Norwich Airspace Grab

[WorkingHard]

I have just become aware of this and as I frequent that bit of airspace frequently it really has my attention. Am I being too pessimistic or is this another exercise in boosting egos (it is after all now Norwich INTERNATIONAL Airport). As I said to the duty manager if he would tell me where norwich DOMESTIC is I will use that instead!
Please may I have your views on this. With thanks to GASCO:-

GASCo
24th July 2009

To: All Board & Council Members

GASCo Info Notice 03/09 – Proposed Norwich Controlled Airspace

1. Introduction

You may already be aware of a proposal to implement controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich International Airport. I only became fully aware of it this week as the Formal Notification dated 22 May had gone elsewhere in GASCo. I attempted to download it from the promulgated site but for some reason it failed. Nevertheless, the 86 page document can be readily accessed on the BMAA Web Site BMAA Online (http://www.bmaa.org) under Consultations together with their Response. Alternatively, I have obtained from Norwich a copy by e-mail and can Forward it to anyone who requests it. At the front it has:
This document and the information contained therein is the property of Cyrrus Limited. It must not be reproduced in whole or part or otherwise disclosed to parties outside of Cyrrus Limited without the prior written consent. This must take the 2009 prize for the daftest thing in a Consultative Document!

Commercial air traffic has doubled at Norwich during the last 10 years and the closure of Coltishall after 36 years of an integrated arrangement meant that there was a loss of the known traffic environment. The proposal does include arrangements for airspace sharing and Letters of Agreement with those affected eg Felthorpe, Ludham and Swanton Morley. It also states ‘Transits through the proposed CTR/CTA by both VFR & IFR flights will be accommodated on direct routings to the maximum possible extent’. I also note that nearly half of the problem events during a recent 2 year period were known to be military aircraft. A Chart of the proposal is attached.

The current GASCo policy is for organisations to make their own comments unless the Council asks GASCo to submit specific or general comments. Responses can be e-mailed to [email protected] . During the Cardiff/Bristol Consultation GASCo sent the following response; let me know if you wish the same to be sent to Norwich:
1. GASCo supports this proposal as it provides all the airspace that is necessary to maintain the safety standards of commercial traffic using these airports whilst taking into account the needs of general aviation.

2. This is based on the proviso that there are sufficient appropriate staff are available, to ensure the requirements for access to Class D by General Aviation aircraft seeking to fly within or across the airspace.

The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.

John Thorpe, Chief Executive

[dublinpilot]

2. This is based on the proviso that there are sufficient appropriate staff are available, to ensure the requirements for access to Class D by General Aviation aircraft seeking to fly within or across the airspace.

Is this in every airspace proposal? Then the airport management gradually reduce staff numbers in the name of profits (perfectly reasonable as they are private companies) and transits become more difficult....

[Jumbo Driver]

I have just looked at the Norwich Airport Airspace Change Proposal (http://www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/Consultation_Document_Final_V1_1-20_April_2009.pdf) document mentioned above, which is on the BMAA website.

At para 2.4.7, it says that ... the Consultation Period ... is planned to close on 28 July 2009. (i.e. tomorrow!)

This is in conflict with the date of 28th August 2009 mentioned above as the closing date for comments - so has the time available for responses been extended?


JD
:)

[Jumbo Driver]

I have just answered my own question by inspecting this document on the Norwich Airport website.

It was re-issued on 22 May 2009 as version 2.0 (rather than version 1.1 which is on the BMAA website) and can be found here (http://www.norwichairport.co.uk/downloads/Consultation_Document_Final_V2_0-22_May_2009.pdf).

The new para 2.4.7 now shows the amended Consultation Period as closing on 28 August 2009.


JD
:)

[SkyHawk-N]

Commercial air traffic has doubled at Norwich during the last 10 years

:hmm:

Looking at todays departures (http://www.norwichairport.co.uk/departures.asp) we can all see that the total number of commercial flights FROM here, ignoring the duplicate schedule entries (obviously put there to make the number look even more impressive! :ok:) is..........18!!!. Many of these being oil platform helicopter departures and only 9 'proper' commercial aircraft.

Norwich International will always struggle to survive (let alone expand) due to it's location and the transport infrastructure in the area. Does it need this Class D airspace...I don't think so.

[Arclite01]

My personal opinion is that Norwich looks around and sees other people doing it and says 'we'd better do that too.....'

Major commerical operators have departed Norwich in the last few years and as a Eurohub it has tremendous potential which has never been fulfilled. It could easily be another Amsterdam Schipol if it wanted but it just prefers to continue in its normal (mismanaged) way.

Anyway with the appaling local road system, lack of motorways, un-connected railway system (the nearest station is 10 miles away), and wierd local attitudes to development and progress this Class D is never going to be required without a major sea-change.....................

Arc

[Legalapproach]

Annex D makes interesting reading. 68 occurences over a period of 2 years 10 months i.e less tha one per fortnight. There do not appear to have been many if any significant conflicts.

More to the point a quick reading would seem to suggest that out of the 68 some were plainly outside the proposed class D i.e. No 48 -16nm north west, 53 - 6nm west low level, some may well have been outside, eg nos 22, 27,28, 34 etc. In all there appear to be about 25 + that do not clearly appear to have been within the proposed class D airspace; so over one-third. Two occurrences appear to be London Mil refusing to take traffic because of workload.

If one ignores the 25 we are left with 43 in a 34 month period so an average of 1.27 occurrences per month.

I'm due to fly from Norwich in a fortnight - do you think I should cancel?

[niknak]

WH has also posted on the ATC forum on the same subject.

The public consultation period for Class D airspace at Norwich has been on the go for nearly 4 months, the project itself has been well within the public domain and active for nearly two years.
An enormous amount of work (at considerable cost to Norwich Airport and man hours by staff who have done a lot of the work in their own time for nothing) has gone into ensuring that every interested party in the area and National Organisations across the board, likely to be affected by the proposal has been consulted.
Anyone else who wanted their opinions to be heard has had ample opportunity to do so, (and still does) via the Airport Website or their representitive organisation.

I can't imagine what WH considers he has to add by attempted stirring of the big spoon, failing miserably and making himself look very silly by displaying his ignorance and lack of ability to keep up with what is freely available within the public domain.

[Legalapproach]

NikNak - I think you are a bit harsh. WH starts his post by saying that he has only just become aware and are you suggesting that this somehow invalidates his comments or concerns? Even if the project has been on the go for 2 years the final consultation draft was only published two months ago. Norwich has operated very well without class D for many years. The figures show that movements have not increased significantly and it is never going to become a major international airport - too close to Stanstead, relatively small local population and as a previous poster has stated the road and rail links are very poor. Further, the details set out in annex D do not establish a major problem.

Many of us have seen how Norwich has developed delusions of grandeur and has outpriced or made GA unwelcome. Many years ago I used to keep a Pitts in hangar 9 and never had a problem. Now I feel decidedly unwelcome.

Before you flame me, Norwich is my airport of choice and whenever its suitable if I am flying commercially I use the KLM service to AMS and then transit onwards. I am flying out of Norwich in a couple of weeks. Further, Norwich ATC are first class. I fly a PA32 locally and part own a cub at Priory Farm. For my part I don't think that the class D will really affect me other than the occasional ability to fly an instrument approach outside controlled airspace. As Naarfolk is fairly flat I suppose many of use will just have to create our own GPS approaches without a precision let down and low level RTB:ok: I'm sure I will get transits if necessary and in the cub I'll just bimble along outside the zone below 1500'.

That being said is it really necessary? Will the aviation industry and NWI come to a grinding halt without class D? I suspect not.

[flybymike]

Much the same can be said of the Humberside proposals, and were also said of the Doncaster proposals. More and more aircraft having to duck and dive around CAS, and with less room in which to do so, and also to worry at the flight planning stage as to whether access will be available ( how does one plan the unplannable route?) and yet more potential for infringements and the resultant cries of licence loss from the holier than thou lynch mob....

[Arclite01]

For me it's not about the category of the airspace - it's the amount of the airspace that they are trying to grab IMHO.

Is it really all required ??? - and as with legal Approach - GA at Norwich is definately being squeezed and it is expensive to operate from there. I believe however that the costing strategy comes from 'on high' and is no reflection of the actual attitude to be found on the airfield itself.

and Norwich, delusions of grandeur ?? - 'Moi ?'

Arc

[Jim59]

What really annoys me about this proposal is that they state in the consultation that a large part of the proposed zone in the West (to be known as the Swanton Box) will not be required by NIA for 70% of the time so when they don't want it they will delegate it to the military to be controlled out of Marham. So you want to transit & call NIA, they have delegated it to Marham and can't be bothered to call Marham to see if they can allow transit so you will be denied access to airspace that is probably empty and likely to stay that way for the duration of your transit. All this without the military haveing to make a case for having the airspace.

Submit your objections before it's too late.

By the way:

In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the CAA’s requirements a period of 12 weeks is allowed for consultation. In order to make allowance for the May Bank Holiday period NIA has extended the consultation period to 14 weeks. Thus the Consultation Period begins on 22 May 2009 and is planned to close on 28 August 2009 .

[Lister Noble]

Interesting,there are three Priory L4 group members on this thread plus one I bought my share from.:)
I've been flying her today,while you are all working.
Sorry,but there is some good from becoming old and grizzled;);)
Lister:)

[niknak]

Good to see you're back up and mended Lister.
May the traffic lights always be on green!:ok:

[Legalapproach]

Lister - who are the others? I'm obviously not well up on Pprune user names

[Lister Noble]

I'm sure they'll let you know:)
If I tell you I might be shot:}
Lister

[KeyPilot]

I have just very briefly read bits of this consultation document, and it is an unmitigated disgrace.

Their executive summary is riddled with lies and fallacies:

"NIA... has become a major Regional Airport" - lie #1 - no it hasn't - it is a minor regional airport by any reasonable definition

"This Agreement effectively protected NIA traffic from military and other itinerant traffic operating in the vicinity" - fallacy #1 the "military traffic" from which NIA was protected has now gone with Coltishall's closure; lie #2 Coltishall never protected NIA from “itinerant” traffic as this was never obliged to receive any air traffic service; fallacy #2 they use a derogatory term to describe GA traffic (“itinerant” conjures images of vagrants) to support their argument

“Accordingly there has been a commensurate increase in ATC workload” - fallacy #3 - large amounts of airspace to control will also increase ATC workload

“...avoiding action and delaying action is commonplace which has been, on several occasions, to the general detriment of flight safety” - fallacy #4 - taking avoiding action is exactly about ensuring safety - it would be to the detriment of safety NOT to take avoiding action

Let me copy the final paragraph in full:

“NIA is an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) approved under Article 100 of the Air
Navigation Order and, as such, must satisfy the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as to their
competence to provide air traffic services (ATS) and that the services are safe. In meeting
its statutory responsibilities for safety management of the ATS provided and in order to
assure an acceptable level of flight safety for aircraft inbound to or outbound from NIA in the
critical stages of flight, NIA proposes to submit a case to the CAA to establish Class D
controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich Airport.”

This is absolute drivel, and fallacy #5 - the logic of it is “we have a responsibility for safety therefore we need Class D airspace” - they have not submitted any relevant material in support of this assertion, instead just repeating the words “safe” or “safety” ad nauseam to browbeat the reader without submitting any evidence or reasoning - re-read the paragraph and count these words!

Someone suggested on another thread that there should be an airspace tax, whereby airports pay an annual amount per cubic mile of airspace they control - I think this is an exceptionally good idea, and it would make sure that airports don’t take any more airspace than they need. Also this concept is widely precedented - for example, in radio spectrum licensing fees (for e.g. mobile operators).

In short, this is an absolute disgrace. Whilst it won’t affect me personally, as a point of principle and to help our fellow aviators in East Anglia, I will be responding to the consultation in the strongest possible terms. I urge all others to do likewise.

[wsmempson]

I have just emailed this;

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in response to the consultation regarding the proposed increase in controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.

I write as a pilot and aircraft owner who regularly visits airfields around Norwich, although I regret to say that it is some time since I have actually flown into Norwich itself, as the escalation in charges to general aviation traffic has all but prevented this.

I am puzzled by many of the claims and aspirations which you state in your consultation document, as most of them appear to be unrealistic and/or distortions of the truth.

Far from being an "increasingly busy regional airport", the numbers of movements at Norwich have actually fallen over the last 3 years by 20%. Moreover, the projection for movement numbers doubling in the near future, is willfully unrealistic. With a lack of supporting infrastructure (road links and rail services) and continuing government investment in Stansted, Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick and an ever deepening recession, these movements are likely to fall further - rather than increase.

The uncomfortable truth for Norwich is that there are actually GA fields in the south-east of England with more movements, who exist with only a modest ATZ and FIS, so I think that the demand for a massive increase in controlled airspace is unrealistic, unnecessary and tantamount to 'dog-in-the-manger' behavior, founded upon ill-conceived delusions of grandure.

On these grounds, I strongly object to any expansion of controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.

Yours faithfully,

[niknak]

Well there's a thing.

Working Hard has just posted on the ATC forum on precisely the same subject (a thread he started) and wsmempsons post is almost the miror image of that post - I wonder if they could be identical twins!:rolleyes::p

All I'll say to WS and Key Pilot is, the public consultation is just that, public and there for you to make your contribution, so do it via the methods explained on the airport website and your opinion will be listened to and noted by not only the Airport Authority, but also any replies, positive or negative have to be forwarded to the CAA and the DAP who, will ultimately decide if the airspace application will be granted.
I am just a small cog in the wheel and I've been involved in just some of the massive amount of work put into this project, but the only thing I would say is, if you are going to make comments which you want anyone outwith Norwich Airport to consider, make them a little bit more constructive.

[WorkingHard]

For niknak and wsmemperson I did copy and past from wsmemperson to the ATC forum as I thought the questions posed may realise some comment that us GA pilots would be hard pressed to find elsewhere. I did also stae it was copied from here and not my words. No harm done (or so i thought). wsmemperson you put it far better than did I so that is why I copied and attributed.

[wsmempson]

Ta v. much.;)

[Bigglesthefrog]

I have used Norwich airport for many years to fly to and from Aberdeen airport and Schiphol in the Netherlands. Using Eastern on the Aberdeen leg, I have been aware that their service seems to have been trimmed down rather than increased. On the Schiphol leg I’ve used KLM Cityhopper and I’ve never seen any increases in their schedules or a full aircraft either. There is a helicopter operator (Bristows) who I have used to travel offshore, but offshore helicopter travel in this part of the world is forecast to decline over the next few years and anyway, Bristows have competition off Norwich airport by CHC helicopters at nearby North Denes that services the same area.
Norwich airport can never be expected to be any more than a small regional airport whilst the ground travel infrastructure is so bad. The main railway station (with filthy trains) in the centre of Norwich can take almost an hour to get to by taxi when the city traffic is bad, which is very often the case! So I can’t see why in anyone’s wildest dreams they think they need class D airspace.
Just recently, I have been so sick and tired of the journey from Norwich Airport to my home near Ely (not that far away) and visa versa that I have started to use London airports. People travelling from Norwich airport are further annoyed by having to pay an extra £5 on top of their ticket for an airport development fund. So now I know what this fund is for, I will definitely be travelling from London!
Personally I would like to see Norwich Airport authorities getting back to basics by shelving silly delusions of grandeur and instead provide a better service for their customers. Then put all their other efforts into lobbying for the improvement of the dreadful land travel situation that has existed for far too long.

[goatface]

Well Biggles, I suspect that you'd really love to be able to use Norwich all the time and just frustrated to hell with the crap road networks to virtually any airport, aside from Stansted in the UK.
But I've got to say that's one of the most bizzare cases against any form of controlled airspace I've ever seen, please submit it as an objection via the correct means, I love to see it hung on the walls of CAA & DAP HQ. :p:ok:

[Bigglesthefrog]

Yes Goatface, it is a bit bizzare as a case against airspace restrictions as I read it now and you are quite correct about my frustration. But my point is angled towards what I see as an airport in decline and if this is indeed the case, what is the point of applying for class D airspace?
I have to say I agree with you, it would look good on the wall of the CAA HQ however:ok:
Thanks

[Lister Noble]

There are plans afoot to put in a northern Norwich by-pass,which will probably make some road travel easier.
Even so,I can't see Norwich airport ever becoming much more important for air travel than it is now.
Surely the most sensible way forward would be to see how commercial air traffic develops over a period ,then if does then become neccessary to have Class D,forward the proposal at that time.I have travelled a couple of time from Norwich,once was direct flight and OK but the other we routed via Schipol which was a pain.
Stansted is not too far away from Norfolk and has good connections to most destinations,it is my choice whenever possible.
Lister

[niknak]

As I've posted before, I've played a very small part in the huge amount of work which goes into such an application.

You are absolutely correct that at present, traffic movements at Norwich are significantly lower compared to what they were when the application process frist started, however, there has been little or no reduction in the number of other movements and associated risks to aircraft operating in and out of the airport.
These are clearly measured within the evidence forwarded to date to the CAA and DAP.
Get them from the CAA and DAP if you don't believe me.

Additionally, it is generally accepted that, whilst the current recession has been worse for aviation than any other, there is light at the end of the tunnel within the commercial sector within the next 6 months. The majority of commercial airline and airport operators are working this in to their business plans, so are we.
If we were to ditch the application now it, we would have to replicate the same amount of work again when commercial times are better and that would be at considerable cost, so there's no reason why we shouldn't go for it now and be prepared for the upturn when it happens, just like any other commercial consideration.

Once again, if you think you have a valid & constructive objection to the application, by all means make it through the proper channels and the CAA & DAP will consider it appropriately.

[Jumbo Driver]

What you seem to be saying, niknak, is that the airspace is not justified now and it is only on NIA's expectation (and not actual fact) that the application is being pursued. Moreover it seems to be going ahead in its present form only because it would be too much work for it to be changed to suit actual and perhaps more realistic requirements.

My opinion is that an airfield the size of Norwich might find it nice to have a Class D CTR/CTA the size proposed but it really is not necessary. Considering other "stakeholders", it would actually be perfectly adequate to simply safeguard the IAP lanes with a much narrower CTR along the extended runway centrelines within the vertical limits proposed - perhaps with something more the shape of a MATZ - leaving much more Class G unaffected by the CAS "grab". Furthermore, I see absolutely no reason to have such a large CTA, with its base extending at the ridiculously low level of 1500' all the way out to 13nm from the ARP.

I speak with experience in both commercial aviation and GA and I have to say, in summary, that I do not see the proposal as being reasonable, given either the traffic density expected or the IFR routings required.


JD
:)

[Stampe]

I,ve commanded B757 and B738 aircraft in and out of Norwich on about 7 occasions over the past 10 years.I,ve always found the Norwich radar controllers very good and never had any reason to be concerned.The airport has very low traffic levels I can,t possibly support any airspace beyond the current ATZ and possibly as suggested by a previous post a matz like structure.My only concerns at Norwich have been over runway length especially in challenging conditions....perhaps an area management at Norwich might expend their effort on to a greater safety benefit than controlling vast areas of airspace with little traffic.If they get exclusive use airspace we need to be sure sufficient funding is in place to gaurantee enough controllers to service all airspace users all the time.Previous experience tells me that is unlikely.""Standby (for ever) remain clear of controlled airspace""VBR Stampe

[WorkingHard]

Just to keep this alive I have copied what is written on the ATC thread:
Not had any replies to the question yet!

21 Joining and Overflying AircraftWhen an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance
and give a time check.

For those pilots who transgress CAS without permission (i.e. NOT operating the aircraft withing the regulations) there are sanctions so would anyone care to tell us what sanctions may be applied to a controller who similarly transgresses please? It is there in the regulations saying "requests permission" and "shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check" It does not say thou shalt issue the instruction ad nauseum.
There are clearly poor pilots and poor controllers and I think it would be better if we were treated as individuals and not make such might assumptions. Before any one really takes me to task I should re-iterate what I have said many times that the UK controllers are the best in the world so please dont let standards slip.

[Arclite01]

another thought - who actually decides that they need more airspace at Norwich in the first place ?

and who actually pays for the application ??

Arc

[goatface]

another thought - who actually decides that they need more airspace at Norwich in the first place ?

The decision to apply is made by the Airport Authority, the CAA and the Military (DAP) make the final decison as to grant it or not.

and who actually pays for the application ??

Norwich Airport Ltd.

[Legalapproach]

and who actually pays for the application ??

Norwich Airport Ltd.

I think you mean it's us who pay - through the nose by the over-inflated landing fees (compare them with a regional airport in say France) and if you're a commercial pax by way of the passenger, airport development tax, sorry, fee.

Quote from the Airport website

Future investment that the ADF will support includes:
- Establishment of controlled airspace to enable more efficient management and routing of the increased level of flights

So next week the approach family will be donating £25 towards restricting my future flying around Norfolk.

[goatface]

Legal.

I'm pretty sure that no one would disagree with you regarding the G.A landing fees. It's my understanding that the airport was made PPR to non based operators so that all GA could be handled by the FBO Saxonair. Saxonair charge about £10 of the landing fee as their handling fee, the rest goes to Norwich Airport Ltd, so how the MD at Norwich can say (and this is only what I've been told) that they make no money out of GA landing fees is beyond me and a complete embarassment to everyone there.
Despite the rumour that the airport is allegedly in very very deep financial poo and many staff making very sensible suggestions about cutting fees to attract more GA, the people who run the place (Omniport/Norwich Airport Ltd) seem to have their head in the sand and allegedly simply refuse to listen.

As for the ADF, that's something that every commercial passenger at every airport in the UK pays - it's just that most squirrel it away into the "taxes & charges" part of your ticket costs. At least airports like Norwich, Liverpool, Newquay and a few others are honest enough to let you know about it.

[Zulu Alpha]

....Back to the original post re the airspace.

I will be objecting. This is a huge area/volume of airspace to commandeer for just a few commercial flights.

There are always these weasel words about allowing transits and giving clearances, but in reality you just get a 'standby and remain clear' response. Either because the controller can't be bothered or because the low volume of commercial traffic means thay cannot afford the right staffing levels to deal with all the transit traffic.

ZA

[flybymike]

but in reality you just get a 'standby and remain clear' response

That should of course be "remain outside" ;)

[WorkingHard]

Flybymike please read my post No.31 above. The quote is straight from MATS PART 1, Sect 3, CH1, Para 21. So a blanket "ROCAS" should not be used and ONLY if a request is made for transit then "controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check."
Does any GA pilot remember that happening in recent years? How do we set about ensuring the ATC "bible" is adhered to anyone?
Norwich, if approved, will soon go the same way as the majority of CAS elsewhere and transits and anything other than a basic service will be denied because of "controller workload". Then if a complaint is made it will be stated that "GA" does not pay its share. It is soon and very conveniently forgotten that the airspace was free to all before a minor little airfield wanted "control" so why should we pay more?

[Zulu Alpha]

That should of course be "remain outside"

Should really be "cleared to cross as requested"!!!!!

ZA

[flybymike]

That should of course be "remain outside"

Should really be "cleared to cross as requested"!!!!!


Perfectly true!;)

[Stephen Furner]

Looking through the document it appears to me that Norwich is arguing that it is necessary to have controlled airspace primarily to protect its incoming and outgoing routes from conflicting with military traffic.

If the problem is inadequate co-ordination with military aviation then surely this is what they should be addressing rather than trying to take control themselves of all the local airspace around the airport. It states that they have tried to co-ordinate with the military but have not been able to establish any agreement that will resolve the problem. Unfortunately, it is not clear what they attempted and why it was not successful. Simply stating in para 5.4 that the problem military traffic is not locally controlled but managed centrally through the MoD, or by an on station AWAC not in contact with Norwich ATC, does not I feel adequately answer this point.

The significant impact on the implementation of an additional large control zone on the recreational aviation that takes place in East Anglia is not well developed and elaborated in this document. The impact on costs and customer experience for recreational operators of the additional levels of organizational complexity created by the proposal are not well thought through or explained. While recognizing that recreational aviation takes place on local airfields the limit of their response is to state that a letter of agreement or MoU will be put in place and that they will provide transit through their area of control when it is reasonable to do so. The difficulty with these and other good will statements in the document is the lack of any quantified performance measures for what Norwich means by reasonable or that commit Norwich to a minimum quality of service for recreational and other GA traffic.

I would have been more impressed with a clear commitment to developing local recreational aviation and Norwich as the East Anglian destination of choice for recreational and GA pilots and some clear statement about what they will do to achieve this. For example some Scottish airfields offer weekend deals on landings and parking - £30 for the weekend and as many landings as you want. No sign of this kind of thinking in this proposal document.

To offset the considerable costs that Norwich’s proposal will cause the recreational community some attempt could have been made to control costs for GA people flying into Norwich. A simple performance measure could have been given such as fixing the total price for visiting Norwich in typical spam can at no more than the median cost of a landing at any East Anglian ICAO airfield. A similar approach could be taken to parking with again the cost being kept at or below the median for East Anglia. This could have been integrated with a commitment to much better marketing and communications into the recreational and wider GA community through its www site and other routes.

Since safety lies at the root of this proposal this may also offer an opportunity for Norwich to improve the value of the proposal to the wider community that are losing access to the airspace they wish to take control of. A simple metric for this could be 6 ATC safety weekends per year where Norwich invites recreational flyers come on in and practice their skills at instrument approaches and other ATC procedures at a token cost. This could have additional community impact if Norwich donated the token charges from the recreational pilots to charities such as GASGO or to support the Fly-On-Track www site and/or RAFA, British Disabled Flying Association . . . etc.

Generally, in the UK I think a lot more proactive work needs to be done by ATC controlled airfields to get recreational GA using them. It should be easier and cheaper for a recreational GA pilot to take his or her family shopping in towns with a good airfield such as Norwich by flying in rather than by adding to the congestion on the roads and trains. Also, from a safety perspective frequent and easy access to the airport and its ATC procedures will build confidence and, I believe, increase a pilot’s willingness to talk to the ATC unit when in the local area.

[goatface]

Stephen.

Very eliquently put, your post just about sums up everything that the ATC and other operational staff at Norwich and other operators have been saying since the process began.

They've all been comletely ignored so if you, or in fact, everyone, were to write the same thing to the MD at Norwich, Elliot Summers and the Ops Director, Richard Pace, it would be interesting to see if you got the same response.

Good luck.:ok:

[Zulu Alpha]

Stephen,

I do agree with your list of things that Norwich could do to be more friendly to GA.

However, some of us in the area are not interested in instrument approaches etc. and just want to fly around the area. These proposals will make it more difficult. Why should we be denied this just because Norwich wants to commandeer the airspace for a dwindling number of commercial flights.

I can vist a number of local airfields and land free if I uplift some fuel (which is cheaper than Norwich). Why would I want to go to Norwich? They have priced themselves out of the GA market. Today a PA28 was charged the following:

£27 odd landing fee.
£10 handling fee.
£4 ish airport tax.
All in it was circa £40 plus VAT including handling.

Old Buckenham charge about this for an annual membership and then all landings are free for a year.

I believe that Norwich airport is owned and run by the council. In my experience this means that there is an extremely inefficient operation with little regard for giving value for money. Giving them rights to the airspace will be expensive for users and ratepayers and will provide a minimal contribution to air safety, but they probably couldn't care as they are council run and value for money is hardly on their radarscreen.

ZA

[Phil Space]

The MD at Norwich airport, Elliot Summers, seems to ignore the fact that he is driving custom away from this little airport with over regulation. I have not landed there for several years because of their anti GA stance.

I was also a regular user of the link to Amsterdam for long distance flights but when they introduced the airport development fee I voted with my feet and now use Stansted. Norwich airport has a very limited population to service and the management are never going to increase their movements with the sort of tactics they currently employ.

They are very lucky they have the offshore oil industry helicopter traffic. They seemed to have messed up the Flybe opportunity.

[Arclite01]

Eventually there will just be a big empty airfield with a few scheduled and few charter movements - that will be deemed success from Norwich Airport Management people.

It's a great shame. As I have said before - the place should be a hugely busy Eurohub but unfortunately - it's never going to happen.

Which is why the airspace grab is even more pointless.............

Arc

[off watch]

goatface
"It's my understanding....", "and this is only what I've been told"...., "Despite the rumour that the airport is allegedly......, "allegedly simply refuse to listen"
Not the ideal statements to make if you are objecting, methinks !

Zulu Alpha
Omniport is the majority owner (80.1%) of Norwich Airport, which it acquired in March 2004 from Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council, who retain a minority share.

Phil Space
"The MD at Norwich airport seems to ignore the fact that he is driving custom away from this little airport with over regulation. I have not landed there for several years because of their anti GA stance."
Looks like the policy is working then ! :(

[hatzflyer]

The only thing I saw above Norwich over last weekend was a raincloud!

[off watch]

> hatzflyer :ok: & that was probably only produced after the visit of Colchester FC ;)

[Zulu Alpha]

Off watch,

Thank you I hadn't realised

Omniport is the majority owner (80.1%) of Norwich Airport, which it acquired in March 2004 from Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council, who retain a minority share.

Is there still a subsidy from the councils and any idea how much?

ZA

[Phil Space]

The Omniport website claims Norwich International Airport serves the whole of East Anglia - a potential catchment area of up to 4 million people and it is over 90 miles from its nearest competing airport (London Stansted).

Google maps suggests it is only 69.8 miles from Norwich airport to Stansted.
:ok:

[Zulu Alpha]

Google maps suggests it is only 69.8 miles from Norwich airport to Stansted

Its at least 90 miles by tractor!!!
ZA

[hatzflyer]

would you then be a tractor boy?

[off watch]

Zulu Alpha - sorry, no idea about subsidies - maybe someone with access to the council's published accounts could answer that ?

TomTom Nav quotes 91.3 miles as quickest road journey distance, Norwich to Stansted, & 84.3 miles as the shortest so I think their claim is valid. ( I can set it for cycle or walking distances but no provision for tractors ;)

[Arclite01]

50 miles - 70 miles - 170 miles makes no odds...........The Stansted thing is just a red herring - the markets they serve are light years apart..................

- as is the mindset of the operators................... or maybe not 'cause GA is not welcomed at Stansted either :}

Maybe the Norwich Operators see the airport as their own private plaything - sort of like a kids railway set..................and now we need some more track to run our single clockwork engine on............

Arc

[vanHorck]

I learned flying at Norwich.... sad to hear all this.

Did anyone bother to write to the MD or the new majority owner and ask WHY as well as about their mid term plans for the airport? It seems to me it's the ideal training area and a minimalist hub at the same time.

Perhaps the intention is to run it down to sell the land for housing?

[hatzflyer]

I fly close to Norwich, certainly close enough to be affected by this. My flying is ususally weekends and I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when Ive been close to them.
I have had several bo****kings from them for alleged infringments, wrong reporting etc.( as explained on other threads no need to repeat here).

If they are like that now, beware any one flying anywhere in eastern England in the future!

My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them.

[Lister Noble]

Unless I've understood all this incorrectly,we are expected to send our opposition/objection comments to the people who are actually applying for the extended airspace,ie Norwich International Airport.
In all other planning applications in the UK,the objections are sent to the organisation that will ultimately decide on the proposal,eg,Planning Dept at the local authority etc.
So why can't we do the same here,send our replies to the CAA and Military?
Sorry if I've misread the info.
Lister

[Stampe]

Norwich needs:-

Good primary and secondary radar.
Sufficient trained and experienced controllers able to interpret that radar.

It is my belief they already have both.From my experience of operating both heavy commercial air transport and light aircraft to and from NWI I do not believe they have a case for any further controlled airspace given the very low level of movements they have.If they have an issue with poor airmanship from the military that needs to be addressed by their management and the military at the highest level.VBR Stampe

[Arclite01]

I have no problems with Norwich Controllers at all - they do a great job and manage us all very well when we are flying around locally. Actually I find them really helpful so lets not confuse two issues here.

The issue is why Norwich need the airspace they are trying to grab. So far from what I have read here no one would object if there was a valid reason for the requirement - there isn't as far as we are all aware and that is why we're all so vocal about it I think....................no problems with a safety argument - but it's not proven (not even close)

Lister - I think we are supposed to complain to NATS and we can do that via the LAA I think.

Arc

[hatzflyer]

All I Can Say Is You Must Be Talking To Different Cotrollers To The Ones I Am.
Edited..WAS

[LXGB]

...I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when Ive been close to them.

I have had several bo****kings from them for alleged infringments, wrong reporting etc.

My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate? 1 out of 3 aint bad I 'spose. Hope the other guys sharing the airspace over Norfolk have a better lookout than you. ;)

Cheers,

LXGB

[niknak]

Lister,

Norwich are responsible for all costs, therefore the CAA dictate that all responses are sent to Norwich for them to collate and forward to the authority.

The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all local airfields, operators, county/local & parish councils and any other interested parties are;
1. Sent a copy of the of the final applicaton documentwhich is to be submitted to the CAA/SAP (in this case some 50 or so pages) together with a response form asking for their comments/approvals/opposition (sent to 250 or so parties).
2. A month before the closing date, sent a reminder to those who haven't responded (the majority).
3. Two weeks before the closing date, ring everyone who hasn't responded (the majority) asking for their response (yes or no), if a message has to be left on voicemail, the applicant has to ring again until they talk to a human being, print their response and lodge it with the final documents.

Thereafter, every response is collated and sent to the CAA.

There are checks and balances in place, imposed and regulated by the CAA, to ensure that the applicant is behaving in an impartial manner with the appropriate penalties if it can be proved beyond doubt that they didn't.

[WorkingHard]

Niknak over on the ATC thread there is the thorny question of ROCAS which it now seems that it is not in your manual except where access to CAS has specifically been requested. In which case you are required to give an estimate of time etc. As you have been intimately involved with this application is it fair to assume you are aware of the impact it will have on GA in the area? If so are you absolutely confident that NIA will have the facilities in place to adhere to the ATC manual and not just issue a blanket ROCAS to every one who call on the RT? Are you just as sure that those resources will be maintained so as to be non detrimental to GA? I appreciate I am asking for your opinion and you cannot speak for the airport as such.
Thanks

[off watch]

WorkingHard
Re your "thorny question of ROCAS"
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."

In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.
If it concerns you so much, why not write to the SRG Head of ATC Investigations and ask what the view would be of an ATCO who hadn't said ROCAS to a pilot who then infringed ? (I don't mean one who asked for a clearance but was told to wait). I suspect a dim one !
I assume you are aware that any pilot refused entry into CAS can notify DAP, who will request an explanation from the Unit ?

[hatzflyer]

LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft.
Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio.:ok:

[WorkingHard]

Offwatch, thanks for the clarification on that. Presumably the opening paragraph that you quote does not negate the bit about when to expect a clearance or maybe it does. In the several decades I have been flying for both personal pleasure and a company aircraft, all of which is of course GA, I cannot remember ever been given the time when we might expect clearance through CAS. It is either ROCAS or sometimes "continue on course for crossing as requested"

[off watch]

WH
Now you mention it, in 3 1/2 decades of controlling, I don't think I've actually given a time to expect clearance or a time check for that purpose either - usually 'ROCAS & I'll call you back' !
I've just checked an old MATS 1 & when the procedure was stated in 1995, the phrase "advise pilot to remain outside controlled airspace" was not used.
I suspect it was brought in because of the increasing number of infringements - 330 in the London area in 2006 !

hatzflyer
"Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio" - that's no way to speak about your fellow pilots on the safety com freq. ;)

[Jumbo Driver]

Re your "thorny question of ROCAS"
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."

In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.

off watch, MATS Part 1 (CAP493) does indeed contain the paragraph you quote - it is at Section 1, Chapter 1, Introduction, para. 1.2, viz:

1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein.

However it is worth mentioning that, prior to a recent revision (12 March 2009), it used to say ...

1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers providing Air Traffic Services. Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.

... which was far more permissive to the controller.

Clearly the revision was intended to tighten this up. So, whilst it may have been reasonable to argue that the earlier wording may have allowed some discretion to controllers to use the phrase "ROCAS" as a cautionary response whenever they felt it appropriate, the revision to the wording would now only permit this in "unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein". The vast majority of times you hear "ROCAS" nowadays are not in that category. Thus the current frequent and arbitrary use of "ROCAS" simply cannot be justified by the introductory paragraph in CAP 493 that you quote.

As I have said before, the appropriate and approved use of "ROCAS" is set out in Sec.3, Ch.1, para. 21 of MATS Part 1 (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1.pdf). Any other use (except in unusual circumstances, not covered by the procedures in CAP493) is entirely unapproved.


JD
:)

[Eric T Cartman]

@ hatzflyer
Quote: "My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them."
"LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! "

The Captain of the 727 that had a mid-air in 1978 @ San Diego had over 10,000 hrs on 727's - he could've said the same thing !

Quote "My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft. Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio."

Congratulations, you've probably just set pilot/ATCO relations in Norfolk & Suffolk back about 10 years ! :mad:
If the Norwich management need some more justification for CAS, those statements should do nicely ! :*

[off watch]

Jumbo Driver
I agree with you 100% - the trouble is, in the event of an interview with the Boss or, even worse, the SRG Inspector after an infringement, it would be a brave chap who said 'sorry but MATS part 1 doesn't say I had to say ROCAS so don't blame me' (woops, forgot, we live in a no blame culture - don't we ? )

[WorkingHard]

Off watch you are surely not suggesting that unauthorised statements are being transmitted as an arse covering exercise and to hell with the consequences for the GA pilot. Our British ATC is surely far too professional to even contemplate such a thing.

[off watch]

WH - as if ! :E
I take it that you never say "Good Morning" , "Goodbye" etc. ? They are not authorised either ;)

[Jumbo Driver]

... in the event of an interview with the Boss or, even worse, the SRG Inspector after an infringement, it would be a brave chap who said 'sorry but MATS part 1 doesn't say I had to say ROCAS so don't blame me' ...

off watch, I don't think it would be particularly brave ... but it would certainly be professional ...


JD
:)

P.S. Courtesies are permitted by implication as (I'm sure you are aware ;)) Appendix E (p.2) suggests controllers should avoid their excessive use ...

[off watch]

JD
Patrick McGoohan was professional when he resigned in "The Prisoner" - & look where it got him :p

Re courtesies - right as usual :cool: - it even says the same in CAP413, the RT Manual, Ch.3, para 1.1.6.

I'm beginning to think we need to get out more ! :8

[Phil Space]

The prospect is they will get it.

If the helicopter/oil field traffic disappears this airport is doomed:ok:

[IRpilot2006]

It doesnt suprise me Norwich has problems with the US military. Years ago I did a US PPL with a outfit at Norwich, which got shut down by the CAA some years later. After the checkride, the US examiner asked me what altitude I would be flying home to Wellesbourne (I was in my own aircraft). I said 'various, down to 2400 feet'. He said 'what, why so low??' I said there is Class A at various altitudes, down to 2500 feet. He said 'THERE IS NO CLASS A ANYWHERE BELOW 18000 FEET'

:) :) :) :)

This was a US instructor examiner working for a UK flying school at Norwich, and like the others he was ex US military, ex Mildenhall/Lakenheath. If the pilots at those two know as much about UK airspace, no wonder Norwich gets some exciting moments sometimes :)

[Legalapproach]

Stampe

I now agree with your earlier post re runway length - a Laden 752 takes an awfull lot of 27 before getting airborne and if Norwich thinks it has half a chance of being a real player a huge amount has got to change and class D is the least of its problems

[Phil Space]

Meanwhile a whole new housing estate has mushroomed around the eastern boundary of Norwich Airport.

The west has a road which is a major obstacle.As I see it there will never be a demand to exceed what exists already. If the oil helicopters and the small maintenance/spray shop disappears it will revert back to what it was. A little strip in the middle of nowhere

[goatface]

Well said Phil, most constructive. :8

The Eastern boundary being 4 miles away? Should have gone to Specsavers.

[Phil Space]

I suggest you take a drive up St Faiths Rd goatface.

I was visiting a friend on Norman Drive yesterday.

His house is probably about 200 metres from the landing traffic on 27

Where do you get your 4 miles?

The other end of the runway is 100 metres from the A140

[Der absolute Hammer]

Now-there would not,would there, possibly be the connection between this and the defuncted remains of the RAF Coltishall - would there?
And the fact that the ex base is about to be turned in to a Cetegory C prison for sex offenders? What are they in England? MPs husbands who watch porno videaos?
Perhaps making the area into comtrolled airpsace is nothing more than a variation on solitary confinement?|

[flybymike]

A somewhat interesting, but completely incomprehensible post....

[Lister Noble]

When are the decisions going to be made on this airspace,when will we know results?
Lister:)

[chrisN]

I too would be interested to know, but I don’t think that there can be a definite answer, unless Norwich chooses to declare one, as it is partly in their hands and partly CAA/DAP.

“The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.”

niknak post no. 62: “Thereafter, every response is collated and sent to the CAA.”

They might take a day, or a month, or longer, or decide it is not worth the gamble (that last is unlikely in my opinion – sounds like they are unimpressed with arguments about how little justification there is and are determined to try to look like a big, important, international airport and they want the airspace to look like it).

Then the CAA/DAP will take as long or short as they want.

I would have thought October decision at the earliest, and longer/indefinite if one or other chooses to delay or take more soundings. Anyone got anything more definite?


I would also expect there to be some political workings – publicly or behind the scenes.

Chris N.

[Arclite01]

Mode S in the Cub Lister :-)


Arc:}

[Legalapproach]

Arclite01

I have seen that one coming.

"Papa Kilo squawk ****"

"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"

"Roger, negative service remain clear...."

Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.

[Arclite01]

Yeah that is true............... I had to put it into the thread though.........:}

Visions of Lister with a Squawk Box/hand crank generator in the back of the Cub to run the Mode S - great fun................ high pilot workload - whole new meaning !!

Any shares coming up in the Cub ??

Arc

[Lister Noble]

Arc I'll pm you

[Legalapproach]

At least it's not London Norwich International...............:E

[whirlwind]

The deadline for a response to the Consultation is fast approaching. If you think Norwich's bid to impose Class D airspace on us is unacceptable, have a look at this from the Light Aircraft Association: norwich (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/Consultation/norwich2.html)

The LAA have put forward a very good response, which includes this statement: '..The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison.

I urge you to write your own response; as the LAA link above says, it doesn't have to be a long response - they even suggest the points you could cover - you only have until 28th August.

Cheers,
WW

[off watch]

whirlwind
"The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison."
Is it relevant though ? Gatwick is surrounded by many other airfields, including Heathrow of course, all looking for their own protection - doesn't really apply to Norwich does it ? I would be interested to see the comparison in km3 as well.
Anyway, just because one airport hasn't got what it wants is surely not grounds for refusing another ?

[WorkingHard]

Offwatch I take your point but why does such a small airport with very limited traffic and limited to smaller aircraft NEED such a large volume of CAS?

[astir 8]

If Tesco (other supermarket chains are available) wanted to nick a playing field or public park for a new store there would be an outcry. Saying that it encourages commercial development would cut no ice at all.

Whereas nicking open airspace for "commercial" reasons is regarded as wholly justifiable.

Discuss

[goatface]

.

I would have thought October decision at the earliest, and longer/indefinite if one or other chooses to delay or take more soundings. Anyone got anything more definite?

A response is not expected until early 2010 at the very earliest

I have seen that one coming.

"Papa Kilo squawk ****"

"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"

"Roger, negative service remain clear...."

Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.

Complete nonsense and utter crap, a transponder is not mandatory and won't be for a long time.

The LAA have put forward a very good response, which includes this statement

From what I've read, it appears that the LAA have failed to be completely objective and consequently, it appears that many of their members have forwarded objections based on what the LAA have published rather than checking the facts, their loss as dramatic statements of no consequence count for nothing.

From what I understand, many objections have been made on conjecture, not fact and if that is the case it's a shame because not only will those objections not count for much, the LAA, who appear to have encouraged them, will look pretty daft.

[hoodie]

goatface,perhaps then you'd post what you contend are the facts, and correct the LAA's errors, here yourself?

From what I understand, many objections have been made on conjecture

Classic! :}

[BEagle]

It is only when you examine the proposed volume of airspace which Alan Partridge Intergalactic Spaceport seeks to obtain for its miniscule number of daily CAT movements, that the magnitude of their greed becomes apparent:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/AlanPartridgeInternational.jpg

This application is absurd. It is totally disproportionate for a minor regional aerodrome whose 6040ft runway (the secondary 4154ft runway being wholly unsuitable) will never be able to support the level of movements which the owners seem to think they can encourage.

You only have to look at the nonsense of RobinFinningleyDoncasterHoodie to realise the folly of approving applications to aerodromes whose expectations of growth are so totally unrealistic. Hopefully DAP won't make this mistake again!

[niknak]

All I know is that transponders won't be mandatory and I'd like to think that there won't be a problem for anyone who wants to operate in or transit the airspace, whoever they are.
Providing we adopt adult operatonal rules and work together, there's no reason for any problems to arise.

[Zulu Alpha]

I'd like to think that there won't be a problem for anyone who wants to operate in or transit the airspace, whoever they are.

I would also like to think this. However, until someone guarantees this I will not be supporting the proposal.

This is a huge piece of airspace and entry will be at NIAs discretion. What option will I have when trying to transit in the future and am told to standby and remain clear.

The time to object is now. This is a huge area to restrict in the name of 'safety'.

ZA

[Lister Noble]

Zulu,I'm in total agreement with your sentiments and have made my response to the proposers.
Sorry Niknak ,but the amount of airspace requested seems out of all proportion to the actual need.
Lister

[WorkingHard]

Zulu Alpha the answer to your question is essentially simple. If the controller should respond with a simple "ROCAS" and nothing more then ask for an expected time for entry. Read the earlier posts and you will see what I am talking about. unfortunately no controller has responded to a number of questions posed around this thread which I find a bit disappointing. We need to learn each others perspective but the GA fraternity do not have the resources available to ATCOS so these forums are of great importance for feed back.

[JUPO]

A thought: Norwich Airport distributed their consultation document, quite correctly to a very wide distribution list as per the CAA procedure. Their document was full of inaccuracies which were designed to strengthen the case for the airspace. The non aviation related consultees (such as Parish Councils, The Broads Authority etc) will not realise that they have been fed a biased document and will not understand the potential impact of the proposal. They will react to “5 Airproxes over Norfolk” and assume that more controlled airspace will make the skies safer.

I suspect that the local Parish Councils would be very interested to hear that the implementation of the airspace will create choke points in the skies over their heads increasing the risk of mid air collisions. Moreover, aircraft will be forced to fly lower creating more noise for their parishioners.

A consultation where a large proportion of the consultees have been deliberately misinformed is a disgrace.

[Lister Noble]

A highly valid point,Jupo,I don't know how one informs the parish councils etc of these thoughts.
I hope you send your comments to the proposers,although I'm still not happy that all comments are initially received by the developer rather than going straight to the decision makers.
Lister

[off watch]

Careful chaps - on the one hand we have:
"...I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when I've been close to them"
& on the other :
"the implementation of the airspace will create choke points in the skies over their heads increasing the risk of mid air collisions. Moreover, aircraft will be forced to fly lower creating more noise for their parishioners."

So, what will the answer be when DAP ask just how many non-commercial flights will be affected by the proposal, and where will these 'choke points' be?

For those who insist the size of the airspace is too big, try overlaying the Instrument Approach Charts for 09 & 27 - that should give you a clue. Bear in mind also that there is a template for each approach, designed in accordance with ICAO PANS Ops, which allows for nav errors etc. & consequently covers a much bigger area than appears on the charts.

[LXGB]

Norwich Charts are HERE (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=109&Itemid=158.html) . As stated above the proposed CAS is there to cover the existing Instrument Approach Procedures.

To address the people voicing concerns over getting ROCAS'd...

The whole point of having Class D is to achieve maximum flexibility for all airspace users and create a safer "known traffic environment". It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.

LXGB

[ak7274]

It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.
Does that mean some then?
I am against it even though I don't live near that Airport. I don't think Doncaster is working at all well, so how does Norwich think their airspace will?
We tend to get squeezed between Doncaster and Humberside even though Humberside has no class D. How Doncaster can justify Class D airspace with 2 budgies and a butterfly using the Airport daily is beyond any comprehension. How many commercial movements will Norwich actually have per day?
And if they don't will they give the Class D up?

[BEagle]

How many commercial movements will Norwich actually have per day?

That is the whole point. The scale of the proposed airspace grab which Alan Patridge Intergalactic is seeking for its tiny handful of daily CAT flights is totally disproportionate.

[LXGB]

Does that mean some then?

No, that's not what I meant.

The scale of the proposed airspace grab which Alan Patridge Intergalactic is seeking for its tiny handful of daily CAT flights is totally disproportionate.

The statistics are all in the public domain. These are not made up figures, it's actual data. A320, B737 and B757s are not what I would call small aircraft. We are talking public transport flights here, with hundreds of people a day travelling in and out of Norwich Airport (As well as the scheduled Dash 8s and F70s, private charters, flying training and offshore helicopters).

My personal view is that CAS is the best way to provide a safe service to all of these flights as well as to those transiting the area.

[flybymike]

We tend to get squeezed between Doncaster and Humberside even though Humberside has no class D.

Don't worry, it soon will have . They have an application in too....:rolleyes:

[5'n'3]

Many of the posts here and most of the objections seem to be working on the premise that the airspace around Norwich will effectively become closed if Class D is established. This is simply not the case.
Norwich ATC enjoys good relations with the large majority of the GA community that fly in the Norwich area and in my experience the majority of GA pilots are happy to speak to Norwich ATC and advise them of their intentions. There is also a small fraternity who have no wish to speak to Norwich ATC or receive any kind of service. That is also their right. However….
The majority of passenger flights that use Norwich will only accept a Deconfliction Service. The terms of this service are that ATC is to endeavour to provide a minimum of 5nm lateral or 3000’ vertical separation (where Mode C info is available). If an unknown aircraft chooses to operate in the vicinity of one of the approaches to Norwich at the same time that a passenger flight is trying to make an approach to land then that aircraft simply cannot make the approach. It may be that the light aircraft concerned may be vertically well above or below the approach but without that info from the pilot, ATC cannot satisfy the terms of the service. Therefore that one pilot choosing not to talk to Norwich may be inconveniencing an aircraft full of passengers. Do you not think that those passengers also have a right to share that piece of airspace ?
The whole point of Class D at Norwich is not to close the airspace to anyone but simply to create a known environment in which everyone can operate safely and with the minimum of delays to all concerned. Whatever your opinion of the Management at Norwich Airport (polite thoughts only please) they are not the ones who ultimately have to implement these changes and I know that Norwich ATC have every intention of ensuring that as few people as possible will be inconvenienced if these changes were to go through.

[gasax]

The whole point of Class D at Norwich is not to close the airspace to anyone but simply to create a known environment in which everyone can operate safely and with the minimum of delays to all concerned

Unfortunately that is what they all say! Well they would would n't they to use a famous quote.

What actually happens is that one you have control of an area like this it is much more convienient to say 'RCOCAS' and keep the entire area sterile.

Strangely it seems the the less busy this type of airspace is - the more difficult it is to get a transit. Presumably it messes up the nice empty radar display or disturbs the tumble weed?

I'm sure the intentions are good, what happens afterwards is the concern that many of us have. If there was a process for only granting this airspace once a threshold of traffic was reached - and - it was removed if traffic fell below that, many of us would trust the process much more.

For those of us who do not and wish to protest about this - the closing date is 28th August.

[goatface]

What actually happens is that one you have control of an area like this it is much more convienient to say 'RCOCAS' and keep the entire area sterile.

Strangely it seems the the less busy this type of airspace is - the more difficult it is to get a transit. Presumably it messes up the nice empty radar display or disturbs the tumble weed?


I understand that the very large majority of the objections from aviation organisations who are against the proposal, have been given in the above format or something very similar, i.e. shallow and without foundation, the CAA and DAP will almost certainly put these on the "not worthy of further consideration" pile.
Whereas those who have taken the trouble to study the proposal in detail and put their objections constructively will have their comments heard and taken seriously.

Its worthy of note that, despite JUPOs condescending suggestions about the consultation document and the ability of councils and other professional bodies to understand it, the majority of such organisations have asked for further information or even a presentation and then put in their "support" or "no comment" vote.

Oh and by the way, it appears that the Military have no objections either.

Three days to go chaps, scurry along, if you ask nicely the LAA might give you a lift to the polling station!:p

[BEagle]

The LAA's response is well researched and well written.

For this insignificant little aerodrome with its delusions of grandeur to be granted such a massive chunk of CAS is wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.

With significant expansion of Stansted now approved, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be any significant expansion at Alan Partridge Intergalactic.

[NorthSouth]

5'n'3:If an unknown aircraft chooses to operate in the vicinity of one of the approaches to Norwich at the same time that a passenger flight is trying to make an approach to land then that aircraft simply cannot make the approachReally? So how does it go then: "Jersey 1234 turn right heading 060 routing you to the hold due to unknown traffic at 6nm on the 09 approach"? Or "Jersey 1234 radar service terminated due to unknown traffic on the approach" "Roger in that case we're diverting to Stansted"?

Or is it more like "Jersey 1234 unknown traffic in your 12 o'clock range 6 miles no height information, unable to continue with deconfliction service are you happy to continue against that traffic on a Traffic Service?", with the Flybe then making a decision based on his in-flight conditions, or possibly asking for the reciprocal runway if wind permits?

If it's clear from the unknown radar returns that this is a manoeuvring fast jet then the controller's options will be much more limited - but then again any FJ ought to be squawking so there will be height info too, and the squawk will indicate who (if anyone) he is talking to.

NS

[niknak]

Unfortunately BEagle's chip is bigger than any shoulder in the UK.
He appears to be a bitter and twisted individual with no capacity for rational debate, little knowledge of current commercial operations and apparantly no knowledge of the current debate.
In any post on PPrune I've yet to see him contribute anything of worth, perhaps he's best left to his bath chair and memories of "how it was in his day".

[BEagle]

You are reminded of the Terms and Conditions of PPRuNe.

Abusive personal attacks are no longer tolerated.

[LXGB]

NorthSouth. You have no idea. :ugh:

[NorthSouth]

LXGB:NorthSouth. You have no ideaI'm always open to that possibility but some substance to the response would be good.
NS

[ak7274]

I've made my objection. That's it. no abuse, just plain objected.
As for any one having a pop at the skills of Air traffic control, I never saw any. Just considered opinions until the usual personal attacks.:=

[BEagle]

personal attacks on the professionalism of the staff at Norwich

Huh?

I merely stated that the scale of CAS proposed is wholly disproportionate for the scale of CAT. I alos doubted the growth figures suggested for Alan Partridge International and yes, I do consider it to be a small regional aerodrome with delusions of grandeur.

But unprofessional staff? Not something I've ever alleged.

Neither do I 'own PPRuNe'. But I've been very supportive of recent efforts to tidy the place up.

[NorthSouth]

Sorry everyone but what surprises me is how small the proposed airspace is. They have taken the decision not to connect the new CAS to the airways system. This will mean commercial traffic will still be spending long periods in uncontrolled airspace, and vulnerable to many of the same conflicts listed in Appendix D of the proposal. There will still be lots of extended routings due to avoiding action and airlines will have to take that into account in their decisions about operating to/from Norwich. The CAA now requires airlines to have carried out a safety assessment when contemplating starting new services to an airport outside controlled airspace but it doesn't apply to airlines already operating there, nor to foreign airlines.
NS

[LXGB]

I'm always open to that possibility but some substance to the response would be good.
NS

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

What is the point of having a Deconfliction Service if your response to encountering conflicting traffic is to downgrade to a Traffic Service?
Do you really think that an ATCO would vector an airliner into an unknown contact on his screen? What if it was your family on board? Wouldn't you want the best available service for them?

As you said, Military aircraft in the UK Low Flying System don't have to be talking to anyone. They can operate autonomously on a 7001 Squawk (which is deemed unvalidated and unverified). No chance of coordination on that.

I'd recommend you have a read of CAP 774 Appendix A (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap774.pdf) . This is the book that the prosecution lawyers would throw at the controller that didn't discharge his duty of care.

Hope this helps to explain the viewpoint from the other end of the radio.

Best Regards,

LXGB

[NorthSouth]

LXGB:What is the point of having a Deconfliction Service if your response to encountering conflicting traffic is to downgrade to a Traffic Service?
Do you really think that an ATCO would vector an airliner into an unknown contact on his screen? What if it was your family on board? Wouldn't you want the best available service for them?A tad over-emotional in my view. The situation I was envisaging was pop-up traffic (hence not predictable by the controller), as regularly encountered by Norwich controllers (and I should add, in case you were in any doubt, highly professionally dealt with by them). And the response I was envisaging was similar to those in incidents 12, 13 and 27 in Appendix D of the ACP. Ultimately it's down to what the Ops Manuals of the airlines operating into Norwich say about the numerous scenarios they are likely to encounter around there.
NS

[gasax]

Its worthy of note that, despite JUPOs condescending suggestions about the consultation document and the ability of councils and other professional bodies to understand it, the majority of such organisations have asked for further information or even a presentation and then put in their "support" or "no comment" vote.


This comment really concerns me - coming as it does from someone who seems to fully support the application. Inspite of many of the statments in the 'consultation' document being known to frankly be lies, the poster seems to be gloating over having fooled these bodies. They will have decided on the basis of the 'evidence' presented in the document. 'Evidence' which owes an adful lot to the Alan Partridge school of analytical thought.

[astir 8]

A classic example of tiny commercial operations (the airport and the fixed-wing passenger operators) attempting to disadvantage a lot larger number of GA pilots, glider pilots etc in the name of "development" and "safety".

Do you think Tesco would get away with taking over the local playground or a big chunk of green belt countryside by claiming that it would benefit their profits?

Norwich Airport clearly think that their claim is somehow special because the "playground" is just open airspace.

Objection has been sent.

P.S. Similar support will be required when "London Oxford Airport" AKA Kidlington starts the same game.

[robin]

...and Exeter International

[niknak]

This comment really concerns me - coming as it does from someone who seems to fully support the application. Inspite of many of the statments in the 'consultation' document being known to frankly be lies

Steady on GASAX, bickering and personal remarks are one thing, but this is a Public Document drawn up by an Airport Authority in support of a legal application in the public domain, to accuse it's authors of lying is an extremely serious accusation.

[NorthSouth]

astir8:Do you think Tesco would get away with taking over the local playground or a big chunk of green belt countryside by claiming that it would benefit their profits?Perhaps not, but they haven't done too badly out of arguing that their latest store will benefit thousands of consumers, and that's surely the real parallel here.
I think the biggest weakness in the Norwich ACP is that (1) they aren't asking for connectivity to the airways and (2) from the incident list it's clear that the military are the biggest problem at the moment. It seems to me there's a big risk that keeping the military out of the areas east and west of EGSH could simply shift them to the areas which will remain Class G, thus perpetuating the problem of airliners flying lots of extra track miles because of vectoring to avoid conflicts.
NS

[gasax]

You're absolutely right niknak - so why the statements about a steady increase in traffic when this is not true?

Given those sort of 'facts' any reasonable group would see that controlled airspace would be justified - if they knew traffic levels were falling would they come to the same conclusion?

[wsmempson]

I can certainly confirm that Norwich has far less movements that either White Waltham or Wycombe Air Park and I suspect less even than Seething, in absolute numbers. But in terms of heavy traffic, Norwich has a fraction of the movements of either Biggin Hill or Farnborough and neither of these fields feel it necessary to requisition a huge chunk of airspace for their exclusive control.

The argument to say that if Norwich were to get a huge swathe of controlled airspace, would result in more commercial traffic is specious; akin to arguing that if you were to build another hospital, people would have more accidents in order to use the capacity.

What is clear from the application is that Norwich has a problem communicating effectively with it's millitary neighbours over the shared use of airspace and this should be something that an effective management could deal with by a telephone call or two, as opposed to the imposition of a chunk of airspace the size of Gatwick's zone. This is a management failure

Honestly, this is all reminiscent of the Argyll and Bute Council/Jackson space-port debacle, up in the western Isles of Scotland; the only losers will ultimately be the taxpayers footing the bill for this silliness and the GA community who will yet again be effectively excluded from another chunk of airspace.

Of course I accept that on paper that space will be available for transit, but anyone who has to transit Doncaster/Solent/Durham Tees's zones on a regular basis, will know that in practice, such permission is with-held between 25 and 50% of the time.

[off watch]

wsmemperson
Quote "...should be something that an effective management could deal with by a telephone call or two".
To whom do you suggest these calls should be made - every Squadron that might transit near the Airport ? I wonder if you have any experience of dealing with the Military on this type of thing ?

Quote "...anyone who has to transit Doncaster/Solent/Durham Tees's zones on a regular basis, will know that in practice, such permission is with-held between 25 and 50% of the time."
And how many of those refusals have been notified to DAP I wonder ?

astir 8
Quote "..attempting to disadvantage a lot larger number of GA pilots, glider pilots etc " - how many is "a lot larger number" ? - Norwich can produce their numbers, can you ?

[gasax]

To whom do you suggest these calls should be made - every Squadron that might transit near the Airport ? I wonder if you have any experience of dealing with the Military on this type of thing

Well I have been directly involved in this sort of problem - and we eventually got a satisfactory resolution. That came from communicating and convincing the local units and then the more distant. It is unlikely to work by huffing and puffing. Instigating Class D is a pretty poor alternative and would suggest a fairly petulant attitude - much like many of these posts!

And how many of those refusals have been notified to DAP I wonder ?

I wish I knew! My personal experience is that 'refusals' occur around 25% of the time with the northern units and much more frequently towards the south coast. I very much doubt that many are ever reported. Doubtless the units concerned would state that 'a couple of minutes later' transit would have been granted and so there is no need to record a refusal... But I am not inclined to spend 10 minutes orbiting whilst waiting for many Class D units to get around to granting a transit, going around is the only other alternatve. (The recent practice of many units allowing you to get very close to the boundary and then having to specifically ask for area crossing is another interesting tactic - presumably just trying to make the point?).

Norwich can produce their numbers, can you ?

Well why has the application completely ignored the effect on adjacent GA traffic? Norwich could have (and indeed should have) considered this - but it would be a negative factor so of course cannot be presented in what is nothing more than a 'sales speil'.

[chrisN]

Off watch, do the numbers that Norwich can produce include me (glider, no transponder, never called Norwich ATC when using the cathedral as a turning point) and if so, (a) how does Norwich know, and (b) am I included once as a user, or every time I go in, and again every time I come out, like passengers are counted?

Just curious.

Chris N.

[off watch]

chrisN
Thanks for an excellent example of a flaw in the system. Norwich can produce aircraft movement & pax figures on demand. Your individual case has much merit but on its own I suspect would not carry much weight without many more concrete examples whilst DAP are faced with the "I am not inclined to spend 10 minutes orbiting whilst waiting for many Class D units to get around to granting a transit" argument.

gasax
Re the above, taken from your last post - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now !

Quote" Well why has the application completely ignored the effect on adjacent GA traffic? Norwich could have (and indeed should have) considered this - but it would be a negative factor so of course cannot be presented in what is nothing more than a 'sales speil'."

Are we reading the same document ? Para's 6.5, 6.6 & 6.7 deal specifically with the GA airfields in the area & LoA's with them, together with a statement of intent :- 'NIA does not envisage any capacity problems in the integration of VFR flights, including transit flights, into the traffic flow.'

Yes, I know you posted "well they would say that, wouldn't they". What else would you expect ?

I will repeat what I said on the ATC thread -
'There are obviously some well reasoned objections to new CAS aired on PPRuNe but I reckon these are mostly by pilots who are interested enough in flying to bother to look at the website in the first place. I fear like many things in this country nowadays, the many have to suffer for the transgressions of the few.
Perhaps we should just be grateful that Joe Public in his airline seat isn't canvassed on what protection he wants while flying - no prizes for guessing the answer ! '

[gasax]

Ah! when honesty and data fail play the 'safety' card.

3 paragraphs which state there will be no problem with local airfields. And the comment on transitting traffic? Barely a line. As correct as the traffic figures? Who knows.

I'm sure many units have all sorts of calls upon their resources which they judge to be a higher priority than GA traffic. We see a lot of ATC'ers who are quite keen on 'the user who pays' getting the service whilst the remainder go without. I can see little reason for the RCOCAS call which routinely answers transit requests. As soon as the channel has been crossed that particular call is never heard which I find quite telling.


In my experience Norwich ATC have always been helpful and useful. But experience tells me that once somewhere has controlled airspace that is exactly what they do - control and restrict entry to it.

But if you really wanted to protect the passenger in the seat - why have you not linked your Class D directly to the airways? If the military is the problem - why did you let that develop? Over what period? If there is a threat now, how can you possibly justfiy continuing commercial flights tomorrow?

Are you just going to tell passengers if they come back next year if will be much safer but it might not be OK today?

As for the protection that Joe Soap wants - obviously the best available - so why is Norwich happy to let flights operate tomorrow? Either the margin / probability is acceptable or you should not be flying.........

The argument is either fatuous or a telling indictment on the airport management.

[Flash0710]

If they are playing the safety card why do they still fail to join the weather diversion scheme.....

sadly another airfield run by fools....

luv

xxx

f

[off watch]

gasax
"once somewhere has controlled airspace that is exactly what they do - control and restrict entry to it." Of course they do - 1) that's why it's called Controlled Airspace 2) if they didn't restrict entry to it , there would be no point in it in the first place would there ?

"I can see little reason for the RCOCAS call which routinely answers transit requests".
I will ask again - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now.

You may scoff at the 'safety' card & I wont presume to lecture you on Safety Management Systems & the like but they are the 'big thing' with SRG these days. Have a look at the definition of ALARP on Wikipedia.
"Either the margin / probability is acceptable or you should not be flying" - true, so obviously it is considered safe today - but like it or not, controlled airspace must make it safer tomorrow.

Finally "why have you not linked your Class D directly to the airways" - remember the adage "from small acorns, big oaks grow" - one step at a time perhaps ?

[off watch]

Flash0710
Can you explain why they should please ?

[ProfChrisReed]

I have read the document carefully, particularly as regards transits.

My conclusion is that gliders will almost never be permitted to fly in the airspace if Class D is granted. I conclude this from the fact that the document assumes that only gliders from Tibenham will ever want to do so. ChrisN flies from elsewhere, as do I, and both of us have regularly flown in that airspace. In June a glider from Gloucestershire turned Norwich, within the airspace, as the culmination of the first leg of an 800 km+ flight. Competition grids of 50+ gliders regularly fly there. I do not see how Norwich ATC would cope with transits given the lack of understanding of the likely level of glider traffic, let alone any other traffic.

off watch demands that objectors provide more concrete examples (mine is another one), but that is precisely what is wrong with the document. It is supposed to present the case, including how ATC would cope with the demand for airspace use by non-CAT. However, there has been no attempt to discover how much use is currently made. Just to take gliding as an example, the authors could have asked Norfolk Gliding Club (and other local clubs) for an estimate of how many flights in that airspace occur each year. A similar request could have been made to Old Buckenham and other local airfields to produce an estimate of non-gliding flights.

Clearly, nothing of the sort has been attempted. If there is no idea how much demand for usage exists, how can I (or anyone else) believe that the resources and training will be made available to meet that demand?

[Flash0710]

off watch... clearly you have been for some time as this has been a " safety " " hot potato " for some time...... " lets run it up a pole and see how it flies..."

luv

xxx

f

[whirlwind]

Offwatch:

I believe that Flash0710 is commenting on this extract from the LAA response:

'Although you cite this as a safety proposal, NIA is not known for its supportive attitude to GA safety. It is one of only 10 UK airfields not to implement the CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendation not to charge GA aircraft for making an emergency or precautionary diversion landing.'

It's also known as the Strasser scheme. See here for more: AOPA: Strasser's Campaign (http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/campaign_s.php)

Cheers, WW

[Lister Noble]

Thanks for that,I find it completely bewildering why the handful of non co-operating airfields,including Norwich, have refused to join the safety scheme.:confused:
Especially as all the MOD airfields have joined the scheme.
Lister:cool:

[off watch]

ProfChrisReed
"off watch demands that objectors provide more concrete examples"
Steady on, old chap, I don't demand anything - I was posing the questions I would expect DAP to ask when looking at the pros & cons of the proposal :(

whirlwind
Thanks for the explanation of the Strasser Scheme. Despite Flash's assertion "clearly you have been for some time as this has been a " safety " " hot potato " for some time" , it has nothing to do with ATC, it's a Management decision & I was not aware of it.
For what it's worth, I agree with Lister Noble's sentiments :ok:

[niknak]

WW, Lister.

You are wrong.

Norwich Airport is part of the Strasser Scheme.

[hoodie]

Naughty! They weren't wrong when they posted. := :ok:

Thanks, Norwich.

[Zulu Alpha]

Norwich Airport is part of the Strasser Scheme.

When did they join? The Strasser scheme says:

Unfortunately
10 Airports/Airfields have so far decided that they will not implement the CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendations. Hopefully they will have a change of heart and join the majority of UK airfields that have.

Belfast-Intl., Biggin-Hill, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Filton, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton, Manchester, Norwich

ZA

[hoodie]

Today. See here (http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=919), for example.

[Zulu Alpha]

it has nothing to do with ATC, it's a Management decision & I was not aware of it.

Its all Norwich airport in my book. The management at Norwich also run the ATC. It is indicative of their view of GA.

If class D is implemented, and we have 80% of the radio calls coming from GA requesting a transit, then will 'the management' provide the correct level of staff to deal with this or will you have to say RCOCAS and leave GA having to make a diversion.



ZA

[Zulu Alpha]

Today. See here, for example

Well at least some good has come from their class D proposal!!

I doubt they would have agreed if this hadn't been raised by the LAA. Perhaps they could reduce their landing fees to below £10 to also show how friendly they are to GA.... and their fuel prices.

ZA

[niknak]

Ok Hoodie, I've been rumbled;):ouch:

I can genuinely assure you all that joining the Strasser Scheme had nothing to do the application for Class D airspace but more to do with the eventual application of common sense.

[mad_jock]

Have Norwich got the taxiway to the end of the westerly runway fixed yet?

Or is it still like taxing over a carvan site access road.


I can understand why they want it, the new deconfliction service is a bit of a nightmare for radar vectoring. I still can't quite understand why they have to seperate VFR from those under a deconfliction service in class G but yet if you were in class D they wouldn't have to seprate VFR from IFR.

I have submitted my view that it's introduction will hinder the major majority of that airspace users for what is actually an incredibly small amount of commercial movements.

Norwich has never been a favorite of mine to operate out of. The only reasonable service was the ATC apart from the grumpy old bastard that wouldn't let me avoid the caravan access road by back tracking (and there were no movements while we very slowly went up it). Anything to do with the terminal and ground handeling was a joke from start to finish. God forbid I ever have to go there on a wx diversion. I have seen the chaos when you book 2 days in advance I can't imagine what it would be like with 25mins notice.

but more to do with the eventual application of common sense. Sorry niknac i don't believe you, apart from the fact that it would be the first time in 5 years that I have irregularly operated out of there common sense has ever be evident. Its very convenient that the subject gets raised as a point against the operators for class D and then it get's solved. I still believe it will be a cold day in hell before a fee wouldn't be charged to GA.

[Flash0710]

Not only am i upset about being stuffed to divert here whilst trying to land in my garden..... the security guys snaffled my wine that i was trying to blow my own plane up with and the oh so on top of it airport staff reminded me i could not have my dog in the terminal....

also to be robbed for the airport development charge....

delusions occouring.....

it's a potentially good bit of real estate tho....

hugs

x
x
xf

[Flash0710]

And in these times why any airfield would not but try to encourage movements, i do not know.....:ugh:

luv

x
x
x
f

[WorkingHard]

I am pleased I started this thread which came about because of something I read from another PPRUNER. There are some conclusions to draw already, I think.
Firstly the fact is the GA community does not have the resources to get together to present a “heavy” response to this.
Next we have to send our comments (objections!) to the applicant but there is no guarantee the applicant will include all submissions (does a turkey vote for Christmas?).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).
Why when the ATC manual clearly states that the standard ROCAS is ONLY to be issued when someone has asked for entry is it still used almost by rote? Even then I cannot remember any time frame being given by any ATCO in the last several years. I think it was an ATCO earlier that said if we are refused entry then we should report it to DAP so perhaps we should all take the time so to do. We may then just start to get a more appropriate service to GA and not be excluded. I have heard the arguments that GA does not pay but let us be clear the airspace that the airport grabs is not paid for either. I have said so many times that if the volume of controlled airspace had to be rented then I bet there would very soon be some massive shrinkage and we would not have to ask for quite so many transits of empty CAS.

[niknak]

I still believe it will be a cold day in hell before a fee wouldn't be charged to GA.

Mad Jock.
Having joined the scheme, why would the airport charge anyone diverting in an emergency?
As for the taxiways, any spare tarmac is most welcome the next time you are down or way:ok:

Next we have to send our comments (objections!) to the applicant but there is no guarantee the applicant will include all submissions (does a turkey vote for Christmas?).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).


WH.
1. It has been clearly stated on this thread that all the submissions go to the CAA and the DAP, if you have any evidence to the contrary then you are perfectly entitled to make your complaint to the CAA.

2. As an ATCO at Norwich, I've never heard or seen any of my colleagues state that GA are any sort of "problem", again, where's your evidence?

3.Your WHY questions have frequently been answered on this site, however it seems that most of the time the answer doesn't suit you. The size of the area of airspace applied for was decided by to be the applcant, i.e Airport Authority, not ATC, so why expect a response from us?
We have got an excellent working relationship over the airspace design with the military, again that has been stated on the site previously.

Your obsession with ROCAS when the airspace isn't even there yet and your repeated assumption that we will do everything within our power as ATCOs to keep anything other than airliners outside the zone, is beyond comprehension.

All said, I am glad you started the thread, it's kept many people occupied in the wee small hours thinking of vacuous insults to hurl in our direction. ;)

[Zulu Alpha]

1. It has been clearly stated on this thread that all the submissions go to the CAA and the DAP, if you have any evidence to the contrary then you are perfectly entitled to make your complaint to the CAA.

I don't think this is the case. IIRC for the Stansted TMZ a summary of the main point from the objectors was sent not a copy of each submission. So if the same proceedure is followed then NIA will be able to write a summary of our letters. Hardly the same as 'all the submissions'

I don't doubt that the controllers at NIA have good intentions. However with dwindling movements do you think 'the management' are going to give you more resources (ie money) to handle traffic... and how do you intend to do anything other than ban non radio aircraft gliders microlights and others who currently operate freely and safely in this area? There are many more of them than there are commercial flights from Norwich.

This piece of airspace is out of all proportion to the number of movements you have and it will be uneconomic to provide a good quick free service to GA because of the limited revenue from the commercial stuff. So a poor service will result.

Its quite obvious, why would NIA management spend resources to provide a free service to GA? They are there to make a profit and if they could remove the need to provide a service to GA then I'm sure it would increase their profits. They will not be quite as explicit. They will only allow single controllers as that is cheaper. When there is too much to handle then you will have to issue ROCAS's. Any suggestion to employ more controllers will be met with a we'll take a look at that.

DJ

[Cough]

Are the reduced visibilities often found in Norfolk going to restrict access to the humble VFR only licence holder?

[niknak]

Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.

Cough,

we don't control the weather and your post has no relevance at all.

If tomorrow, for arguements sake, you wanted to fly from Leeds to Manchester Barton and the weather was marginal at both airports, with the same marginal weather forecasts at all destination airfields, would you still fly?:hmm:
I think not.:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Cough, yes, if Alan Partridge Intergalactic succeeds with its airspace grab attempt, flight under VFR below 3000ft amsl at 140KIAS or less in a fixed wing aircraft in the Class D CAS will require an in-flight visibility of 5 km, whereas a 'plain vanilla' PPL without IMC rating would otherwise be able to operate under VFR down to 3 km in-flight visibility. So if you currently choose to fly in 3 km visibility in the vicinity of Norwich, you wouldn't be able to if this proposal succeeds.

Flight under SVFR in a Class D CTR requires a 'plain vanilla' PPL holder to maintain at least 10 km in-flight visibility (except on specified routes), which could be even more restrictive for you.

Air Traffickers are often unaware of the additional restrictions which apply to the PPL without IMC Rating.

Your post does have relevance.

[chrisN]

I’m still curious. Some quotes:
------------------------
off watch , post 130. 26.8.09:

Quote "..attempting to disadvantage a lot larger number of GA pilots, glider pilots etc " - how many is "a lot larger number" ? - Norwich can produce their numbers, can you ?
---------------------------
Me, post 132:

Off watch, do the numbers that Norwich can produce include me (glider, no transponder, never called Norwich ATC when using the cathedral as a turning point) and if so, (a) how does Norwich know, and (b) am I included once as a user, or every time I go in, and again every time I come out, like passengers are counted?

Just curious.
--------------------------------
off watch , post 133. 26.8.09:

chrism

Thanks for an excellent example of a flaw in the system. Norwich can produce aircraft movement & pax figures on demand. Your individual case has much merit but on its own I suspect would not carry much weight without many more concrete examples whilst DAP are faced with the "I am not inclined to spend 10 minutes orbiting whilst waiting for many Class D units to get around to granting a transit" argument.

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

niknak post 154, 29.8.09 to WorkingHard:

3.Your WHY questions have frequently been answered on this site, however it seems that most of the time the answer doesn't suit you. The size of the area of airspace applied for was decided by to be the applcant, i.e Airport Authority, not ATC, so why expect a response from us?
We have got an excellent working relationship over the airspace design with the military, again that has been stated on the site previously.

Your obsession with ROCAS when the airspace isn't even there yet and your repeated assumption that we will do everything within our power as ATCOs to keep anything other than airliners outside the zone, is beyond comprehension.


-------------------------------
niknak post 157. 30.8.09:

Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.
----------------------------------

[me again, now:]

So it is down to the objectors to collect all the data that the applicants and their apologists claim to have, are shown not to have, are forced to admit they don’t have due to “a flaw in the system”, won’t collect and supply because they don’t see it as their flaw, and any complaints from objectors are either the fault of the objectors or not justified?

What research did the applicants undertake as to how many “ROCAS” responses, without a time limit, are given by other class D operators and ATC units? And research into how many other such units have a single controller who runs out of capacity to provide a service to (to take a random example) glider pilots?

As I said, still curious, but gradually forming an opinion.

Chris N.

[Zulu Alpha]

Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.

The facts were mentioned. I referred to the way the objections were handled in the Stansted TMZ case. I will be interested to see how my objection is forwarded. Unfortunately it has to go though NIA who have a vested interest in minimising it.

Like NIA it is impossible to produce facts for what might happen in the future, Projections are just that. NIA are making projections about future traffic and I am making projections about what might happen. If this is unnacceptable then I suggest any NIA projections are removed as they are not facts.

One thing is very clear, there are dwindling numbers of flights so the need for this airspace is not clear. NikNak seems to be brushing aside the objections of GA on the basis that we have no statistics about the number of GA flights through the proposed area and cannot prove what will happen if class D is granted. I practise aerobatics within the proposed area regularly. Probably tens of times per year. I also make about 10 transits of the proposed area a year. Surely NIA should have made an assessment of the number of other GA aircraft that have used or passed through the proposed area. They have access to radar records.

ZA

[mad_jock]

The only thing I can see that has any benefit to NWI in the last 4 years has been the opening of Saxon allowing charters to avoid the work shy jobs worths in the main terminal.

The ground infrastructure ie taxi ways etc are a disgrace and when I taxied up the caravan road taxiway I am sure thats where we picked a ding in a prop that an engineer had to spend 2 hours filing out and led two weeks later to getting the prop rebalanced.

I really can't see getting CAS is going to help you at all getting more CAT in. You have your route to AMS your Aberdeen flights are all linked to the oil. Yes the holiday charter market might increase but I doud't it unless the local population start breeding like rabbits. Where else and who else would want to get to NWI.

Anyway best of luck to the GA pilots in the area unfortuantely I suspect after the Doncaster successful bid they might actually get it however unjust that would be.

[WorkingHard]

Niknak please be assured I have no wish to trade insults and if you believe I have insulted anyone then I apologise. I have re-read the posts from the beginning and find that some questions remain unanswered despite your protestation. I am not as obsessed with ROCAS as so many ATCO appear to be but that is one question that remains unanswered. We are not all numpty pilots in GA and at least try and keep legal and careful often without help from ATC but when we do get a service then generally speaking the UK is second to none. Will Norwich provide the resources necessary to give equal access to all airspace users? If not then would you as an ATCO make any representation to "management" to say you cannot do your job properly because of lack of resources? You will always have the resources to control the IFR inbound but would you let the other transit traffic just fight there own corner? I trust you see what I mean even though it may not be eloguently explained.

[chrisN]

As an example of a low-CAT-used Class D, this was posted on a glider pilot forum about Doncaster. I have changed some references and corrected some spelling for clarity, but the original can be seen at Glider Pilot Network > uk.rec.aviation.soaring > Doncaster Class D (http://uras.gliderpilot.net/?op=s2&id=24974&vt=1) .

------------------------------
27 Apr 2009

This week-end I was part of a group at Pocklington, with PH and
SK. On Sunday 26th a 500km. task was set Pocklington – Barnard Castle- Newark- Catterick- Pocklington.

A fantastic looking sky and an easy run round Barnard Castle, approaching
Pontefact I called Doncaster, eventually I was answered and gave my
details, including I was an open class glider and I had a transponder. I
was given a squawk code and then told I could not enter their airspace. I
descended down to the height that was allowed in the "Upton Corridor". I
informed the controller I was going down the corridor but was directed to
the west and ended up over the M1/M18 junction, more than 45 degrees off
track. On leaving their class D airspace asked to change to 130.40 and was
asked to stay on frequency around Newark. I returned to the east of the
Doncaster class D and eventually got permission to change after crossing the
M62.

I was not the only pilot to be refused entry into their airspace, the
controller was very busy and could not cope with the volume of traffic.

If you are planning a task through Doncaster airspace for a badge or a
record, be aware of this problem.

Good luck.
-------------------------------
This was not my flight – I have copied what another pilot wrote – but it shows how difficult an ATCO at a little-used airport can make life for pilots whose flying needs he either does not understand or will not accommodate for some other reason.

I note that the glider pilot said that the controller was very busy. The implication is that his/her workload was not with the small numbers of CAT he had to deal with but rather with all the transiting traffic that he was trying to cope with. The larger the CTA, the more transits it is in the way of, and the busier the radio gets.

That is what I and others fear from Norwich, and I am not reassured by what ATCOs on this thread have written, nor by the apparent abandon of any attempt by the applicant (NIA?) to collate data to show that they understand and will not repeat this sort of exclusion and/or interference with gliders trying to transit the area.

And, by the way, most gliders do not have a transponder, and can’t. I don’t, and can’t because EASA prevents me having one fitted at present.

Chris N.

[bri1980]

I fly regularly around the (newish) Doncaster control zone. I have never been refused a transit and I have only ever heard one transit request from another pilot denied. On that one occasion, the pilot's radio work was of such a poor standard that I was not at all surprised it was greeted with the reply 'remain clear of controlled airspace'.

What I'm saying is, refusals are, in my experience, very much the exception rather than the norm, and the Doncaster controllers have a very good working relationship with local airfields, to the extent that I have been offered crossings even before I've asked on occasions.

We heard all the same old arguments about controlled airspace when Doncaster applied for their zone, and to be honest I can't say that I really notice it's even there. I'd hope for the same for Norwich. :ok:

On a personal note-I find it disappointing that the GA community immediately objects in a 'knee-jerk' fasion to every bit of proposed controlled airspace. Class D isn't that difficult to negotiate and the controllers in all of the zones I have been into or through (and that's a fair proportion of them) have always been first rate.

B

[Zulu Alpha]

This is the interim NIA report

Of concern is the following:
3.2 Of the 537 responses from individuals or organisations not on the consultation
list, all except 3 objected to the proposal. It is unusual to receive such a large
number of responses from a particular sub-set of the aviation community which,
from the initial analysis appeared to be based on objections to common issues.
Indeed it appears that this might have been an orchestrated campaign against
the proposal (through corporate websites and other means) outside the accepted
process for consultation promulgated by the CAA. It should be noted that the
national representative organisations of all aviation interests are formal consultee
organisations by virtue of their membership of the CAA’s National Air Traffic
Management Advisory Committee (NATMAC). This apparent action outside the
recognised consultation process is the subject of further evaluation and
discussion with the CAA.

and

4.1 Collectively, all of the comments received (including those from non-consultees)
will be subject to a detailed analysis and review by NIA in order to identify issues
of concern and derive a balanced and well reasoned Final Report.

I am amazed at their arrogance and have just emailed Phil Roberts ([email protected]), who is listed on the CAA website as the person responsible for airspace management. His email is phil.robertsATcaa.co.uk if you want to do the same.

ZA

[Cusco]

Don't all use the same words though or you'll be accused of orchestrating the protest.

Cusco:ugh:

[wsmempson]

I have written to confirm that I wrote independent of any worldwide conspiracy against Norwich International Spaceport (NIS) and, that 537 people have written to object, may just be confirmation that 537 people have all seen the same flaws in NIS's proposal.

I do think that the tone of point 3.2 which is quoted above is extraordinary; it makes the CAA sound like a little girl who has dropped her ice-cream on the ground...:rolleyes:

[Jim59]

Whilst there are good arguments in favour of protecting airspace around commercial IFR traffic the traffic levels around airports like NIA do not justify permanent class D airspace. I prefer the system in e.g. Germany to protect intermittent IFR arrivals at minor airports.

The airport is protected by class E airspace - this allows VFR traffic entry without prior permission, and without any need to speak on the radio. however, ATC can upgrade the airspace to class F when IFR traffic is about to arrive or depart by making a radio broadcast, after which radio contact is mandatory. By implication all VFR traffic entering the airspace whilst it is class E must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate frequency.

A pity the CAA want to abolish all class E & F airspace.

[robin]

Not sure it is the CAA at fault here. It sounds like NIA have exceeded their brief

[WorkingHard]

I started this thread after reading the proposal somewhere else and i am so pleased I did. I have written to the CAA tonight and hope a huge many readers will do the same. As Cusco says, use your own words to write and not those of someone else please.
Good luck to all.

[gasax]

I was reading the LAA forum and I'm staggered to see that the airspace grab still seems to be proceeding.

The falsehoods and general deviousness of the Norwich application is just about breath taking - see here Light Aircraft Association :: View topic - Norwich bids for Lebensraum (http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=1564&start=30)

[WorkingHard]

Gasax this is absolutely spot on and thanks for bringing this up again. I would urge ALL GA pilots to read this and keep it at the forefront of the forum

[TractorBoy]

The airport is protected by class E airspace - this allows VFR traffic entry without prior permission, and without any need to speak on the radio. however, ATC can upgrade the airspace to class F when IFR traffic is about to arrive or depart by making a radio broadcast, after which radio contact is mandatory. By implication all VFR traffic entering the airspace whilst it is class E must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate frequency.


Are the rules regarding Class F different in Germany to the UK then ? I thought that airspace classes had the same regs across Europe.

[mad_jock]

Conducting instrument approaches in uncontrolled airspace sounds dodgy to me. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen once sufficient traffic levels are met.


Lucky that Norwich has that little traffic they can have a BBC film crew in for the day fannying around with hot air ballons.

H'mm Airports round the UK with way more movements than Norwich but don't see the need for Controlled airspace, off the top of my head

Inverness
Blackpool
Humberside
Teeside
Cambridge


Wick proberly has more movements if you count all the helibuses transits.

[fuzzy6988]

Conducting instrument approaches in uncontrolled airspace sounds dodgy to me. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen once sufficient traffic levels are met.

More than likely a go-around is needed to avoid an airprox, wasting both time and fuel.

Surely the best solution is to ensure AVGAS duty+VAT gets channeled back into aviation, and hence fund the controllers needed to co-ordinate traffic to improve airspace access and safety, as well as costs incurred by the airport for landings, etc.

People are wondering why AVGAS prices are approaching £2 per litre and still have issues with access to airports and airspace! :ugh:

[microlightgary]

Having just read the LAA's reply to their meeting with NIA, I'd like to thank them for their extremely convincing and well-reasoned response.
Living as I do under the Norwich circuit, it is blatantly obvious that NIA is anything but a busy regional airport and that their request for Class D airspace is totally unjustified. Let's hope that they realise the futility of their application and save everyone a great deal of time and effort...

[Ryan5252]

H'mm Airports round the UK with way more movements than Norwich but don't see the need for Controlled airspace, off the top of my head

Inverness
Blackpool
Humberside
Teeside
Cambridge

Derry (Eglinton EGAE) (Though not sure if total movements exceed Norwich though certainly in region).

[Phil Space]

As I have said before Norwich has little or no traffic if you don't count the North Sea helicopters.

I suspect the bulk of the numbers they have used in the submission are the very same GA aircraft that they seem to not want.The oil industry is the only thing that make the airport viable. KLM's flights to Amsterdam are way overpriced at £150 a time and the airport development fee is another reason I no longer use Norwich. It is a difficult airport to get to by road so it beats me why the management want to impose further obstacles such as the awful drop of car park.

As I have said before this used to be a great little place for a GA visit.So sad they have ambitions beyond their station.

Does anyone have the GA figures for Norwich to extract from their submission?

[fuzzy6988]

Norwich has little or no traffic if you don't count the North Sea helicopters.

Which probably means, in an ideal world, an extremely good chance of getting a clearance! It shouldn't be any more difficult than passing through the ATZ of Cambridge, for example.

I learnt to fly in Florida and haven't had any issues with transitioning Class D, C or B airspace out there. It is nice to have controllers give you traffic information or separate you from other aircraft in busier areas. But then their infrastructure is centrally funded.

[Phil Space]

Here are todays movements at Norwich from 1500 until close of business. As you can see a lot is North Sea helicopter traffic that is low level.

Arrivals
SVH Misc Private Strips 14:55
KL1511 Amsterdam 16:45
T3727 Aberdeen 17:10
BE547 Edinburgh 18:30
BE446 Manchester 18:55
BD1316 Aberdeen 19:30
T3729 Aberdeen 20:50
KL1515 Amsterdam 21:20
And departures
BHL1530 Gas Platforms 15:30
BHL1700 Gas Platforms 17:00
BHL1715 Gas Platforms 17:15
KL1512 Amsterdam 17:25
T3728 Aberdeen 17:40
BHL1840 Gas Platforms
18:40 BHLL1845 Gas Platforms
18:45 BHL184 Gas Platforms
18:45 BE548 Edinburgh
18:55 E447 Manchester
19:20 BD1317 Aberdeen

Not exactly rushed off their feet are they!

[mad_jock]

Shouldn't it be about now that the application is due to be ruled on.

[Danscowpie]

Shouldn't it be about now that the application is due to be ruled on.

Should it?

Based upon your previous posts I would suggest that you demonstrate little knowledge and expertise regarding Norwich Airport and the subject of Airspace Planning.

I would question your motives, but of course you can always enlighten us. :rolleyes:

[gasax]

Given that the Regulatory Decision part of the process is supposed to be 16 weeks Pace is entirely correct...........

But then you perhaps have inside knowledge?

[mad_jock]

The Norwich experence. Just a pro pilot who hates operating into the place due to the general ball ache factor of dealing with the terminal. Although its been thankfully 3 years now since I was in there. I believe Saxon is a breath of fresh air about the place. The terminal is as bad as it ever was. Along with raping the pax for the improvement fee.

This automatic insinuation that posters who are negative about the CAS application have some super dopper alternative motive is becoming par for the course with Norwich. There really isn't one apart from I think it isn't warranted for that airfield. The projected traffic plan last year is already out the window with North Dean staying open. I would object to any airfield in a similar situation applying for CAS.

As for airspace planning I know as much about airspace planning as most pilots ie nothing. But it seems pretty stupid to me to have a lump of CAS not connected to anything else. You still haven't protected your traffic in or out of the airways system.

The application I thought was to be submitted in Jan which would make it due next month and then 8 weeks to allow for it to be published if they get it. About now the application will be getting worked on.

Just found http://www.norwichairport.co.uk/downloads/Consultation_Final_Report_Revised_2_Dec_10_Updated.pdf

Looks like its July

[LXGB]

Decision here FYI. (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=7&pagetype=90&pageid=9326)