Doncaster Sheffield - New Class D Airspace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DO - I guess it depends on where, when, how competent one sounds, how one arrives (on a handover IFR at FL050 etc is best, handover VFR next best, out of the blue VFR at 2000ft worst), and whether you count a 5/10 minute 'standby' time as qualifying.
I've had Mode C for 3 years, Mode S for the next 3, always navigated fully IFR and reported the route/position thus (none of this 'at [village name] at at at at hmmm hang on at this time' stuff) even if on a VFR flight, and I reckon I have got 75% of transits. But I must qualify this by saying that I never bother with Stansted/Luton (at 140kt+ going around the lot is not worth the bother of a radio call), do Southampton often (and they refuse occassionally, or give a 'standby, remain OCAS' and never get back to me) and other places occassionally (which occassionally refuse).
I think the problem is that the UK has not adopted the US-style Mode C veils. Had these been in place (which would mean mandatory Mode C for huge chunks of the UK) we would have had a much better CAS transit environment. Like it or not, IFR traffic has to get priority in practice even in Class G simply because you cannot make some big piece of metal go missed because some unknown primary return has wondered in, then make it go missed again because another unknown primary return has wondered in, and so on. That would be silly, as well as making a mockery of IFR procedures like fuel reserves etc.
We've got a load of civil libertarians here who have fought against Mode S like it was some 'no court order required wiretap' scheme run by the GCHQ, and for this we have got a situation where airfields with a few 737 movements a day are seeking their own CAS. Had Mode C veils been introduced some 20 years ago, the fuss would have died down and this issue would not be happening. It would have also defused the pressure for Mode S, which has no demonstrable technological basis over Mode C (the USA, with its traffic density) manages perfectly with Mode C). And I bet that transits would be much easier - if not 'automatic on 2-way radio contact' like they are in the USA.
I've had Mode C for 3 years, Mode S for the next 3, always navigated fully IFR and reported the route/position thus (none of this 'at [village name] at at at at hmmm hang on at this time' stuff) even if on a VFR flight, and I reckon I have got 75% of transits. But I must qualify this by saying that I never bother with Stansted/Luton (at 140kt+ going around the lot is not worth the bother of a radio call), do Southampton often (and they refuse occassionally, or give a 'standby, remain OCAS' and never get back to me) and other places occassionally (which occassionally refuse).
I think the problem is that the UK has not adopted the US-style Mode C veils. Had these been in place (which would mean mandatory Mode C for huge chunks of the UK) we would have had a much better CAS transit environment. Like it or not, IFR traffic has to get priority in practice even in Class G simply because you cannot make some big piece of metal go missed because some unknown primary return has wondered in, then make it go missed again because another unknown primary return has wondered in, and so on. That would be silly, as well as making a mockery of IFR procedures like fuel reserves etc.
We've got a load of civil libertarians here who have fought against Mode S like it was some 'no court order required wiretap' scheme run by the GCHQ, and for this we have got a situation where airfields with a few 737 movements a day are seeking their own CAS. Had Mode C veils been introduced some 20 years ago, the fuss would have died down and this issue would not be happening. It would have also defused the pressure for Mode S, which has no demonstrable technological basis over Mode C (the USA, with its traffic density) manages perfectly with Mode C). And I bet that transits would be much easier - if not 'automatic on 2-way radio contact' like they are in the USA.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humberside proposal
Have just looked at the Humberside proposal for the first time. One very sneaky move (which I would have pulled myself had I written the document!) is that the maps don't show Doncaster's new airspace. If they did the region would start to look very crowded.
From what I remember of the proposal they originally tabled in 2006ish (sorry haven't looked to see whether, if any, changes have been made) ISTR laughing at the huge swathe of CAS asked for on the basis of projected movements figures. After 2 years RHADS still aren't working any more traffic it seems, so exactly how did DAP swallow the figures????
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: next door to the pub
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread shows just what little understanding the average pilot has of ATC.
A refusal for entry into a CTR should be reported if you feel it was unecessary but for fecks sake don't argue the toss on the r/t, ring the unit responsible afterwards and you will get a much better response.
A refusal for entry into a CTR should be reported if you feel it was unecessary but for fecks sake don't argue the toss on the r/t, ring the unit responsible afterwards and you will get a much better response.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll rise to the bait.
I think your comment shows what little perception you have of GA's view of ATC!
No one on here has even suggested arguing the toss over the radio. All of the comments have been complain to the unit after the event.
As for getting a better response? Well with some ATC now thinking they are safe guarding us from global warning by minimising CAT fuel burns, somehow I think not.
The mindset with all these tinpot little places is we're really important with our Class D keep out. That is an attitude which largely does not exist in the Northern Class D areas which I usually fly in. Here Class D actually offers a service not a "remain clear..." demand. Transits are expected through Class D from Tessside northwards and their traffic levels make these two airfields look deserted. It would appear the NIMBY mindset is creeping northwards.
I think your comment shows what little perception you have of GA's view of ATC!
No one on here has even suggested arguing the toss over the radio. All of the comments have been complain to the unit after the event.
As for getting a better response? Well with some ATC now thinking they are safe guarding us from global warning by minimising CAT fuel burns, somehow I think not.
The mindset with all these tinpot little places is we're really important with our Class D keep out. That is an attitude which largely does not exist in the Northern Class D areas which I usually fly in. Here Class D actually offers a service not a "remain clear..." demand. Transits are expected through Class D from Tessside northwards and their traffic levels make these two airfields look deserted. It would appear the NIMBY mindset is creeping northwards.
TightYorksherMan
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Peak District
Age: 41
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with it, and yes i do the odd bit of instructing at Netherthorpe. I am absolutely sure that with a quick call to Donny App. they will let you through their airspace.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone really believe, given the levels of GA traffic that historically have operated in the area around DSA/Finningley, that ATC are suddenly going to start trying to impose a huge "no-fly-zone" just because the powers-that-be have decided that there have been too many close calls (more than a few of those having been uncomfortably close) between large, fast-moving IFR aircraft and weekend flyers? Furthermore, does anyone really believe that ATC would actually get away with such a policy?
The purpose of the establishment of CAS is primarily to provide all flights (be they CAT/IFR/VFR or whatever) with the protection of a "known traffic environment" in which to operate - not to exclude every single VFR flight from the airspace just for the hell of it!
The "known traffic environment" part of the equation will enable the controller to maximise the efficient use of the airspace, including for all of you GA VFR pilots. Because of the fact that all pilots will have to communicate then smaller margins of separation can be used, in contrast to the status quo where a number of beligerent individuals choose not to contact ATC while transiting the area (perfectly within their rights not to do so, I hasten to add), but in not doing so forcing the controller to use much greater separations and having to greatly increase the track mileage of the IFR flights under his control. Not only does this greatly increase fuel burn and put huge amounts of extra emissions pollutants into the environment
but I'd be willing to bet that the residents of South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire generally would prefer it if the large noisy, smelly aeroplanes stayed on an established flight pattern that everybody could plan for, instead of jinking and turning and making large, noisy throttle adjustments at low level because some pillock thinks he's being really clever by flying overhead the airfield at 2,001 ft AGL, or paralleling the Final Approach track by 3.1 miles, or by flying formation aerobatics up to 4,000 ft in the departure lanes, all without talking to ATC and letting them know he's there and what he plans to do - because he doesn't have to!
In short, you won't be excluded from the airspace just because you're VFR and/or GA. If you are refused entry/transit clearance and you don't believe that there is a valid reason for the exclusion, then do as has already been suggested and follow it up. But if you need to bitch and moan about the establishment of CAS, try directing the complaints at the small handful of individuals who have persistently put all of the other airspace users in the area at risk (including the 200 or so fare-paying passengers on each of the CAT flights) by exercising their right not to talk to the people vested with the responsibility to keep all of you guys from banging into each other while you're enjoying your Sunday afternoon jolly, or for that matter to go looking for you when you get into difficulty and have to put down in a field in the middle of nowhere - or worse!
The purpose of the establishment of CAS is primarily to provide all flights (be they CAT/IFR/VFR or whatever) with the protection of a "known traffic environment" in which to operate - not to exclude every single VFR flight from the airspace just for the hell of it!
The "known traffic environment" part of the equation will enable the controller to maximise the efficient use of the airspace, including for all of you GA VFR pilots. Because of the fact that all pilots will have to communicate then smaller margins of separation can be used, in contrast to the status quo where a number of beligerent individuals choose not to contact ATC while transiting the area (perfectly within their rights not to do so, I hasten to add), but in not doing so forcing the controller to use much greater separations and having to greatly increase the track mileage of the IFR flights under his control. Not only does this greatly increase fuel burn and put huge amounts of extra emissions pollutants into the environment
but I'd be willing to bet that the residents of South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire generally would prefer it if the large noisy, smelly aeroplanes stayed on an established flight pattern that everybody could plan for, instead of jinking and turning and making large, noisy throttle adjustments at low level because some pillock thinks he's being really clever by flying overhead the airfield at 2,001 ft AGL, or paralleling the Final Approach track by 3.1 miles, or by flying formation aerobatics up to 4,000 ft in the departure lanes, all without talking to ATC and letting them know he's there and what he plans to do - because he doesn't have to! In short, you won't be excluded from the airspace just because you're VFR and/or GA. If you are refused entry/transit clearance and you don't believe that there is a valid reason for the exclusion, then do as has already been suggested and follow it up. But if you need to bitch and moan about the establishment of CAS, try directing the complaints at the small handful of individuals who have persistently put all of the other airspace users in the area at risk (including the 200 or so fare-paying passengers on each of the CAT flights) by exercising their right not to talk to the people vested with the responsibility to keep all of you guys from banging into each other while you're enjoying your Sunday afternoon jolly, or for that matter to go looking for you when you get into difficulty and have to put down in a field in the middle of nowhere - or worse!
Last edited by EastCoaster; 14th Aug 2008 at 07:51.
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Not only does this greatly increase fuel burn and put huge amounts of extra emissions pollutants into the environment
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Don't worry, the radar often doesn't work anyway.. 
ShyTorque,
Trouble is, if I even nick the edge by a fraction whilst trying to thermal through the gap below L975 and Robin Hood Intergalactic Spaceport, my GPS logger trace will show I've busted the airspace and my flight will not be recognised by the British Gliding Association.
Trouble is, if I even nick the edge by a fraction whilst trying to thermal through the gap below L975 and Robin Hood Intergalactic Spaceport, my GPS logger trace will show I've busted the airspace and my flight will not be recognised by the British Gliding Association.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snapper1, you wouldn't be excluded in your non-transponding glider; it's Class D CAS that's being established not Class A. You'll still have just as much entitlement to be there as now. In fact the CAS has been designed with large-scale gliding activity in mind, given the number of gliding schools/clubs in the vicinity of DSA. Controllers are very much aware of the limitations and requirements of glider-flying. When the gliding corridor is active the base of CAS will be exactly as it is now. I cannot, however, speak for the BGA and any procedures or restrictions that they might impose on their members.
As I stated in my earlier post, it's when pilots refuse to communicate/choose not to communicate with ATC (whether or not the radar is working) and make them aware of their intentions that problems arise, forcing the controller to give that aircraft a much wider berth as they move the IFR aircraft around/past it in case of sudden and unexpected turns towards the aircraft under their control. It's not uncommon for an extra 20 track miles or more to be added to a flight in these circumstances, in order to keep everybody safe.
ShyTorque, please don't try to misrepresent what I was trying to say.
You have your own environmental responsibilities when operating VFR, for both emissions and noise, as you are responsible for your own navigation and separation. IFR flights have necessarily relinquished responsibility for their separation and navigation (when in the approach phase of flight) to ATC, as they are the ones with the bigger picture of the activity within the airspace for which they are responsible. ATC, therefore rightly, must also assume and exercise a high degree of environmental responsibility when controlling these flights.
With regard to your comment about the radar, it is public knowledge that DSA very often do not have any control over it's serviceability, as both the Primary and SSR data are contracted from MOD installations. Reliability should no longer be an issue with the establishment of the CAS as the new on-site Primary radar and the SSR feed from NATS will be coming online.
This is a complex issue requiring considered and reasoned discussion from all sides. Glibness adds nothing to the debate, and will only serve to inflame opinions.
As I stated in my earlier post, it's when pilots refuse to communicate/choose not to communicate with ATC (whether or not the radar is working) and make them aware of their intentions that problems arise, forcing the controller to give that aircraft a much wider berth as they move the IFR aircraft around/past it in case of sudden and unexpected turns towards the aircraft under their control. It's not uncommon for an extra 20 track miles or more to be added to a flight in these circumstances, in order to keep everybody safe.
ShyTorque, please don't try to misrepresent what I was trying to say.
You have your own environmental responsibilities when operating VFR, for both emissions and noise, as you are responsible for your own navigation and separation. IFR flights have necessarily relinquished responsibility for their separation and navigation (when in the approach phase of flight) to ATC, as they are the ones with the bigger picture of the activity within the airspace for which they are responsible. ATC, therefore rightly, must also assume and exercise a high degree of environmental responsibility when controlling these flights.
With regard to your comment about the radar, it is public knowledge that DSA very often do not have any control over it's serviceability, as both the Primary and SSR data are contracted from MOD installations. Reliability should no longer be an issue with the establishment of the CAS as the new on-site Primary radar and the SSR feed from NATS will be coming online.
This is a complex issue requiring considered and reasoned discussion from all sides. Glibness adds nothing to the debate, and will only serve to inflame opinions.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments along the lines of "you weekend flyers" on "your Sunday afternoon jollies" are not going to endear the average GA airspace user to the airlines, who voluntarily decided to start using airfields in class G airspace and then decided after the event that they now wanted to control the previously uncontrolled traffic environment in these areas. There is more to GA than weekend jollies, including business use, aerial work etc, all of which have more justifiable presence in UK airspace than a tube full of holiday makers off on their own very extended jollies... 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bythe way, I reckon the residents of South Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire might prefer variable flight paths, rather than have the same old procedural approaches and departures over No 6 Acacia Avenue every day..
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
This is a complex issue requiring considered and reasoned discussion from all sides. Glibness adds nothing to the debate, and will only serve to inflame opinions.
However, I have no issue with the argument on safety grounds (I am one of EGCN's ATC regular customers and if you are one of the regular controllers we will have spoken many times). Be assured that I certainly always do my utmost to comply with ATC requests in Class G and literally go the extra mile or beyond where possible, e.g I have in the past taken un-asked for diversions off my track in Class G to allow bigger stuff sufficient separation. However, I do it out of consideration to ATC and the other crew, rather than for environmental reasons.
Sometimes, unknown to ATC, I also have other pressures. For example my employer and owner of the aircraft is always on intercom. He is sometimes desperate to get to his destination in good time, which filters down to myself directly. He is on the top rung of the ladder, I am on the bottom rung and there are no rungs in between. I cannot cut corners / abbreviate my track or speed up on my regular routes, unlike an airliner; therefore diversions off track or delays due the new airspace will unfortunately occasionally cost my employer money to the benefit of an airline. I accept that. He will also have no choice, but please don't think I'm naiive enough to believe it's for environmental reasons.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how long it will be before our call to DSA is answered automatically by "Keep clear of controlled aisrpace"?
If this happens I for one will file the appropraite report to CAA as with about 12 flights per day it really should never happen. So Eastcoaster with your ATC hat on may I make you aware of this in the very correct and polite fashion you referred to GA/VFR traffic. I fly for business as a GA pilot and my time and my money is far more precious to me than that of the bucket and spade brigade. So I would encourage all who believe they may have been innapropriately refused transit through any CAS to file the report to the CAA. I have the correct persons name and email address who will be co-ordinating these reports.
If this happens I for one will file the appropraite report to CAA as with about 12 flights per day it really should never happen. So Eastcoaster with your ATC hat on may I make you aware of this in the very correct and polite fashion you referred to GA/VFR traffic. I fly for business as a GA pilot and my time and my money is far more precious to me than that of the bucket and spade brigade. So I would encourage all who believe they may have been innapropriately refused transit through any CAS to file the report to the CAA. I have the correct persons name and email address who will be co-ordinating these reports.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nottinghamshire GAM 150/3.5
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who flies from an airfield close to DSA I have been happy with the service I have received from them in the past. If this continues I can see few problems with the introduction of the class D CAS.
We have very few problems with East Mids so why with DSA?
We have very few problems with East Mids so why with DSA?