Southampton Approach on Thursday
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Southampton Approach on Thursday
Was on a Flybe arrival into Southampton on Thursday morning and we had a rather strange routing which involved passing through the final approach track to 20 at about 4000ft, approx 3nm from the runway, then hung a left into a downwind leg and eventually left again on to final. Can any Southampton controllers out there give me a clue as to what was going on?
NS
NS
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 865
Likes: 1
From: Cheshire, California, Geneva, and Paris
If it was a jet aeroplane and is handed over to Southampton Approach high and fast and not having an area of CAS to the North-East with low bases of CAS you will have to fly that pattern to add the track miles to allow the aircraft to bleed off the height and speed. The turboprops are "flexible" enough not to require the extra miles, I understand.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,266
Likes: 1
From: Berkshire, UK
Why should an SRA affect the routing?
"Over the ILS and down the other side" is a straightforward tactical ATC manouever. Nothing unusual about it as other replies have suggested - happens anywhere.
"Over the ILS and down the other side" is a straightforward tactical ATC manouever. Nothing unusual about it as other replies have suggested - happens anywhere.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: North West
Standard way of doing things at Southampton. Has been for the last few years.
The vectoring keeps you in controlled airspace and offers a degree of protection & separation from the large amount of ga traffic in the area.
The vectoring keeps you in controlled airspace and offers a degree of protection & separation from the large amount of ga traffic in the area.
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
From: UK
NorthSouth,
Not a controller, but a pilot. What you have described is a pretty normal approach into SOU. A number of years ago it was fairly normal for flights to make a straight in approach onto runway 20, with this approach taking the aircraft outside of controlled airspace and making its descent and approach under a radar advisory service until rejoining controlled airspace inside SOU zone.
As I understand things, a couple of years ago, this practice was curtailed, especially for Flybe aircraft. I don't know if this was in response to ATC requirements or as a result of any airprox, but we are now no longer able to accept routings into SOU which take us outside of controlled airspace. SOU zone is a fairly small chunk of airspace and it sits in a very busy part of the world with a mixture of commercial training traffic, GA flyers and military activity surrounding it.
The 'normal' vectoring now takes us towards the SAM VOR (sitting on the airfield near the 20 threshold) at approx 7000' and then descending as you describe at a distance of 5 miles or so from the field in a left hand orbit to join the final approach track at approx 8 miles. It adds a few more minutes to the arrival, but allows the flight to remain inside controlled airspace at all times, and thus maintain the benefits of a full ATC control service.
Not a controller, but a pilot. What you have described is a pretty normal approach into SOU. A number of years ago it was fairly normal for flights to make a straight in approach onto runway 20, with this approach taking the aircraft outside of controlled airspace and making its descent and approach under a radar advisory service until rejoining controlled airspace inside SOU zone.
As I understand things, a couple of years ago, this practice was curtailed, especially for Flybe aircraft. I don't know if this was in response to ATC requirements or as a result of any airprox, but we are now no longer able to accept routings into SOU which take us outside of controlled airspace. SOU zone is a fairly small chunk of airspace and it sits in a very busy part of the world with a mixture of commercial training traffic, GA flyers and military activity surrounding it.
The 'normal' vectoring now takes us towards the SAM VOR (sitting on the airfield near the 20 threshold) at approx 7000' and then descending as you describe at a distance of 5 miles or so from the field in a left hand orbit to join the final approach track at approx 8 miles. It adds a few more minutes to the arrival, but allows the flight to remain inside controlled airspace at all times, and thus maintain the benefits of a full ATC control service.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
The hours building orbits north of the field widely known as a "Winchester 2 arrival", 'cos on a clear day you get to see Winchester twice!
As indicated in previous responses, ops normal at SOU. All due to a lack of controlled airspace in the Solent CTA, the base level of Q41 north of the CTA being FL 65 and local NATS policy of retaining aircraft within the limited controlled airspace that is available. The latter a very good idea to avoid TCAS going into meltdown.
Would be curious to know the additional fuel burn incurred annually by Flybe. About time for a long overdue Airspace Change Proposal to be kicked off for SOU to secure adequate controlled airspace for the traffic they already have, plus what could appear when the E175s arrive, assuming that SOU have somewhere to park them on their restrictive apron!
All that initially needs to be done is for BAA SOU to accept that an ACP is long overdue, and accept the fact that they are going to have to find a way of funding it, albeit that the cost can be shared with BOH to simultaneously increase Solent CTA airspace for the protection of BOH traffic, although ATC BOH and their customers currently don't seem too bothered about regularly leaving controlled airspace.
As indicated in previous responses, ops normal at SOU. All due to a lack of controlled airspace in the Solent CTA, the base level of Q41 north of the CTA being FL 65 and local NATS policy of retaining aircraft within the limited controlled airspace that is available. The latter a very good idea to avoid TCAS going into meltdown.
Would be curious to know the additional fuel burn incurred annually by Flybe. About time for a long overdue Airspace Change Proposal to be kicked off for SOU to secure adequate controlled airspace for the traffic they already have, plus what could appear when the E175s arrive, assuming that SOU have somewhere to park them on their restrictive apron!
All that initially needs to be done is for BAA SOU to accept that an ACP is long overdue, and accept the fact that they are going to have to find a way of funding it, albeit that the cost can be shared with BOH to simultaneously increase Solent CTA airspace for the protection of BOH traffic, although ATC BOH and their customers currently don't seem too bothered about regularly leaving controlled airspace.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 892
Likes: 6
From: southampton,hampshire,england
Before this hole gets any deeper, it may be prudent to ascertain whether this procedure is imposed by ATC or has been requested by the airline operator[s] in an effort to enhance safety. The major operator into Southampton has made several operating policy changes throughout UK airspace so that their aircraft enjoy regulated airspace protection where it is practical [and common sense] to do so. Certainly evident on the sectors that I do.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 138
From: 50+ north
055166K
Imposed by the Air Navigation Service Provider, NATS Southampton, as the only tolerably safe option due to the inadequate extent of controlled airspace in and adjacent to the northern extremity of the current Solent CTA.
Imposed by the Air Navigation Service Provider, NATS Southampton, as the only tolerably safe option due to the inadequate extent of controlled airspace in and adjacent to the northern extremity of the current Solent CTA.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 836
Likes: 2
From: Costa del Swanwick
If the present procedure is safe why extend controlled airspace even more and restrict and increase the costs to other airspace users who would have to avoid it.
It's time the whole Solent area was redesigned to enable the operators who have no choice but to pay for the service provided to be given a more efficient and therfore cost effective service.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,827
Likes: 7
From: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Thanks for all your responses - very interesting. I'm quite surprised NATS Southampton should decide that services outside CAS aren't acceptable. I guess the combination of Popham (lots of non-transponding light aircraft?) and helis out of Middle Wallop does it.
NS
NS
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
From: UK
Given that the CAS north of SOU is some of the most infringed, maybe they would be at less risk outside CAS....!
Seriously, this is nothing odd. It happens at lots of airfields where airspace can curtail more expeditious routeings.
Seriously, this is nothing odd. It happens at lots of airfields where airspace can curtail more expeditious routeings.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Why shouldn't a zone transit which I guess is requested to avoid track mileage not have to pay for that short cut?
Control zones are not exclusion zones where you can't plan through and if you manage to get through it is a short-cut. They are fully plannable (within reason) and it should be viewed that a reasonable transit request is not a request for a short-cut.
Therefore it could be reasonable for aerodromes to pay for the resource they use -airspace and receive a reduction in the amount paid based on the number of aircraft that proceed through that airspace. Offspace anyone?
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
"Maybe the ANSP should push that anyone who receives a service from them should have to pay for it"
I have a much better idea. Why dont those who require exclusive airspace pay for it on a volumetric basis? Wonder how quickly CAS would shrink.
I have a much better idea. Why dont those who require exclusive airspace pay for it on a volumetric basis? Wonder how quickly CAS would shrink.