Doncaster Sheffield - New Class D Airspace

[gasax]

Tough on HUY reaslly. I have to say in my experience they have usually been very helpful. So perhaps it is a shame that Doncaster spaceport has queered the pitch for them.

The outcome would however be a near solid block of controlled airspace which there is no guarantee of being able to transit.

We've already seen views for ATC on 'saving the planet' 'giving the service to the people who pay for it' and 'Sunday flyers and bimblers'.

On that basis I certainly object. I really would like to see thejustification for Doncaster spaceports award of it CAS - it surely cannot be justified?

[trickyone]

I fly out of Sherburn. Mixed experiance of Doncaster. yes they are helpful. But often they over control - I have been asked for reporting positions at 2000' over by Ladybower Reservoir. They are often so busy with GA traffic that other than offering a 6160 Sqwark they can do little else.

Wasn't this area always a busy transit zone between the north and south for many types of aircraft ?

Surely the point is that a commercial airport should never have been allowed here in the first place. The need for CAS with so few movements shows how deeply unsuited the location is for heavy metal. It should have been made plain to the operators that CAS here was a non-starter and if that meant the business plan didn't work - well tough.

I don't think the issue of access or not access is a real one. Yes I can get access if I ask but why the hell should I have to ? Frankly I was here first in my GA plane and if you need my airspace to make some money then why should I bear the cost of it ?

I repeat, I think the controllers at Doncaster are good and generally helpful, but the airport itself and the airspace are in the wrong place and unjustified.

[eltonioni]

With the inevitable CAS at Hunmberside we will have a Class G slot between the pair that has the River Trent right up the middle. Guess what line feature people will follow, and guess which line feature the mil use for low level high speed sorties?

I hope we never see another accident like the one where the Tonka went through the C152 in that very area. 3 died on that day.

[EastCoaster]

Gasax, do you mind me asking: if you were a professional pilot and using Doncaster Spaceport on a regular basis, and given the information that's already been provided in this thread from Controllers and pilots about what it is like to work in the airspace around DSA, how would you feel about the question then?

Without exception, all of the professional pilots who fly into or out of DSA are fully in favour of the establishment of CAS, for all the reasons that have already been made clear here. The case for the establishment of the CAS has, also, already been made clear here. And once again, just in case you've missed by accident in all of the previous posts where it's been clarified: it's about safety and it's about creating a known traffic environment.

Furthermore, your generalisations about ATC'ers views are definitely not appreciated. If you had read the posts that you appear to be quoting from with any objectivity and honesty, it would be obvious to you that the ATC'ers views are in fact the complete opposite of what you have stated!

This is a contentious enough issue without wanton sh1t-stirring being thrown into the mix, so please refrain, if you don't mind. All of the air traffic contributors to this thread have been nothing but courteous and open and honest, despite the barrage of often thinly-veiled hostility that's often been directed at them. The least you could do would be to show them the same courtesy!


I see from your profile that you're an engineer. I don't know which area of engineering it is that you specialise in, but I propose a scenario based on a (very) generalised engineering concept. If I, as a non-engineering person were to one day enter your workshop after you'd just purchased the latest lathe or similar piece of equipment, with all of the extra safeguards attached that have just come on the market and which are designed to significantly increase the safety of the operator of the lathe - for argument's sake by a factor of about 80% or so over the piece of equipment that it's been bought to replace and which doesn't have any of these user-safeguards. If I were to then try to argue the point with you that there could be no possible justification for this new piece of equipment, that's it's far too big for your premises and that you were getting on fine with the old kit anyway. Never mind that several of your machinists had had numerous frighteningly close shaves with the old machine, though none of them had ever lost any digits or limbs to it, or worse, nobody had ever been killed by it! Nor the fact that that the new machine was likely to increase productivity exponentially!

What do you think your response to me would be?

[WorkingHard]

Nice analogy EASTCOASTER but what would be you response if the purchase of that machine denied the public the right to use the PUBLIC footpath adjacent to the workshop UNLESS WITH HIS SPECIFIC PERMISSION?

[danieloakworth]

[quote][guess which line feature the mil use for low level high speed sorties?/QUOTE]

The HUY CAS will incorporate a low level VFR corridor for military aircraft to pass through.

oh, and the military don't use line features, they are reserved for people who can't navigate.

[gasax]

Yes there is a low level corridor through the proposed HUY airspace - which will tip them out into the 'gap'. So useful for them but..

In effect the corridors around the London TMA are going to be created in miniature.

Eastcoaster - of course all the CAT pilots want controlled airspace - they always do everywhere they fly. Even if it is into generally deserted airports. Anything else would be like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Your spaceport sits across the main north south transit route. You proclaim that all it will do is create a 'known traffic environment'. That certainly is the intention of Class D. However its implementation is generally not that effect, it varies around the country but many Class D areas are in effect 'no fly' zones for GA traffic.

If as you protest, transits were never refused I would have no problem with the whole country being Class D. But the actuality of things is that 'controller workload' means very different things in different places and almost invariably it means transits are at the bottom of the queue (your own comment 'the people who pay for the service'). Given the traffic levels and the service that is provided to passing GA (an effective LARS), HUY is head and shoulders above the spaceport in terms of justification.

From my point of view the sooner Peel close the place and turn it into an industrial site the better.

I know you have the best of intentions but from bitter experience most GA pilots know that more CAS means more chunks of sky we cannot get into. The combined effect of these two areas of controlled airspace will very much increase the risks to all transiting GA

[jumpseater]

I hope we never see another accident like the one where the Tonka went through the C152 in that very area. 3 died on that day.

Not the best example you should have chosen.

4 people actually died, including a pilot (cessna) that had been warned and banned IIRC from a local flying club due to alleged low flying.
It occurred in the open FIR class G airspace whilst the Cessna pilot was taking photos of houses at around 500ft.
The Cessna pilot had not used a FIS/Lars that could have been provided by Waddo and had not used CANP to advise military operators that he would have been operating in that area at low level, and did not have a serviceable mode C transponder selected on, whilst taking low level photographs...

If the same elements in terms of location, aircraft and tasking occurred after Aug 28th this year, both would be in controlled airspace, and arguably reducing the chances of the collision occuring.

[flybymike]

I suppose there are those who would say that if it were controlled airspace the accident would not have happened because the aircraft concerned would not have been allowed in to do what they were doing...

[eltonioni]

oh, and the military don't use line features, they are reserved for people who can't navigate.

Fair enough. So what do they call it when they do bombing runs on the power stations that follow the Trent?



Jumpseater, you are right, there were two in the Cessna, and the pilot was a known berk apparently, having been kicked off a couple of airfields already. My point wasn't the semantics or detail of that particular incident I was just using it to draw attention to what can happen when VFR traffic gets squeezed into a small gap, especially when some of that VFR traffic is (potentially heads down) fast jet traffic.

I'm not especially stressed about the new CAS because I'll just post IFR and go through, but most GA folk will just squeeze around the edges. The other side of the new Doncaster CAS is another narrow gap over the top of the Sheffield / Rotherham conurbation and the Peak District. A bit of a low cloudbase on the hills and all the traffic is over the built up areas.

Sp the only Class G options for a north south transit will be the Manchester LLR, the Sheffield gap and the Trent gap which doesn't sound great to me.

I suppose that only time will tell if big sky / see and avoid / Mk1 eyeball / Lady Luck works. One thing is for sure, Doncaster won't be concerned because it will be outside their CAS.

[snapper1]

GASAX wrote;-

''From my point of view the sooner Peel close the place and turn it into an industrial site the better.''

This is surely what many of us hope for. Peel are a very hard-headed bunch of b*st*rds and I cant see them carrying this white elephant forever. I suspect the only reason they got involved was to turn it into an industrial site eventually.

The bucket and spade brigade can easily get a flight from somewhere else. I seem to remember that part of the local councils justification for allowing the spaceport was as a generator of inward investment and the development of local industry. Has that happened?

[dublinpilot]

Maybe it's time to cover the whole country in class D. The phrase 'remain outside controlled airspace' becomes redundant, and transits the norm.

Ok, it's a bit facetious, but you get the idea. IF the 'gaps' were actually filled in with controlled airspace rather than left as gaps, then it would be incumbent on pilots to clearly request transits, and incumbent on ATC'er to make sure that they find a way through. Otherwise the issue would come to a head very quickly.

Just a though.

dp

[A.Agincourt]

Peel were assured that there would be developed, transport infrastructure such as rail and decent highway access to the airport. That has not happened and as far as I can tell, is not likely to. Hence the reluctance of operators to increase frequency and routes. Without the transport infrastructure, there's no chance of making a decent return. I presume the CAS issue was started some time ago in preparation. It would seem excessive given the current status of the white elephant.

Having said that - I regularly transit through their airspace pretty much without any problem inconvenience and often through the overhead. I think a lot of people object simply because it restricts their propensity to bumble about the place trying to avoid anything that might require some degree of planning and forethought. The only thing I find annoying about dealing with them is the distinctive 'squeal' of their remote RT equipment.

Best Wishes

[Chilli Monster]

Given the traffic levels and the service that is provided to passing GA (an effective LARS), HUY is head and shoulders above the spaceport in terms of justification

Worth pointing out at this point that the "effective' LARS is probably because they are notified as a LARS unit.

[gasax]

That is absolutely true Chilli, and in my experience one of the better ones at that.

But compare and contrast the approaches, HUY installs radar and becomes part of the LARS system to at least partly protect its own traffic, even now its proposed airspace does not have full 'inter-connectivity'. The spaceport on the other hand with considerably less traffic goes for the 'full bifta'.

Perhaps it is a partial insight into the minds of property developers?

[danieloakworth]

I've heard a briefing from HUY on the ACP. Their opening gambit was that they are very determined to protect the strong relationship they have with the GA community and this will be reflected in the way in which they will manage their CAS (if granted).

[CharlieSierra]

DSA must be anticipating the effects of their huge number of movements on global warming; a new lake has appeared on their control zone chart north of the M62 at 001 00W !!

Can't argue with Humberside's airspace application - having read it in full it seems well thought through, but then again I wouldn't expect anything else, as someone who flies regularly in this area their ATC staff are amongst the most helpful and professional - shame their GA landing fees are now so ridiculously high.

[bigfoot01]

Does anybody know...

...if any specific operations from Netherthorpe or Sandtoft have been agreed and for those of us who have been bought up in this relaxed world of freedom to go where you wish, any top tips?

[NorthSouth]

For any PPRuNers with inside knowledge of the DSA CAS application and who have defended it as providing a know traffic environment, I would be interested to know how that will be achieved for IFR inbounds from the east. The original proposal had a big chunk of CTA below Y70/L603, going down to FL75. The CAS as implemented omits this, meaning that aircraft will have to be kept at a minimum of FL110 until they're only 6nm from the airfield. I can't see how you can vector these inbounds on to the r/w 20 ILS from that position. It certainly won't allow for continuous descent approaches. Is the plan to vector them through the overhead then right hand downwind for 20? And was the eastern CTA ditched because of MoD opposition?
NS

[NorthSouth]

jumpseater:

The Cessna pilot had not used a FIS/Lars that could have been provided by Waddo and had not used CANP to advise military operators that he would have been operating in that area at low level, and did not have a serviceable mode C transponder selected on, whilst taking low level photographs...

The AAIB report also found that the Tornado pilot was heads-down in the cockpit carrying out an ops check while flying at low level and that the rear-seater would not have been able to detect conflicting aircraft in the forward sector. Sensible, or just an accepted part of the risk?
NS