Norwich Airspace Grab
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak over on the ATC thread there is the thorny question of ROCAS which it now seems that it is not in your manual except where access to CAS has specifically been requested. In which case you are required to give an estimate of time etc. As you have been intimately involved with this application is it fair to assume you are aware of the impact it will have on GA in the area? If so are you absolutely confident that NIA will have the facilities in place to adhere to the ATC manual and not just issue a blanket ROCAS to every one who call on the RT? Are you just as sure that those resources will be maintained so as to be non detrimental to GA? I appreciate I am asking for your opinion and you cannot speak for the airport as such.
Thanks
Thanks
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard
Re your "thorny question of ROCAS"
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."
In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.
If it concerns you so much, why not write to the SRG Head of ATC Investigations and ask what the view would be of an ATCO who hadn't said ROCAS to a pilot who then infringed ? (I don't mean one who asked for a clearance but was told to wait). I suspect a dim one !
I assume you are aware that any pilot refused entry into CAS can notify DAP, who will request an explanation from the Unit ?
Re your "thorny question of ROCAS"
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."
In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.
If it concerns you so much, why not write to the SRG Head of ATC Investigations and ask what the view would be of an ATCO who hadn't said ROCAS to a pilot who then infringed ? (I don't mean one who asked for a clearance but was told to wait). I suspect a dim one !
I assume you are aware that any pilot refused entry into CAS can notify DAP, who will request an explanation from the Unit ?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: suffolk
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft.
Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio.
Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offwatch, thanks for the clarification on that. Presumably the opening paragraph that you quote does not negate the bit about when to expect a clearance or maybe it does. In the several decades I have been flying for both personal pleasure and a company aircraft, all of which is of course GA, I cannot remember ever been given the time when we might expect clearance through CAS. It is either ROCAS or sometimes "continue on course for crossing as requested"
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH
Now you mention it, in 3 1/2 decades of controlling, I don't think I've actually given a time to expect clearance or a time check for that purpose either - usually 'ROCAS & I'll call you back' !
I've just checked an old MATS 1 & when the procedure was stated in 1995, the phrase "advise pilot to remain outside controlled airspace" was not used.
I suspect it was brought in because of the increasing number of infringements - 330 in the London area in 2006 !
hatzflyer
"Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio" - that's no way to speak about your fellow pilots on the safety com freq.
Now you mention it, in 3 1/2 decades of controlling, I don't think I've actually given a time to expect clearance or a time check for that purpose either - usually 'ROCAS & I'll call you back' !
I've just checked an old MATS 1 & when the procedure was stated in 1995, the phrase "advise pilot to remain outside controlled airspace" was not used.
I suspect it was brought in because of the increasing number of infringements - 330 in the London area in 2006 !
hatzflyer
"Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio" - that's no way to speak about your fellow pilots on the safety com freq.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re your "thorny question of ROCAS"
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."
In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."
In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein.
1.2 The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance to controllers providing Air Traffic Services. Nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance.
Clearly the revision was intended to tighten this up. So, whilst it may have been reasonable to argue that the earlier wording may have allowed some discretion to controllers to use the phrase "ROCAS" as a cautionary response whenever they felt it appropriate, the revision to the wording would now only permit this in "unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein". The vast majority of times you hear "ROCAS" nowadays are not in that category. Thus the current frequent and arbitrary use of "ROCAS" simply cannot be justified by the introductory paragraph in CAP 493 that you quote.
As I have said before, the appropriate and approved use of "ROCAS" is set out in Sec.3, Ch.1, para. 21 of MATS Part 1. Any other use (except in unusual circumstances, not covered by the procedures in CAP493) is entirely unapproved.
JD
@ hatzflyer
Quote: "My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them."
"LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! "
The Captain of the 727 that had a mid-air in 1978 @ San Diego had over 10,000 hrs on 727's - he could've said the same thing !
Quote "My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft. Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio."
Congratulations, you've probably just set pilot/ATCO relations in Norfolk & Suffolk back about 10 years !
If the Norwich management need some more justification for CAS, those statements should do nicely !
Quote: "My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them."
"LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! "
The Captain of the 727 that had a mid-air in 1978 @ San Diego had over 10,000 hrs on 727's - he could've said the same thing !
Quote "My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft. Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio."
Congratulations, you've probably just set pilot/ATCO relations in Norfolk & Suffolk back about 10 years !
If the Norwich management need some more justification for CAS, those statements should do nicely !
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumbo Driver
I agree with you 100% - the trouble is, in the event of an interview with the Boss or, even worse, the SRG Inspector after an infringement, it would be a brave chap who said 'sorry but MATS part 1 doesn't say I had to say ROCAS so don't blame me' (woops, forgot, we live in a no blame culture - don't we ? )
I agree with you 100% - the trouble is, in the event of an interview with the Boss or, even worse, the SRG Inspector after an infringement, it would be a brave chap who said 'sorry but MATS part 1 doesn't say I had to say ROCAS so don't blame me' (woops, forgot, we live in a no blame culture - don't we ? )
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off watch you are surely not suggesting that unauthorised statements are being transmitted as an arse covering exercise and to hell with the consequences for the GA pilot. Our British ATC is surely far too professional to even contemplate such a thing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD
P.S. Courtesies are permitted by implication as (I'm sure you are aware
) Appendix E (p.2) suggests controllers should avoid their excessive use ...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD
Patrick McGoohan was professional when he resigned in "The Prisoner" - & look where it got him
Re courtesies - right as usual
- it even says the same in CAP413, the RT Manual, Ch.3, para 1.1.6.
I'm beginning to think we need to get out more !
Patrick McGoohan was professional when he resigned in "The Prisoner" - & look where it got him
Re courtesies - right as usual
- it even says the same in CAP413, the RT Manual, Ch.3, para 1.1.6.I'm beginning to think we need to get out more !
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesnt suprise me Norwich has problems with the US military. Years ago I did a US PPL with a outfit at Norwich, which got shut down by the CAA some years later. After the checkride, the US examiner asked me what altitude I would be flying home to Wellesbourne (I was in my own aircraft). I said 'various, down to 2400 feet'. He said 'what, why so low??' I said there is Class A at various altitudes, down to 2500 feet. He said 'THERE IS NO CLASS A ANYWHERE BELOW 18000 FEET'
This was a US instructor examiner working for a UK flying school at Norwich, and like the others he was ex US military, ex Mildenhall/Lakenheath. If the pilots at those two know as much about UK airspace, no wonder Norwich gets some exciting moments sometimes
This was a US instructor examiner working for a UK flying school at Norwich, and like the others he was ex US military, ex Mildenhall/Lakenheath. If the pilots at those two know as much about UK airspace, no wonder Norwich gets some exciting moments sometimes
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stampe
I now agree with your earlier post re runway length - a Laden 752 takes an awfull lot of 27 before getting airborne and if Norwich thinks it has half a chance of being a real player a huge amount has got to change and class D is the least of its problems
I now agree with your earlier post re runway length - a Laden 752 takes an awfull lot of 27 before getting airborne and if Norwich thinks it has half a chance of being a real player a huge amount has got to change and class D is the least of its problems
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile a whole new housing estate has mushroomed around the eastern boundary of Norwich Airport.
The west has a road which is a major obstacle.As I see it there will never be a demand to exceed what exists already. If the oil helicopters and the small maintenance/spray shop disappears it will revert back to what it was. A little strip in the middle of nowhere
The west has a road which is a major obstacle.As I see it there will never be a demand to exceed what exists already. If the oil helicopters and the small maintenance/spray shop disappears it will revert back to what it was. A little strip in the middle of nowhere
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you take a drive up St Faiths Rd goatface.
I was visiting a friend on Norman Drive yesterday.
His house is probably about 200 metres from the landing traffic on 27
Where do you get your 4 miles?
The other end of the runway is 100 metres from the A140
I was visiting a friend on Norman Drive yesterday.
His house is probably about 200 metres from the landing traffic on 27
Where do you get your 4 miles?
The other end of the runway is 100 metres from the A140
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now-there would not,would there, possibly be the connection between this and the defuncted remains of the RAF Coltishall - would there?
And the fact that the ex base is about to be turned in to a Cetegory C prison for sex offenders? What are they in England? MPs husbands who watch porno videaos?
Perhaps making the area into comtrolled airpsace is nothing more than a variation on solitary confinement?|
And the fact that the ex base is about to be turned in to a Cetegory C prison for sex offenders? What are they in England? MPs husbands who watch porno videaos?
Perhaps making the area into comtrolled airpsace is nothing more than a variation on solitary confinement?|