Norwich Class D Airspace Approved

[LXGB]

After a long consultation process Norwich International Airport is getting a Class D CTR and CTA next year.

The airspace will become active on 08 March 2012.

Full details and a map are in a letter (pdf) on the CAA website here.

[Danscowpie]

Now all you need is some aeroplanes to fly in it....

[magpienja]

I wonder, will the airport concerned have to pay for the privilege of having it and if so...is there an on-going charge.

Nick.

[Spitoon]

What's the big deal?

The airspace should protect fare-paying passengers - which only seems reasonable - and, if there is no commercial traffic, other activity should be allowed to carry on as before.

And those people who have now approved the establishment of airspace around SH will no doubt make sure that this happens........

Or have I just spotted a flaw in the plan?

[2 sheds]

Nick

That is a strange comment which perhaps reflects the outlook of some of the more vociferous but illogical objectors. Why would the airport need to pay for now being obliged to provide a service in specified airspace? Not that I am advocating it, but it would be more logical to say that the users of that airspace should pay for the available service.

2 s

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

2 sheds.... Well said.

[bad bear]

Im confused by the 3,000' transition altitude bit, it has been CAA policy got almost 10 years for any new airspace to have a 6,000' TA. With all the other airspace changing to 6,000' over the next few months wont this introduce confusion?
bb

[Avoiding_Action]

Well there is the talk of the UK changing to a TA of 18,000ft soon.

[2 sheds]

You would be even more confused if there were a different TA in this isolated piece of CAS from that of the surrounding mass of Class G, for no good reason.

2 s

[bad bear]

You would be even more confused if there were a different TA in this isolated piece of CAS from that of the surrounding mass of Class G, for no good reason.

oh no I wouldn't ! Many or even most pilots do not use 1013 in that area in the 3,000' to 6,000' levels. I would not dream of setting it hence the issue is the introduction of a bizarre and irrelevant 3,000' TA is not helpful. Certainly introducing airspace with a 3,000' TA when the rest of the UK is moving to 6,000' and eventually 18,000' is a step in the wrong direction. Make it a 6,000' TA today and save changing it again later!

bb

[2 sheds]

There is nothing bizarre and irrelevant if it is the notified requirement for the existing airspace and will not change with the introduction of CAS. I am sure that you will manage!

2 s

[bad bear]

Could someone check these figures for me?

In the original ACP presentation in 2006 (http://www.broadland.gov.uk/bdc_shar...e_Proposal.pdf) there seems to be a prediction of 1,400,000 passengers by 2010 but the CAA stats appear to show only 425,000. Have I got something wrong?
Also the predicted number of Air transport movements seems to be 29,000 movements for 2010 and over 30,000 for 2011 while the CAA say only 19,500 for 2010 and even less for 2011.
Can anyone explain why there is Controlled Airspace over Norwich City at all when there does not appear to be a procedure that requires it and the noise procedures claim the need to go straight ahead to x feet to avoid overflying Norwich.
A confused Bear
bb

[2 sheds]

why there is Controlled Airspace over Norwich City at all when there does not appear to be a procedure that requires it

Presumably for exactly the same reasons as at every other aerodrome with a CTR/CTA - to allow for vectored inbounds and outbounds and not just to protect the procedural instrument procedures.

2 s

[bad bear]

2 sheds you missed a bit of the quote,

and the noise procedures claim the need to go straight ahead to x feet to avoid overflying Norwich.

bb

[LXGB]

From the Norwich ACP Final Report of Consultation page 19:

The CAA does not utilise “threshold” traffic or passenger figures as being necessary for the establishment of controlled airspace. Each location is unique and must be judged on the specific threats to commercial air transport traffic in the locality. CAA DAP has confirmed that there has been no challenge to this established policy in the NATMAC forum and no changes are planned.

It is acknowledged that NIA traffic has declined, in common with other regional airports, since the programme to establish controlled airspace was initiated in 2005. The decline in traffic at NIA has been no greater than at similar UK Airports.

The dimensions of any controlled airspace (CAS) are not based on numbers of air transport movements (ATMs) but on the CAA’s regulatory requirements for containment of Instrument Flight Procedures. The CAA requires both the radar-based operation and the non-radar procedures to be contained (including the Primary Areas of Instrument Approach Procedures [IAP] in the latter case). The basis of the Regulatory Requirements was explained in some detail in the Sponsor Consultation Document.

Source: Norwich ACP Final Report of Consultation

Hope this helps.

[Danscowpie]

Can anyone explain why there is Controlled Airspace over Norwich City at all

Because Norwich Airport Ltd paid a huge amount of money to some very good aviation consultants (who have done similar work throughout the world), who saw the process through from beginning to end.
Believe me, despite the majority supporting the airspace change proposals, there were some major players in the industry who were against it.
When I say major players, I don't mean the G/A community, who, aside from a few, put up weak, ill informed and and vacuous arguments, I mean major airline operators, but the consultants knew how to handle them all and were worth the expense.

As for the passenger and movement figures, even Bears who have overdosed on this year's particularly fine crop of honey, know that there's been a recession and fewer people are using regional airports across the UK.
It's going to be long old slog, but the implementation of CAS was always about safety, not willy waving over the power of ATC or a Regional Airport over local aviation interests.
That said, I do believe that Omniport, the airport's owners, need to bite the bullet, write off all the debt, take a serious review of the skill and efficiency of the current senior management (who can only cut costs by chopping staff) and start with a clean sheet and a major investment just to get the place back on an even keel. Doubling the ADF is simply going to alienate the very customers they so badly need.

[bad bear]

Did I hear someone suggest that the CAA are under pressure to balance their budget and are considering charging for new airspace from 1st Jan by volume? I guess its only fair considering the amount of time they put in to the Airspace Change Programs. Apparently it was in an appendix of the Future Airspace Review document?
bb

[Gingerbread Man]

Am I right in thinking that there isn't any Class A above Norwich to which their new CTA will join? Is this unique for a UK airport?

I don't really have a point, it just seems unusual to depart inside controlled airspace, and then have to leave and re-enter somewhere else.

[landedoutagain]

There's no class A there because... there is no need for it !!!

It's not unique though, Brize and Durham don't link to anything IIRC.

[Piltdown Man]

We are being sold a crock!

...but the implementation of CAS was always about safety,

So therefore we'll see a measurable improvement in safety. But just of interest, what are the starting numbers and what is the target improvement? Does anyone have real numbers? I doubt it. And let's have these numbers before the airspace is implemented.

...to allow for vectored inbounds and outbounds and not just to protect the procedural instrument procedures.

The incredible volume of air traffic in the proximity of the approaches to the airport means that this airport absolutely must have it's own little aerial empire to control.

But the bit I really like in this whole joke process were the participants in the consultation process. Just exactly when did any member of the responding Parish, County, Borough or District council have training on the benefits or otherwise of controlled airspace? Just exactly what does an environmentalist know about efficient fuel utilisation and how that can be improved by the implementation of controlled airspace? Do the MP's who surveyed understand the implication of controlled airspace and how it may detrimentally affect the airport. Probably not, which is why none responded. But from what I can see of the consultation process, 276 surveys went out and only 53 worthwhile replies were received. What a total waste of money!

I smell Town Hall clowns at work!

PM

PS. You may wonder why I bothered posting at all. None of this will really affect me. Well I tell you. I can't stand idiotic organisations like NIA banging safety drums and other such rubbish to the detriment of the airport's users. Some of these people pay my wages and I think it's wrong that they are being lied to and given such poor (and probably very expensive) information. I'll bet a pound to a pinch of pooh that at least one of the executives will get a bonus for getting controlled airspace up and running. I'm just waiting for them to swap the moniker "International" for "Inter-galactic" in order to encourage extremely long haul traffic.