Norwich Airspace Grab
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwich Airport is part of the Strasser Scheme.
Unfortunately
10 Airports/Airfields have so far decided that they will not implement the CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendations. Hopefully they will have a change of heart and join the majority of UK airfields that have.
Belfast-Intl., Biggin-Hill, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Filton, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton, Manchester, Norwich
10 Airports/Airfields have so far decided that they will not implement the CAP 667 9.2(c) recommendations. Hopefully they will have a change of heart and join the majority of UK airfields that have.
Belfast-Intl., Biggin-Hill, Birmingham, Cardiff, Carlisle, Filton, Leeds/Bradford, London-Luton, Manchester, Norwich
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it has nothing to do with ATC, it's a Management decision & I was not aware of it.
If class D is implemented, and we have 80% of the radio calls coming from GA requesting a transit, then will 'the management' provide the correct level of staff to deal with this or will you have to say RCOCAS and leave GA having to make a diversion.
ZA
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today. See here, for example
I doubt they would have agreed if this hadn't been raised by the LAA. Perhaps they could reduce their landing fees to below £10 to also show how friendly they are to GA.... and their fuel prices.
ZA
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Hoodie, I've been rumbled
I can genuinely assure you all that joining the Strasser Scheme had nothing to do the application for Class D airspace but more to do with the eventual application of common sense.
I can genuinely assure you all that joining the Strasser Scheme had nothing to do the application for Class D airspace but more to do with the eventual application of common sense.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have Norwich got the taxiway to the end of the westerly runway fixed yet?
Or is it still like taxing over a carvan site access road.
I can understand why they want it, the new deconfliction service is a bit of a nightmare for radar vectoring. I still can't quite understand why they have to seperate VFR from those under a deconfliction service in class G but yet if you were in class D they wouldn't have to seprate VFR from IFR.
I have submitted my view that it's introduction will hinder the major majority of that airspace users for what is actually an incredibly small amount of commercial movements.
Norwich has never been a favorite of mine to operate out of. The only reasonable service was the ATC apart from the grumpy old bastard that wouldn't let me avoid the caravan access road by back tracking (and there were no movements while we very slowly went up it). Anything to do with the terminal and ground handeling was a joke from start to finish. God forbid I ever have to go there on a wx diversion. I have seen the chaos when you book 2 days in advance I can't imagine what it would be like with 25mins notice.
Sorry niknac i don't believe you, apart from the fact that it would be the first time in 5 years that I have irregularly operated out of there common sense has ever be evident. Its very convenient that the subject gets raised as a point against the operators for class D and then it get's solved. I still believe it will be a cold day in hell before a fee wouldn't be charged to GA.
Or is it still like taxing over a carvan site access road.
I can understand why they want it, the new deconfliction service is a bit of a nightmare for radar vectoring. I still can't quite understand why they have to seperate VFR from those under a deconfliction service in class G but yet if you were in class D they wouldn't have to seprate VFR from IFR.
I have submitted my view that it's introduction will hinder the major majority of that airspace users for what is actually an incredibly small amount of commercial movements.
Norwich has never been a favorite of mine to operate out of. The only reasonable service was the ATC apart from the grumpy old bastard that wouldn't let me avoid the caravan access road by back tracking (and there were no movements while we very slowly went up it). Anything to do with the terminal and ground handeling was a joke from start to finish. God forbid I ever have to go there on a wx diversion. I have seen the chaos when you book 2 days in advance I can't imagine what it would be like with 25mins notice.
but more to do with the eventual application of common sense.
Mess Your Passage
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Temporarily Unaware......
Age: 25
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only am i upset about being stuffed to divert here whilst trying to land in my garden..... the security guys snaffled my wine that i was trying to blow my own plane up with and the oh so on top of it airport staff reminded me i could not have my dog in the terminal....
also to be robbed for the airport development charge....
delusions occouring.....
it's a potentially good bit of real estate tho....
hugs
x
x
xf
also to be robbed for the airport development charge....
delusions occouring.....
it's a potentially good bit of real estate tho....
hugs
x
x
xf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am pleased I started this thread which came about because of something I read from another PPRUNER. There are some conclusions to draw already, I think.
Firstly the fact is the GA community does not have the resources to get together to present a “heavy” response to this.
Next we have to send our comments (objections!) to the applicant but there is no guarantee the applicant will include all submissions (does a turkey vote for Christmas?).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).
Why when the ATC manual clearly states that the standard ROCAS is ONLY to be issued when someone has asked for entry is it still used almost by rote? Even then I cannot remember any time frame being given by any ATCO in the last several years. I think it was an ATCO earlier that said if we are refused entry then we should report it to DAP so perhaps we should all take the time so to do. We may then just start to get a more appropriate service to GA and not be excluded. I have heard the arguments that GA does not pay but let us be clear the airspace that the airport grabs is not paid for either. I have said so many times that if the volume of controlled airspace had to be rented then I bet there would very soon be some massive shrinkage and we would not have to ask for quite so many transits of empty CAS.
Firstly the fact is the GA community does not have the resources to get together to present a “heavy” response to this.
Next we have to send our comments (objections!) to the applicant but there is no guarantee the applicant will include all submissions (does a turkey vote for Christmas?).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).
Why when the ATC manual clearly states that the standard ROCAS is ONLY to be issued when someone has asked for entry is it still used almost by rote? Even then I cannot remember any time frame being given by any ATCO in the last several years. I think it was an ATCO earlier that said if we are refused entry then we should report it to DAP so perhaps we should all take the time so to do. We may then just start to get a more appropriate service to GA and not be excluded. I have heard the arguments that GA does not pay but let us be clear the airspace that the airport grabs is not paid for either. I have said so many times that if the volume of controlled airspace had to be rented then I bet there would very soon be some massive shrinkage and we would not have to ask for quite so many transits of empty CAS.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still believe it will be a cold day in hell before a fee wouldn't be charged to GA.
Having joined the scheme, why would the airport charge anyone diverting in an emergency?
As for the taxiways, any spare tarmac is most welcome the next time you are down or way
Next we have to send our comments (objections!) to the applicant but there is no guarantee the applicant will include all submissions (does a turkey vote for Christmas?).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).
Next we have the very clear views of what some ATCO see as the “problem” of GA which is what is coming over in some comments.
Then we have the lack of response to very reasonable questions to our ATC friends who are clearly reading these threads but are unwilling to answer. For example a number of WHY questions were posed but not answered (why such a large area for example, why not get a better agreement with the military).
1. It has been clearly stated on this thread that all the submissions go to the CAA and the DAP, if you have any evidence to the contrary then you are perfectly entitled to make your complaint to the CAA.
2. As an ATCO at Norwich, I've never heard or seen any of my colleagues state that GA are any sort of "problem", again, where's your evidence?
3.Your WHY questions have frequently been answered on this site, however it seems that most of the time the answer doesn't suit you. The size of the area of airspace applied for was decided by to be the applcant, i.e Airport Authority, not ATC, so why expect a response from us?
We have got an excellent working relationship over the airspace design with the military, again that has been stated on the site previously.
Your obsession with ROCAS when the airspace isn't even there yet and your repeated assumption that we will do everything within our power as ATCOs to keep anything other than airliners outside the zone, is beyond comprehension.
All said, I am glad you started the thread, it's kept many people occupied in the wee small hours thinking of vacuous insults to hurl in our direction.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. It has been clearly stated on this thread that all the submissions go to the CAA and the DAP, if you have any evidence to the contrary then you are perfectly entitled to make your complaint to the CAA.
I don't doubt that the controllers at NIA have good intentions. However with dwindling movements do you think 'the management' are going to give you more resources (ie money) to handle traffic... and how do you intend to do anything other than ban non radio aircraft gliders microlights and others who currently operate freely and safely in this area? There are many more of them than there are commercial flights from Norwich.
This piece of airspace is out of all proportion to the number of movements you have and it will be uneconomic to provide a good quick free service to GA because of the limited revenue from the commercial stuff. So a poor service will result.
Its quite obvious, why would NIA management spend resources to provide a free service to GA? They are there to make a profit and if they could remove the need to provide a service to GA then I'm sure it would increase their profits. They will not be quite as explicit. They will only allow single controllers as that is cheaper. When there is too much to handle then you will have to issue ROCAS's. Any suggestion to employ more controllers will be met with a we'll take a look at that.
DJ
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.
Cough,
we don't control the weather and your post has no relevance at all.
If tomorrow, for arguements sake, you wanted to fly from Leeds to Manchester Barton and the weather was marginal at both airports, with the same marginal weather forecasts at all destination airfields, would you still fly?
I think not.
Cough,
we don't control the weather and your post has no relevance at all.
If tomorrow, for arguements sake, you wanted to fly from Leeds to Manchester Barton and the weather was marginal at both airports, with the same marginal weather forecasts at all destination airfields, would you still fly?
I think not.
Cough, yes, if Alan Partridge Intergalactic succeeds with its airspace grab attempt, flight under VFR below 3000ft amsl at 140KIAS or less in a fixed wing aircraft in the Class D CAS will require an in-flight visibility of 5 km, whereas a 'plain vanilla' PPL without IMC rating would otherwise be able to operate under VFR down to 3 km in-flight visibility. So if you currently choose to fly in 3 km visibility in the vicinity of Norwich, you wouldn't be able to if this proposal succeeds.
Flight under SVFR in a Class D CTR requires a 'plain vanilla' PPL holder to maintain at least 10 km in-flight visibility (except on specified routes), which could be even more restrictive for you.
Air Traffickers are often unaware of the additional restrictions which apply to the PPL without IMC Rating.
Your post does have relevance.
Flight under SVFR in a Class D CTR requires a 'plain vanilla' PPL holder to maintain at least 10 km in-flight visibility (except on specified routes), which could be even more restrictive for you.
Air Traffickers are often unaware of the additional restrictions which apply to the PPL without IMC Rating.
Your post does have relevance.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m still curious. Some quotes:
------------------------
off watch , post 130. 26.8.09:
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 ?
---------------------------
Me, post 132:
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.
--------------------------------
off watch , post 133. 26.8.09:
chrism
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.
--------------------------
niknak post 154, 29.8.09 to WorkingHard:
3.Your WHY questions have frequently been answered on this site, however it seems that most of the time the answer doesn't suit you. The size of the area of airspace applied for was decided by to be the applcant, i.e Airport Authority, not ATC, so why expect a response from us?
We have got an excellent working relationship over the airspace design with the military, again that has been stated on the site previously.
Your obsession with ROCAS when the airspace isn't even there yet and your repeated assumption that we will do everything within our power as ATCOs to keep anything other than airliners outside the zone, is beyond comprehension.
-------------------------------
niknak post 157. 30.8.09:
Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.
----------------------------------
[me again, now:]
So it is down to the objectors to collect all the data that the applicants and their apologists claim to have, are shown not to have, are forced to admit they don’t have due to “a flaw in the system”, won’t collect and supply because they don’t see it as their flaw, and any complaints from objectors are either the fault of the objectors or not justified?
What research did the applicants undertake as to how many “ROCAS” responses, without a time limit, are given by other class D operators and ATC units? And research into how many other such units have a single controller who runs out of capacity to provide a service to (to take a random example) glider pilots?
As I said, still curious, but gradually forming an opinion.
Chris N.
------------------------
off watch , post 130. 26.8.09:
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 ?
---------------------------
Me, post 132:
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.
--------------------------------
off watch , post 133. 26.8.09:
chrism
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.
--------------------------
niknak post 154, 29.8.09 to WorkingHard:
3.Your WHY questions have frequently been answered on this site, however it seems that most of the time the answer doesn't suit you. The size of the area of airspace applied for was decided by to be the applcant, i.e Airport Authority, not ATC, so why expect a response from us?
We have got an excellent working relationship over the airspace design with the military, again that has been stated on the site previously.
Your obsession with ROCAS when the airspace isn't even there yet and your repeated assumption that we will do everything within our power as ATCOs to keep anything other than airliners outside the zone, is beyond comprehension.
-------------------------------
niknak post 157. 30.8.09:
Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.
----------------------------------
[me again, now:]
So it is down to the objectors to collect all the data that the applicants and their apologists claim to have, are shown not to have, are forced to admit they don’t have due to “a flaw in the system”, won’t collect and supply because they don’t see it as their flaw, and any complaints from objectors are either the fault of the objectors or not justified?
What research did the applicants undertake as to how many “ROCAS” responses, without a time limit, are given by other class D operators and ATC units? And research into how many other such units have a single controller who runs out of capacity to provide a service to (to take a random example) glider pilots?
As I said, still curious, but gradually forming an opinion.
Chris N.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Z.A - like WH, your post is based upon pure supposition and not an ounce of fact, prove your case with the facts.
Like NIA it is impossible to produce facts for what might happen in the future, Projections are just that. NIA are making projections about future traffic and I am making projections about what might happen. If this is unnacceptable then I suggest any NIA projections are removed as they are not facts.
One thing is very clear, there are dwindling numbers of flights so the need for this airspace is not clear. NikNak seems to be brushing aside the objections of GA on the basis that we have no statistics about the number of GA flights through the proposed area and cannot prove what will happen if class D is granted. I practise aerobatics within the proposed area regularly. Probably tens of times per year. I also make about 10 transits of the proposed area a year. Surely NIA should have made an assessment of the number of other GA aircraft that have used or passed through the proposed area. They have access to radar records.
ZA
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing I can see that has any benefit to NWI in the last 4 years has been the opening of Saxon allowing charters to avoid the work shy jobs worths in the main terminal.
The ground infrastructure ie taxi ways etc are a disgrace and when I taxied up the caravan road taxiway I am sure thats where we picked a ding in a prop that an engineer had to spend 2 hours filing out and led two weeks later to getting the prop rebalanced.
I really can't see getting CAS is going to help you at all getting more CAT in. You have your route to AMS your Aberdeen flights are all linked to the oil. Yes the holiday charter market might increase but I doud't it unless the local population start breeding like rabbits. Where else and who else would want to get to NWI.
Anyway best of luck to the GA pilots in the area unfortuantely I suspect after the Doncaster successful bid they might actually get it however unjust that would be.
The ground infrastructure ie taxi ways etc are a disgrace and when I taxied up the caravan road taxiway I am sure thats where we picked a ding in a prop that an engineer had to spend 2 hours filing out and led two weeks later to getting the prop rebalanced.
I really can't see getting CAS is going to help you at all getting more CAT in. You have your route to AMS your Aberdeen flights are all linked to the oil. Yes the holiday charter market might increase but I doud't it unless the local population start breeding like rabbits. Where else and who else would want to get to NWI.
Anyway best of luck to the GA pilots in the area unfortuantely I suspect after the Doncaster successful bid they might actually get it however unjust that would be.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak please be assured I have no wish to trade insults and if you believe I have insulted anyone then I apologise. I have re-read the posts from the beginning and find that some questions remain unanswered despite your protestation. I am not as obsessed with ROCAS as so many ATCO appear to be but that is one question that remains unanswered. We are not all numpty pilots in GA and at least try and keep legal and careful often without help from ATC but when we do get a service then generally speaking the UK is second to none. Will Norwich provide the resources necessary to give equal access to all airspace users? If not then would you as an ATCO make any representation to "management" to say you cannot do your job properly because of lack of resources? You will always have the resources to control the IFR inbound but would you let the other transit traffic just fight there own corner? I trust you see what I mean even though it may not be eloguently explained.