Olympic airspace validation
 

Does anybody know how the simulations for the olympic airspace went? I understand there were some big issues left to resolve.

Many hurdles still to overcome?
A few years ago, EGCC handled the Champions League football thingy.
About 70,000 Italians turned up over 2 days in about 200 extra airliners and 60 biz-jets.
No simulations were laid on, we just did it.
Like the ignition of The Olympic Flame, in ATC terms, this is just a flash in the pan.
As the late Ron Ridler would have said,....."Shut up and get on with it"!

Upwards of 200 HofS flights alone, never mind passengers... then the estimated 1000-1500 extra VFR flights a day.

Slightly different than the Champions League.

New airspace designed to deal with it all, airspace that already suffers proportionally more infringers than any other in the UK.

Not exactly a flash in the pan Zooker, and nothing like the footy.

As for the Sims, I believe they have actually been going pretty well, with SRG happy too...

Only jesting folks,
I guess Farnborough will have it's work cut out too. Great shame they never built Maplins back in the 70s, what with this and all the development east of Tower Bridge. It would have made Clacton interesting.
Plenty of parking space at Fairford, or do the games clash with RIAT? The MOD could do with a few extra pounds in the Kitty. O.K. it is the wrong side of London, but has good links to the M4.

Brilliant deduction - and they say a university degree is not what it used to be!

2 s

I still can't believe it...........

He could be paying £9k a year to come up with that.:rolleyes:

Me neither...I thought Paris had it in the bag:)

As I said to No. 2 son recently, you lot have got management over a barrel.
Refuse to do simulation on a day off unless there are some really good 'sweeties' in return. Making AAVAs pensionable for a start!

IIRC we all got extra for Dec31st 1999 because of the fear of the dreaded 'Millenium Bug'.

Not exactly 'bailing out' the major airports.

Bailing out indicates helping the major airports. Nothing is further from the truth - the 'major' airports will work to their capacity attracting all the extra business they can handle. Oxford, Southend, Biggin Hill etc are fighting as hard as they can to get the extra, leftover business; the scraps in reality (and there will be plenty of scraps to go round).

If anything it will be the ANSP who 'bails' out these 'minor' aerdromes by providing the service to the aircraft that the airports can't...

If the night noise restrictions were cancelled for the period, the matter could be solved fairly quickly. Unfortunately, staff numbers in every department have been shaved so dramatically that there would no staff to handle the traffic.

Paris, Cologne or Brussel and take Eurostar - Simples::)

Going back to the start of the thread and the Champions League match at Manchester. There were still inbounds in the hold after kick off!!! That's what just getting on with it achieves.

Why are they only simulating the new arrival routings? Do they not think these aircraft are going to leave somehow? Considering the changes between now and then, I can see another big mess approaching.......

:=
Not quite correct. They were the first string of the Departures...who were planned to land at Full Time + 15, so the Italians wouln't have to put up with Manchester for longer than necessary...... :D
I was on Afternoons that day in the Tower :ok:

Chiglet,


I too was on an afternoon and was sat watching them go round the DAYNE hold at kick off time....and they had been there quite some time..........

Let's not over-analyse this event because it has long been regarded as not being one of NATS' finest hours (amongst a few others!)

A couple of weeks ago there was a CL final held at Wembley. There were Probably around 200 associated biz jets that used the London airfields plus lots of extra charter flights into Luton & Stansted etc, many of which departed that evening/night.

Things seemed to work OK on this occasion....

The Champions League final this year was small fry compared to the Olympics.
For a start one of the sides was from the UK (most of the fans probably from London :} ).
As stated previously, the Olympics will have around 150 visiting heads of State and the associated precautions. There will be Aircraft landing at Airport A which then need to reposition to park at Airport X due lack of space etc etc etc.
Then you have different peaks of traffic from individual countries that perform well during particular events.

There are issues to resolve, but on the whole I understand the nut is largely cracked. :ok:

You're right barnaby, the Champions League (whichever year we talk about) is small fry.

The Atkins capacity report (available from all good Department of Transport bookstores) is predicting 3000 extra business aviation flights, 150 head of State flights, between 1300 and 1500 extra helicopter flights each day, and many extra Olympic 'family' and support flights.

There will also be an unknown number of flights possibly using airfields close to the Eurostar and ferry terminals in continental Europe as well.

The mention of removing night time curfews is moot because the travelling public don't want to arrive in London after midnight or before the crack of dawn and so there would be little or no take up of any extra capacity at those times. Remember that most of these extra flights are being chartered, so the customer has a big say on when they want to travel, not the other way around :ok:

10W et al,

The bit in the Atkins report you've missed is the statement that the extra flights such as head of state, Olympic family and busness flights will generally take place during the 3 days before and the 3 days after the main Olympics.
This makes the figures even worse as it is not spread over the whole of the time the Olympics take place.

Then on top of that there is, as you state, the anticipated extra helicopter flights (upwards of 1300 per day, allegedly) and the fact that Paris is putting a lot of effort into selling itself as the place to stay for the Olympics... nicer, safer city than London (not my words), and only a short hop across the channel... and that hop will be done by aircraft in the main if Paris gets the numbers of visitors it wants... Eurostar does not have the capacity.

Allied to all this is the fact that there is new temporary restricted airspace with a few rules attached... the LTMA already suffers an inordinate amount of infringers (though it has improved drastically over the past 2 years). These infrngers tend to be from local airfields that you would expect to know better... throw into the mix people flying around who don't have a clue about the airpace and it could be fun.

The main traffic will be fine. It will be busy but as usual the engineers, ATSAs and ATCOs will make it work (despite the best efforts of management :p).

The problem will come from responses to infringing aircraft... UK PLC will (rightly) be a lot twitchier than normal wrt security. I'd anticipate that response will be less measured i.e. less time taken for intelligence gathering before sending in assets to investigate, with the usual ensuing knock on effect in very busy airspace.

That is, in my opinion, where the biggest problem could arise.

ban biz jets?
 

Why not simply ban the exec jets, except for heads of state, then the airlines can have a few more business and first class passengers?
Many people have already commented that the exec jet is the most probable terrorist weapon and the hardest to stop. Seems odd that they are allowed so close to the Olympic venue.
How long does it take for an exec jet to go from the approach at Biggin hill to the heart of the Olympic village and how would anyone stop it?
I am surprised that exec jets are allowed withing 60 miles of the Olympic venue.

bb

As there is so much Class A airspace around London, VFR is locked out. Pilots are left fending for themselves around such a complex environment.

But if the local airfields could have (and find means of funding) a tower and approach control, arriving and departing aircraft would be sent on appropriate routes under control until safely clear of the area.

Out of interest, has anyone considered Class B or C airspace?

VFR is not 'locked out' there are plenty areas you can fly VFR. There are plenty areas where you can fly where a simple call to the appropriate approach unit would mean that instead of being an infringer, you would be known traffic.

I haven't studied every single incident, but I would hazard a guess that almost every infringement is down to inattention.

Either inattention to detail in the planning phase, or inattention to the plan when airborne.

Even more to the point, a lack of adequate in-depth navigation training during a 40 hour PPL rating.

The one time I would maybe, just maybe, relent on the above is if an aircraft suffers an amergeny then strays. Even then I would be disappointed that the pilot did not follow the 'Aviate, Navigate, Communicate' principle.

If you are flying VFR with a zone to your right, then even in an emergency you should know you don't turn right and cause an infringement.

Navigation is not difficult however it is lacking, either through ignorance or laziness, in some pilots. These pilots are the ones that cause iinfringements.

Control Zones don't change on a daily basis, the information is readily available. The 6Ps taught in military flying are as pertinent to the hobby flier.

Prior Preparation Prevents Pi$$ Poor Performance.

Sorry if that comes across quite hard but it is a bit of a bug bear of mine.

The airspace might be tight, but it is not locked out and it is certainly not an excuse for poor airmanship.

anotherthing.... Well said, Sir.

Don't worry, if you are still of working age, there will be another opportunity to claim extra pay on 31/12/2037, see here. :cool:

So.... as long as you're prepared to comply with

Then infringing controlled airspace in an emergency as a last resort when you've exhaused absolutley every other possibility is something that would be silly for anotherthing to ban outright !

However, for the avoidance of doubt, my point of view is you shouldn't be flying so close to it in the first place !

Mixture,

The point was trying to make, maybe not so well, is that you should always be aware of your position.

An emergency is not an excuse to let your airmanship fall to pieces, in fact the very opposite should happen.

I had just re-read my post before reading your reply and I did think that it might need some qualification. If a pilot is suffering an emergency, then I would not expect the book to be thrown at them if they infringe... far from it, extenuating circumstances and all that.

However as any pilot who has done proper emergency training (i.e. not PPL 'experience of emergencies') will know that one of the things drummed into you is that you do not let the emergency take over to the extent that airmanship suffers.

Aviate, Navigate, Comunicate.

There aint that many emergencies that stop you from being able to do the above.

anotherthing,

Ok, in the light of your clarification I can see where you are coming from now.

I was getting myself ready to throw the rather extreme infringement scenario of a hijacking at you, but I see this is now not needed. :E

As long as the hijacker was adequately trained in navigation...

I realise that this is taking the thread off topic, but I agree with anotherthing.

I have not got a PPL; I did a few hours before joining NATS and then had the 15 hours during my training.

I have been lucky enough to go flying with a few non-ATCO friends, some of whom had hundreds of PPL hours, and one who was about to go to a well known flight training establishment to do the ATPL course.

I have often been surprised (and not in a good way) by the level of navigation competence I have encountered while being in the right hand seat of C152s and PA28s (all non-GPS equipped). On paper, in the flight planning stage, everything is fine, but once in the air there appears to be a lack of experience in relating the chart to what is out of the window, and a reluctance to use the navaids as a back up (they give that job to me!). A number of infringements, especially of the Stansted zone, have been avoided due to my leading questions. I'm not blowing my own trumpet, I'm not a qualified pilot, but I do worry about the state of airmanship and navigation out there.

Gonzo,

It is unfortunate... when I did my 15 hours worth of flying 'training' with NATS, I ended up spending a good part of the time teaching my instructor (who could fly the aircraft very well), the finer points of VFR navigation planning and execution.

Thought I'd almost got there until on a trip to Prestwick, he couldn't find the airfield despite the humungus big line feature that leads you all the way in being in front of him for several miles without him noticing... and he wasn't even flying, he was purely navving while I sat behind and another student flew :ugh:

Back to the thread... the olympics will be fine... As for the post a few above talking about the departures being possibly the worst... I'm sure even the minor aerodromes will be regulated by some pretty stiff slots

I wasn't saying that the departures would be the worst, obviously we can keep them on the ground and regulate more easily. However, if we have to create new routings and procedures for arrivals, then surely we will need to adapt to cope with the departures? If we don't then there will be extensive departure delays, therefore valuable tarmac occupied for much longer than expected, therefore a valuable parking space not available for all the inbounds we are trying to cram through the system. London City works wonders with the limited amount of space it has, I am wrong in thinking more of the London airports will have similar problems during the Olympic period? Can't see the point of having 6 new ways to get them in but no new ways to get them back out.

Sorry,

Misinterpreted your post. Yes, you would think that new routes out would be a good idea... I suppose the argument is that for the inbounds the new holds will take up any over delivery, whereas with properly applied flow(!), the outbounds will ...be easier to regulate.

Harder to ensure inbounds arrive at the time they are supposed to because of all the variables in a long inbound flight.

Anotherthing, perhaps you could also consider the provision of adequate numbers of controllers in controlled airspace so that VFR traffic can get equal access for that chunk of sky as per the original intentions. One frequently hears "due to controller workload" or "ROCAS" without the correct response of when access would be granted. Of course in GA we do have the option of filing IFR and all that goes with that but GA does not need that, what it does need, I believe, is proper and adequate support from those who seek to exclude (for safety reasons course).

How much would you be willing to pay for the service? At the moment light aircraft pay nothing, yet cause the most grief when INCAS because they have poor performance i.e. they are in the way for much longer, take longer to vacate levels etc.

Workload rises way out of proportion when you add a puddle jumper to the equation.

Maybe set rates at how complex an aircraft makes things by being in the airspace.... but that would see a pilot of a C152 paying much more than a 777!!

Although this is a drift thread.
Not withstanding anotherthings post. When you listen to the standard of R/T and and in some cases basic Airmanship in some quarters of GA, it is perhaps understandable why some are told to remain Outside CAS. :mad: :}

It does not seem to be such a problem in many other countries as it seems to be here. All I was asking was for those who wish to have the right to exclude others perhaps ought to consider going by the rule book - just as GA should. As for paying for the service I would submit that those who want the CAS should make the service available without charge because it is ACCESS to that airspace that is being requested and you pay nothing for that chunk of airspace. If you paid by the volume you wish to have then there may be a case for charging for entry but as you dont it seems to be a bit of a spurrious argument. There is a lot of castigation of GA and in some cases rightly so but not all GA is made up of weekend "bumblers". You know as do I that anything that is not classed as military or CAT is GA so a very wide range is covered.

WorkingHard.... Well said, Sir.

According to my book, Class A prohibits VFR. (with the exception of the CTR, etc. - ok)

I agree some pilots could do with better navigation and radio training. The reluctance by some to use radio nav and/or GPS still puzzles me.

However as your airspace is so complex, I think it's rather unfair that VFR is left on its own to navigate themselves around the pile of Class A at 10,000ft:

http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/...650/london.jpg

*Source: SkydemonLight showing airspace of the London area, a product endorsed by NATS. Garmin GPS units would also show similar airspace depictions.

Notes: Each red line depicts a boundary of Class A airspace, where mostly VFR is locked out. Pink line shows route from Shoreham to Cambridge. Pink shaded circles show NOTAMed areas. And I chose 10,000ft because it's more fuel efficient.

I thought that's what lower airways are for? Light and slow aircraft generally cruise at lower altitudes. You won't find B737's cruising at 4000ft.

No, you are correct you won't (usually), find 737's cruising at 4000. However as your own diagram illustrates, there are lots of different parts of CAS all with different levels.

Although 737's don't usually stooge around at 4000, they do have to climb through that level to get to the cruise.

Many of the light aircraft want to cruise at FL80, 90, or 100. This puts them in direct conflict with passenger aircraft wishing to climb/descend through these levels.

Using your diagram again, you can see how many small airfields there are in the area... the performance characteristics of a lot of aircraft operating from these airfields means that they will get in the way as they slowly plod their way up to FL80 or 90, whilst doing 120Kts ground speed

Your route from Shoreham to Cambridge would not get to fly that way at any level in the TMA, because of the various holds for major airports, or various zones, being used by airline operators that pay for the service

If you really are talking about aircraft being allowed to fly VFR at 4000, then you really need to understand how the airspace is designed and why. The base is designed on climb characteristics of passenger aircraft leaving major licensed airports. It is there to afford some safety in the climb/descent i.e. the airspace base raised the further from an airport you get. That is why VFR is not allowed in willy nilly.

You really need to understand the reasons behind airspace design and not just throw your toys out the cot because you can't fly wherever you want. It is an intense area of aircraft operation. The airspace is designed to provide protection. Whilst not maybe the most efficient use, it is also designed to allow as much Class G as possible, e.g. underneath.

Unless you are willing to dig deep and pay quite hefty charges to facilitate extra controllers and support staff and equipment, I'm afraid the Utopia you are after willl not happen... even then with extra controllers etc, entry will be subject to traffic, you would not get charged if you couldn't enter.

In the ideal world, everyone would be able to do what they want when they wanted, but it is not the ideal world. The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users, and it is in the interests of UK PLC to protect trade and get money into the country via passenger transport etc.

Anotherthing you said "The airspace, and ATC is funded by fee paying users". I agree of course that ATC is funded by the airports and hence the CAT BUT, can you explain how that equates to funding THE AIRSPACE? As I see it you get a chunk of airspace for which you pay NOTHING then you have to provide ATC for the CAT to get them in and out of your airport and they pay for the priviledge quite rightly. That does not mean you have the EXCLUSIVE use of that chunk of airspace to charge others for using it. Under the terms of the allocated airspace it has to be available (we are talking Class D for example) for all users within the realms of safe operation and just because NATS or whoever decides to not fund enough controllers to manage that chunk of airspace is no reason to deny access. I appreciate it is not the fault of the controller but unless you the controllers start to apply a bit more pressurte on your employers then this will never be resolved.
I am quite happy to take any controller on a tour VFR and let you have first hand experience of what is faced by GA on a daily basis