Parachuting at GWC inside Controlled Airspace!
 

Sorry chaps, it’s a minority topic, but I see that ‘Skydive Wales’ are proposing to establish a permanent parachute club operating out of Goodwood and wish to operate inside controlled airspace in much the same way that Headcorn do – i.e. up to FL120 on request.

Am I alone in thinking that this is perhaps the most stupid idea since Wrigleys launched their garlic flavour chewing gum? I can almost bring myself to forgive the parachute club – after all they are Welsh, but why-o-why have TC Ops agreed to this?

Think of all the traffic which will be totally screwed:

 Farnborough departures (where are we supposed to put them now? MID is impossible, SAM is dangerous, so LF outbounds going south will have to route via CPT?!) and inbounds (having a LF inbound at FL130 at GWC might just cause one or two problems (and they’d probably have to be higher than that given the other uses made of FL130 in that area))

 Solent outbounds and inbounds have basically the same problem as Farnborough.

 Gatwick arrivals – no chance of going straight in on Easterlies, but also a ‘dirty dive’ after passing GWC. And what about those Brymons which always need dropping a level to make way for the next jet?

 Heathrow and Gatwick departures towards SFD, which are often pointed in the general direction of GWC and climbed to a level under the inbounds (FL120 used to be a safe level – now it potentially isn’t, and nor is any level below it if you’ve let the Welsh in).

‘OK enough!’ I hear you cry ‘don’t let them in controlled airspace if you have any of the above’. Well I don’t intend to, but I still think that dropping people out of aircraft at FL64 at GWC is a bad, bad idea. People of Chichester should buy umbrellas if they don’t want blood stains on their clothes, because LF departures are often below FL64 at GWC. I know there’s a passage in our great book that says we have to watch out for stuff like 0033 squawks – even when just giving a FIS – but I don’t fancy my chances of spotting them amongst all the other traffic I’m watching……..

Skydive Wales, I’m not Anne Robinson, but please, go back home.
:confused:

[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: windy-miller ]

Ahh.. but the person who finally decides is the bloke with the electric hat on.. Just refuse it if it causes hassle.

Agreed Windy, this isn't like the Headcorn operation at all, far too many potential conflictions.

HD has the answer though, just say NO. Easily justified during any daylight hours due traffic in the LTMA.

With regard to Farnborough traffic routing south or south-east. There could be anybody at GWC up to FL64 right now, without any need for permission, so it ain't an ideal situation as it stands. Do operators realise that to get into / out of "the EGLF Clutch" you've got to transit Injun country? (Class G). I doubt it.

Rgds BEX

Both HD and Bex make good points but surely the real question is why TC Ops agreed to the proposal when there are so many problems and there is so little liklihood that it will be approved.

Having got the operators' expectations up, there will inevitably be pressue from the operator (and management when the complaints roll in) when the chap/ess with the hat says no.

It sounds like you have it not to bad with meat missles <G>. You can at least tell them no. Take a look at a chart of the DFW area. Then look just a little to the west of the Bonham vortac on the Bonham arrival. There is a BUSY jump area right there that we have constant fun with. Since the aircraft are VFR we can't tell them ANYTHING. They just inform us when they are going...

Y'all be careful...

There are PLENTY of aerodromes/drop sites that are OUTSIDE regulated airspace.

I suggest that the Lamers down in TC Ops get their ACT TOGETHER and "just say NO"

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

re: windy-miller's post, i'll go out and get an umbrella then.......... :eek: