Doncaster Sheffield - New Class D Airspace

[ShyTorque]

AIC 269 (Yellow 269) outlines new Class D airspace, a significant amount of airspace!

So this is why the Northern 1:500,000 CAA chart has been delayed....

Now all they need is for someone to change those blown 13 Amp fuses in the primary radar, the secondary radar, the ATIS machine, the ILS for runway 02, the DME..... etc, etc.

[Mark 1]

A lot of people will still be using the 1/2 mill south when routing via Gamston or to Netherthorpe. It'll be interesting to see how many busts they get in the first few months.
Still, it's not likely to cause problems to their 12 IFR movements unless your unlucky.
And don't use the map provided to find your way to Waddington!

[soay]

Now all they need is for someone to change those blown 13 Amp fuses in the primary radar, the secondary radar, the ATIS machine, the ILS for runway 02, the DME..... etc, etc.
They don't seem to be issuing METARs any more, either.

[chevvron]

Why do they need class D for only 12 IFR per day? Surely the figure must be higher than that or DAP would never have allowed it; airfields such as Humberside, Coventry, Norwich must be busier than this.
Don't forget it can be taken away as it was with Southend, Blackpool and Prestwick.

[Shunter]

It's sadly true. Just have a look at their website. About 12 aircraft coming in and out every day, and this is the summer season so it appears that includes charter. Huge swathes of Class D which I can't see a single justification for.

[flybymike]

It is all part of a master plan to put a complete barrier of MATZs and controlled airspace to the East of the A1 for the entire length of the country.

[proplover]

Heard that Peels are claiming large operating losses at Doncaster, shades of Sheffield. Barton must also be on doggy ground as Peels make it increasingly difficult and costly to operate there, prelude to close it and turn it into an shopping mall a la Sheffield?
The extensive Class D airspace requirements seems totally unjustified unless they plan to take Heathrows overflow!
How can this be justified for so few flights?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Isn't this in the best traditions of Robin Hood? Take from the poor (GA/Sport) and give to the rich (AOC)? There's a flaw there, somewhere.

[KeyPilot]

I can hardly belive this - there are many airports (the ones mentioned above, plus Blackpool, Inverness, ...) which have more public transport movements that Doncaster... what criteria are being applied? This seems ridicuous to me.

[bingoboy]

"what criteria are being applied?"

possibly the ability and willingness to spend large sums of money

[NorthSouth]

And don't use the map provided to find your way to Waddington!Don't use it to fly any of the VFR lanes either cos it advocates flying in the opposite direction to what the Rules of the Air require. And don't use the VRPs cos some of them are so close to final approaches that ATC couldn't possibly route you there and keep safe separation from the IFR traffic on final.

And if you're flying into Doncaster on a schedule from Europe, look out for a split-arse turn and dirty dive from FL110 when you get to 6nm from the field, cos they've designed the controlled airspace in such a way that it's impossible to do normal vectoring to a left base for 20.

Amazing it got past the gatekeepers.

NS

[CDH]

bloody hell-
Well we'll have see what happens when you request a transit then...

link here to the AIC
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/aic/yellow/EG_Circ_2008_Y_067_en.pdf

[bigfoot01]

...since this announcement all of my flights have told me to stay South and East/North and West, I suspect they are getting practice in for saying stay clear of controlled airspace. Somebody is going to have to help me with the procedure out of Sandtoft, however...

I remember the days of flying out of Sheffield straight through the overhead of Doncaster....

[niknak]

I won't say where I work (but several of you will know), but we've many more commercial flights than Doncaster (although not quite as many passengers).
Unit management have been working (alongside and with the support of all of the airline, commercial and the majority of based and local private operators) for a lot longer than DSA to get a much smaller Control Zone.
Although we're hopeful of getting what we've requested within 12 months, there are no guarantees, how DSA got this one through is a total and utter mystery, as has been said, there's no justification for it at all under current DAP "goalposts".

I suspect that many other ATC units are asking the same questions and thinking the same thing.

[Bravo73]

Don't use it to fly any of the VFR lanes either cos it advocates flying in the opposite direction to what the Rules of the Air require.

Huh? :confused: From the diagram, it looks like the S/VFR routes use the 'fly on the right of a line feature' rule.

And don't use the VRPs cos some of them are so close to final approaches that ATC couldn't possibly route you there and keep safe separation from the IFR traffic on final.

Huh(again)? :confused: All of the VRPs are at least 5nm from the airfield. These will be more than adequate for maintaining separation from inbound traffic. (Unless you plan on flying 4nm orbits, of course... :})


Are you looking at the same plan as the rest of us? ;)

[flybymike]

Niknak. Go on, give us a clue as to where the next chunk of Class D is going to be, and how you got the GA contingent to back the idea, ;) or is it just home based GA who are in favour, rather than those who may have to reroute or negotiate a transit?

[WorkingHard]

Any refusal for entry/transit of Class D that you genuinely believe is unwarranted and is controlled by NATS should be reported to the NATS safet department with an explanation. This should be done for anything that may impair safety, for example a last minute refusal. Whatever may be thought such matters will be investigated and reported back. For those units that are not NATS then report to DAP in the same way. WE HAVE TO STOP THE UNNECESSARY EXCLUSIVITY and it can only be done within the rules. So everyone get reporting PLEASE!

[javelin]

I think we should all make a point of overflying the existing 2 & 2 until the airspace comes into force :E

[Lurking123]

I think that is rather irresponsible and antagonistic behaviour. Then again, this is Proone.:bored:

[WorkingHard]

Lurking123 I agree that is an irresponsible suggestion and clearly made in haste BUT let us not assume it is the GA pilot who is the antagonist please. Class D is open to all unless SAFETY dictates otherwise then CAT has priority. Of course all flight could file IFR flight plans with the appropriate turning point or waypoint inside the class D!

[Lurking123]

WH, firstly I made no attempt to insinuate that it was a GA exclusive mentality. :)

Class D is not open to all, it is CAS within which certain rules apply. A CTR is established for the protection of IFR traffic taking off or landing at an airfield; it is not for the protection of (sic) 'priority CAT'.

I may not disagree with the argument but one has to be careful about the facts being used.

[snapper1]

Humberside next???

[M609]

how DSA got this one through is a total and utter mystery, as has been said, there's no justification for it at all under current DAP "goalposts".

The Caa have taken notice of the world outside the British Isles? :ouch: :rolleyes:

[NorthSouth]

B73:Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthSouth
Don't use it to fly any of the VFR lanes either cos it advocates flying in the opposite direction to what the Rules of the Air require.

Huh? From the diagram, it looks like the S/VFR routes use the 'fly on the right of a line feature' rule.You're right, they've corrected it now. The original announcement (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1638)had them going the other way - and they've corrected the chart there too now.

All of the VRPs are at least 5nm from the airfield. These will be more than adequate for maintaining separation from inbound trafficI disagree. The purpose of VRPs is "to provide a datum, or series of datums, which enables ATC to recommend a route which does not conflict with traffic using instrument approach or departure procedures." (AIC 98/2005). In the worst case, anyone seeking a Special VFR departure via Stainforth will have to be denied it by ATC if there are any IFR inbounds due on 20 because the Stainforth Lane does not maintain 3nm separation from the final approach track to 20. In straight VFR conditions ATC would be within their rights to clear a VFR departure via Stainforth even when there's IFR traffic inbound on 20, merely giving traffic info to both parties, but I can't see them getting very far with that when the inbound IFR is, say, at 6nm on the ILS, commencing descent, still in IMC, with opposite direction traffic showing on their TCAS converging from the right at 1500ft, as little as 1nm away laterally.

Similarly, how can the Wadworth to Clumber lane be usable when there are any 02 inbounds/20 departures? The lane crosses the final approach track at 5nm where IFR inbounds will be at 1740ft QNH with the VFRs presumably at not above 1500.

The only way these lanes can work is when there's no IFR traffic.

NS

[WorkingHard]

Lurking123 I have re-read my post and apologise as it could be taken as being "critical", it was certainly not intended. In fact the opposite. I think it is all too easy to accept what some ATC says and leave it at that, they are the professional and we the part time flyers so they must be right!
It seems a constant monitoring of this (by DAP) and other Class D is taking place to see what is really happening so get the reports in to the CAA as and when you feel appropriate

[Lurking123]

Absolutely. It is important to ensure that all airspace reservations deserve to keep their reserved status.

[rodan]

Humberside next???

Well, funny you should say that... (http://www.humbersideairport.com/huyweb.nsf/Content/AirspaceProposal)

[gasax]

This beggars belief!

Robin Hood Intergalatic spaceport gets a huge chunk of Class D and then 'me too' Humberside say we need it too!

Otherwise our controllers might have to use their radar and actually control traffic.

In a way it is an interesting insight into the thought processes of the application for CAS. There is no doubt that the pre-suposition of the application for CAS is to exclude any other traffic. Once you do that everything is easy peasy.

It completely ignored the fact that Humbeside is a LARS unit and so can 'see' all the traffic in the area - if they can do that what is the real need to exclude other traffic? The traffic densities are simply not high enough. for all their passengers I doubt there are more than 50 scheduled flights a day. For the vast majority of the time there is only GA traffic in the area.

Robin Hood needs to have its CAS withdrawn unless it can show that at least 5% of the time it actually has inbound or outbound traffic. This whole situation is a near complete nonesense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VFE]

Having wtinessed the ATCO's at Doncaster fend off the swarthes of VFR non-commerical traffic around scheduled commercial arrivals one can totally understand the slapping of Class D around the place, I really can. My heart went out to the chap on the ground last time we attempted to swan over the top at 3000ft as a B737 came in on finals - 5 mile seperations kinda go out the window really...

So in summary: About bloody time!

To those PPL'ers who moan: Plan and make radio calls accordingly you lazy twunts!

VFE.

[javelin]

Yes, I am being antagonistic.

Yes, I am a private pilot.

Yes, I am a commercial pilot.

Yes, I am pissed off with tupp'ny ha'penny pisspot airports like this demanding controlled airspace.

Personally, having operated into and out of LBA and HUY many times in big tackle, I am impressed at the way they operate without huge swathes of airspace.

OK - LBA butts up against MAN airspace (no pun intended), however this nonsense at Finningley is totally unwarranted, IMHO :sad:

I sincerely hope this isn't your doing Mr Rackham

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I sincerely hope this isn't your doing Mr Rackham

An unusual name. Not a former instructor at the College of Air Traffic Control, Hurn?

[Lurking123]

javelin, noting that you are a commercial pilot who has flown 'big tackle', I presume you are a member of BALPA? They persistently push for CAS to protect all CAT.

[javelin]

BALPA will never get a shilling out of me ! I am also on the LAA CAN ringround trying to prevent this sort of malarkey :ok:

[ShyTorque]

Just happened to be on frequency earlier today when someone decided to fly at very low level through Luton's Class D airspace without clearance. Whoever it was, it didn't go un-noticed. Not at all clever, especially as there was an emergency in progress. :ugh:

[BarTT]

Having started off working in Class A airspace, giving avoiding action was usually if you'd screwed up. Completely different in G. Do you know how annoying it is having to break off ILS traffic for the sake of one aircraft who passes through a 4 mile final west bound and THEN decides to call you???
The amount of times there will be hardly any aircraft within 15 miles of Doncaster, except the one that conflicts with with the IFR.

And what about the extra fuel burn, a big consideration these days!

Roll on class D!!!

[WorkingHard]

BarTT we are talking about VERY LITTLE commercial traffic here. There has to be sense and reason to all this. I would like to bet if the airports had to pay a rent on the volume of airspace they claim we would suddenly see some big reductions. As it is, once established it costs them nothing but the stock phrase "keep clear of controlled airspace". Next time we hear that perhaps it should be challenged as to why a clearance cannot be given. If such answers are that it is down to controller workload then clearly the controlling authority does not have enough staff to properly manage the airspace for all users and the class D should be suspended until they do. Subject to safety and separation we have as much right to be there as IFR traffic and I trust you dont need to be reminded of that.

[gasax]

Regrettably Bart and many other do need to be reminded. The application from Humberside is written with the intention of keeping GA traffic out. The actions of a large number of Class D controllers highlight that most days. Yes I have had transits, but equally I've had the 'remain clear' message so often I've become almost surprised when given a transit.

It is a question of mindset. Sur le continent Class D is treated as a known traffic environment - tell the controller where you are and what you're going to do and you will almost always be given a transit - usually with a 'report when clear'

Compare and contrast with the 'remain clear' apporach that typifies UK ATC.

[dont overfil]

Maybe I'm lucky but in 20 years of touring I have never been refused entry into class D. It could be that always squawking mode C makes the difference.
DO.

[WorkingHard]

dont overfill you appear to be somewhat fortunate. I cannot speak for others of course but in my view it makes no difference if one is Mode A or Mode C. In fact these days becuse I fly a fully IFR equipped aircraft it is Mode S, not that many units here can receive the mode S it seems.
Our best course of action is to question and file reports when it seems a transit may have been denied for any reason other than to maintain seraration. Radar traces can confirm or deny. We MUST NOT keep accepting controler workload as a reason for refusal without filing complaints.

[chevvron]

dont overfill obviously hasn't tried Southampton class D on a busy day.

[IO540]

DO - I guess it depends on where, when, how competent one sounds, how one arrives (on a handover IFR at FL050 etc is best, handover VFR next best, out of the blue VFR at 2000ft worst), and whether you count a 5/10 minute 'standby' time as qualifying.

I've had Mode C for 3 years, Mode S for the next 3, always navigated fully IFR and reported the route/position thus (none of this 'at [village name] at at at at hmmm hang on at this time' stuff) even if on a VFR flight, and I reckon I have got 75% of transits. But I must qualify this by saying that I never bother with Stansted/Luton (at 140kt+ going around the lot is not worth the bother of a radio call), do Southampton often (and they refuse occassionally, or give a 'standby, remain OCAS' and never get back to me) and other places occassionally (which occassionally refuse).

I think the problem is that the UK has not adopted the US-style Mode C veils. Had these been in place (which would mean mandatory Mode C for huge chunks of the UK) we would have had a much better CAS transit environment. Like it or not, IFR traffic has to get priority in practice even in Class G simply because you cannot make some big piece of metal go missed because some unknown primary return has wondered in, then make it go missed again because another unknown primary return has wondered in, and so on. That would be silly, as well as making a mockery of IFR procedures like fuel reserves etc.

We've got a load of civil libertarians here who have fought against Mode S like it was some 'no court order required wiretap' scheme run by the GCHQ, and for this we have got a situation where airfields with a few 737 movements a day are seeking their own CAS. Had Mode C veils been introduced some 20 years ago, the fuss would have died down and this issue would not be happening. It would have also defused the pressure for Mode S, which has no demonstrable technological basis over Mode C (the USA, with its traffic density) manages perfectly with Mode C). And I bet that transits would be much easier - if not 'automatic on 2-way radio contact' like they are in the USA.

[dont overfil]

Cevvron,
Southhampton only once, midweek, north to south, she sounded very nice.
DO.

[GyroSteve]

Have just looked at the Humberside proposal for the first time. One very sneaky move (which I would have pulled myself had I written the document!) is that the maps don't show Doncaster's new airspace. If they did the region would start to look very crowded.

[whowhenwhy]

From what I remember of the proposal they originally tabled in 2006ish (sorry haven't looked to see whether, if any, changes have been made) ISTR laughing at the huge swathe of CAS asked for on the basis of projected movements figures. After 2 years RHADS still aren't working any more traffic it seems, so exactly how did DAP swallow the figures????:ugh:

[Fly Through]

This thread shows just what little understanding the average pilot has of ATC. :ugh:
A refusal for entry into a CTR should be reported if you feel it was unecessary but for fecks sake don't argue the toss on the r/t, ring the unit responsible afterwards and you will get a much better response.

[gasax]

I'll rise to the bait.

I think your comment shows what little perception you have of GA's view of ATC!

No one on here has even suggested arguing the toss over the radio. All of the comments have been complain to the unit after the event.

As for getting a better response? Well with some ATC now thinking they are safe guarding us from global warning by minimising CAT fuel burns, somehow I think not.

The mindset with all these tinpot little places is we're really important with our Class D keep out. That is an attitude which largely does not exist in the Northern Class D areas which I usually fly in. Here Class D actually offers a service not a "remain clear..." demand. Transits are expected through Class D from Tessside northwards and their traffic levels make these two airfields look deserted. It would appear the NIMBY mindset is creeping northwards.

[Jinkster]

Have to agree with it, and yes i do the odd bit of instructing at Netherthorpe. I am absolutely sure that with a quick call to Donny App. they will let you through their airspace.

[EastCoaster]

Does anyone really believe, given the levels of GA traffic that historically have operated in the area around DSA/Finningley, that ATC are suddenly going to start trying to impose a huge "no-fly-zone" just because the powers-that-be have decided that there have been too many close calls (more than a few of those having been uncomfortably close) between large, fast-moving IFR aircraft and weekend flyers? Furthermore, does anyone really believe that ATC would actually get away with such a policy?

The purpose of the establishment of CAS is primarily to provide all flights (be they CAT/IFR/VFR or whatever) with the protection of a "known traffic environment" in which to operate - not to exclude every single VFR flight from the airspace just for the hell of it!

The "known traffic environment" part of the equation will enable the controller to maximise the efficient use of the airspace, including for all of you GA VFR pilots. Because of the fact that all pilots will have to communicate then smaller margins of separation can be used, in contrast to the status quo where a number of beligerent individuals choose not to contact ATC while transiting the area (perfectly within their rights not to do so, I hasten to add), but in not doing so forcing the controller to use much greater separations and having to greatly increase the track mileage of the IFR flights under his control. Not only does this greatly increase fuel burn and put huge amounts of extra emissions pollutants into the environment := but I'd be willing to bet that the residents of South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire generally would prefer it if the large noisy, smelly aeroplanes stayed on an established flight pattern that everybody could plan for, instead of jinking and turning and making large, noisy throttle adjustments at low level because some pillock thinks he's being really clever by flying overhead the airfield at 2,001 ft AGL, or paralleling the Final Approach track by 3.1 miles, or by flying formation aerobatics up to 4,000 ft in the departure lanes, all without talking to ATC and letting them know he's there and what he plans to do - because he doesn't have to! :ugh:

In short, you won't be excluded from the airspace just because you're VFR and/or GA. If you are refused entry/transit clearance and you don't believe that there is a valid reason for the exclusion, then do as has already been suggested and follow it up. But if you need to bitch and moan about the establishment of CAS, try directing the complaints at the small handful of individuals who have persistently put all of the other airspace users in the area at risk (including the 200 or so fare-paying passengers on each of the CAT flights) by exercising their right not to talk to the people vested with the responsibility to keep all of you guys from banging into each other while you're enjoying your Sunday afternoon jolly, or for that matter to go looking for you when you get into difficulty and have to put down in a field in the middle of nowhere - or worse! :cool:

[ShyTorque]

Not only does this greatly increase fuel burn and put huge amounts of extra emissions pollutants into the environment

I wondered how long it would be before someone would claim that we need ATC in order to be environmentally friendly; I think this is a first :ok:

[snapper1]

'You wont be excluded from the airspace just because you are VFR and/or GA'

But would I, in my non-transponder equiped glider be accepted?

[ShyTorque]

Don't worry, the radar often doesn't work anyway.. ;)

[snapper1]

ShyTorque,

Trouble is, if I even nick the edge by a fraction whilst trying to thermal through the gap below L975 and Robin Hood Intergalactic Spaceport, my GPS logger trace will show I've busted the airspace and my flight will not be recognised by the British Gliding Association.

[EastCoaster]

Snapper1, you wouldn't be excluded in your non-transponding glider; it's Class D CAS that's being established not Class A. You'll still have just as much entitlement to be there as now. In fact the CAS has been designed with large-scale gliding activity in mind, given the number of gliding schools/clubs in the vicinity of DSA. Controllers are very much aware of the limitations and requirements of glider-flying. When the gliding corridor is active the base of CAS will be exactly as it is now. I cannot, however, speak for the BGA and any procedures or restrictions that they might impose on their members.

As I stated in my earlier post, it's when pilots refuse to communicate/choose not to communicate with ATC (whether or not the radar is working) and make them aware of their intentions that problems arise, forcing the controller to give that aircraft a much wider berth as they move the IFR aircraft around/past it in case of sudden and unexpected turns towards the aircraft under their control. It's not uncommon for an extra 20 track miles or more to be added to a flight in these circumstances, in order to keep everybody safe.


ShyTorque, please don't try to misrepresent what I was trying to say.

You have your own environmental responsibilities when operating VFR, for both emissions and noise, as you are responsible for your own navigation and separation. IFR flights have necessarily relinquished responsibility for their separation and navigation (when in the approach phase of flight) to ATC, as they are the ones with the bigger picture of the activity within the airspace for which they are responsible. ATC, therefore rightly, must also assume and exercise a high degree of environmental responsibility when controlling these flights.

With regard to your comment about the radar, it is public knowledge that DSA very often do not have any control over it's serviceability, as both the Primary and SSR data are contracted from MOD installations. Reliability should no longer be an issue with the establishment of the CAS as the new on-site Primary radar and the SSR feed from NATS will be coming online.

This is a complex issue requiring considered and reasoned discussion from all sides. Glibness adds nothing to the debate, and will only serve to inflame opinions.

[bigfoot01]

...right to be glib. If the establishment of Controlled Air Space prevents this, I object.

[flybymike]

Comments along the lines of "you weekend flyers" on "your Sunday afternoon jollies" are not going to endear the average GA airspace user to the airlines, who voluntarily decided to start using airfields in class G airspace and then decided after the event that they now wanted to control the previously uncontrolled traffic environment in these areas. There is more to GA than weekend jollies, including business use, aerial work etc, all of which have more justifiable presence in UK airspace than a tube full of holiday makers off on their own very extended jollies... :rolleyes:

[flybymike]

Bythe way, I reckon the residents of South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire might prefer variable flight paths, rather than have the same old procedural approaches and departures over No 6 Acacia Avenue every day..

[ShyTorque]

This is a complex issue requiring considered and reasoned discussion from all sides. Glibness adds nothing to the debate, and will only serve to inflame opinions.

I wasn't meaning to be glib, I voiced my opinion, which you had inflamed by your statement about ATC and environmental issues, which I felt was spurious. It's an old argument though - go down the path of least resistance and move all the smaller aircraft out of the way of an airliner in Class G to allow the bigger stuff in so that locally based company doesn't suffer a reduction in their profit margins. A disgruntled private owner or smaller company can be ignored, a complaint from an airline with a direct interest in the airport is not so easily dealt with. Sorry if that sounds cynical but deep down we all have to accept that's the way it is.

However, I have no issue with the argument on safety grounds (I am one of EGCN's ATC regular customers and if you are one of the regular controllers we will have spoken many times). Be assured that I certainly always do my utmost to comply with ATC requests in Class G and literally go the extra mile or beyond where possible, e.g I have in the past taken un-asked for diversions off my track in Class G to allow bigger stuff sufficient separation. However, I do it out of consideration to ATC and the other crew, rather than for environmental reasons. ;)

Sometimes, unknown to ATC, I also have other pressures. For example my employer and owner of the aircraft is always on intercom. He is sometimes desperate to get to his destination in good time, which filters down to myself directly. He is on the top rung of the ladder, I am on the bottom rung and there are no rungs in between. I cannot cut corners / abbreviate my track or speed up on my regular routes, unlike an airliner; therefore diversions off track or delays due the new airspace will unfortunately occasionally cost my employer money to the benefit of an airline. I accept that. He will also have no choice, but please don't think I'm naiive enough to believe it's for environmental reasons. :=

[WorkingHard]

I wonder how long it will be before our call to DSA is answered automatically by "Keep clear of controlled aisrpace"?
If this happens I for one will file the appropraite report to CAA as with about 12 flights per day it really should never happen. So Eastcoaster with your ATC hat on may I make you aware of this in the very correct and polite fashion you referred to GA/VFR traffic. I fly for business as a GA pilot and my time and my money is far more precious to me than that of the bucket and spade brigade. So I would encourage all who believe they may have been innapropriately refused transit through any CAS to file the report to the CAA. I have the correct persons name and email address who will be co-ordinating these reports.

[funflier44]

As someone who flies from an airfield close to DSA I have been happy with the service I have received from them in the past. If this continues I can see few problems with the introduction of the class D CAS.

We have very few problems with East Mids so why with DSA?

[flybymike]

I don't necessarily think there is any anticipation of "problems." It is a matter of whether the airspace is justified on present traffic levels. At best it will be an inconvenience.

[Pudnucker]

With many of the airlines on the verge of bankruptcy and cutting routes, surely the smaller airports that don't welcome GA, want CAS protection etc etc will all have to do a massive blaircumbrown u turn and realise that they HAVE to welcome in previously unwelcome traffic to make a profit...

[flybymike]

We can dream I suppose....;)

[EastCoaster]

I'm curious to know why I'm being singled out for "attack", for want of a better way of putting it?!

All I've done in my previous two posts is to try to help explain why, at such an early stage in the life of the commercial airport, it may have been decided that the implementation of CAS at DSA is necessary! Obviously not only the airport authority wanted it, but also DAP and the CAA must have thought there was sufficient grounds for concern for the safety of aircraft in the area that not only was it approved so early, but also that the process was so quick! Their decision, not ATC's!

And another thing, I have no problem with GA flyers, nor does anybody that I know. All I was doing, as is clear from what I've written previously, was expressing dissatisfaction with those who have deliberately, negligently, or simply absent-mindedly put other airspace users in the area at risk by their actions (or lack of), for whatever personal reasons or motivations.

Neither did I try to say that ATC are the environmental arbiters of aviation. To try to do so would be pure silliness. ATC are responsible for the safety of the aircraft under their care, and under normal everyday working conditions are expected to exercise a high degree of environmental consideration in the routeing of aircraft, while trying to minimise the level of disruption and disturbance caused to those who must live and work in the vicinity of the airfield! On the other side of the argument is the economic pressure from the airlines and aircraft operators to minimise track mileage flown and thereby reduce the cost of fuel-burn per flight! However, I will clarify this by stating that when there is the possibility that the safety of a flight could be compromised (whether GA or CAT), then the environmental considerations go out the window - SAFETY is paramount! And that, once again, is why the CAS is being established! Not so that everybody who doesn't happen to possess an AOC can be excluded from flying in the area!

Why is it that most people are ASSUMING that there will automatically be an instant deterioration in the strong working relationship that's been forged between DSA ATC and the GA airspace users in the area over the last 3 years or more? Why don't we all just wait and see how things pan out?? Or is that just me being naiive and wanting to believe that people actually want to work together for the safety and enjoyment of all concerned. After all, we're all only doing our jobs! We still have to work with each other at the end of the day.

[Lurking123]

EC, unfortunately you have tried to talk reason in a forum where some others simply object without rational thought.

[WorkingHard]

EC - a very considerate response. I believe the problem lies in part by the idiots who dont talk/squak/listen etc as you so rightly said BUT there are problems with airspace acces that so many GA pilots have experienced. It is sad but true as we hear many times on these forums. As DSA is not going to be very busy we should see virtually no transits refused and if they are then they should be properly and officially questioned. This is not taking a stance before the event really no more than stating the obvious. I for one believe we have the best ATC in the world but there is the odd "trouble spot" for GA

[bigfoot01]

EC, I think your tone may have been a contributing factor:

"Does anybody really believe.."
"But if you need to bitch and moan.."
"a number of beligerent individuals.."
etc.

You make some interesting points, but by the way you have made it, I find it difficult to be sympathetic to the "why are you having a go at me?" post.

[EastCoaster]

I take your point Bigfoot01, and I apologise if I've gotten anybody's back up with anything that I've said.

I was merely trying to present another point of view as to why there is a need for the CAS, and what effect it might have on day-to-day flying around DSA; rather than the ridiculous speculation which prevailed on this thread from many of the contributors that intimated a "land-grab" of some sort by the airport and proposed almost blanket ill-treatment of GA and hobby pilots by an ATC unit that has already proven it's worth over and over again.

Try looking at it from the other side of the fence however, just for a few moments!

Imagine that you were one of the controllers who had been unfortunate enough to have been on duty when one of the "beligerent individuals..." had been out playing and had to suffer the needless stress of having to deal with the situations that resulted from those individuals' actions, and subsequently had to spend hours filling out paperwork and filing reports on the incident;
Imagine then that you are one of the controllers who works at DSA who has always striven to provide the very best service possible to everybody who uses the area; and then reads all of the crap that's been posted here about how suddenly things are going to change because the airport is now the "Big Cheese" because it's got Class D and they can't go in there in their PA28 or C560 or whatever, just because ATC decided, 'cos they're not carrying fare-paying bucket-and-spade brigade passengers to or from EGCN, so there!! And this despite the fact that ATC continually strive to provide the same level of service to everybody in the area, even though it's only the aircraft that actually land/depart from EGCN who pay the controllers' wages! But they have more right to be in the area in their GA flight anyway!!
Then you hear moans about ATC placing restrictions on their flight that are designed to keep them just as safe as the "bucket-and-spaders", while conveniently ignoring the restrictions that are often placed on the airliners and other GA IFR flights to keep them away from smaller aircraft thus keeping the crews of the smaller aircraft safe as well!!:ugh:

[EastCoaster]

Now tell me: How the hell would anybody know what ATC might be thinking if they don't ask? Presumably this is where the misunderstanding and misinformation creeps in - perpetuated by individuals who have formed a supposition following an interaction and not followed it up to test the veracity of their conclusions! There you go, I have just made the same mistake: I've formed an opinion without checking the facts!
And how the f#*k can anybody tell what's going to happen in the future after the CAS becomes operational; unless there's been a rush on crystal balls at Madame Zelda's Emporium of Exotic Goods That Might Be Useful for Divining the Unkown?

Does that cover the "bitch and moan" bit satisfactorily?? I think all of the above probably covers the "Does anybody really believe.." bit as well!!


Given the unfair, unfounded and groundless presumptions and attitudes that were displayed earlier, and the finger-pointing and blaming that was directed at a thoroughly professional and often stretched ATC unit, and by extension at an airport operator that has been a bloody good employer to a lot of people and has helped in starting an economic revival in an area that has long-since been depressed; now while still imagining that you are a member of said ATC unit, how do think you would feel now?!

You see, it's not just "why are you having a go at me...?", you're having a go at everything that I believe in, and everything that I know from experience to be true. And yes, before you ask, I have worked inside CAS as well as outside!

I promised myself that I wasn't going to allow myself to get drawn into a debate on this, or for that matter to allow myself to rise to the bait and lose my temper. My sole intention on posting here (in a forum that I've never before been into, and after this experience am extremely unlikely to venture anywhere near to ever again!) was to hopefully help dispel some of the misunderstanding and misinformation that was being bandied around in here! But there, I've done it. I've lost my cool. That's the last time I'll stick my head above the parapet and try to help!
:* :( := :mad: :confused: :oh:

Right, rant over. I believe I've said enough. I'm outta here, good luck to you all. If any of you ever happen to be in the area of South Yorks./North Lincs. please don't hesitate to give me a call. Otherwise, enjoy your lives.

Goodbye


P.S. Lurking123, thank you for your kind words. Ditto all who have expressed a positive/objective opinion on this thread. :ok:

[WorkingHard]

EastCoaster, it is right to get a view from the opposite side of the radar but it is also right that BOTH sides should listen to each other, It APPEARS that what is so often true is that the side with the biggest clout shouts down the others. I am sure you and your colleagues are very professional in your work otherwise you would not be there but that is not to say that some ATC units do not give equal access to all airspace users in accordance with safe operations and not just CONVENIENT operations. I think what many contributors are saying, albeit perhaps not using temperate phrases at times, is that ATC often do not appear to give equal access to the large area they control. Perhaps one should properly refer to an air grab rather than a land grab because if it was a land grab you would have to pay for it and as it stands at the moment you pay nothing for your exclusive right to keep others at bay. The economic argument is pure and simple hogwash and has no relevance whatever to your stance. GA in the area provides more employment and almost certainly produces a lot more income for the area than your employer ever will. Remind us again where your ATC unit is physically!
How many CAT flights per day are you expecting and what will you do for the rest of the day? As for attiudes not changing when you have this class D ask some of the local GA pilots how it changed as soon as your "invitation" period expired after you had the GA community help you train at DSA. No I have no rant and no axe to grind with DSA but let us please get the facts straight and then we may learn a little from each side.

[EastCoaster]

"right that BOTH sides should listen to each other"

I couldn't agree more. So why is it then that I have seen nothing here to convince me that any of the contributors who started out on an offensive tack in this thread have actually listened to anything that's been posted in rebuttal of any of the opinions/nonsense that's been posted as "fact"?
Why do contributors continually argue that just because it's CAS there will automatically be exclusions, where there is no empirical evidence to support this position where DSA is concerned? I cannot recall a single occurrence where a GA flight has been refused ATZ transit, and where others have been asked to adjust their track... well that's already been covered ad nauseum; there's no need to continually rehash old ground.

Nobody's denying that there are certain custodian's of airspace in this country who haven't exercised the most responsible control over it, but the evidence at DSA points to the opposite. So for the Love of God can we please stop generalising and insinuating that ATC at EGCN are "GA-Unfriendly" and will do all in their power to keep GA non-terminal traffic out of the area! If contributors have gripes about the policies in place at other ATC units, then would they please refrain from airing those gripes where they are not relevant! As I've already said - nobody can predict the future!

WRT your question about the initial "invitation" period: Have you considered the possibilty that maybe that might have been a deliberate policy on the part of the airport authority, not ATC; and rather than being designed to exclude GA owners from being able to use the airport "because they weren't wanted", it might actually have been designed to discourage GA owners who might have wanted to base their aircraft there, in order that the establishment of the airport had as little an impact as possible on the business of the surrounding GA airfields? How might they have felt towards the airport if suddenly they haemorrhaged business as privately owned aircraft suddenly upped and left for the bigger airfield with H24 ops?? Just speculation on my part mind you, but certainly worth considering, don't you think? In fact, local GA still forms a very important part of Controller training at DSA, as I'm sure it does at most airports around the country, and local pilots often avail of fee-free training when there is a controller in training or a Validation Board in progress. That combined with the fact that there is always a friendly, professional and courteous manner on the RT between ATC and GA, and there is quite often the odd bit of friendly banter exchanged when workload permits, tells me that there can't be that much bad-blood between ATC and the private pilots who frequent the area!

"Air grab"/"Land grab", I'm afraid you're allowing yourself to get bogged down in symantics WorkingHard. You would have a point about having to pay for it if it weren't for the fact that it costs a huge amount of money to operate a block of CAS. Don't forget about the capital outlay required to set the whole thing up in the first place: infrastructure and equipment purchase, installation, setup and subsequent ongoing maintenance; manpower recruitment, training, and continual licensing and revalidation, application administration costs and consultation costs.... the list just goes on and on. Nobody ever thinks about these things.

"exclusive right to keep others at bay.."
Yes, you are right, ATC are vested with that executive authority under the law, but not to be used frivolously. It's there as a fall back to ensure the safety of flights. And again, let's not tar EGCN ATC with the sins of others until the case for the prosecution has been proven in evidence. And as has already been advocated on so many previous occasions if it happens in the future and the belief is that it has happened unfairly, then follow the correct procedure and report it to the relevant authority.

It appears that there are some individuals here who are so intransigent in their opposition to CAS, that no amount of logic or reasoned argument presented in opposition to their position will soften their stance and help them to see that maybe there is a good reason for it's establishment.

At least we appear to have gotten away from the argument that there can be no possible justification for the airspace based on traffic levels! :D

[helimutt]

I always thought pilots would plan their flights instead of just bumbling around the skies. So Doncaster has CAS. So what. Do you need to fly through it really? If you're locally based, the atc'ers will get to know you and you're abilities etc. I've always found this the case.
You can fly around the edge of CAS without speaking to a soul or even fly over the top of it. I can't see why so many are upset about this. Yes, Doncaster airport is hardly a busy airport and I think Humberside would benefit from some sort of CAS around it. I am biased about that though. There are so many GA a/c fly around the Humber area without talking to the right people. We do fly low level sometimes (well, above 500' anyway:ok:) and often told to look out for motor gliders, microlights, and fixed wing out of North Coates and Beverley etc.

At least the Radar controllers and atc'ers at HUY do deal with this GA traffic very well.

Is the CAS having an impact on Sandtoft for booking out etc? I know from working at Sandtoft in the past they (DON)were always on the phone complaining we didn't talk to them when in the circuit!!?? Eh? No CAS then.

[BarTT]

So, where do I start?
You ask a G/A airfield if there is any traffic in potential conflict with the IFR being positioned for the ILS to be told nothing. then have to give avoiding action as a departure from that other airfield that had nothing is flying through your 8 mile final, then decides to call you when through the centre line after you've given the ILS traffic avoiding action! Or you ask for traffic "we have a departure, but we don't know which way it's going" That was yesterday.
Today, somebody inbound Sandtoft calls 3 miles southeast of Doncaster when flying up from the south. Good job we had no IFR departures, because they would have had a significant delay. Why leave it so late to give a call?
TOM inbound from the west, had to be kept at 70 due a 60 transit which was no problem, until unknown traffic at 65 popped up 10 mile east of him on a converging heading (again, not a problem as this was then co-ordinated with another unit) The problem was this primary south of it. TOM had to be given avoiding action to the west and vectored around it (this primary had delayed an out bound earlier because it flew 4 miles south and west of CN without talking to us!) Think the TOM decided to go visual just to get on the ground quickly.
This is a real shame, because it tarnishes things for the other 99% of flights that call, and will go out of the way to help you if they can. I don't see why with controlled airspace things will change much. It would just be nice to talk to everyone!!

[207592]

Perhaps my memory is too long, but I recollect that when the RAF operated Vulcans out of Finningley, the SATCO telephoned CFI EGNF to advise when 02 was in use, so that look out could be kept for 'heavies' on approach over Scofton. 'Twas the same when Finningley was a ANS. Are the take-off and descent profiles of commercial aircraft so different from the old warbirds?

To whoever mentioned the viability of EGCN, affirmative, Peel Holdings have asked for rate relief because the airport is making a loss. It does not add up, does it? But then, that company opened and closed Sheffield City Airport.

[SFCC]

Peel Airports most certainly did NOT open Sheffield City Airport:ugh:

They did shut it, however.

[Friio4]

The radar ATCO's that control Doncaster also control Liverpool. I have been a radar ATCO at Liverpool for over 16 years and cannot remember refusing a transit clearance of Class D airspace. I admit on occasions offering alternative routings dependant on the traffic situation, but honestly cannot recall an absolute refusal to transit the CTA/CTA.
When controlling at Doncaster I have always politely requested transit traffic either route east, south etc of the airfield or cap their level, knowing full well they dont have to unless its in the ATZ to facilitate IFR arrivals and departures. In my experience, over 3 years now at Doncaster, the vast majority of transitting aircraft have been more than happy to oblige, even offering reroutes on some occasions.
I can see no reason at all why transit traffic should be refused point blank transit clearance of the new airspace, but can see the need for the occasional reroute, which at the end of the day will only be for the reasons of safety and expedition.
At the end of the day it is a very busy piece of airspace , despite some peoples views. Doncaster can handle about 34 IFR scheduled plus unscheduled movements, over 200 transits ( those are the ones in RT contact!) a day. I realise that 34 scheduled movements is not a lot compared to other airports but when they are trying to to integrated with all the other traffic in the area is seems an awful lot more.
There is always an invitation open for anyone who flies in the area to visit in order to have a better understanding of the operation. Remember though, the radar is over at Liverpool.

[jumpseater]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/_B6O0459.jpg

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/folio/_B6O3106.jpg

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c270/2012images/OasisHK/_B6O5810.jpg

Some examples of types that can be/have been seen in the visual circuit at Doncaster. Needless to say they don't show up on Teletext as movements.

The environment issue is a real one. I've done a large amount of work with noise complainants, though not at DSA. people get used to aircraft flying 'known' approaches and departure routes, when they vary significantly, 'non standard' they raise concerns amongst the populace very quickly, who can and do object to all aviation in all its forms.

So the 73 that is 'off course' becomes any aircraft that is seen. That gives grass roots problems for people wanting to use grass strips, increase flying from a location with planning regulations etc etc. It also does the wider aviation community no good, in giving free ammunition to the detractors/environmental campaigners who oppose any form of aviation. In a previous life I visited a small airfield between two commercial ones that was having a hard time, because the 'public' associated their movements with those of the larger airports. Unfortunately for Joe Public that distinction generally, isn't there. Not to mention adding fuel burn to an operator at low level, pax concern if a go round occurs, and the resultant coverage, how many sensationalist threads have there been on this forum about a simple 'go round'? They can all be environmental factors to varying degrees.

[gasax]

I'd have no issue with the whole country being covered in class D airspace if the controllers did not restrict traffic from entering. Unfortunately that is not what actually happens. For good (although perhaps not terribly robust) reasons they prioritise CAT into their fields. They reduce the workload by keeping GA out.

Last weekend I tried to transit Teeside twice. Not below 2500' was the answer - just about possible in the conditions - but hardly a transit. We got the same treatment from several MATZ, cleared to transit but remain clear of the empty ATZ, again hardly a transit.

With Humberside making an application for Class D as well the situation for north south transits in this area could become very difficult if access is not readily available. From past experience most GA pilots know that whatever the good intentions it is always easier to refuse access than grant it. Hence the resistance to more Class D.

[snapper1]

What is the point of the bl**dy airport being there at all? Its not necessary. East Mids, Leeds/Bradford and Humberside are all within easy reach of the population around Doncaster.

[CrazyMonkey]

What an utter mess the whole area will be especially when Humberside gets their share of CAS. I have major concerns for GA:

Firstly, training aircraft (GA and mil) are going to be cornered in to ever smaller chunks of airspace increasing the avoidance manoeuvres required to miss one another (are Donny or Humberside going to allow general handling in class D airspace? just transits I suspect).

Secondly, increasing R/T on a busy training sortie will detract from the learning itself.

Thirdly, if ATC are really so GA user friendly (to be fair, they are pretty good right now) are they prepared for the extra RT calls that will come at them (when we get one)? I refer this to the likes of Stansted who almost always blankly refuse any transits of CAS, not because there isn't space, but because the controllers are too busy. A dedicated 'LARS' frequency may be required.

Finally, the massive volume of CAS will lead to an increase in infringements...not due to negligence but due other factors (inexperience, nav error, weather). Most pilots have been there but I wonder what will happen to these individuals (legally). Okay, they should have been talking to ATC but many pilots are reluctant to do so because they are afraid to talk on busy, quick fire, frequencies. That doesn't mean they aren't safe pilots...from my experience, chatting on the radio reduces the effectiveness of the other senses...ie lookout. Coventry accident?

In my view the volume of CAS is unwarranted and will increase the flight safety risks amongst the GA community.

[danieloakworth]

I think it's a little unfair to compare RHADS and HUY. Humberside have applied for the establishment of a small amount of CAS to mitigate what they have percieved as a steady increase in risk to their traffic in recent years. Ahead of publishing the consultation document they have visited numerous airfields in the region to explain their reasons for the application. In terms of size there really is no comparison between the 2, HUY have gone for protection, RHADS went for full connectivity.

[gasax]

Tough on HUY reaslly. I have to say in my experience they have usually been very helpful. So perhaps it is a shame that Doncaster spaceport has queered the pitch for them.

The outcome would however be a near solid block of controlled airspace which there is no guarantee of being able to transit.

We've already seen views for ATC on 'saving the planet' 'giving the service to the people who pay for it' and 'Sunday flyers and bimblers'.

On that basis I certainly object. I really would like to see thejustification for Doncaster spaceports award of it CAS - it surely cannot be justified?

[trickyone]

I fly out of Sherburn. Mixed experiance of Doncaster. yes they are helpful. But often they over control - I have been asked for reporting positions at 2000' over by Ladybower Reservoir. They are often so busy with GA traffic that other than offering a 6160 Sqwark they can do little else.

Wasn't this area always a busy transit zone between the north and south for many types of aircraft ?

Surely the point is that a commercial airport should never have been allowed here in the first place. The need for CAS with so few movements shows how deeply unsuited the location is for heavy metal. It should have been made plain to the operators that CAS here was a non-starter and if that meant the business plan didn't work - well tough.

I don't think the issue of access or not access is a real one. Yes I can get access if I ask but why the hell should I have to ? Frankly I was here first in my GA plane and if you need my airspace to make some money then why should I bear the cost of it ?

I repeat, I think the controllers at Doncaster are good and generally helpful, but the airport itself and the airspace are in the wrong place and unjustified.

[eltonioni]

With the inevitable CAS at Hunmberside we will have a Class G slot between the pair that has the River Trent right up the middle. Guess what line feature people will follow, and guess which line feature the mil use for low level high speed sorties?

I hope we never see another accident like the one where the Tonka went through the C152 in that very area. 3 died on that day.

[EastCoaster]

Gasax, do you mind me asking: if you were a professional pilot and using Doncaster Spaceport on a regular basis, and given the information that's already been provided in this thread from Controllers and pilots about what it is like to work in the airspace around DSA, how would you feel about the question then?

Without exception, all of the professional pilots who fly into or out of DSA are fully in favour of the establishment of CAS, for all the reasons that have already been made clear here. The case for the establishment of the CAS has, also, already been made clear here. And once again, just in case you've missed by accident in all of the previous posts where it's been clarified: it's about safety and it's about creating a known traffic environment.

Furthermore, your generalisations about ATC'ers views are definitely not appreciated. If you had read the posts that you appear to be quoting from with any objectivity and honesty, it would be obvious to you that the ATC'ers views are in fact the complete opposite of what you have stated!

This is a contentious enough issue without wanton sh1t-stirring being thrown into the mix, so please refrain, if you don't mind. All of the air traffic contributors to this thread have been nothing but courteous and open and honest, despite the barrage of often thinly-veiled hostility that's often been directed at them. The least you could do would be to show them the same courtesy!


I see from your profile that you're an engineer. I don't know which area of engineering it is that you specialise in, but I propose a scenario based on a (very) generalised engineering concept. If I, as a non-engineering person were to one day enter your workshop after you'd just purchased the latest lathe or similar piece of equipment, with all of the extra safeguards attached that have just come on the market and which are designed to significantly increase the safety of the operator of the lathe - for argument's sake by a factor of about 80% or so over the piece of equipment that it's been bought to replace and which doesn't have any of these user-safeguards. If I were to then try to argue the point with you that there could be no possible justification for this new piece of equipment, that's it's far too big for your premises and that you were getting on fine with the old kit anyway. Never mind that several of your machinists had had numerous frighteningly close shaves with the old machine, though none of them had ever lost any digits or limbs to it, or worse, nobody had ever been killed by it! Nor the fact that that the new machine was likely to increase productivity exponentially!

What do you think your response to me would be?

[WorkingHard]

Nice analogy EASTCOASTER but what would be you response if the purchase of that machine denied the public the right to use the PUBLIC footpath adjacent to the workshop UNLESS WITH HIS SPECIFIC PERMISSION?

[danieloakworth]

[quote][guess which line feature the mil use for low level high speed sorties?/QUOTE]

The HUY CAS will incorporate a low level VFR corridor for military aircraft to pass through.

oh, and the military don't use line features, they are reserved for people who can't navigate.

[gasax]

Yes there is a low level corridor through the proposed HUY airspace - which will tip them out into the 'gap'. So useful for them but..

In effect the corridors around the London TMA are going to be created in miniature.

Eastcoaster - of course all the CAT pilots want controlled airspace - they always do everywhere they fly. Even if it is into generally deserted airports. Anything else would be like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Your spaceport sits across the main north south transit route. You proclaim that all it will do is create a 'known traffic environment'. That certainly is the intention of Class D. However its implementation is generally not that effect, it varies around the country but many Class D areas are in effect 'no fly' zones for GA traffic.

If as you protest, transits were never refused I would have no problem with the whole country being Class D. But the actuality of things is that 'controller workload' means very different things in different places and almost invariably it means transits are at the bottom of the queue (your own comment 'the people who pay for the service'). Given the traffic levels and the service that is provided to passing GA (an effective LARS), HUY is head and shoulders above the spaceport in terms of justification.

From my point of view the sooner Peel close the place and turn it into an industrial site the better.

I know you have the best of intentions but from bitter experience most GA pilots know that more CAS means more chunks of sky we cannot get into. The combined effect of these two areas of controlled airspace will very much increase the risks to all transiting GA

[jumpseater]

I hope we never see another accident like the one where the Tonka went through the C152 in that very area. 3 died on that day.

Not the best example you should have chosen.

4 people actually died, including a pilot (cessna) that had been warned and banned IIRC from a local flying club due to alleged low flying.
It occurred in the open FIR class G airspace whilst the Cessna pilot was taking photos of houses at around 500ft.
The Cessna pilot had not used a FIS/Lars that could have been provided by Waddo and had not used CANP to advise military operators that he would have been operating in that area at low level, and did not have a serviceable mode C transponder selected on, whilst taking low level photographs...

If the same elements in terms of location, aircraft and tasking occurred after Aug 28th this year, both would be in controlled airspace, and arguably reducing the chances of the collision occuring.

[flybymike]

I suppose there are those who would say that if it were controlled airspace the accident would not have happened because the aircraft concerned would not have been allowed in to do what they were doing...

[eltonioni]

oh, and the military don't use line features, they are reserved for people who can't navigate.
Fair enough. So what do they call it when they do bombing runs on the power stations that follow the Trent? ;)



Jumpseater, you are right, there were two in the Cessna, and the pilot was a known berk apparently, having been kicked off a couple of airfields already. My point wasn't the semantics or detail of that particular incident I was just using it to draw attention to what can happen when VFR traffic gets squeezed into a small gap, especially when some of that VFR traffic is (potentially heads down) fast jet traffic.

I'm not especially stressed about the new CAS because I'll just post IFR and go through, but most GA folk will just squeeze around the edges. The other side of the new Doncaster CAS is another narrow gap over the top of the Sheffield / Rotherham conurbation and the Peak District. A bit of a low cloudbase on the hills and all the traffic is over the built up areas.

Sp the only Class G options for a north south transit will be the Manchester LLR, the Sheffield gap and the Trent gap which doesn't sound great to me.

I suppose that only time will tell if big sky / see and avoid / Mk1 eyeball / Lady Luck works. One thing is for sure, Doncaster won't be concerned because it will be outside their CAS.

[snapper1]

GASAX wrote;-

''From my point of view the sooner Peel close the place and turn it into an industrial site the better.''

This is surely what many of us hope for. Peel are a very hard-headed bunch of b*st*rds and I cant see them carrying this white elephant forever. I suspect the only reason they got involved was to turn it into an industrial site eventually.

The bucket and spade brigade can easily get a flight from somewhere else. I seem to remember that part of the local councils justification for allowing the spaceport was as a generator of inward investment and the development of local industry. Has that happened?

[dublinpilot]

Maybe it's time to cover the whole country in class D. The phrase 'remain outside controlled airspace' becomes redundant, and transits the norm. :}

Ok, it's a bit facetious, but you get the idea. IF the 'gaps' were actually filled in with controlled airspace rather than left as gaps, then it would be incumbent on pilots to clearly request transits, and incumbent on ATC'er to make sure that they find a way through. Otherwise the issue would come to a head very quickly.

Just a though.

dp

[A.Agincourt]

Peel were assured that there would be developed, transport infrastructure such as rail and decent highway access to the airport. That has not happened and as far as I can tell, is not likely to. Hence the reluctance of operators to increase frequency and routes. Without the transport infrastructure, there's no chance of making a decent return. I presume the CAS issue was started some time ago in preparation. It would seem excessive given the current status of the white elephant.

Having said that - I regularly transit through their airspace pretty much without any problem inconvenience and often through the overhead. I think a lot of people object simply because it restricts their propensity to bumble about the place trying to avoid anything that might require some degree of planning and forethought. The only thing I find annoying about dealing with them is the distinctive 'squeal' of their remote RT equipment.

Best Wishes

[Chilli Monster]

Given the traffic levels and the service that is provided to passing GA (an effective LARS), HUY is head and shoulders above the spaceport in terms of justification

Worth pointing out at this point that the "effective' LARS is probably because they are notified as a LARS unit.

[gasax]

That is absolutely true Chilli, and in my experience one of the better ones at that.

But compare and contrast the approaches, HUY installs radar and becomes part of the LARS system to at least partly protect its own traffic, even now its proposed airspace does not have full 'inter-connectivity'. The spaceport on the other hand with considerably less traffic goes for the 'full bifta'.

Perhaps it is a partial insight into the minds of property developers?

[danieloakworth]

I've heard a briefing from HUY on the ACP. Their opening gambit was that they are very determined to protect the strong relationship they have with the GA community and this will be reflected in the way in which they will manage their CAS (if granted).

[CharlieSierra]

DSA must be anticipating the effects of their huge number of movements on global warming; a new lake has appeared on their control zone chart north of the M62 at 001 00W !!

Can't argue with Humberside's airspace application - having read it in full it seems well thought through, but then again I wouldn't expect anything else, as someone who flies regularly in this area their ATC staff are amongst the most helpful and professional - shame their GA landing fees are now so ridiculously high.

[bigfoot01]

...if any specific operations from Netherthorpe or Sandtoft have been agreed and for those of us who have been bought up in this relaxed world of freedom to go where you wish, any top tips?

[NorthSouth]

For any PPRuNers with inside knowledge of the DSA CAS application and who have defended it as providing a know traffic environment, I would be interested to know how that will be achieved for IFR inbounds from the east. The original proposal had a big chunk of CTA below Y70/L603, going down to FL75. The CAS as implemented omits this, meaning that aircraft will have to be kept at a minimum of FL110 until they're only 6nm from the airfield. I can't see how you can vector these inbounds on to the r/w 20 ILS from that position. It certainly won't allow for continuous descent approaches. Is the plan to vector them through the overhead then right hand downwind for 20? And was the eastern CTA ditched because of MoD opposition?
NS

[NorthSouth]

jumpseater:The Cessna pilot had not used a FIS/Lars that could have been provided by Waddo and had not used CANP to advise military operators that he would have been operating in that area at low level, and did not have a serviceable mode C transponder selected on, whilst taking low level photographs...The AAIB report also found that the Tornado pilot was heads-down in the cockpit carrying out an ops check while flying at low level and that the rear-seater would not have been able to detect conflicting aircraft in the forward sector. Sensible, or just an accepted part of the risk?
NS

[danieloakworth]

Those guys have to look in every now and then. They stay low level for over an hour, so they have to do routine checks. They work very hard to stay away from the GA flyers, we should return the favour and stay out of the 250-500 ft bracket.

[gasax]

Nice sentiment daniel etc but the only thing that stops more pointed grey things hitting s is that we try to stay out of the way. Would it not be much more sensible if they obeyed the rules for Class G airspace?

Having had them fly under me on finals to my strip (which they knew about!) and had another strip beaten up by a flight of Hawks whilst the local RAF brass were apologising for the last beat up, then working very hard doesn't quite describe my experience.

Which is partly why I'm not terribly keen on the transit area that HUY have given them to the east of Hibaldson as this will mean they will converge in the obvious corridor between the spaceport and HUY - but I suppose we'll be ok unless they pull up................

[ShyTorque]

Would it not be much more sensible if they obeyed the rules for Class G airspace?


Which rules do you mean in this case?

[danieloakworth]

The HUY corridor is a standard route already used by Mil aircraft transitting to and from Lincs. Always easy to highlight where mistakes have been made by Mil fast jets, they're certainly not infallible, but we (the GA community) have no moral high ground here.

[gasax]

250kts - which to paprahrase the AIC, is to 'enable the see and avoid principle to remain effective for the avoidance of collisions'.

As the usual transit speeds are 300 and 360 increasing to a fair bit more whilst manoeurving or near the ranges, the chances of a GA pilot acquiring them visually, let alone doing anything useful are almost non-existent.

[danieloakworth]

The Military are self regulating and follow their own rules (that govern the UK Low Flying System). As such they are restricted to a maximum of 450kts (extendable up to 550kts with specific clearance). Above 2,000ft (the upper limit of the Low Flying System), their speed is only limited by the restrictions on supersonic overland. Fast Jets can barely stay airborne at 250kts.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Fast Jets can barely stay airborne at 250kts.

Got many hours on fast jets then Daniel ??

Thought not.

They fly in excess of 250Kts because that is what they will be flying in the event of carrying out a real mission, not because they'll fall out of the sky (they won't). If you are training for realism and want to give the pilots the best chance of survival, then you fly at mission speeds even in peacetime training conditions.

[danieloakworth]

3500 actually

[ShyTorque]

The 250 kt rule you refer to doesn't apply to military traffic, because at 250 kts the aircraft would be well below the design / safe operational speed of fast jet traffic.

Also, the people flying those aircraft are doing it for the benefit of all of us and not for their personal recreation; they do have to train at realistic speeds. That's why the UKLFS was designed and publicised as is, in an effort to help each category of user. Any airspace user choosing to operate in Class G within the UKLFS and benefitting from the freedom it allows, has to accept the terms and limitations of it's use.

Presumably you are familiar with this publication (n.b. it is CAA rather than Military) :

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL18.pdf

[gasax]

So 'the price of freedom' is that we run the risk of being hit by a fast jet. We have chosen to use Class G airspace and so we are no more than collateral damage?

I find it strange that only in the UK is this sort of uncontrolled flying 'allowed'. Any concept of risk management is hidden behind patriot slogans and talk of the 'best of the best'.

So long as the military only collide with light aircraft they will get away with it. But let's not pretend it is a 'system' - it is simply a free for all where only the big sky theory works for us. Try flying over Northumbria during a NATO exercise whilst Newcastle try and warn the CAT flying through Class G that things are heading their way. Listent to the TCAS calls.

Try flying in my neck of the woods where the 'low flying system' means I can encounter limitary traffic from 200 to 4500'.
Look at the airprox reports where it is glibly stated that aircraft routing clear of the target ranges 'should expect high speed manoeurving aircraft that may not be able to keep a suitable lookout or manoeurve clear'.

[ShyTorque]

Gasax,

You sound surprised as well as mightily indignant; I take it you weren't familiar with the document? The UK military low flying system is nothing new.

There are certainly fewer low flying military jets around than twenty years ago, how long have you been flying? :confused:

[gasax]

Over 20 years? You?

How many unecessay collisions have I read about?

Because its gone on for a long time its OK?


And yet a couple of threads away we have people proposely all sorts of extreme measures for incidents which are much less frequent.....

[eharding]

Gasax - What would you propose as an alternative to the existing arrangements?

[ShyTorque]

Gasax,

You obviously have a personal problem with military low flying, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

But what do you propose as an alternative to the military carrying out essential training? How about some more controlled airspace over "your" area; that would help keep them out.

Why not start a thread about it? And write to the CAA and your MP?

(Btw, seeing as you asked, I first solo'd in 1971. Been flying continuously for a living since 1977, a large proportion from sites in Class G).

[Mach Jump]

Below is a quote from Peel Airports' justification for CAS.

'The ATZ extends to a radius of 2½ nm from the centre of the aerodrome up to 2000 feet above aerodrome elevation. The airspace within this ATZ is also Class G although pilots must obtain permission from ATC to enter the ATZ. In the local area there is a profusion of GA activities associated with Sandtoft airfield, which also has an ATZ, located only 7 miles from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Other airfields in the vicinity include Gamston, Sheffield, Sherburn-in-Elmet and Netherthorpe embracing myriad aviation activities. Moreover, there are numerous gliding and microlightssites plus parachuting takes place at nearby Hibaldstow. The nearby military airfields of RAF Waddington, RAF Coningsby, RAF Scampton, RAF Cottesmore, RAF Cranwell and RAF Barkston Heath generate considerable traffic, much of this operates at low level. The Lincolnshire Area of Intense Aerial Activity (AIAA) is situated to the south of the Airport and the Yorkshire AIAA is to the north. In summary there are a multitude of disparate aviation operations in the area and this is now further complicated by the EVER INCREASING operations from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield'. (my caps)

May I echo Beagle's comment from another thread, 'what a stupid place to open an airport' especially when you consider that no effective arrangements were made to seperate the GAT from the CAT during the period of many months after opening when there was no radar cover at all! (B737s passing unannounced overhead Sandtoft at 2500')

Call me Mr. Cynical, but I wonder if they are just waiting for the railway station and direct motorway connection to be built, before closing the airport, and building a new shopping megacentre with its own railway station and motorway connection?

MJ

Ps. Mr Dale, I think you were a bit harsh with Daniel. He made some very valid points, and did not deserve such a patronising dismissal of what was a minor point, writen at least partly tongue in cheek.
MJ

[PPRuNe Radar]

Mach Jump

Ps. Mr Dale, I think you were a bit harsh with Daniel.

Who's Mr Dale ?? Are you attempting to 'out' someone on here ?? These forums are anonymous and will remain so. If you wish to reveal someones true life identity, you can expect the consequences which go with it, based on PPRuNe rules.

danieloakworth

3500 actually

Daniel,

Then with your experience, we can use your knowledge and wisdom on here without a doubt, but you must surely know that aircraft don't 'barely' stay in the sky at 250 knots, and that they can and do fly perfectly well. They may not be able to perform their operational tasks, and they may have to configure for flight at that speed, but your statement was technically incorrect and not as clear as it could have been. Angle of attack and wing loadings are much more important datums, since you could quite easily fall out of the sky at any speed if the circumstances are right.

The authorities could quite easily legislate for military aircraft to fly at a maximum of 250 Knots, and they would have to comply. But it would be pointless and every mission would be a waste of time and fuel.

That's the tack you should be taking, and not pushing some inference that we would have smoking holes in the ground where military pilots had lost control since they could not go above 250Kts. Their training and expertise, coupled with the survival instinct, would surely see to that.

Especially with 3500 hours fast jet time ... which must mean you are really really old ?? :ok: :}

[Julian]

Other airfields in the vicinity include Gamston, Sheffield, Sherburn-in-Elmet and Netherthorpe embracing myriad aviation activities

Peel obviously forgot that the closed Sheffield themsleves!!!:ugh:
Sherburn is about 18-20 miles North, do they want their extended CAS to embrace that far?

summary there are a multitude of disparate aviation operations in the area and this is now further complicated by the EVER INCREASING operations from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield'. (my caps)


I take it by that they mean Sheffield City Flying School that had to move there when they closed Sheff. :)

J.

[danieloakworth]

Steady on, I'm not that old. :eek:

250kts equates to endurance speed in a tanked up Tornado. Notwithstanding the obvious waste in taxpayers money on wasted fuel (i.e. burning fuel for absolutely no training gain), the speed is just too slow to be comfortably safe (certainly at low level). It gives very little margin to 'perform' the aircraft in a hurry (engine failure, birdstrike, etc).

Gasax, not quite sure why you're on this soap box, i've been flying since the early 80's and I can remember very few collisions between mil and GA (infact I can only remember 2 maybe 3). One solution of course would be to ban GA from the surface to 2000' monday to friday. We could also go for mandatory radio, SSR and ATC service. At the end of the day the UK LFS is a working environment in which you have chosen to conduct your hobby.

Alternatively we could just continue to work hard to live with each other and get along professionally like we have for the last 30 years.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Sorry Daniel, just a bit of banter. :\

I fully support the need for military aircraft to be able to fly above 250Kts. It is essential for their training for our defence. I also fully support the need for both military and civil aircraft to fly unhindered in as much airspace as they possibly can.

No one group has exclusive right to Class G airspace, and no one group should operate in total ignorance of the others needs and requirements. For mil pilots, they need to realise where GA will generally operate and take cogniscance of notified strips, etc. For civil pilots, they need to try and minimise their time at the lowest levels where fast jets like to operate. We're both in this together.

[BEagle]

A lot of stable doors closing on horses' tails in this thread, I regret to say.

You had your opportunity to oppose the Robindoncasterhood Intergalactic Spaceport airspace grab when it was first presented - how many of you actually did so? I certainly did.

One thing at least, the area to the East is less 'controlled' than the original proposal sought.

But it is still is a silly place for an airport - and one which will principally be used by lesser airlines taking the tattooed dregs of society to various locations to drink themselves stupid on taxpayers' benefit allowance payments. More stupid, in fact.

RAF navigators and Finningley deserved eachother. My brief experience of the Scargill Republic and 'Donn-eh' led me to understand why there are so many fast road and rail links in the area - anything to make escape from the awful place easier!

[danieloakworth]

Completely agree, I have no issue with the GA fraternity, I have a PPL and have enjoyed the freedom it brings for many years (Mil flying gives more of a buzz, but is in essence a job where the pressure to achieve the highest standards is always present). Never had much problem with other airspace users; bonged a few areas I shouldn't have, had 3 airproxes and a mid-air, and seen mistakes on both sides of the fence (hangliders, in the Lakes, jumping off the hill the opposite side of the valley to the one that was NOTAM'd!!). We've had a fair bit of thread drift, maybe we should get back to DSA and HUY.

Don't quite understand the bashing of RHADS. As a location it's a damn site better than HUY and LBA. As an east midlands dweller, it's far more accesible than any of the other options, I know the new MD quite well and Peel have invested a huge amount of money (including a new CAT III ILS), so for those hoping to see a shopping centre, I wouldn't hold your breath.

[ShyTorque]

Well said, that man. :D

[snapper1]

Danieloakworth said;-

'As a location it's a damn site better than HUY and LBA'.

Only if you live near Doncaster Daniel.

[danieloakworth]

Not sure I agree with that. With the A1, M18 and M62 it's got very good road links and a rail link to come (from a mainline station).

[Mach Jump]

Well I wouldn't think of 'outing' anyone. I just miss read something that I thought was Daniel's name, :Osorry Daniel. I should have gone to specsavers!
The gist of my Ps. is still valid though, I think!

MJ

[moonym20]

it was very interesting for them today... and yesterday no doubt

for the short time i was on freq there was a constant stream of boll:mad:kings for people who had entered 'the zone' one i believe was a low hour ppl at GAM who was given a good talking to about entering the zone.... another was told to consult the new airspace before making another flight

first thing this morning the controller seemd to be ok..our transit went well... but this aft/eve it was totally different... i imagine the poor fellow will be glad to finish today... a complete contrast to the normally exellent friendly service we get from the ladies and gents there...

to me they have been on the ball the whole time doing an exellent job sorting traffic before this monster zone came in... i think its going to suffer some teething problems for a couple of months... :ugh:

[bigfoot01]

I haven't even got my chart through from Flightstore yet! Not looking forward to flying out of Sandtoft tomorrow....

Glad to see they are using a light hand to start with (although I know they don't have too....)

[BarTT]

Should you not fly with an up to date chart? As well as current NOTAM's TAF's etc

[moonym20]

it will be easy :ok:

from memory the zone at CF starts at 2000ft if you do happen to bust their zone (provided its early in the day) they will give you a gentle hint, just ask for a zone transit... there is very rearely IFR traffic that will conflict with you :}

it would be interesting to hear from other aviators (or atc?) experiances with this new zone?

p.s. there should be some sheets in the club with all the new details

[WorkingHard]

not on the chart yet in the 1/4 mil version so anyone not really understanding where the boundaries are may be forgiven. Is the AIP correct, it certainly does not appear to be?

[bigfoot01]

I'm sure it will be here tomorrow morning (pre-order job), just would like to have a good look at it on a chart (I have got the AIS download...)

Sandtoft is on the edge of CTA 1 (1500) and CTR 1 (surface). I suspect there is a Letter of Agreement, I understand one is in place for Netherthorpe, which gives a coridor up to Gamston, but I haven't been able to get any details yet...

[nadders]

Sandtoft is on the edge of CTA 1 (1500) and CTR 1 (surface). I suspect there is a Letter of Agreement, I understand one is in place for Netherthorpe, which gives a coridor up to Gamston, but I haven't been able to get any details yet...


I fly from Netherthorpe and, from what I can remember from the letter of agreement in the club house (been a couple of weeks since i've been up there so i'll have to have a good look) we've been given an extra 100' above the atz and a corridor in place for transiting accross to Gamston. Any other egnf or egne pilots please correct me if i'm wrong.

[machinehead]

If in doubt, go and speak to a CFI at any of the aerodromes under Class D airspace. Or even better, why not ring the Doncaster approach/radar assistant and ask for information on how your flight will be affected by controlled airspace?

Sandtoft have done a newsletter with excellent informaton and suggestions on operating in to and out of the aerodrome without infringing Class D airspace including photos on the geographic features for circuit flying and joining/leaving the ATZ.

[pploony]

I flew through the new airspace on Thursday 28th,the day it was implemented.Absolutely no problem whatsoever,an early call at Ferrybridge
requesting direct to Gamston was approved immediately not above 2500 feet.This track took me almost overhead DSA.The new airspace looks complicated on the map,and will catch people out for a while,but as far as transiting the zone,commercial traffic permitting,the controllers are more than helpful.Also no problem on the return trip!

[WorkingHard]

It is an indictment of our CAS that the general tone of this thread is one where problems are expected and not the other way round. Is it not so very sad that a sort of relief is expressed by pploony that it was all OK.
IT SHOULD BE ALL OK ALWAYS. Yes there will be the occasional re-route either by track or height but it should be no more than that.

[RAC/OPS]

I assume from the absence of any further postings on this subject that there is no problem with transits (or you're all still holding awaiting clearance). Thought so. ATC's job is not to disrupt you as many seem to think, and from my time at Liverpool, I can't remember denying anyone a VFR transit either. Since DSA's radar service is provided by the same controllers, the same would go for Donc. Most ATCO's take pride in moving the traffic and giving the pilots what they want whenever possible. From my experience as a DSA radar controller it is much easier to give a control service rather than a RIS or RAS.

I get the impression from some posters that it is felt that the provider, in this case Peel, has a policy about who can and can't transit the airspace. I can state categorically that this is not the case. It is purely the ATCO on the day who decides, and this is based purely on the traffic situation at the time. I can't speak for other service providers though.

[bigfoot01]

I think the weather may be more of a factor, I haven't had any experience of it yet, as the cloud base hasn't been that high! :)

I don't believe there is a view the Peel has a secret (or otherwise) policy of who passes or not, I feel the big part of the thread is the necessity of the airspace changes. I am sure everybody is being very careful at the beginning of the implementation (although I have heard tales of serious rants from Doncaster Radar to infringers - all second hand though) and we will only find out when the weather and SOP settles down.

[N707ZS]

What would the controller's view be on a hot air balloon asking to transit the airspace?

[Pace]

We had a long discussion on class G airspace and the mix of IFR and non transponding GA. There is a small risk of collision and hence Doncaster has got its controlled airspace. No way are they going to risk a collision between a glider and a 737.

Gliders, balloons do not have a level of control over their direction or levels so dont count on either being allowed in that space unless there is a big envelope of time between departures. Then we have the problem of NO transponder.

I can see more chunks of airspace being controlled in the future unless ATC can be sure of where someone is and have communication with them.

Pace

[eltonioni]

Alternatively the 737's can stick to airfields in CAS.

[flybymike]

The trouble is that they firstly decide which bit of uncontrolled airspace it is which they wish to "colonise," then they move in to it, and then and only then, they say it is simply not safe unless it becomes controlled...:rolleyes:

[PPRuNe Radar]

Alternatively the 737's can stick to airfields in CAS.

Yes, that will work ... not.

What will really happen, if you project your 'master plan', is that every airfield with civil air transport movements will be given controlled airspace.

That's what you wanted ... right ?? :ouch::ugh:

[eltonioni]

I think you know what I meant.

My masterplan would work just fine. EGCN is of little use to anyone but Peel. Even the airlines aren't terribly keen on the place.

I have no beef with Peel's controllers as they are just fine and the CAS isn't much of an issue to me but the same basic argument comes around - new airport opens up in Class G, chucks its weight around and gets CAS on the back of a dozen 737 bucket and spade movements a day at most.

(God knows how the RAF ever managed to fly around safely with all those nuclear bombs strapped to Vulcans )

Most of us around here would dearly love EGCN to develop into a regional hub, with business and other flights connecting me to places that I want to be, but unless I want to go to Wroclow or Alicante it's of no interest to me and with the recent reduction in flights and an apparent £1m a month loss, closure looks more likely than expansion.

If Peel wanted to make it attractive to GA the first thing that they could do is to reduce the 1 mile (yes that's 1 mile) walk from the car park to the GA apron, each way. The facility is potentially fabulous but the management are either useless or have another agenda.

[ShyTorque]

(God knows how the RAF ever managed to fly around safely with all those nuclear bombs strapped to Vulcans )

And other various traffic at up to 330 kts in the local area at 250 feet, including me. They had a MATZ, though. Perhaps in those days local traffic knew it was likely to get run over by something big and pointy, so it kept well clear.

[NorthSouth]

flybymike:The trouble is that they firstly decide which bit of uncontrolled airspace it is which they wish to "colonise," then they move in to it, and then and only then, they say it is simply not safe unless it becomes controlled...That's not the way it works nowadays, at least for UK operators. They're expected by the CAA to conduct a risk assessment before starting a new service to an airport outside CAS, and that assessment has to demonstrate that the risk level is acceptable. Horses and stable doors for existing services, certainly, but I also know of at least one regional airport which has done a generic risk assessment for commercial ops and makes that assessment available to any new operators planning to start services there.
NS

[Pace]

We are walking on a glass roof. The reason why? Because government have always been opposed to the freedom and lack of control they hold over supposedly rich people flying their extravagent personal aircraft around the skies.

I can remember not that long ago being told on a commercial flight not to take photos out of the window over Italy. The eye in the sky.

Since 9/11 we have lost so many freedoms in the name of freedom. Take the recent reports on the threat of GA by Lord Carlisle.

200 passenegers in a commercial airline can be controlled and governments will look for any excuse to curtail those freedoms that we now hold.

The headline grabbing potential of an airline being downed by an unseen microlight, glider, balloon is huge just adds to the fodder and justification of government wishing to curtail our activities more and more.

We had a long thread mainly involving gliders without transponders. We can shout about our freedoms as much as possible but the only real defence is to plug the holes that exist and hence the arguements that government will make before they close them for us.

Has no one noticed what a big brother state we have become how government will use green or security issues to force more control onto our backs in every walk of life.

I am sure government would love all airtravel to be fed through security airports and onto commercial airlines. To have the whole of the UK as one big control zone and to have small areas of recreational flight zones. They will grab at any excuse to move in that direction in the name of safety or security.

Pace

[M609]

....or they might want to align the UK with the rest of the world airspace wise?

And: Fighting controlled airspace AND transponder carriage in the UK is the equivalent of kneecapping yourselves IMHO.



...rock...crawl...under.... :E

[Riverboat]

Send your complaints about Doncaster Sheffield's Class D airspace to the CAA-DAP, 45 Kingsway, London. It will be under review for about a year after implementation, and it is not unknown for new CA to be reduced subsequently if it is not used sufficiantly.

DSA is often completely empty; it can be a "ghost aerordrome". Personally I do not think that the Class D airspace provided is appropriate, and the way to deal with this if you feel the same is let DAP know.

No complaints about the controllers, however. They have always been helpful and courteous.

[NorthSouth]

I said:I would be interested to know how that will be achieved for IFR inbounds from the east. The original proposal had a big chunk of CTA below Y70/L603, going down to FL75. The CAS as implemented omits this, meaning that aircraft will have to be kept at a minimum of FL110 until they're only 6nm from the airfield. I can't see how you can vector these inbounds on to the r/w 20 ILS from that position. It certainly won't allow for continuous descent approaches. Is the plan to vector them through the overhead then right hand downwind for 20? And was the eastern CTA ditched because of MoD opposition?and I've just found the answer. No it wasn't the MoD, it was the CAA, who decided there was no justification for the eastern CTAs so didn't approve them. Full details here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=7&pagetype=90&pageid=9887). Makes interesting reading, particularly for those among you who think the CAA just rubber-stamps any application for extension of CAS.
NS

[flybymike]

As you say, quite interesting reading.

I will be even more interested to see whether the expected increase in "Summer" traffic movements from a current two and a half thousand or so, to the projected 12 and a half thousand by 2014 actually occurs. The airlines are dropping like flies at the moment.

And if it the projections do not come to pass, will they give us back the class G?

[ShyTorque]

With XL having gone to the wall, perhaps Thomson will be a bit more busy very soon?

[Julian]

If Peel wanted to make it attractive to GA the first thing that they could do is to reduce the 1 mile (yes that's 1 mile) walk from the car park to the GA apron, each way.

Someone must be taking notice! THe aircraft are now all parked on Foxtrot grass parking just outside CP1. Much shorter walk and not so bad if you forget something, that original walk/trek was a complete pain the @rse!!!!

J

[Shunter]

Flew through their overhead today west-east. No problem and very accomodating. Was on frequency for about 15mins, only 1 commercial flight in that time.

Incidentally, there were 5 other GA pilots on frequency during that same period. Their R/T skills were diabolical and they deserve to have their radio licenses torn up and burnt.

[Them thar hills]

S
That's assuming they have a licence in the first place !
tth
:(

[eltonioni]

Don't be too harsh Shunter, remember that there are busy training airfields at either end of the new CTR. There will be lots of studes, and lots of studes who are flying for the first time in CAS.

So far so good with Donny's controllers but the frequency seems pretty busy now and I'm wondering how many more CAT movements they will need before they think hard about giving such easy access.

As an example I was happily doing PFL's in the busy CAS just on the edge of the ATZ earlier this week, with but as soon as an Airbus came in the controller's juggling skills came in to play. I hope that they keep up the current service levels.

[Julian]

Indeed, it depends how you are judging them as having diabolical radio skills, i.e. they dont know what to say? Werent sticking to the letter of the CAP law? talking complete rubbish?

As elton says you are also in the middle of a busy training area (we were all bumbling student PPLs at one point!) and yesterday there were also gliders operating the controllers were trying to make sure aircraft were informed of as typically they dont have radios.

J.

[Shunter]

It's not students I have a problem with. They're fairly easy to ID on the radio and they get my full support. They're occasionally slow, but the almost religious adherence to CAP413 makes them stand out, along with the student prefix of course. Good on 'em, they'll speed up with experience and wonder why they ever had a problem with it.

It's people who've clearly been flying for donkeys' years, never needed a radio when they started and have just "blagged it" in the age of Class D breeding farms, never bothering to sharpen their skills to suit. The clues are in the source/destination fields (unlicensed strips) and aircraft types (mostly permits). I just don't think there's any excuse for experienced pilots to be so crap on the radio. It's lameness where there need be none. These guys know how to fly, they're not strapped for mental capacity in the cockpit, but they still tie up frequencies for painful amounts of time.

Personally I classify it in the same annoyance bracket at the same experienced pilots who don't know the difference between FIS/RIS/RAS/RCS etc.; clearly defined services which we're about to lose because of people being too damn feckin' lazy to learn how simple air traffic services work. But that's another discussion.

[snchater]

Flew Sherburn to Fenland return today and received zone transits twice without difficulty. However there was no CAT evident. Heard 2 requests for unidentified traffic within the zone to identify themselves(they didn't) and one pilot gently chastised for entering the zone before radio contact.

There was a lot of GA traffic calling Donc today for FIS/zone transit - I suspect that should the CAT increase then the present honeymoon period will be over and transits will be more restricted.

[NorthSouth]

fbm:if the projections do not come to pass, will they give us back the class GThey did at Southend, Lydd/Lympne and Prestwick (also Blackpool?). Yes, those were a long time ago but the tone of the CAA decision letter on Doncaster seems to suggest that they may well rescind it if traffic levels don't justify it.
NS

[ShyTorque]

CAUTION!

I noticed yesterday, on picking up the latest edition (34) of the CAA Central England and Wales 500,000 chart, is that the new airspace in question does not appear!

The next edition isn't due until April 2009, so users from down south beware you don't become an infringement statistic.

[EastCoaster]

ShyTorque,

Thanks for that heads-up. It is displayed on the new 1:250,000 Scale chart though, although that particular map might be a little cumbersome for use in a cramped cockpit environment!

[NWAtco]

Hey guys/gals, well we are a little over 2 weeks into CAS, and on the whole i think my colleagues and I are pretty happy with the quality of airmanship being displayed by the GA pilots and the level of co-operation with ATC requests - a big thank you from us! :ok:

As it stands at the moment, only 3 aircraft have had a delay in a zone transit. The initial request was turned down due to traffic patterns at the time, but once the traffic was clear, the transit request was granted.

If anyone has any issues, questions they would like answered, we have an e mail that you can send in your requests. We will endeavour to answer all reasonable requests, please be paitent though, we may be on days off or annual leave when you send in the request.

[email protected]

Thanks again for all your co-operation in making the CAS work, we are not here to keep you out, merely to keep EVERYONE safe. :ok:

[ScouseFlyer]

Its on the latest Northern England & Ireland 1/2 mil published in late August if you need it.

SF

[flybymike]

NWAtco. Thanks for that. Good post.

If you will not be answering emails on your days off, or when on leave, will you also be closing down CAS at this time? ;)

[ShyTorque]

Scouseflyer,

Thanks, I already have one because I operate "oop north", in fact I carry the full set of UK 250,000 on board as well so it's not a problem for myself :)

The concern is that someone flying from the south to Netherthorpe or Gamston might get caught out here because EGCN is at the very top of that sheet (in fact over the top latitude line) and it's a trap to think a northern chart isn't needed.

[EESDL]

I would not have started another on the "ATC Issues" forum with latest fun and games

[bigfoot01]

Transitted controlled airspace yesterday, flew right over Donny space port, they couldn't have been more helpful. They were jolly busy on the way back and it took a while to get my call in, but it didn't affect me, as I was on a local sight seeing bimble. Went back to see Sheffield to see what they had done with. I still think it is a terrible waste...

[AndyGB]

I noticed that there is a letter of agreement between Doncaster and Netherthorpe that details two areas (to the north and east of the airfield) in which aircraft inbound to Netherthorpe do not need to get clearance from Doncaster as long as they keep below 2500ft in one and 2000ft in the other.

Is this published anywhere as I've been looking on the Doncaster website to try and find it and mark it on my chart but with no luck.

[ShyTorque]

If it's a letter of agreement it might not be published other than in the EGNF local regulations

[AndyGB]

Cheers, I'll just make sure I do it next time I'm at the club then.

[TractorBoy]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread, but I regularily check the chart updates on the CAA website, and there is no reference to this airspace in the list of updates.

Amendments for Southern England and Wales - Edition: 34, 10/04/2008 | Aeronautical Charts | Airspace Policy (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=64&pagetype=65&appid=8&mode=detail&chart=11)


And I notice the AIC is no longer listed on the AIS website. Does this mean it's no longer valid ? Or if it is (I presume it is), how would I find out about it if I didn't already know ? I check these two sites regularily, but if I'd been away for a few months and missed the AIC, how would I know ?

[Pilotdom]

New chart due out 12 March 2009.

[bad bear]

Did anyone have difficulty getting a clearance last week end?

b b

[snapper1]

There's a busy thread running on gliderpilot.net. A number of glider pilots reporting having transit requests turned down or delayed last weekend. The consensus seems to be that the controller was having trouble coping with a fair number of gliders and GA aircraft while waiting for the arrival of just one commercial airliner. The British Gliding Association people tasked with liaising with the CAA on these issues are going to follow it up via the official channels that are available to them.

[christimson]

I remember doing my first solo nav around Doncaster last year. A 737 had declared an emergency and was diverting to Doncaster at the time. All GA traffic was asked to keep out of the zone apart from me using my student callsign. :)

There was some really interesting R/T going on.

[JohnRayner]

Did my skills test out of Netherthorpe weekend of the 17th. Not very much by way of clearances being offered to anyone. T'was busy though, was nearly at the Trent before I could get a word in edgewise to change to Waddington.

A perticularly amusing bit of R/T on that morning went something like:

Donny Radar: "G-XXXX please report your position"

G-XXXX "Altitude x thousand feet, er position is here!" (giggle over radio)

Donny Radar "Only I've just had Manchester on the phone and you're about to enter their controlled airspace...."

Well, I smiled. (and no, it wasn't me!)

JR

[L'aviateur]

I'm based at Doncaster, and they are normally very good and very accomodating. Sometimes they are hesitant for airline arrivals, but thats about it.