Doncaster Sheffield - New Class D Airspace
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those guys have to look in every now and then. They stay low level for over an hour, so they have to do routine checks. They work very hard to stay away from the GA flyers, we should return the favour and stay out of the 250-500 ft bracket.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice sentiment daniel etc but the only thing that stops more pointed grey things hitting s is that we try to stay out of the way. Would it not be much more sensible if they obeyed the rules for Class G airspace?
Having had them fly under me on finals to my strip (which they knew about!) and had another strip beaten up by a flight of Hawks whilst the local RAF brass were apologising for the last beat up, then working very hard doesn't quite describe my experience.
Which is partly why I'm not terribly keen on the transit area that HUY have given them to the east of Hibaldson as this will mean they will converge in the obvious corridor between the spaceport and HUY - but I suppose we'll be ok unless they pull up................
Having had them fly under me on finals to my strip (which they knew about!) and had another strip beaten up by a flight of Hawks whilst the local RAF brass were apologising for the last beat up, then working very hard doesn't quite describe my experience.
Which is partly why I'm not terribly keen on the transit area that HUY have given them to the east of Hibaldson as this will mean they will converge in the obvious corridor between the spaceport and HUY - but I suppose we'll be ok unless they pull up................
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 424 Likes
on
224 Posts
Would it not be much more sensible if they obeyed the rules for Class G airspace?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The HUY corridor is a standard route already used by Mil aircraft transitting to and from Lincs. Always easy to highlight where mistakes have been made by Mil fast jets, they're certainly not infallible, but we (the GA community) have no moral high ground here.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250kts - which to paprahrase the AIC, is to 'enable the see and avoid principle to remain effective for the avoidance of collisions'.
As the usual transit speeds are 300 and 360 increasing to a fair bit more whilst manoeurving or near the ranges, the chances of a GA pilot acquiring them visually, let alone doing anything useful are almost non-existent.
As the usual transit speeds are 300 and 360 increasing to a fair bit more whilst manoeurving or near the ranges, the chances of a GA pilot acquiring them visually, let alone doing anything useful are almost non-existent.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Military are self regulating and follow their own rules (that govern the UK Low Flying System). As such they are restricted to a maximum of 450kts (extendable up to 550kts with specific clearance). Above 2,000ft (the upper limit of the Low Flying System), their speed is only limited by the restrictions on supersonic overland. Fast Jets can barely stay airborne at 250kts.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fast Jets can barely stay airborne at 250kts.
Thought not.
They fly in excess of 250Kts because that is what they will be flying in the event of carrying out a real mission, not because they'll fall out of the sky (they won't). If you are training for realism and want to give the pilots the best chance of survival, then you fly at mission speeds even in peacetime training conditions.
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 424 Likes
on
224 Posts
The 250 kt rule you refer to doesn't apply to military traffic, because at 250 kts the aircraft would be well below the design / safe operational speed of fast jet traffic.
Also, the people flying those aircraft are doing it for the benefit of all of us and not for their personal recreation; they do have to train at realistic speeds. That's why the UKLFS was designed and publicised as is, in an effort to help each category of user. Any airspace user choosing to operate in Class G within the UKLFS and benefitting from the freedom it allows, has to accept the terms and limitations of it's use.
Presumably you are familiar with this publication (n.b. it is CAA rather than Military) :
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL18.pdf
Also, the people flying those aircraft are doing it for the benefit of all of us and not for their personal recreation; they do have to train at realistic speeds. That's why the UKLFS was designed and publicised as is, in an effort to help each category of user. Any airspace user choosing to operate in Class G within the UKLFS and benefitting from the freedom it allows, has to accept the terms and limitations of it's use.
Presumably you are familiar with this publication (n.b. it is CAA rather than Military) :
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_07webSSL18.pdf
Last edited by ShyTorque; 25th Aug 2008 at 12:54.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So 'the price of freedom' is that we run the risk of being hit by a fast jet. We have chosen to use Class G airspace and so we are no more than collateral damage?
I find it strange that only in the UK is this sort of uncontrolled flying 'allowed'. Any concept of risk management is hidden behind patriot slogans and talk of the 'best of the best'.
So long as the military only collide with light aircraft they will get away with it. But let's not pretend it is a 'system' - it is simply a free for all where only the big sky theory works for us. Try flying over Northumbria during a NATO exercise whilst Newcastle try and warn the CAT flying through Class G that things are heading their way. Listent to the TCAS calls.
Try flying in my neck of the woods where the 'low flying system' means I can encounter limitary traffic from 200 to 4500'.
Look at the airprox reports where it is glibly stated that aircraft routing clear of the target ranges 'should expect high speed manoeurving aircraft that may not be able to keep a suitable lookout or manoeurve clear'.
I find it strange that only in the UK is this sort of uncontrolled flying 'allowed'. Any concept of risk management is hidden behind patriot slogans and talk of the 'best of the best'.
So long as the military only collide with light aircraft they will get away with it. But let's not pretend it is a 'system' - it is simply a free for all where only the big sky theory works for us. Try flying over Northumbria during a NATO exercise whilst Newcastle try and warn the CAT flying through Class G that things are heading their way. Listent to the TCAS calls.
Try flying in my neck of the woods where the 'low flying system' means I can encounter limitary traffic from 200 to 4500'.
Look at the airprox reports where it is glibly stated that aircraft routing clear of the target ranges 'should expect high speed manoeurving aircraft that may not be able to keep a suitable lookout or manoeurve clear'.
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 424 Likes
on
224 Posts
Gasax,
You sound surprised as well as mightily indignant; I take it you weren't familiar with the document? The UK military low flying system is nothing new.
There are certainly fewer low flying military jets around than twenty years ago, how long have you been flying?
You sound surprised as well as mightily indignant; I take it you weren't familiar with the document? The UK military low flying system is nothing new.
There are certainly fewer low flying military jets around than twenty years ago, how long have you been flying?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over 20 years? You?
How many unecessay collisions have I read about?
Because its gone on for a long time its OK?
And yet a couple of threads away we have people proposely all sorts of extreme measures for incidents which are much less frequent.....
How many unecessay collisions have I read about?
Because its gone on for a long time its OK?
And yet a couple of threads away we have people proposely all sorts of extreme measures for incidents which are much less frequent.....
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 424 Likes
on
224 Posts
Gasax,
You obviously have a personal problem with military low flying, as they are perfectly entitled to do.
But what do you propose as an alternative to the military carrying out essential training? How about some more controlled airspace over "your" area; that would help keep them out.
Why not start a thread about it? And write to the CAA and your MP?
(Btw, seeing as you asked, I first solo'd in 1971. Been flying continuously for a living since 1977, a large proportion from sites in Class G).
You obviously have a personal problem with military low flying, as they are perfectly entitled to do.
But what do you propose as an alternative to the military carrying out essential training? How about some more controlled airspace over "your" area; that would help keep them out.
Why not start a thread about it? And write to the CAA and your MP?
(Btw, seeing as you asked, I first solo'd in 1971. Been flying continuously for a living since 1977, a large proportion from sites in Class G).
Below is a quote from Peel Airports' justification for CAS.
'The ATZ extends to a radius of 2½ nm from the centre of the aerodrome up to 2000 feet above aerodrome elevation. The airspace within this ATZ is also Class G although pilots must obtain permission from ATC to enter the ATZ. In the local area there is a profusion of GA activities associated with Sandtoft airfield, which also has an ATZ, located only 7 miles from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Other airfields in the vicinity include Gamston, Sheffield, Sherburn-in-Elmet and Netherthorpe embracing myriad aviation activities. Moreover, there are numerous gliding and microlightssites plus parachuting takes place at nearby Hibaldstow. The nearby military airfields of RAF Waddington, RAF Coningsby, RAF Scampton, RAF Cottesmore, RAF Cranwell and RAF Barkston Heath generate considerable traffic, much of this operates at low level. The Lincolnshire Area of Intense Aerial Activity (AIAA) is situated to the south of the Airport and the Yorkshire AIAA is to the north. In summary there are a multitude of disparate aviation operations in the area and this is now further complicated by the EVER INCREASING operations from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield'. (my caps)
May I echo Beagle's comment from another thread, 'what a stupid place to open an airport' especially when you consider that no effective arrangements were made to seperate the GAT from the CAT during the period of many months after opening when there was no radar cover at all! (B737s passing unannounced overhead Sandtoft at 2500')
Call me Mr. Cynical, but I wonder if they are just waiting for the railway station and direct motorway connection to be built, before closing the airport, and building a new shopping megacentre with its own railway station and motorway connection?
MJ
Ps. Mr Dale, I think you were a bit harsh with Daniel. He made some very valid points, and did not deserve such a patronising dismissal of what was a minor point, writen at least partly tongue in cheek.
MJ
'The ATZ extends to a radius of 2½ nm from the centre of the aerodrome up to 2000 feet above aerodrome elevation. The airspace within this ATZ is also Class G although pilots must obtain permission from ATC to enter the ATZ. In the local area there is a profusion of GA activities associated with Sandtoft airfield, which also has an ATZ, located only 7 miles from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Other airfields in the vicinity include Gamston, Sheffield, Sherburn-in-Elmet and Netherthorpe embracing myriad aviation activities. Moreover, there are numerous gliding and microlightssites plus parachuting takes place at nearby Hibaldstow. The nearby military airfields of RAF Waddington, RAF Coningsby, RAF Scampton, RAF Cottesmore, RAF Cranwell and RAF Barkston Heath generate considerable traffic, much of this operates at low level. The Lincolnshire Area of Intense Aerial Activity (AIAA) is situated to the south of the Airport and the Yorkshire AIAA is to the north. In summary there are a multitude of disparate aviation operations in the area and this is now further complicated by the EVER INCREASING operations from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield'. (my caps)
May I echo Beagle's comment from another thread, 'what a stupid place to open an airport' especially when you consider that no effective arrangements were made to seperate the GAT from the CAT during the period of many months after opening when there was no radar cover at all! (B737s passing unannounced overhead Sandtoft at 2500')
Call me Mr. Cynical, but I wonder if they are just waiting for the railway station and direct motorway connection to be built, before closing the airport, and building a new shopping megacentre with its own railway station and motorway connection?
MJ
Ps. Mr Dale, I think you were a bit harsh with Daniel. He made some very valid points, and did not deserve such a patronising dismissal of what was a minor point, writen at least partly tongue in cheek.
MJ
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mach Jump
Who's Mr Dale ?? Are you attempting to 'out' someone on here ?? These forums are anonymous and will remain so. If you wish to reveal someones true life identity, you can expect the consequences which go with it, based on PPRuNe rules.
danieloakworth
Daniel,
Then with your experience, we can use your knowledge and wisdom on here without a doubt, but you must surely know that aircraft don't 'barely' stay in the sky at 250 knots, and that they can and do fly perfectly well. They may not be able to perform their operational tasks, and they may have to configure for flight at that speed, but your statement was technically incorrect and not as clear as it could have been. Angle of attack and wing loadings are much more important datums, since you could quite easily fall out of the sky at any speed if the circumstances are right.
The authorities could quite easily legislate for military aircraft to fly at a maximum of 250 Knots, and they would have to comply. But it would be pointless and every mission would be a waste of time and fuel.
That's the tack you should be taking, and not pushing some inference that we would have smoking holes in the ground where military pilots had lost control since they could not go above 250Kts. Their training and expertise, coupled with the survival instinct, would surely see to that.
Especially with 3500 hours fast jet time ... which must mean you are really really old ??
Ps. Mr Dale, I think you were a bit harsh with Daniel.
danieloakworth
3500 actually
Then with your experience, we can use your knowledge and wisdom on here without a doubt, but you must surely know that aircraft don't 'barely' stay in the sky at 250 knots, and that they can and do fly perfectly well. They may not be able to perform their operational tasks, and they may have to configure for flight at that speed, but your statement was technically incorrect and not as clear as it could have been. Angle of attack and wing loadings are much more important datums, since you could quite easily fall out of the sky at any speed if the circumstances are right.
The authorities could quite easily legislate for military aircraft to fly at a maximum of 250 Knots, and they would have to comply. But it would be pointless and every mission would be a waste of time and fuel.
That's the tack you should be taking, and not pushing some inference that we would have smoking holes in the ground where military pilots had lost control since they could not go above 250Kts. Their training and expertise, coupled with the survival instinct, would surely see to that.
Especially with 3500 hours fast jet time ... which must mean you are really really old ??
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other airfields in the vicinity include Gamston, Sheffield, Sherburn-in-Elmet and Netherthorpe embracing myriad aviation activities
Sherburn is about 18-20 miles North, do they want their extended CAS to embrace that far?
summary there are a multitude of disparate aviation operations in the area and this is now further complicated by the EVER INCREASING operations from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield'. (my caps)
J.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steady on, I'm not that old. 
250kts equates to endurance speed in a tanked up Tornado. Notwithstanding the obvious waste in taxpayers money on wasted fuel (i.e. burning fuel for absolutely no training gain), the speed is just too slow to be comfortably safe (certainly at low level). It gives very little margin to 'perform' the aircraft in a hurry (engine failure, birdstrike, etc).
Gasax, not quite sure why you're on this soap box, i've been flying since the early 80's and I can remember very few collisions between mil and GA (infact I can only remember 2 maybe 3). One solution of course would be to ban GA from the surface to 2000' monday to friday. We could also go for mandatory radio, SSR and ATC service. At the end of the day the UK LFS is a working environment in which you have chosen to conduct your hobby.
Alternatively we could just continue to work hard to live with each other and get along professionally like we have for the last 30 years.
250kts equates to endurance speed in a tanked up Tornado. Notwithstanding the obvious waste in taxpayers money on wasted fuel (i.e. burning fuel for absolutely no training gain), the speed is just too slow to be comfortably safe (certainly at low level). It gives very little margin to 'perform' the aircraft in a hurry (engine failure, birdstrike, etc).
Gasax, not quite sure why you're on this soap box, i've been flying since the early 80's and I can remember very few collisions between mil and GA (infact I can only remember 2 maybe 3). One solution of course would be to ban GA from the surface to 2000' monday to friday. We could also go for mandatory radio, SSR and ATC service. At the end of the day the UK LFS is a working environment in which you have chosen to conduct your hobby.
Alternatively we could just continue to work hard to live with each other and get along professionally like we have for the last 30 years.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Daniel, just a bit of banter. 
I fully support the need for military aircraft to be able to fly above 250Kts. It is essential for their training for our defence. I also fully support the need for both military and civil aircraft to fly unhindered in as much airspace as they possibly can.
No one group has exclusive right to Class G airspace, and no one group should operate in total ignorance of the others needs and requirements. For mil pilots, they need to realise where GA will generally operate and take cogniscance of notified strips, etc. For civil pilots, they need to try and minimise their time at the lowest levels where fast jets like to operate. We're both in this together.
I fully support the need for military aircraft to be able to fly above 250Kts. It is essential for their training for our defence. I also fully support the need for both military and civil aircraft to fly unhindered in as much airspace as they possibly can.
No one group has exclusive right to Class G airspace, and no one group should operate in total ignorance of the others needs and requirements. For mil pilots, they need to realise where GA will generally operate and take cogniscance of notified strips, etc. For civil pilots, they need to try and minimise their time at the lowest levels where fast jets like to operate. We're both in this together.
A lot of stable doors closing on horses' tails in this thread, I regret to say.
You had your opportunity to oppose the Robindoncasterhood Intergalactic Spaceport airspace grab when it was first presented - how many of you actually did so? I certainly did.
One thing at least, the area to the East is less 'controlled' than the original proposal sought.
But it is still is a silly place for an airport - and one which will principally be used by lesser airlines taking the tattooed dregs of society to various locations to drink themselves stupid on taxpayers' benefit allowance payments. More stupid, in fact.
RAF navigators and Finningley deserved eachother. My brief experience of the Scargill Republic and 'Donn-eh' led me to understand why there are so many fast road and rail links in the area - anything to make escape from the awful place easier!
You had your opportunity to oppose the Robindoncasterhood Intergalactic Spaceport airspace grab when it was first presented - how many of you actually did so? I certainly did.
One thing at least, the area to the East is less 'controlled' than the original proposal sought.
But it is still is a silly place for an airport - and one which will principally be used by lesser airlines taking the tattooed dregs of society to various locations to drink themselves stupid on taxpayers' benefit allowance payments. More stupid, in fact.
RAF navigators and Finningley deserved eachother. My brief experience of the Scargill Republic and 'Donn-eh' led me to understand why there are so many fast road and rail links in the area - anything to make escape from the awful place easier!