Norwich Airspace Proposal

[WorkingHard]

Would any of you knowledgeable people care to give us pilots some views on this please? Is it warranted/justified? Is it ego building by the management? Will it serve any useful purpose in terms of conflict avoidance when looking at the declared "conflicts" it appears there were VERY FEW within the proposed airspace enclosure and even then it seems many were military at LL. I think a lot of GA pilots would welcome serious comment from your perspective.
Thanks

[Barnaby the Bear]

For what its worth, I believe Class D around airports that support passenger flights and indeed large aircraft operations is justified.
Unfortunately the GA fraternity always see this as a no go area with a constant instruction to Remain outside Controlled airspace. Which is usually not the case.
I believe Norwich have stipulated in their request that they maintain enough ATCO's in order to provide maximum ability to cause minimal disruption to GA.
Unfortunately the standard of airmanship with GA (in my opinion) has dropped quite considerably over the past few years, with poor R/T and an over reliance on GPS. This has led to airlines requiring the protection of Controlled airspace in order to use the airports outside in class G.
Class D also protects GA that use it. Don't be afraid of it

[whowhenwhy]

When I was working on the military side of the airspace planning house, Norwich's initial idea was to have an airway bisecting East Anglia giving them access to L975 and the TCA. I trust that their new proposal isn't that barking?

[2 sheds]

ICAO takes the view that IAPs deserve CAS; I certainly take the view that fare-paying passengers deserve a better deal that having to operate in Class G.

WorkingHard - Do you have any idea how much work and consultation is involved in this sort of exercise? (although it is a pity that none of the authors can spell Shipdham!) It is quite fatuous to suggest that this is merely ego building by the management. If you have some objection to the proposal, your voice will be heard, but you need to understand the reasons for the proposal, then to clarify any objections and be factual and logical with any argument or negotiation. A visit to ATC at SH might be instructive to see from their perspective the traffic that they have to avoid in order to minimise the final confliction statistics.

I certainly had experience of operating in a situation where, because of reduction in public transport flights, we lost the CTR previously established. The level of aerodrome activity did not change overnight, but the number of unknown aircraft flying just outside the ATZ did, including a Pitts S2 flying inverted through the final approach track at 3 nm final at 1000 ft just in front of traffic on ILS approach. One suspects that the closure of Coltishall might have had the same effect.

I seem to detect an attitude of "GA anti-CAS as a matter of principle". If you desperately need access to that precise piece of airspace, what exactly is your objection to obtaining ATC clearance to do so?

2s

[niknak]

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 likely to be affected by the proposal has been consulted.

I can't imagine what WH considers he has to add by attempted stirring of the big spoon, aside from making himself look very silly by displaying his ignorance.

[WorkingHard]

Barnaby the Bear I have to agree with what you say about standards in RT and in some cases poor navigation but the "Remain Clear" bit does come over very frequently indeed. 2 sheds - no I dont know how much work goes in to the proposal but as I am a frequent flyer in that bit of airspace I thought I would pose the question and also I have been flying into Norwich for some 20 odd years and see the traffic density (not on the radar screen of course) first hand so to speak.
Niknak I admit to being ignorant of the proposal (ignorance just means no knowledge in case you did not understand correct use of the English language) but my knowledge of flying my aircraft safely and within limits, legal and otherwise, is more than adequate.
BTW I did ask for ATCO's serious comment so that we might learn something, it seems we have.
I unreservedly apologise if my question was poorly worded.

[WorkingHard]

niknak I have copied the item below from another thread which I started and so rather being rude to me perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the contents. It does seem that if the content is accurate the writer does have a few fair points about norwich and he clearly thinks, like I questioned, if there is an element of higher status being sought.

"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.

[niknak]

WH

Firstly, my apologies if I offended you, as has been fairly pointed out on the Private Flyers thread, (in which you posted on the same subject but with an entirely different attitude), perhaps I was a bit unfair.

However, back to your latest post on this forum.

No, I am not going to comment;

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.

Regards.

NN.

[WorkingHard]

Points taken and I will learn from it - Thanks

[slowclimber]

but the "Remain Clear" bit does come over very frequently indeed

This is probably because, through experience, if an ATCO doesn't tell an aircraft to remain outside controlled airspace, and that aircraft subsequently enters CAS without a clearance, the ATCO is treated as being equally at fault. Simply hoping that pilots will comply with the rules no longer applies.

GA transits of CAS are rarely a problem, and are made far easier if the pilot states their intentions clearly, reads the clearance back correctly, then complies correctly with that clearance. A transponder also makes everyone's life easier. Having worked at a unit with instrument approaches in Class G and seen plenty of GA aircraft fly through the final approach at the same height as the approach profile without working the unit concerned, I would always advocate the Class D airspace I work in now.

[Jumbo Driver]

This is probably because, through experience, if an ATCO doesn't tell an aircraft to remain outside controlled airspace, and that aircraft subsequently enters CAS without a clearance, the ATCO is treated as being equally at fault. Simply hoping that pilots will comply with the rules no longer applies.

slowclimber, without wishing to re-open a lengthy discussion from a previous thread (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/372973-keep-clear-controlled-airspace.html), the repeated use of the phrase "remain outside controlled airspace" just as an ATCO ar$e-covering exercise would appear to have absolutely no legal backing in documentation whatever. In fact, it is arguable that such use is actually becoming counter-productive because of its parrot-like repetition.

The only 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).


JD
:)

[WorkingHard]

Thanks JD for this which I have copied.
21 Joining and Overflying Aircraft
When 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.

[Jumbo Driver]

... It does say thou shalt issue the instruction ad nauseum. ...

... methinks, WorkingHard, there is a "not" missing ...


JD
;)

[WorkingHard]

JB it's there now!!!!

[off watch]

WorkingHard
Quote "For those pilots who transgress CAS without permission (i.e. NOT operating the aircraft within the regulations) there are sanctions so would anyone care to tell us what sanctions may be applied to a controller who similarly transgresses please?"

The answer is mostly found in CAP493, MATS Part 1 , Section 6 - I'm not aware of any ATCO in the UK having been prosecuted, unlike many pilots though.

A quick look at a recent ATC MOR Digest suggests 58 CAS infringements by non-military pilots in one month, so clearly the CAA's sanctions aren't working very well !

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 ! :uhoh: