Norwich Airspace Grab
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: UK
I too would be interested to know, but I don’t think that there can be a definite answer, unless Norwich chooses to declare one, as it is partly in their hands and partly CAA/DAP.
“The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.”
niknak post no. 62: “Thereafter, every response is collated and sent to the CAA.”
They might take a day, or a month, or longer, or decide it is not worth the gamble (that last is unlikely in my opinion – sounds like they are unimpressed with arguments about how little justification there is and are determined to try to look like a big, important, international airport and they want the airspace to look like it).
Then the CAA/DAP will take as long or short as they want.
I would have thought October decision at the earliest, and longer/indefinite if one or other chooses to delay or take more soundings. Anyone got anything more definite?
I would also expect there to be some political workings – publicly or behind the scenes.
Chris N.
“The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.”
niknak post no. 62: “Thereafter, every response is collated and sent to the CAA.”
They might take a day, or a month, or longer, or decide it is not worth the gamble (that last is unlikely in my opinion – sounds like they are unimpressed with arguments about how little justification there is and are determined to try to look like a big, important, international airport and they want the airspace to look like it).
Then the CAA/DAP will take as long or short as they want.
I would have thought October decision at the earliest, and longer/indefinite if one or other chooses to delay or take more soundings. Anyone got anything more definite?
I would also expect there to be some political workings – publicly or behind the scenes.
Chris N.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 500
Likes: 1
From: London
Arclite01
I have seen that one coming.
"Papa Kilo squawk ****"
"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"
"Roger, negative service remain clear...."
Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.
I have seen that one coming.
"Papa Kilo squawk ****"
"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"
"Roger, negative service remain clear...."
Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 2
From: Norfolk
Yeah that is true............... I had to put it into the thread though.........
Visions of Lister with a Squawk Box/hand crank generator in the back of the Cub to run the Mode S - great fun................ high pilot workload - whole new meaning !!
Any shares coming up in the Cub ??
Arc
Visions of Lister with a Squawk Box/hand crank generator in the back of the Cub to run the Mode S - great fun................ high pilot workload - whole new meaning !!
Any shares coming up in the Cub ??
Arc
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
Deadline Approaching
The deadline for a response to the Consultation is fast approaching. If you think Norwich's bid to impose Class D airspace on us is unacceptable, have a look at this from the Light Aircraft Association: norwich
The LAA have put forward a very good response, which includes this statement: '..The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison.
I urge you to write your own response; as the LAA link above says, it doesn't have to be a long response - they even suggest the points you could cover - you only have until 28th August.
Cheers,
WW
The LAA have put forward a very good response, which includes this statement: '..The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison.
I urge you to write your own response; as the LAA link above says, it doesn't have to be a long response - they even suggest the points you could cover - you only have until 28th August.
Cheers,
WW
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: On top of the world
whirlwind
"The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison."
Is it relevant though ? Gatwick is surrounded by many other airfields, including Heathrow of course, all looking for their own protection - doesn't really apply to Norwich does it ? I would be interested to see the comparison in km3 as well.
Anyway, just because one airport hasn't got what it wants is surely not grounds for refusing another ?
"The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison."
Is it relevant though ? Gatwick is surrounded by many other airfields, including Heathrow of course, all looking for their own protection - doesn't really apply to Norwich does it ? I would be interested to see the comparison in km3 as well.
Anyway, just because one airport hasn't got what it wants is surely not grounds for refusing another ?
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 577
Likes: 2
From: Inverness-shire
If Tesco (other supermarket chains are available) wanted to nick a playing field or public park for a new store there would be an outcry. Saying that it encourages commercial development would cut no ice at all.
Whereas nicking open airspace for "commercial" reasons is regarded as wholly justifiable.
Discuss
Whereas nicking open airspace for "commercial" reasons is regarded as wholly justifiable.
Discuss
Last edited by astir 8; 21st August 2009 at 14:01.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: uk
.
A response is not expected until early 2010 at the very earliest
Complete nonsense and utter crap, a transponder is not mandatory and won't be for a long time.
From what I've read, it appears that the LAA have failed to be completely objective and consequently, it appears that many of their members have forwarded objections based on what the LAA have published rather than checking the facts, their loss as dramatic statements of no consequence count for nothing.
From what I understand, many objections have been made on conjecture, not fact and if that is the case it's a shame because not only will those objections not count for much, the LAA, who appear to have encouraged them, will look pretty daft.
I would have thought October decision at the earliest, and longer/indefinite if one or other chooses to delay or take more soundings. Anyone got anything more definite?
I have seen that one coming.
"Papa Kilo squawk ****"
"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"
"Roger, negative service remain clear...."
Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.
"Papa Kilo squawk ****"
"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"
"Roger, negative service remain clear...."
Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.
The LAA have put forward a very good response, which includes this statement
From what I understand, many objections have been made on conjecture, not fact and if that is the case it's a shame because not only will those objections not count for much, the LAA, who appear to have encouraged them, will look pretty daft.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 683
Likes: 11
From: UK
goatface,perhaps then you'd post what you contend are the facts, and correct the LAA's errors, here yourself?
Classic!
Originally Posted by goatface
From what I understand, many objections have been made on conjecture
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,397
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
It is only when you examine the proposed volume of airspace which Alan Partridge Intergalactic Spaceport seeks to obtain for its miniscule number of daily CAT movements, that the magnitude of their greed becomes apparent:
This application is absurd. It is totally disproportionate for a minor regional aerodrome whose 6040ft runway (the secondary 4154ft runway being wholly unsuitable) will never be able to support the level of movements which the owners seem to think they can encourage.
You only have to look at the nonsense of RobinFinningleyDoncasterHoodie to realise the folly of approving applications to aerodromes whose expectations of growth are so totally unrealistic. Hopefully DAP won't make this mistake again!
This application is absurd. It is totally disproportionate for a minor regional aerodrome whose 6040ft runway (the secondary 4154ft runway being wholly unsuitable) will never be able to support the level of movements which the owners seem to think they can encourage.
You only have to look at the nonsense of RobinFinningleyDoncasterHoodie to realise the folly of approving applications to aerodromes whose expectations of growth are so totally unrealistic. Hopefully DAP won't make this mistake again!
Last edited by BEagle; 21st August 2009 at 20:42.
niknak
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: UK
All I know is that transponders won't be mandatory and I'd like to think that there won't be a problem for anyone who wants to operate in or transit the airspace, whoever they are.
Providing we adopt adult operatonal rules and work together, there's no reason for any problems to arise.
Providing we adopt adult operatonal rules and work together, there's no reason for any problems to arise.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
From: East Anglia
I'd like to think that there won't be a problem for anyone who wants to operate in or transit the airspace, whoever they are.
This is a huge piece of airspace and entry will be at NIAs discretion. What option will I have when trying to transit in the future and am told to standby and remain clear.
The time to object is now. This is a huge area to restrict in the name of 'safety'.
ZA
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk UK
Zulu,I'm in total agreement with your sentiments and have made my response to the proposers.
Sorry Niknak ,but the amount of airspace requested seems out of all proportion to the actual need.
Lister
Sorry Niknak ,but the amount of airspace requested seems out of all proportion to the actual need.
Lister
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
Zulu Alpha the answer to your question is essentially simple. If the controller should respond with a simple "ROCAS" and nothing more then ask for an expected time for entry. Read the earlier posts and you will see what I am talking about. unfortunately no controller has responded to a number of questions posed around this thread which I find a bit disappointing. We need to learn each others perspective but the GA fraternity do not have the resources available to ATCOS so these forums are of great importance for feed back.
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk
A thought: Norwich Airport distributed their consultation document, quite correctly to a very wide distribution list as per the CAA procedure. Their document was full of inaccuracies which were designed to strengthen the case for the airspace. The non aviation related consultees (such as Parish Councils, The Broads Authority etc) will not realise that they have been fed a biased document and will not understand the potential impact of the proposal. They will react to “5 Airproxes over Norfolk” and assume that more controlled airspace will make the skies safer.
I suspect that the local Parish Councils would be very interested to hear that the implementation of the airspace will create choke points in the skies over their heads increasing the risk of mid air collisions. Moreover, aircraft will be forced to fly lower creating more noise for their parishioners.
A consultation where a large proportion of the consultees have been deliberately misinformed is a disgrace.
I suspect that the local Parish Councils would be very interested to hear that the implementation of the airspace will create choke points in the skies over their heads increasing the risk of mid air collisions. Moreover, aircraft will be forced to fly lower creating more noise for their parishioners.
A consultation where a large proportion of the consultees have been deliberately misinformed is a disgrace.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
From: Norfolk UK
A highly valid point,Jupo,I don't know how one informs the parish councils etc of these thoughts.
I hope you send your comments to the proposers,although I'm still not happy that all comments are initially received by the developer rather than going straight to the decision makers.
Lister
I hope you send your comments to the proposers,although I'm still not happy that all comments are initially received by the developer rather than going straight to the decision makers.
Lister