New Land Smash And Grab By Glasgow ??
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that some of the contributors on this thread need to revisit their radio theory and remember that VHF works on line of sight. 
The transmitting antennas at Glasgow are situated in perhaps the worst place (next to the airport Police Station at Dumbarton Court), surrounded by buildings, the M8 flyover and terrain surrounding the airfield. Is it any wonder that when VFR traffic is flying at low level, down a valley with a range of hills between it and the antenna that RT coverage is poor? Given the location of the transmitters, I actually think the performance of 119.1 is fantastic and that any reception of any signal outside of 10nm of PF below 1000' is incredible!
Glasgow is primarily an International Airport and their RT and Radar coverage is optimised to provide the airport traffic with the cover required by the CAA. Unless someone pays for Glasgow to become a LARS unit and pays for the siting of suitable TX/RX to carry that task out, things will not change. The controllers at Glasgow provide a fantastic service to the local GA community within the limits of their equipment, and encourage GA pilots to call to increase safety in a very busy piece of VFR/IFR mixed airspace.
The only solution to the problem is to have the TX/RX antennas co-located on top of the Gleniffer Braes or the Kilpatrick Hills, but the chances of this happening are next to zero due to the cost implications.
With regard to the airspace changes, these are being pushed by the CAA/DAP and the airlines as well as NATS on safety grounds. The mentality of "we won't speak to Glasgow because we don't have to" is slowly dissapearing as more GA pilots realise that it is actually in their interest to call! The number of Zone Infringements have reduced dramatically in the last 12 months, and more and more aircraft are getting the zone transists they want by speaking to Glasgow, rather than fighting them and being stubborn.
Glasgow have been promoting GA relations over the last 2 years with some sterling work done by their NATS Infringement Group team, hosting visits from the local flying clubs, and trying to promote understanding of the difficulties of unknown VFR traffic operating in and around the Glasgow Zone. Until you see the radar picture for yourself, you will never fully understand the issues affecting traffic an and around the Scottish TMA. You will also never understand that the airspace Glasgow DOES have isn't really big enough for the job, especially during the summer. The narrow strip of Class D/E between Glasgow and Edinburgh can become very full, very quicky, especially if Glasgow are on 23 and Edinburgh are on 06.
Class D airspace is not a "no go area", but it does require an ATC Clearance, and it DOES require you to comply with ATC instructions when inside it. You can only meet these requirements by speaking to ATC. If you can't speak to ATC by RT, why not try phoning before getting airborne, getting a clearance to enter at a specific point and time, and establishing 2 way RT contact ASAP. Adjacent units (Scottish Info, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Cumbernauld) all have direct lines to the GLA Approach controller, so they can even co-ordinate a clearance on your behalf if en route and out of Glasgow RT coverage.
So why don't some of you "anti air-traffic" guys actually take the time to learn a bit more about the problem, rather than lambasting it? Air Traffic Control is a concept provided for safety. Be thankful that for VFR/GA traffic in this country, the privilege of being looked after by ATC is one that is paid for by the Airlines and IFR traffic, not directly by you.
The transmitting antennas at Glasgow are situated in perhaps the worst place (next to the airport Police Station at Dumbarton Court), surrounded by buildings, the M8 flyover and terrain surrounding the airfield. Is it any wonder that when VFR traffic is flying at low level, down a valley with a range of hills between it and the antenna that RT coverage is poor? Given the location of the transmitters, I actually think the performance of 119.1 is fantastic and that any reception of any signal outside of 10nm of PF below 1000' is incredible!
Glasgow is primarily an International Airport and their RT and Radar coverage is optimised to provide the airport traffic with the cover required by the CAA. Unless someone pays for Glasgow to become a LARS unit and pays for the siting of suitable TX/RX to carry that task out, things will not change. The controllers at Glasgow provide a fantastic service to the local GA community within the limits of their equipment, and encourage GA pilots to call to increase safety in a very busy piece of VFR/IFR mixed airspace.
The only solution to the problem is to have the TX/RX antennas co-located on top of the Gleniffer Braes or the Kilpatrick Hills, but the chances of this happening are next to zero due to the cost implications.
With regard to the airspace changes, these are being pushed by the CAA/DAP and the airlines as well as NATS on safety grounds. The mentality of "we won't speak to Glasgow because we don't have to" is slowly dissapearing as more GA pilots realise that it is actually in their interest to call! The number of Zone Infringements have reduced dramatically in the last 12 months, and more and more aircraft are getting the zone transists they want by speaking to Glasgow, rather than fighting them and being stubborn.
Glasgow have been promoting GA relations over the last 2 years with some sterling work done by their NATS Infringement Group team, hosting visits from the local flying clubs, and trying to promote understanding of the difficulties of unknown VFR traffic operating in and around the Glasgow Zone. Until you see the radar picture for yourself, you will never fully understand the issues affecting traffic an and around the Scottish TMA. You will also never understand that the airspace Glasgow DOES have isn't really big enough for the job, especially during the summer. The narrow strip of Class D/E between Glasgow and Edinburgh can become very full, very quicky, especially if Glasgow are on 23 and Edinburgh are on 06.
Class D airspace is not a "no go area", but it does require an ATC Clearance, and it DOES require you to comply with ATC instructions when inside it. You can only meet these requirements by speaking to ATC. If you can't speak to ATC by RT, why not try phoning before getting airborne, getting a clearance to enter at a specific point and time, and establishing 2 way RT contact ASAP. Adjacent units (Scottish Info, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Cumbernauld) all have direct lines to the GLA Approach controller, so they can even co-ordinate a clearance on your behalf if en route and out of Glasgow RT coverage.
So why don't some of you "anti air-traffic" guys actually take the time to learn a bit more about the problem, rather than lambasting it? Air Traffic Control is a concept provided for safety. Be thankful that for VFR/GA traffic in this country, the privilege of being looked after by ATC is one that is paid for by the Airlines and IFR traffic, not directly by you.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Coming back to the original Q, airspace changes around Glasgow will be coming and in my view not before time. How the authorities have condoned lots of commercial traffic in IMC operating in the same airspace as VFR traffic not in contact with anyone I don't know. Edinburgh got rid of its Class E a couple of years back and it has had no impact on GA mainly because they raised the base by 1000ft - although I have to say that when a conscientious GA pilot requests clearance to operate above the base of the Class D it would be nice to have a clear response from ATC.
Glasgow's current zone is a peculiar shape and if they're getting rid of 09/27 (here we go again! Edinburgh, Leeds Bradford, Birmingham) then the CTR should revert to a lozenge shape.
NS
Glasgow's current zone is a peculiar shape and if they're getting rid of 09/27 (here we go again! Edinburgh, Leeds Bradford, Birmingham) then the CTR should revert to a lozenge shape.
NS
Its here
your chance to comment on the proposals on the ATC thread
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/360...your-help.html
b b
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/360...your-help.html
b b
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was CFI at Cumbernauld for a few years and I can assure anyone that Glasgow App on 119.1 is often extremely difficult to contact. 119.87 is often not a huge amount better in certain areas, though it isn't bad. Certainly in the area to the North of the Campsie Hills, unless you are above 3000' then you have no choice but to talk to Scottish, not Glasgow, even though Glasgow were constantly asking us to contact them.
These problems have been pointed out on numerous occasions, but nothing has been done about it.
As Xray Alpha mentions, GLA are sometimes loath to let people transit their airspace. So I wouldn't welcome any increase in their boundaries. Though anyone who enters that class E without talking to anyone needs their head seen to, but surely there is a more a need to look at all te airspace around there, not just changing the classification of one bit?
Edinburgh have never been an issue and I have never been denied a transit, though I have taken some odd routings, but that's just part of the fun!
These problems have been pointed out on numerous occasions, but nothing has been done about it.
As Xray Alpha mentions, GLA are sometimes loath to let people transit their airspace. So I wouldn't welcome any increase in their boundaries. Though anyone who enters that class E without talking to anyone needs their head seen to, but surely there is a more a need to look at all te airspace around there, not just changing the classification of one bit?
Edinburgh have never been an issue and I have never been denied a transit, though I have taken some odd routings, but that's just part of the fun!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have never experienced reception problems in the area that this airspace change will affect. Also I have never been refused a transit of the zone/area, even in non-transponder equipped aeroplanes. Any service Glasgow has provided me has always been top-notch; friendly but professional, efficient and effective. Certainly I do agree that to the north of Glasgow anything below 2000' does mean loss of comms with Glasgow ATC, but I'm in the open FIR there anyway and see-and-avoid has worked well for me so far. I'm afraid I'm therefore ambivalent towards this 'land grab'.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really a "land grab" is it!
GLA are very good usually, but they have had their moments. However, this isn't about that. Personally I see no issue with changing the class E to class D.
I know class E gives most of us the willies in busy areas!
GLA are very good usually, but they have had their moments. However, this isn't about that. Personally I see no issue with changing the class E to class D.
I know class E gives most of us the willies in busy areas!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the proposal is out.
My objections.
Primarlily at Strathaven Airfield elevation, 847ft. So standard overhead join at 2,000ft above the field would be inside the new Class D.
Yes, ideal to call Glasgow if in the Class E. But at Strathaven, there is never any traffic from Glasgow in the Class E to the immediate north of the field. So we don't. And we listen out on safety.com to hear for traffic at Strathaven. With 24 aircraft based there, and planning submitted for two new 10,000sq ft hangars last week, we are well on the way to becoming one of the top three Scottish airfields for based aircraft. So crazy to fly in from the north - Cumber, Glenrothes, Perth etc - and be on Glasgow until in the circuit at Strathaven! (most aircraft don't have two boxes!)
The NATS charts of radar returns of traffic on a typical day and in a typical month have the Class E in the wrong place! Look at where Kilmarnock is on the main chart extract and then extrapolate a line from the coast inland on the radar return pix and you'll see there is never anything over Strathaven!
So we have asked for a triangle of the Class D at 4,500ft immediately overhead and to the south of the airfield to be extended to East Kilbride and Stonehouse.
I would be also more comfortable with a higher base - say 3,500ft - in central Scotland for the new Class D since there is some high remote ground there and some nice high masts at Harthill (2,000ft agl).
It would also allow a standard overhead join at Cumbernauld at 2,000ft - ie 2,330 amsl - without a student drifting 200ft and into CAS.
Or allow transiting non-radio - perhaps with radio failure, perhaps old and without a radio - to overfly Cumbernauld's standard overhead join by 500ft without infringing CAS.
It is also nice, in lighter aircraft, to get above the worst of the thermic activity.
Since Glasgow's favourite response to an FIS is clear of Class D and not above 2000ft, will we expect - and get - clearances to fly at 4,000ft in Class D just because we don't like the bumps?
And when we fly over the Whitelees wind farm, right through Class D, we get "not above 2000ft" as standard. Well, I'd rather fly via Kilmarnock and outside Class D (and not talk to Glasgow 'cos they can't hear me) than fly so low over the hostile terrain up on the moors.
Oh well, the other point that aircraft numbers were going to rise and rise has also come to a halt with the recession.
Altogether, an inappropriate extension of the Class D which is reducing safety at smaller airfields.
How many cubic metres of airspace has Glasgow got per movement compared to Gatwick or Stansted? Just a thought!
My objections.
Primarlily at Strathaven Airfield elevation, 847ft. So standard overhead join at 2,000ft above the field would be inside the new Class D.
Yes, ideal to call Glasgow if in the Class E. But at Strathaven, there is never any traffic from Glasgow in the Class E to the immediate north of the field. So we don't. And we listen out on safety.com to hear for traffic at Strathaven. With 24 aircraft based there, and planning submitted for two new 10,000sq ft hangars last week, we are well on the way to becoming one of the top three Scottish airfields for based aircraft. So crazy to fly in from the north - Cumber, Glenrothes, Perth etc - and be on Glasgow until in the circuit at Strathaven! (most aircraft don't have two boxes!)
The NATS charts of radar returns of traffic on a typical day and in a typical month have the Class E in the wrong place! Look at where Kilmarnock is on the main chart extract and then extrapolate a line from the coast inland on the radar return pix and you'll see there is never anything over Strathaven!
So we have asked for a triangle of the Class D at 4,500ft immediately overhead and to the south of the airfield to be extended to East Kilbride and Stonehouse.
I would be also more comfortable with a higher base - say 3,500ft - in central Scotland for the new Class D since there is some high remote ground there and some nice high masts at Harthill (2,000ft agl).
It would also allow a standard overhead join at Cumbernauld at 2,000ft - ie 2,330 amsl - without a student drifting 200ft and into CAS.
Or allow transiting non-radio - perhaps with radio failure, perhaps old and without a radio - to overfly Cumbernauld's standard overhead join by 500ft without infringing CAS.
It is also nice, in lighter aircraft, to get above the worst of the thermic activity.
Since Glasgow's favourite response to an FIS is clear of Class D and not above 2000ft, will we expect - and get - clearances to fly at 4,000ft in Class D just because we don't like the bumps?
And when we fly over the Whitelees wind farm, right through Class D, we get "not above 2000ft" as standard. Well, I'd rather fly via Kilmarnock and outside Class D (and not talk to Glasgow 'cos they can't hear me) than fly so low over the hostile terrain up on the moors.
Oh well, the other point that aircraft numbers were going to rise and rise has also come to a halt with the recession.
Altogether, an inappropriate extension of the Class D which is reducing safety at smaller airfields.
How many cubic metres of airspace has Glasgow got per movement compared to Gatwick or Stansted? Just a thought!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, scrub that last comment for me. This would be a right old pain for all of us. I would certainly have had a nightmare with students when trying to teach instrument procedures from CBN. You'd pop straight up to 3000ft over Cumbernauld, whilst I'd alwayd give them a bell and use the transponder, it would be an imposition.
Oh dear, this hasn't been well thought out.
I reckon I'll have to have a good look at it again and then join in the consultation.
Colin, have you read this bit?
Oh dear, this hasn't been well thought out.
I reckon I'll have to have a good look at it again and then join in the consultation.
Colin, have you read this bit?
Strathaven Airfield - supportive of change, but objection over SW
corner of proposed change re airfield height versus base of Class
D with the guidance from CAA re circuit overhead join vertical
spacing. Glasgow ATC are actively working with locally-based
Strathaven pilots to alleviate these concerns.
corner of proposed change re airfield height versus base of Class
D with the guidance from CAA re circuit overhead join vertical
spacing. Glasgow ATC are actively working with locally-based
Strathaven pilots to alleviate these concerns.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important for everyone who is affected by (or may be affected by) this proposal to put pen to paper and submit their thoughts during the consultation.
I agree that the change from Class E to D makes sense and is necessary to improve overall safety but I don't necessarily agree that the airspace shape and volume which will result in toto is acceptable from a GA flyer point of view.
If you read the post by PH-UKU on the ATC thread, he makes many valid and relevant suggestions for trimming the existing airspace as part of any proposal. Glasgow accepting this horse trading would give something back to the GA community in return for their support for the airspace change. That I would support.
Get writing folks, your voice does count.
I agree that the change from Class E to D makes sense and is necessary to improve overall safety but I don't necessarily agree that the airspace shape and volume which will result in toto is acceptable from a GA flyer point of view.
If you read the post by PH-UKU on the ATC thread, he makes many valid and relevant suggestions for trimming the existing airspace as part of any proposal. Glasgow accepting this horse trading would give something back to the GA community in return for their support for the airspace change. That I would support.
Get writing folks, your voice does count.
I see why some piilots dont seem bothered by the ACP
Now could somebody try getting a clearance through the proposed airspace from north to south at 4,000' or 5,000' between 1500 and 1800 during the summer timetable when 23 is in use and let me know how it goes. The diagram on P14 might give one an idea of what the answer could be. There could be a stream of inbounds descending from 6,000' to 3,000' and it would simply not be possible for the pilot of a C150 to be given a clearance. So where would that leave the guys who thought they could still fly through? Under the airspace below 2,500' !
Perhaps the solution is for VFR corridors to be created that still allow transit at up to 6,000' but the routing would vary depending on the runways in use, any thoughts?
I should add that I am very keen for this ACP to go through but there are issues that need to be realised and dealt with now and not later.
b b
Other airspace users
5.4 All potential users of the airspace would be permitted to fly through the
airspace, but must be in radio contact with ATC and obtain a clearance
before entering the airspace.
5.4 All potential users of the airspace would be permitted to fly through the
airspace, but must be in radio contact with ATC and obtain a clearance
before entering the airspace.
Perhaps the solution is for VFR corridors to be created that still allow transit at up to 6,000' but the routing would vary depending on the runways in use, any thoughts?
I should add that I am very keen for this ACP to go through but there are issues that need to be realised and dealt with now and not later.
b b
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no point in having class E airspace at all so I understand the direction this proposal is going, however there can be no justification for class D at such low levels that contact cannot be guaranteed with the airfield ATC
In the USA they would get round some of the problem by making it a mode C/S transponder mandatory area without the need to speak to anyone. In our country this kind of freedom would be unlikely.
There is a large volume of GA traffic using this piece of airspace at the moment who are speaking to nobody. If this proposal was carried forward I suspect more staff and possibly another frequency would be required at Glasgow. One only has to see what has happened at Doncaster when now on a good weather weekend one can barely get a word in. 99% of the controllers job is controlling light aircraft for the sake of two commercial aircraft a day. Clearly Glasgow is much busier so the result will be a lot more transit refusals.
DO.
In the USA they would get round some of the problem by making it a mode C/S transponder mandatory area without the need to speak to anyone. In our country this kind of freedom would be unlikely.
There is a large volume of GA traffic using this piece of airspace at the moment who are speaking to nobody. If this proposal was carried forward I suspect more staff and possibly another frequency would be required at Glasgow. One only has to see what has happened at Doncaster when now on a good weather weekend one can barely get a word in. 99% of the controllers job is controlling light aircraft for the sake of two commercial aircraft a day. Clearly Glasgow is much busier so the result will be a lot more transit refusals.
DO.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing that hasn't been made clear, is that whilst the idea of class E maybe a bit silly, how many incidents or airproxes have there actually been?
Most of us know full well the potential dangers of flying in class E and so will either use the little box of tricks known as a transponder or talk to someone. The problem around there has always been, who to talk to.
Glasgow constantly bang on about talking to them, but then seem utterly disinterested when you do try, Scottish are always good, but they are FIS. Edi are usually the most helpful.
Most of us know full well the potential dangers of flying in class E and so will either use the little box of tricks known as a transponder or talk to someone. The problem around there has always been, who to talk to.
Glasgow constantly bang on about talking to them, but then seem utterly disinterested when you do try, Scottish are always good, but they are FIS. Edi are usually the most helpful.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS,
The report says:
Strathaven Airfield - supportive of change, but objection over SW
corner of proposed change re airfield height versus base of Class
D with the guidance from CAA re circuit overhead join vertical
spacing. Glasgow ATC are actively working with locally-based
Strathaven pilots to alleviate these concerns.
Our view:
No objection to the removal of Class E since no-one really knows what it is anyway.
Support replacement - of part of it - by Class D. Perhaps extend the Class D to 4500 a bit north?
Have objections to the SW corner - there is no traffic there. NATS have got the Class E on the radar return pictures in the wrong place (check nav features like Kilmarnock!)
CAA and NATS have not worked with any Strathaven pilots in any way since the initial "scoping" meeting, although we did have a club visit to the tower at Glasgow.
So, if you ignore my caveats, then NATS speak truth.
Otherwise, they are being too economical for my liking.
ps. Traffic forecasts are a little out too, bearing in mind the new economic climate! (and the reality of the past few months!!)
The report says:
Strathaven Airfield - supportive of change, but objection over SW
corner of proposed change re airfield height versus base of Class
D with the guidance from CAA re circuit overhead join vertical
spacing. Glasgow ATC are actively working with locally-based
Strathaven pilots to alleviate these concerns.
Our view:
No objection to the removal of Class E since no-one really knows what it is anyway.
Support replacement - of part of it - by Class D. Perhaps extend the Class D to 4500 a bit north?
Have objections to the SW corner - there is no traffic there. NATS have got the Class E on the radar return pictures in the wrong place (check nav features like Kilmarnock!)
CAA and NATS have not worked with any Strathaven pilots in any way since the initial "scoping" meeting, although we did have a club visit to the tower at Glasgow.
So, if you ignore my caveats, then NATS speak truth.
Otherwise, they are being too economical for my liking.
ps. Traffic forecasts are a little out too, bearing in mind the new economic climate! (and the reality of the past few months!!)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
XA:
You're right! On Figures 3 and 4 the whole airspace segment ought to be moved SE by about 5nm. That's pretty shoddy preparation, particularly since it portrays a lot of IFR traffic as being in the current Class E which is actually inside the CTR.
My view is:
1) Absolutely support changing Class E to Class D. Always thought it was mad to mix CAT a/c in and out of IMC at 250kts with VFRs talking to no-one
2) When they changed Class E to Class D around Edinburgh a few years ago it was very well done because they upped the base of CAS by 1000ft all round. No such clawback here
3) Most Glasgow inbounds for r/w 23 enter the south end of this airspace at 7000ft. That leaves plenty room to raise the base at the south end to 4500ft then 3500ft, with the drop down to 2500ft probably around Coatbridge-Airdrie, still giving plenty room for descent to 3000ft inside CAS before they turn left towards the ILS
4) Similarly at the north end, there's no need for a 2500ft base over Stirling and the Earlsburn wind farm. Glasgow's minimum vectoring altitude is in any case 4900ft in this area so they can't use any airspace below that. Making it a 3500ft base with Class G below would give more room for VFR transits across the hills and the wind farm (1771ft)
NS
NATS have got the Class E on the radar return pictures in the wrong place (check nav features like Kilmarnock!)
My view is:
1) Absolutely support changing Class E to Class D. Always thought it was mad to mix CAT a/c in and out of IMC at 250kts with VFRs talking to no-one
2) When they changed Class E to Class D around Edinburgh a few years ago it was very well done because they upped the base of CAS by 1000ft all round. No such clawback here
3) Most Glasgow inbounds for r/w 23 enter the south end of this airspace at 7000ft. That leaves plenty room to raise the base at the south end to 4500ft then 3500ft, with the drop down to 2500ft probably around Coatbridge-Airdrie, still giving plenty room for descent to 3000ft inside CAS before they turn left towards the ILS
4) Similarly at the north end, there's no need for a 2500ft base over Stirling and the Earlsburn wind farm. Glasgow's minimum vectoring altitude is in any case 4900ft in this area so they can't use any airspace below that. Making it a 3500ft base with Class G below would give more room for VFR transits across the hills and the wind farm (1771ft)
NS
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NorthSouth
Shoddy preparation is behind the whole scheme.
After an initial "scoping"eeting, there were meant to be further discussions with NATS.
They never happened.
The last email was sent by me last year asking for them, action by me not NATS!
Here it is:
Andy,
Happy New year!
Steve emailled me after our meeting to say:
agree we need to have further discussion in the south west area as you mention below, and also recorded this as action on Glasgow ATC to set this up in the circulated notes– I have asked Andy to endeavour to do so prior to Xmas
I wondered, since the club is visiting ATC on Weds 13th Feb at 7pm-ish whether you wanted to kill two birds with one stone and maybe meet with me on your home territory beforehand?
very best wishes,
Colin
ps. I have had a cryptic email from elsewhere. Are you the "top man in NATS" who thinks I fly through controlled airspace below the radar?
Shoddy preparation is behind the whole scheme.
After an initial "scoping"eeting, there were meant to be further discussions with NATS.
They never happened.
The last email was sent by me last year asking for them, action by me not NATS!
Here it is:
Andy,
Happy New year!
Steve emailled me after our meeting to say:
agree we need to have further discussion in the south west area as you mention below, and also recorded this as action on Glasgow ATC to set this up in the circulated notes– I have asked Andy to endeavour to do so prior to Xmas
I wondered, since the club is visiting ATC on Weds 13th Feb at 7pm-ish whether you wanted to kill two birds with one stone and maybe meet with me on your home territory beforehand?
very best wishes,
Colin
ps. I have had a cryptic email from elsewhere. Are you the "top man in NATS" who thinks I fly through controlled airspace below the radar?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess the majority of GA aircraft operating in the PF-PH gap operate at and below 2500ft. Anything approaching the gap from the south VFR that is in contact with Scottish Info will always without exception be handed off to PF or PH approaching the lanark/Douglas windfarm area.
Most of the Cumbernauld VFR training traffic operates to the north of the field in the Stirling Dunblane area will in general operate at and below 2500ft. The majority of this traffic will use Scottish info 119.875mhz A very friendly service can be assured!! ( PF ATC at times too busy to talk...that is if they can hear them in the first place!!) and can be identified to PF ATC by the FIR conspicuity squak 7401....if at any time PF ATC need to work a quick call to the FIR sector will have them transferred in jig time.
I wish PF luck with their proposals....safety can only be increased with only a very minimal impact on GA traffic but as PPRUNE Radar says maybe a bit of give and take will help and in the end keep all sides happy.
Most of the Cumbernauld VFR training traffic operates to the north of the field in the Stirling Dunblane area will in general operate at and below 2500ft. The majority of this traffic will use Scottish info 119.875mhz A very friendly service can be assured!! ( PF ATC at times too busy to talk...that is if they can hear them in the first place!!) and can be identified to PF ATC by the FIR conspicuity squak 7401....if at any time PF ATC need to work a quick call to the FIR sector will have them transferred in jig time.
I wish PF luck with their proposals....safety can only be increased with only a very minimal impact on GA traffic but as PPRUNE Radar says maybe a bit of give and take will help and in the end keep all sides happy.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBW said:
I guess the majority of GA aircraft operating in the PF-PH gap operate at and below 2500ft.
XA replies:
Probably correct. But just as Glasgow doesn't take traffic in the Class D 4500 upwards below 5000ft, if the new Class D is from 2500ft up then many GA would not want to go above 2000 in case of busting the airspace.
And that 500ft can be crucial in avoiding the Blackhill TV tower in poor viz, for instance!
Or just general "glide clear" to safe terrain.
That's why I - and most others - are not against this, we are just against the details.
And there has been little chance - despite promises - to have a proper input before the proposals were finalised.
Which makes one suspect that little regard will be given to anything said now - unless it is screamed from far and wide!
I guess the majority of GA aircraft operating in the PF-PH gap operate at and below 2500ft.
XA replies:
Probably correct. But just as Glasgow doesn't take traffic in the Class D 4500 upwards below 5000ft, if the new Class D is from 2500ft up then many GA would not want to go above 2000 in case of busting the airspace.
And that 500ft can be crucial in avoiding the Blackhill TV tower in poor viz, for instance!
Or just general "glide clear" to safe terrain.
That's why I - and most others - are not against this, we are just against the details.
And there has been little chance - despite promises - to have a proper input before the proposals were finalised.
Which makes one suspect that little regard will be given to anything said now - unless it is screamed from far and wide!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a thriving maritime community
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many cubic metres of airspace has Glasgow got per movement compared to Gatwick or Stansted? Just a thought!
Look at the size of the London TMA surrounding Gatwick from 1500' and above. Doubt you'll get a VFR transit there
Glasgow deals with class F/G arrivals more than some other airports do. Controlled airspace is a known environment and it's easier for the controller. Outside CAS is much higher workload.
I never had a problem with crossings from Glasgow ATC. It really helps if you phone them up and pre book your clearance. That way they have your details, it's not a freecall and the controller's expecting you.
If you think you get a hard time from Glasgow ATC, try and get a transit from Solent Approach
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivor,
Problems with Solent? Surely not.
You'll have read Big Paddy earlier on this thread who replied to my mention of fun in Southampton with:
"The colleague is wholly incorrect about non access to Class D anywhere by anybody. Certainly banning it in Southampton region is totally unacceptable regardless of transponder equippage or not. Southampton has been commended in GA magazines for VFR access and ATC services provided in the last 6 months!! - perhaps investigate facts rather than trying to stir or listening to rumours would be advisable."
This is the problem. If you fly around these areas, you know the problems. And I don't want them here!
Problems with Solent? Surely not.
You'll have read Big Paddy earlier on this thread who replied to my mention of fun in Southampton with:
"The colleague is wholly incorrect about non access to Class D anywhere by anybody. Certainly banning it in Southampton region is totally unacceptable regardless of transponder equippage or not. Southampton has been commended in GA magazines for VFR access and ATC services provided in the last 6 months!! - perhaps investigate facts rather than trying to stir or listening to rumours would be advisable."
This is the problem. If you fly around these areas, you know the problems. And I don't want them here!
