Norwich Airspace Grab
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 Aug 2009 at 14:01.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
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.
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
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 Aug 2009 at 20:42.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norfolk
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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