aircraft to climb and descend to/from the London TMA.
Look at the size of the London TMA surrounding Gatwick from 1500' and above. Doubt you'll get a VFR transit there ;)

Glasgow deals with class F/G arrivals more than some other airports do. Controlled airspace is a known environment and it's easier for the controller. Outside CAS is much higher workload.

I never had a problem with crossings from Glasgow ATC. It really helps if you phone them up and pre book your clearance. That way they have your details, it's not a freecall and the controller's expecting you.
If you think you get a hard time from Glasgow ATC, try and get a transit from Solent Approach ;)

[xrayalpha]

Ivor,

Problems with Solent? Surely not.

You'll have read Big Paddy earlier on this thread who replied to my mention of fun in Southampton with:

"The colleague is wholly incorrect about non access to Class D anywhere by anybody. Certainly banning it in Southampton region is totally unacceptable regardless of transponder equippage or not. Southampton has been commended in GA magazines for VFR access and ATC services provided in the last 6 months!! - perhaps investigate facts rather than trying to stir or listening to rumours would be advisable."

This is the problem. If you fly around these areas, you know the problems. And I don't want them here!