Norwich Airspace Grab
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful chaps - on the one hand we have:
"...I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when I've been close to them"
& on the other :
"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."
So, what will the answer be when DAP ask just how many non-commercial flights will be affected by the proposal, and where will these 'choke points' be?
For those who insist the size of the airspace is too big, try overlaying the Instrument Approach Charts for 09 & 27 - that should give you a clue. Bear in mind also that there is a template for each approach, designed in accordance with ICAO PANS Ops, which allows for nav errors etc. & consequently covers a much bigger area than appears on the charts.
"...I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when I've been close to them"
& on the other :
"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."
So, what will the answer be when DAP ask just how many non-commercial flights will be affected by the proposal, and where will these 'choke points' be?
For those who insist the size of the airspace is too big, try overlaying the Instrument Approach Charts for 09 & 27 - that should give you a clue. Bear in mind also that there is a template for each approach, designed in accordance with ICAO PANS Ops, which allows for nav errors etc. & consequently covers a much bigger area than appears on the charts.
Norwich Charts are HERE . As stated above the proposed CAS is there to cover the existing Instrument Approach Procedures.
To address the people voicing concerns over getting ROCAS'd...
The whole point of having Class D is to achieve maximum flexibility for all airspace users and create a safer "known traffic environment". It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.
LXGB
To address the people voicing concerns over getting ROCAS'd...
The whole point of having Class D is to achieve maximum flexibility for all airspace users and create a safer "known traffic environment". It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.
LXGB
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.
Does that mean some then?
I am against it even though I don't live near that Airport. I don't think Doncaster is working at all well, so how does Norwich think their airspace will?
We tend to get squeezed between Doncaster and Humberside even though Humberside has no class D. How Doncaster can justify Class D airspace with 2 budgies and a butterfly using the Airport daily is beyond any comprehension. How many commercial movements will Norwich actually have per day?
And if they don't will they give the Class D up?
Does that mean some then?
I am against it even though I don't live near that Airport. I don't think Doncaster is working at all well, so how does Norwich think their airspace will?
We tend to get squeezed between Doncaster and Humberside even though Humberside has no class D. How Doncaster can justify Class D airspace with 2 budgies and a butterfly using the Airport daily is beyond any comprehension. How many commercial movements will Norwich actually have per day?
And if they don't will they give the Class D up?
How many commercial movements will Norwich actually have per day?
Does that mean some then?
The scale of the proposed airspace grab which Alan Patridge Intergalactic is seeking for its tiny handful of daily CAT flights is totally disproportionate.
My personal view is that CAS is the best way to provide a safe service to all of these flights as well as to those transiting the area.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 3rd Shelf on the Left
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's good to share.
Many of the posts here and most of the objections seem to be working on the premise that the airspace around Norwich will effectively become closed if Class D is established. This is simply not the case.
Norwich ATC enjoys good relations with the large majority of the GA community that fly in the Norwich area and in my experience the majority of GA pilots are happy to speak to Norwich ATC and advise them of their intentions. There is also a small fraternity who have no wish to speak to Norwich ATC or receive any kind of service. That is also their right. However….
The majority of passenger flights that use Norwich will only accept a Deconfliction Service. The terms of this service are that ATC is to endeavour to provide a minimum of 5nm lateral or 3000’ vertical separation (where Mode C info is available). If an unknown aircraft chooses to operate in the vicinity of one of the approaches to Norwich at the same time that a passenger flight is trying to make an approach to land then that aircraft simply cannot make the approach. It may be that the light aircraft concerned may be vertically well above or below the approach but without that info from the pilot, ATC cannot satisfy the terms of the service. Therefore that one pilot choosing not to talk to Norwich may be inconveniencing an aircraft full of passengers. Do you not think that those passengers also have a right to share that piece of airspace ?
The whole point of Class D at Norwich is not to close the airspace to anyone but simply to create a known environment in which everyone can operate safely and with the minimum of delays to all concerned. Whatever your opinion of the Management at Norwich Airport (polite thoughts only please) they are not the ones who ultimately have to implement these changes and I know that Norwich ATC have every intention of ensuring that as few people as possible will be inconvenienced if these changes were to go through.
Norwich ATC enjoys good relations with the large majority of the GA community that fly in the Norwich area and in my experience the majority of GA pilots are happy to speak to Norwich ATC and advise them of their intentions. There is also a small fraternity who have no wish to speak to Norwich ATC or receive any kind of service. That is also their right. However….
The majority of passenger flights that use Norwich will only accept a Deconfliction Service. The terms of this service are that ATC is to endeavour to provide a minimum of 5nm lateral or 3000’ vertical separation (where Mode C info is available). If an unknown aircraft chooses to operate in the vicinity of one of the approaches to Norwich at the same time that a passenger flight is trying to make an approach to land then that aircraft simply cannot make the approach. It may be that the light aircraft concerned may be vertically well above or below the approach but without that info from the pilot, ATC cannot satisfy the terms of the service. Therefore that one pilot choosing not to talk to Norwich may be inconveniencing an aircraft full of passengers. Do you not think that those passengers also have a right to share that piece of airspace ?
The whole point of Class D at Norwich is not to close the airspace to anyone but simply to create a known environment in which everyone can operate safely and with the minimum of delays to all concerned. Whatever your opinion of the Management at Norwich Airport (polite thoughts only please) they are not the ones who ultimately have to implement these changes and I know that Norwich ATC have every intention of ensuring that as few people as possible will be inconvenienced if these changes were to go through.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of Class D at Norwich is not to close the airspace to anyone but simply to create a known environment in which everyone can operate safely and with the minimum of delays to all concerned
What actually happens is that one you have control of an area like this it is much more convienient to say 'RCOCAS' and keep the entire area sterile.
Strangely it seems the the less busy this type of airspace is - the more difficult it is to get a transit. Presumably it messes up the nice empty radar display or disturbs the tumble weed?
I'm sure the intentions are good, what happens afterwards is the concern that many of us have. If there was a process for only granting this airspace once a threshold of traffic was reached - and - it was removed if traffic fell below that, many of us would trust the process much more.
For those of us who do not and wish to protest about this - the closing date is 28th August.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What actually happens is that one you have control of an area like this it is much more convienient to say 'RCOCAS' and keep the entire area sterile.
Strangely it seems the the less busy this type of airspace is - the more difficult it is to get a transit. Presumably it messes up the nice empty radar display or disturbs the tumble weed?
Strangely it seems the the less busy this type of airspace is - the more difficult it is to get a transit. Presumably it messes up the nice empty radar display or disturbs the tumble weed?
Whereas those who have taken the trouble to study the proposal in detail and put their objections constructively will have their comments heard and taken seriously.
Its worthy of note that, despite JUPOs condescending suggestions about the consultation document and the ability of councils and other professional bodies to understand it, the majority of such organisations have asked for further information or even a presentation and then put in their "support" or "no comment" vote.
Oh and by the way, it appears that the Military have no objections either.
Three days to go chaps, scurry along, if you ask nicely the LAA might give you a lift to the polling station!
The LAA's response is well researched and well written.
For this insignificant little aerodrome with its delusions of grandeur to be granted such a massive chunk of CAS is wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.
With significant expansion of Stansted now approved, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be any significant expansion at Alan Partridge Intergalactic.
For this insignificant little aerodrome with its delusions of grandeur to be granted such a massive chunk of CAS is wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.
With significant expansion of Stansted now approved, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be any significant expansion at Alan Partridge Intergalactic.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
5'n'3:
Really? So how does it go then: "Jersey 1234 turn right heading 060 routing you to the hold due to unknown traffic at 6nm on the 09 approach"? Or "Jersey 1234 radar service terminated due to unknown traffic on the approach" "Roger in that case we're diverting to Stansted"?
Or is it more like "Jersey 1234 unknown traffic in your 12 o'clock range 6 miles no height information, unable to continue with deconfliction service are you happy to continue against that traffic on a Traffic Service?", with the Flybe then making a decision based on his in-flight conditions, or possibly asking for the reciprocal runway if wind permits?
If it's clear from the unknown radar returns that this is a manoeuvring fast jet then the controller's options will be much more limited - but then again any FJ ought to be squawking so there will be height info too, and the squawk will indicate who (if anyone) he is talking to.
NS
If an unknown aircraft chooses to operate in the vicinity of one of the approaches to Norwich at the same time that a passenger flight is trying to make an approach to land then that aircraft simply cannot make the approach
Or is it more like "Jersey 1234 unknown traffic in your 12 o'clock range 6 miles no height information, unable to continue with deconfliction service are you happy to continue against that traffic on a Traffic Service?", with the Flybe then making a decision based on his in-flight conditions, or possibly asking for the reciprocal runway if wind permits?
If it's clear from the unknown radar returns that this is a manoeuvring fast jet then the controller's options will be much more limited - but then again any FJ ought to be squawking so there will be height info too, and the squawk will indicate who (if anyone) he is talking to.
NS
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately BEagle's chip is bigger than any shoulder in the UK.
He appears to be a bitter and twisted individual with no capacity for rational debate, little knowledge of current commercial operations and apparantly no knowledge of the current debate.
In any post on PPrune I've yet to see him contribute anything of worth, perhaps he's best left to his bath chair and memories of "how it was in his day".
He appears to be a bitter and twisted individual with no capacity for rational debate, little knowledge of current commercial operations and apparantly no knowledge of the current debate.
In any post on PPrune I've yet to see him contribute anything of worth, perhaps he's best left to his bath chair and memories of "how it was in his day".
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've made my objection. That's it. no abuse, just plain objected.
As for any one having a pop at the skills of Air traffic control, I never saw any. Just considered opinions until the usual personal attacks.
As for any one having a pop at the skills of Air traffic control, I never saw any. Just considered opinions until the usual personal attacks.
personal attacks on the professionalism of the staff at Norwich
I merely stated that the scale of CAS proposed is wholly disproportionate for the scale of CAT. I alos doubted the growth figures suggested for Alan Partridge International and yes, I do consider it to be a small regional aerodrome with delusions of grandeur.
But unprofessional staff? Not something I've ever alleged.
Neither do I 'own PPRuNe'. But I've been very supportive of recent efforts to tidy the place up.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Sorry everyone but what surprises me is how small the proposed airspace is. They have taken the decision not to connect the new CAS to the airways system. This will mean commercial traffic will still be spending long periods in uncontrolled airspace, and vulnerable to many of the same conflicts listed in Appendix D of the proposal. There will still be lots of extended routings due to avoiding action and airlines will have to take that into account in their decisions about operating to/from Norwich. The CAA now requires airlines to have carried out a safety assessment when contemplating starting new services to an airport outside controlled airspace but it doesn't apply to airlines already operating there, nor to foreign airlines.
NS
NS
I'm always open to that possibility but some substance to the response would be good.
NS
NS
What is the point of having a Deconfliction Service if your response to encountering conflicting traffic is to downgrade to a Traffic Service?
Do you really think that an ATCO would vector an airliner into an unknown contact on his screen? What if it was your family on board? Wouldn't you want the best available service for them?
As you said, Military aircraft in the UK Low Flying System don't have to be talking to anyone. They can operate autonomously on a 7001 Squawk (which is deemed unvalidated and unverified). No chance of coordination on that.
I'd recommend you have a read of CAP 774 Appendix A . This is the book that the prosecution lawyers would throw at the controller that didn't discharge his duty of care.
Hope this helps to explain the viewpoint from the other end of the radio.
Best Regards,
LXGB
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
LXGB:
A tad over-emotional in my view. The situation I was envisaging was pop-up traffic (hence not predictable by the controller), as regularly encountered by Norwich controllers (and I should add, in case you were in any doubt, highly professionally dealt with by them). And the response I was envisaging was similar to those in incidents 12, 13 and 27 in Appendix D of the ACP. Ultimately it's down to what the Ops Manuals of the airlines operating into Norwich say about the numerous scenarios they are likely to encounter around there.
NS
What is the point of having a Deconfliction Service if your response to encountering conflicting traffic is to downgrade to a Traffic Service?
Do you really think that an ATCO would vector an airliner into an unknown contact on his screen? What if it was your family on board? Wouldn't you want the best available service for them?
Do you really think that an ATCO would vector an airliner into an unknown contact on his screen? What if it was your family on board? Wouldn't you want the best available service for them?
NS