Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

New Land Smash And Grab By Glasgow ??

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

New Land Smash And Grab By Glasgow ??

Old 2nd Feb 2008, 16:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 92
New Land Smash And Grab By Glasgow ??

I believe Glasgow Airport is planning significant airspace changes ? Anyone in the know ? Anyone unhappy about the prospect if true ?
Utrinque Apparatus is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2008, 20:35
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: In the golf tee
Posts: 71
You imply in your post that you do not know what these changes are but you automatically assume that they are bad. Nothing like having an open mind.

DAP will tell you if it has went to the consultative stage yet, if Glasgow are wanting to change there controlled airspace.

TheFox is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2008, 02:29
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a thriving maritime community
Posts: 160
Are they building the third runway ?
Ivor_Novello is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2008, 06:56
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Changes at Glasgow

As a local I have read in the local news rag that Glasgow airport is planning to close runway 10/28 due to lack of use and "security constraints!" Funny though just yesterday, Sat 2nd Feb, because of the wind conditions about 8 or 9 turboprop a/c used the said runway! C`est La Vie!

G-BMML is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2008, 10:23
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 92

"You imply in your post that you do not know what these changes are but you automatically assume that they are bad. Nothing like having an open mind"

Obviously as open as yours ?

I raised a question regarding the potential extension of controlled airspace around Glasgow, expecting comments on some rationale to it since I believe it to be unnecessary, yes.
Utrinque Apparatus is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2008, 10:33
  #6 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
An airspace grab doesn't bother me at Glasgow. NATS controllers are excellent and provide a friendly, helpful and efficient crossing service. So more controlled (class D) airspace wouldn't bother me. Edinburgh's grew a bit last year and that hasn't impacted any crossing service I've needed, and I hope that's true of other pilots too.

What does bother me is the loss of 09/27. That's a BAA thing, but then again I was once told by a BAA chap that they're running a shopping mall - it just happens to have a runway outside.

With that mentality anything's possible.
Old 4th Feb 2008, 15:01
  #7 (permalink)  
Stealth Moderator - Rarely seen on radar
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Airspace change proposals don't normally involve the grabbing of any land so the thread title is misleading.

BAA are planning to knock down the Loganair hangar and build more apron space with some new hangarage going up on land they own but not currently used for airfield operations .... which is what I thought the topic might be about.

The airspace proposal (if it even exists) will be conducted as a consultation exercise with public input possible. There you will have the possibility to explain why you don't agree with the proposed changes (assuming you read them), from an educated standpoint. If you can give a logical argument to back up any objections, then the CAA will listen to you and the authority making the proposal will have a duty to resolve it with you. If you simply say 'I don't like it', then the CAA will give your objection as much thought as that response takes on your part.

As suggested, check the CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy website. There you will find the procedure for 'Airspace Changes' and notification of any which are in process.
PPRuNe Radar is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2008, 08:51
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 870
CAA wants all UK Class E to be abolished.

To that end, Glasgow have started consultations with airfields/flying schools etc about the class E to the east and south of their zone.

Class E to be replaced by Class D.

One of the chaps in the talks is from Southampton, who recently wanted to ban VFR traffic from their Class D!

Talks about the Class E to the north and west will follow.

But you won't see the airspace being reduced now they have one less runway to worry about!

xrayalpha is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2008, 10:49
  #9 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

Ban VFR from class D? Even with a transponder?

Glasgow and Edinburgh always ask me if transponder fitted. When I tell them 'no' I still get in the zone, I still get an accurate and timely service. Long may it continue.

Perhaps the big lump up front that is the Gipsy Major gives them enough of a primary return
Old 7th Feb 2008, 10:58
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: england
Posts: 3
Class E/Class D airspace debate

The CAA is not comfortable with Class E airspace on safety grounds due to the potential volume of unknown VFR be it civil or military traffic within it mixing with a known multitude of IFR or known VFR civil/military traffic. The outcome of this review could be an ACP following the CAA CAP725 process to enhance the airspace classification or the contrary, to return it to Class G as has happened in NATS ACP's before as there is an unwarranted amount of commercial flights to have Class E and actually it does little if anything for their protection.

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.
big paddy is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2008, 22:39
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Whiteinch
Posts: 43
Whoa - calm down there - it's likely for the common weel



Where is this negativity about Glasgow Airport being unfriendly coming from?
EGPF, The Car Park with Shopping & Runway attached always welcomed the light side.
Are you shaved monkeys too young to remember the story of non-radio Slingsby Falke G-BAMB landing on the grass parallel to 24 (as was) at Abbottsinch? Maybe late '70s / early '80s?
Seemingly, had to dodge the VASI boxes. Possibly the last time the ATC lantern was used?
Changed days, eh?

quilmes is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2008, 09:01
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 870
Glasgow Airport, one runway or two, no matter to me - I am banned from the airspace three miles either side and five miles from the end of the runways!

Now as for the increased airspace, that I do have a problem with - as do the owners of all the private airfields ie Cumbernauld, Thornhill and Strathaven.

Quite simply, it forces increased contact with ATC or forces traffic lower over unfriendly terrain.

Of course, Glasgow NATS folk are fine people, but their equipment in regards to radio suitable for Scottish terrain is pants. And Scottish Info's is not much better in many areas.

So getting a clearance can be difficult if below 3,000ft.

That leaves one with low over hostile terrain.

Very best,

xrayalpha is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2008, 17:44
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,162
Quote..."Of course, Glasgow NATS folk are fine people, but their equipment in regards to radio suitable for Scottish terrain is pants. [B]And Scottish Info's is not much better in many areas."

XRAYALPHA...I think you will find Scottish info coverage 119.875mhz pretty good in general, with a tx/rx site 2000ft up on the top of lowther hill this gives pretty good coverage above 1000ft over most of southern Scotland, TX/RX sites at Craigowl hill in Fife and windy head on the north Moray coast also gives good coverage to the north of the area. The only real poor spot is if below 1500ft in the oban area.....then of course it depends on how good your own equipment is!!!
fisbangwollop is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2008, 08:46
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 870
Hi all,

Have a look at Who owns airspace, and why can't they charge? in the ATC section for what I think is an interesting query!

Fisbang.. My personal experience, due to cr*p equipment, is that I can't talk to Glasgow or Scottish when over the Carse of Stirling, ie in the Loch Lomond to Stirling Castle area - which is just where one would want to talk to Glasgow to get clearance to climb up into what is proposed to be Class D over the Campsies to give a decent but of terrain clearance.

When I flew out of Cumbernauld, I would speak to Glasgow past Fintry way, then lose them on the way back from Loch Lomond. At Stirling Castle, I would call up Cumbernauld and ask them to phone Glasgow to let them know whose frequency I was on because I still couldn't get Scottish.

Now I fly a microlight with a hand-held Icom plumbed in to a decent aerial.

Yes, cr*p equipment. But with weight rules, etc this is often what we are forced to use.

And since, according to Flight Training News, there are now as many microlight schools as light aircraft schools (albeit none as big as Cabair!), this is the equipment many of your customers will be using in future,

Hope that helps, and sorry I didn't call you at Xmas - there were three of us flying locally at Strathaven on Xmas Day afternoon!

Very best,

xrayalpha is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2008, 12:20
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
Have to agree with X-ray Alpha -

1 - coverage of 119.875 is poor below 3000 in general. Which is only to be expected in and around 3500' mountains. Not good below 3000' in the Oban area - you'd be better having a transmitter on Ben Nevis

2 - poor coverage from Loch Lomond to Stirling (where you get a constant clicking on 119.875 - this I believe is heterodyne interference which can affect GPS signals on some boxes)

3 - NATS Glasgow are excellent and very accomodating, they understand GA better than the airport owners. I operate freely in and out of Class D without a transponder (never causes a problem), and they are flexible enough to offer the short runway for expedition ..... which brings me onto another point .... in fact I'll open another thread for this ...
PH-UKU is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2008, 16:04
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,162
PHUKU.........My own experiance of the last 13 years of working the FIR sector from Scottish on 119.875 is that the coverage around Stirling at and below 2000ft is far better than Glasgow on 119.1. The majority of flights call us as they climb out from PG and then operate in the Stiling Dunblane area, only an hour ago I spoke to a helicopter at 800ft over Loch Lomond and maintained 2 way contact till landing at Perth.My own experiance of providing a FIS over the last few years is coverage around Oban below 2000ft is poor and between Ballantrae and Stranraer also below 2000ft poor. It is often the case aircraft will call Scottish 119.875 as they are unable to contact Glasgow on 119.1. A frequent user is a private owned Iquarus Micro that always calls when he operates from his private site at Blair Drummond and always maintains good 2way contact. At times Glasgow require to operate the traffic around the PG area but now with the FIR sector squack 7401 at least if they see that squack on radar they know the aircraft is in contact with Scottish 119.875.
fisbangwollop is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2008, 18:21
  #17 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
fisbang's assessment is consistent with mine - I've been over Kippen at 800' talking to Scottish but not capable of talking to Glasgow. That whole 'valley' has never been a problem for me.

Scottish isn't the problem - line of sight in hilly/mountainous country is the issue. Not helped by people using Icom's - jeezus...what do you expect?
Old 11th Feb 2008, 11:57
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Cloud Nine
Posts: 359
FISbang and IM - sorry if i sounded a bit moaney

OK, yes, I do actually agree that coverage along the Forth Valley is much better on 119.875 than from Glasgow 119.1 - as you say IM, line of sight and handhelds are limiting factors I can usually maintain 2-way with 119.875 for 2000' transits up to Perth, but I think there is an 'interference' issue with some radios blanking some GPS units on 119.875.

There was a thread about that a while back - if you get a rhythmic 'clicking' on 119.875 check to see if you have lost the GPS signal in the Thornhill area. I believe it happens on some KX125s and KX155s, and you only need to have 119.875 selected - even on box 2.

Probably to do with interference between transmitter sites ?

Read here for a wee bit of frequency tech talk. Although it doesn't specifically mention GPS problems.

In all honesty I don't generally call now (I'll either listen out or have 127.27 selected to get a higher level relay, just in case) -most of my ops are in the valleys to the north -and it just gets frustrating for both the FIR and me if I drop out of coverage and either have to climb back up (watch those CHTs) just to say I'm descending again and going off frequency, or equally for the FIR having to find out where I've gone.

Keep up the good work Wilfie
PH-UKU is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2008, 14:58
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,162
PHUKU.......Dont worry about losing contact with Scottish, we tend to know the area's that this will happen but if we do it is no hassle to try and find out where you are.......one day you may be glad of that!!!......as to listening out on a frequency, that's my pet hate!! what if everyone did that!! no information could be gleaned....no if your going to the bother of selecting the frequency try pressing the PTT button and say hello!!

As for Wilf I will pass on your regards when next I see him!!
fisbangwollop is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2008, 14:08
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 481
here is an extract from the BAA Glasgow 2015 plan;

6.8 Aircraft Maintenance
6.8.1 Two replacement maintenance hangars are likely to
be needed as a result of the western expansion of the
terminal and apron area. An indicative development zone
of approximately three hectares for these hangars is
reserved to the east of the runway 09/27, adjacent to the
General Aviation area (see Drawing 4). It is anticipated that
these hangars would be used to maintain small or medium
sized aircraft such as the SAAB 340, Embraer 135/145,
Boeing 737 variants and Airbus 319/320.

so no secret.
bad bear is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.