Norwich Airspace Grab
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A classic example of tiny commercial operations (the airport and the fixed-wing passenger operators) attempting to disadvantage a lot larger number of GA pilots, glider pilots etc in the name of "development" and "safety".
Do you think Tesco would get away with taking over the local playground or a big chunk of green belt countryside by claiming that it would benefit their profits?
Norwich Airport clearly think that their claim is somehow special because the "playground" is just open airspace.
Objection has been sent.
P.S. Similar support will be required when "London Oxford Airport" AKA Kidlington starts the same game.
Do you think Tesco would get away with taking over the local playground or a big chunk of green belt countryside by claiming that it would benefit their profits?
Norwich Airport clearly think that their claim is somehow special because the "playground" is just open airspace.
Objection has been sent.
P.S. Similar support will be required when "London Oxford Airport" AKA Kidlington starts the same game.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comment really concerns me - coming as it does from someone who seems to fully support the application. Inspite of many of the statments in the 'consultation' document being known to frankly be lies
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
astir8:
Perhaps not, but they haven't done too badly out of arguing that their latest store will benefit thousands of consumers, and that's surely the real parallel here.
I think the biggest weakness in the Norwich ACP is that (1) they aren't asking for connectivity to the airways and (2) from the incident list it's clear that the military are the biggest problem at the moment. It seems to me there's a big risk that keeping the military out of the areas east and west of EGSH could simply shift them to the areas which will remain Class G, thus perpetuating the problem of airliners flying lots of extra track miles because of vectoring to avoid conflicts.
NS
Do you think Tesco would get away with taking over the local playground or a big chunk of green belt countryside by claiming that it would benefit their profits?
I think the biggest weakness in the Norwich ACP is that (1) they aren't asking for connectivity to the airways and (2) from the incident list it's clear that the military are the biggest problem at the moment. It seems to me there's a big risk that keeping the military out of the areas east and west of EGSH could simply shift them to the areas which will remain Class G, thus perpetuating the problem of airliners flying lots of extra track miles because of vectoring to avoid conflicts.
NS
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're absolutely right niknak - so why the statements about a steady increase in traffic when this is not true?
Given those sort of 'facts' any reasonable group would see that controlled airspace would be justified - if they knew traffic levels were falling would they come to the same conclusion?
Given those sort of 'facts' any reasonable group would see that controlled airspace would be justified - if they knew traffic levels were falling would they come to the same conclusion?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can certainly confirm that Norwich has far less movements that either White Waltham or Wycombe Air Park and I suspect less even than Seething, in absolute numbers. But in terms of heavy traffic, Norwich has a fraction of the movements of either Biggin Hill or Farnborough and neither of these fields feel it necessary to requisition a huge chunk of airspace for their exclusive control.
The argument to say that if Norwich were to get a huge swathe of controlled airspace, would result in more commercial traffic is specious; akin to arguing that if you were to build another hospital, people would have more accidents in order to use the capacity.
What is clear from the application is that Norwich has a problem communicating effectively with it's millitary neighbours over the shared use of airspace and this should be something that an effective management could deal with by a telephone call or two, as opposed to the imposition of a chunk of airspace the size of Gatwick's zone. This is a management failure
Honestly, this is all reminiscent of the Argyll and Bute Council/Jackson space-port debacle, up in the western Isles of Scotland; the only losers will ultimately be the taxpayers footing the bill for this silliness and the GA community who will yet again be effectively excluded from another chunk of airspace.
Of course I accept that on paper that space will be available for transit, but anyone who has to transit Doncaster/Solent/Durham Tees's zones on a regular basis, will know that in practice, such permission is with-held between 25 and 50% of the time.
The argument to say that if Norwich were to get a huge swathe of controlled airspace, would result in more commercial traffic is specious; akin to arguing that if you were to build another hospital, people would have more accidents in order to use the capacity.
What is clear from the application is that Norwich has a problem communicating effectively with it's millitary neighbours over the shared use of airspace and this should be something that an effective management could deal with by a telephone call or two, as opposed to the imposition of a chunk of airspace the size of Gatwick's zone. This is a management failure
Honestly, this is all reminiscent of the Argyll and Bute Council/Jackson space-port debacle, up in the western Isles of Scotland; the only losers will ultimately be the taxpayers footing the bill for this silliness and the GA community who will yet again be effectively excluded from another chunk of airspace.
Of course I accept that on paper that space will be available for transit, but anyone who has to transit Doncaster/Solent/Durham Tees's zones on a regular basis, will know that in practice, such permission is with-held between 25 and 50% of the time.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsmemperson
Quote "...should be something that an effective management could deal with by a telephone call or two".
To whom do you suggest these calls should be made - every Squadron that might transit near the Airport ? I wonder if you have any experience of dealing with the Military on this type of thing ?
Quote "...anyone who has to transit Doncaster/Solent/Durham Tees's zones on a regular basis, will know that in practice, such permission is with-held between 25 and 50% of the time."
And how many of those refusals have been notified to DAP I wonder ?
astir 8
Quote "..attempting to disadvantage a lot larger number of GA pilots, glider pilots etc " - how many is "a lot larger number" ? - Norwich can produce their numbers, can you ?
Quote "...should be something that an effective management could deal with by a telephone call or two".
To whom do you suggest these calls should be made - every Squadron that might transit near the Airport ? I wonder if you have any experience of dealing with the Military on this type of thing ?
Quote "...anyone who has to transit Doncaster/Solent/Durham Tees's zones on a regular basis, will know that in practice, such permission is with-held between 25 and 50% of the time."
And how many of those refusals have been notified to DAP I wonder ?
astir 8
Quote "..attempting to disadvantage a lot larger number of GA pilots, glider pilots etc " - how many is "a lot larger number" ? - Norwich can produce their numbers, can you ?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To whom do you suggest these calls should be made - every Squadron that might transit near the Airport ? I wonder if you have any experience of dealing with the Military on this type of thing
And how many of those refusals have been notified to DAP I wonder ?
Norwich can produce their numbers, can you ?
Last edited by gasax; 26th Aug 2009 at 17:51.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off watch, do the numbers that Norwich can produce include me (glider, no transponder, never called Norwich ATC when using the cathedral as a turning point) and if so, (a) how does Norwich know, and (b) am I included once as a user, or every time I go in, and again every time I come out, like passengers are counted?
Just curious.
Chris N.
Just curious.
Chris N.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisN
Thanks for an excellent example of a flaw in the system. Norwich can produce aircraft movement & pax figures on demand. Your individual case has much merit but on its own I suspect would not carry much weight without many more concrete examples whilst DAP are faced with the "I am not inclined to spend 10 minutes orbiting whilst waiting for many Class D units to get around to granting a transit" argument.
gasax
Re the above, taken from your last post - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now !
Quote" Well why has the application completely ignored the effect on adjacent GA traffic? Norwich could have (and indeed should have) considered this - but it would be a negative factor so of course cannot be presented in what is nothing more than a 'sales speil'."
Are we reading the same document ? Para's 6.5, 6.6 & 6.7 deal specifically with the GA airfields in the area & LoA's with them, together with a statement of intent :- 'NIA does not envisage any capacity problems in the integration of VFR flights, including transit flights, into the traffic flow.'
Yes, I know you posted "well they would say that, wouldn't they". What else would you expect ?
I will repeat what I said on the ATC thread -
'There are obviously some well reasoned objections to new CAS aired on PPRuNe but I reckon these are mostly by pilots who are interested enough in flying to bother to look at the website in the first place. I fear like many things in this country nowadays, the many have to suffer for the transgressions of the few.
Perhaps we should just be grateful that Joe Public in his airline seat isn't canvassed on what protection he wants while flying - no prizes for guessing the answer ! '
Thanks for an excellent example of a flaw in the system. Norwich can produce aircraft movement & pax figures on demand. Your individual case has much merit but on its own I suspect would not carry much weight without many more concrete examples whilst DAP are faced with the "I am not inclined to spend 10 minutes orbiting whilst waiting for many Class D units to get around to granting a transit" argument.
gasax
Re the above, taken from your last post - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now !
Quote" Well why has the application completely ignored the effect on adjacent GA traffic? Norwich could have (and indeed should have) considered this - but it would be a negative factor so of course cannot be presented in what is nothing more than a 'sales speil'."
Are we reading the same document ? Para's 6.5, 6.6 & 6.7 deal specifically with the GA airfields in the area & LoA's with them, together with a statement of intent :- 'NIA does not envisage any capacity problems in the integration of VFR flights, including transit flights, into the traffic flow.'
Yes, I know you posted "well they would say that, wouldn't they". What else would you expect ?
I will repeat what I said on the ATC thread -
'There are obviously some well reasoned objections to new CAS aired on PPRuNe but I reckon these are mostly by pilots who are interested enough in flying to bother to look at the website in the first place. I fear like many things in this country nowadays, the many have to suffer for the transgressions of the few.
Perhaps we should just be grateful that Joe Public in his airline seat isn't canvassed on what protection he wants while flying - no prizes for guessing the answer ! '
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah! when honesty and data fail play the 'safety' card.
3 paragraphs which state there will be no problem with local airfields. And the comment on transitting traffic? Barely a line. As correct as the traffic figures? Who knows.
I'm sure many units have all sorts of calls upon their resources which they judge to be a higher priority than GA traffic. We see a lot of ATC'ers who are quite keen on 'the user who pays' getting the service whilst the remainder go without. I can see little reason for the RCOCAS call which routinely answers transit requests. As soon as the channel has been crossed that particular call is never heard which I find quite telling.
In my experience Norwich ATC have always been helpful and useful. But experience tells me that once somewhere has controlled airspace that is exactly what they do - control and restrict entry to it.
But if you really wanted to protect the passenger in the seat - why have you not linked your Class D directly to the airways? If the military is the problem - why did you let that develop? Over what period? If there is a threat now, how can you possibly justfiy continuing commercial flights tomorrow?
Are you just going to tell passengers if they come back next year if will be much safer but it might not be OK today?
As for the protection that Joe Soap wants - obviously the best available - so why is Norwich happy to let flights operate tomorrow? Either the margin / probability is acceptable or you should not be flying.........
The argument is either fatuous or a telling indictment on the airport management.
3 paragraphs which state there will be no problem with local airfields. And the comment on transitting traffic? Barely a line. As correct as the traffic figures? Who knows.
I'm sure many units have all sorts of calls upon their resources which they judge to be a higher priority than GA traffic. We see a lot of ATC'ers who are quite keen on 'the user who pays' getting the service whilst the remainder go without. I can see little reason for the RCOCAS call which routinely answers transit requests. As soon as the channel has been crossed that particular call is never heard which I find quite telling.
In my experience Norwich ATC have always been helpful and useful. But experience tells me that once somewhere has controlled airspace that is exactly what they do - control and restrict entry to it.
But if you really wanted to protect the passenger in the seat - why have you not linked your Class D directly to the airways? If the military is the problem - why did you let that develop? Over what period? If there is a threat now, how can you possibly justfiy continuing commercial flights tomorrow?
Are you just going to tell passengers if they come back next year if will be much safer but it might not be OK today?
As for the protection that Joe Soap wants - obviously the best available - so why is Norwich happy to let flights operate tomorrow? Either the margin / probability is acceptable or you should not be flying.........
The argument is either fatuous or a telling indictment on the airport management.
Mess Your Passage
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Temporarily Unaware......
Age: 25
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they are playing the safety card why do they still fail to join the weather diversion scheme.....
sadly another airfield run by fools....
luv
xxx
f
sadly another airfield run by fools....
luv
xxx
f
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gasax
"once somewhere has controlled airspace that is exactly what they do - control and restrict entry to it." Of course they do - 1) that's why it's called Controlled Airspace 2) if they didn't restrict entry to it , there would be no point in it in the first place would there ?
"I can see little reason for the RCOCAS call which routinely answers transit requests".
I will ask again - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now.
You may scoff at the 'safety' card & I wont presume to lecture you on Safety Management Systems & the like but they are the 'big thing' with SRG these days. Have a look at the definition of ALARP on Wikipedia.
"Either the margin / probability is acceptable or you should not be flying" - true, so obviously it is considered safe today - but like it or not, controlled airspace must make it safer tomorrow.
Finally "why have you not linked your Class D directly to the airways" - remember the adage "from small acorns, big oaks grow" - one step at a time perhaps ?
"once somewhere has controlled airspace that is exactly what they do - control and restrict entry to it." Of course they do - 1) that's why it's called Controlled Airspace 2) if they didn't restrict entry to it , there would be no point in it in the first place would there ?
"I can see little reason for the RCOCAS call which routinely answers transit requests".
I will ask again - are you really suggesting ATC have nothing better to do than make you hold for fun or out of spite ? If you really believe that, you should make your point to SRG now.
You may scoff at the 'safety' card & I wont presume to lecture you on Safety Management Systems & the like but they are the 'big thing' with SRG these days. Have a look at the definition of ALARP on Wikipedia.
"Either the margin / probability is acceptable or you should not be flying" - true, so obviously it is considered safe today - but like it or not, controlled airspace must make it safer tomorrow.
Finally "why have you not linked your Class D directly to the airways" - remember the adage "from small acorns, big oaks grow" - one step at a time perhaps ?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read the document carefully, particularly as regards transits.
My conclusion is that gliders will almost never be permitted to fly in the airspace if Class D is granted. I conclude this from the fact that the document assumes that only gliders from Tibenham will ever want to do so. ChrisN flies from elsewhere, as do I, and both of us have regularly flown in that airspace. In June a glider from Gloucestershire turned Norwich, within the airspace, as the culmination of the first leg of an 800 km+ flight. Competition grids of 50+ gliders regularly fly there. I do not see how Norwich ATC would cope with transits given the lack of understanding of the likely level of glider traffic, let alone any other traffic.
off watch demands that objectors provide more concrete examples (mine is another one), but that is precisely what is wrong with the document. It is supposed to present the case, including how ATC would cope with the demand for airspace use by non-CAT. However, there has been no attempt to discover how much use is currently made. Just to take gliding as an example, the authors could have asked Norfolk Gliding Club (and other local clubs) for an estimate of how many flights in that airspace occur each year. A similar request could have been made to Old Buckenham and other local airfields to produce an estimate of non-gliding flights.
Clearly, nothing of the sort has been attempted. If there is no idea how much demand for usage exists, how can I (or anyone else) believe that the resources and training will be made available to meet that demand?
My conclusion is that gliders will almost never be permitted to fly in the airspace if Class D is granted. I conclude this from the fact that the document assumes that only gliders from Tibenham will ever want to do so. ChrisN flies from elsewhere, as do I, and both of us have regularly flown in that airspace. In June a glider from Gloucestershire turned Norwich, within the airspace, as the culmination of the first leg of an 800 km+ flight. Competition grids of 50+ gliders regularly fly there. I do not see how Norwich ATC would cope with transits given the lack of understanding of the likely level of glider traffic, let alone any other traffic.
off watch demands that objectors provide more concrete examples (mine is another one), but that is precisely what is wrong with the document. It is supposed to present the case, including how ATC would cope with the demand for airspace use by non-CAT. However, there has been no attempt to discover how much use is currently made. Just to take gliding as an example, the authors could have asked Norfolk Gliding Club (and other local clubs) for an estimate of how many flights in that airspace occur each year. A similar request could have been made to Old Buckenham and other local airfields to produce an estimate of non-gliding flights.
Clearly, nothing of the sort has been attempted. If there is no idea how much demand for usage exists, how can I (or anyone else) believe that the resources and training will be made available to meet that demand?
Mess Your Passage
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Temporarily Unaware......
Age: 25
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
off watch... clearly you have been for some time as this has been a " safety " " hot potato " for some time...... " lets run it up a pole and see how it flies..."
luv
xxx
f
luv
xxx
f
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offwatch:
I believe that Flash0710 is commenting on this extract from the LAA response:
'Although you cite this as a safety proposal, NIA is not known for its supportive attitude to GA safety. It is one of only 10 UK airfields not to implement the CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendation not to charge GA aircraft for making an emergency or precautionary diversion landing.'
It's also known as the Strasser scheme. See here for more: AOPA: Strasser's Campaign
Cheers, WW
I believe that Flash0710 is commenting on this extract from the LAA response:
'Although you cite this as a safety proposal, NIA is not known for its supportive attitude to GA safety. It is one of only 10 UK airfields not to implement the CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendation not to charge GA aircraft for making an emergency or precautionary diversion landing.'
It's also known as the Strasser scheme. See here for more: AOPA: Strasser's Campaign
Cheers, WW
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlwind
Thanks for that,I find it completely bewildering why the handful of non co-operating airfields,including Norwich, have refused to join the safety scheme.
Especially as all the MOD airfields have joined the scheme.
Lister
Especially as all the MOD airfields have joined the scheme.
Lister
Join Date: May 2000
Location: On top of the world
Age: 73
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProfChrisReed
"off watch demands that objectors provide more concrete examples"
Steady on, old chap, I don't demand anything - I was posing the questions I would expect DAP to ask when looking at the pros & cons of the proposal
whirlwind
Thanks for the explanation of the Strasser Scheme. Despite Flash's assertion "clearly you have been for some time as this has been a " safety " " hot potato " for some time" , it has nothing to do with ATC, it's a Management decision & I was not aware of it.
For what it's worth, I agree with Lister Noble's sentiments
"off watch demands that objectors provide more concrete examples"
Steady on, old chap, I don't demand anything - I was posing the questions I would expect DAP to ask when looking at the pros & cons of the proposal
whirlwind
Thanks for the explanation of the Strasser Scheme. Despite Flash's assertion "clearly you have been for some time as this has been a " safety " " hot potato " for some time" , it has nothing to do with ATC, it's a Management decision & I was not aware of it.
For what it's worth, I agree with Lister Noble's sentiments