Norwich Airspace Grab
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwich Airspace Grab
I have just become aware of this and as I frequent that bit of airspace frequently it really has my attention. Am I being too pessimistic or is this another exercise in boosting egos (it is after all now Norwich INTERNATIONAL Airport). As I said to the duty manager if he would tell me where norwich DOMESTIC is I will use that instead!
Please may I have your views on this. With thanks to GASCO:-
GASCo
24th July 2009
To: All Board & Council Members
GASCo Info Notice 03/09 – Proposed Norwich Controlled Airspace
1. Introduction
You may already be aware of a proposal to implement controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich International Airport. I only became fully aware of it this week as the Formal Notification dated 22 May had gone elsewhere in GASCo. I attempted to download it from the promulgated site but for some reason it failed. Nevertheless, the 86 page document can be readily accessed on the BMAA Web Site BMAA Online under Consultations together with their Response. Alternatively, I have obtained from Norwich a copy by e-mail and can Forward it to anyone who requests it. At the front it has:
This document and the information contained therein is the property of Cyrrus Limited. It must not be reproduced in whole or part or otherwise disclosed to parties outside of Cyrrus Limited without the prior written consent. This must take the 2009 prize for the daftest thing in a Consultative Document!
Commercial air traffic has doubled at Norwich during the last 10 years and the closure of Coltishall after 36 years of an integrated arrangement meant that there was a loss of the known traffic environment. The proposal does include arrangements for airspace sharing and Letters of Agreement with those affected eg Felthorpe, Ludham and Swanton Morley. It also states ‘Transits through the proposed CTR/CTA by both VFR & IFR flights will be accommodated on direct routings to the maximum possible extent’. I also note that nearly half of the problem events during a recent 2 year period were known to be military aircraft. A Chart of the proposal is attached.
The current GASCo policy is for organisations to make their own comments unless the Council asks GASCo to submit specific or general comments. Responses can be e-mailed to [email protected] . During the Cardiff/Bristol Consultation GASCo sent the following response; let me know if you wish the same to be sent to Norwich:
1. GASCo supports this proposal as it provides all the airspace that is necessary to maintain the safety standards of commercial traffic using these airports whilst taking into account the needs of general aviation.
2. This is based on the proviso that there are sufficient appropriate staff are available, to ensure the requirements for access to Class D by General Aviation aircraft seeking to fly within or across the airspace.
The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.
John Thorpe, Chief Executive
Please may I have your views on this. With thanks to GASCO:-
GASCo
24th July 2009
To: All Board & Council Members
GASCo Info Notice 03/09 – Proposed Norwich Controlled Airspace
1. Introduction
You may already be aware of a proposal to implement controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich International Airport. I only became fully aware of it this week as the Formal Notification dated 22 May had gone elsewhere in GASCo. I attempted to download it from the promulgated site but for some reason it failed. Nevertheless, the 86 page document can be readily accessed on the BMAA Web Site BMAA Online under Consultations together with their Response. Alternatively, I have obtained from Norwich a copy by e-mail and can Forward it to anyone who requests it. At the front it has:
This document and the information contained therein is the property of Cyrrus Limited. It must not be reproduced in whole or part or otherwise disclosed to parties outside of Cyrrus Limited without the prior written consent. This must take the 2009 prize for the daftest thing in a Consultative Document!
Commercial air traffic has doubled at Norwich during the last 10 years and the closure of Coltishall after 36 years of an integrated arrangement meant that there was a loss of the known traffic environment. The proposal does include arrangements for airspace sharing and Letters of Agreement with those affected eg Felthorpe, Ludham and Swanton Morley. It also states ‘Transits through the proposed CTR/CTA by both VFR & IFR flights will be accommodated on direct routings to the maximum possible extent’. I also note that nearly half of the problem events during a recent 2 year period were known to be military aircraft. A Chart of the proposal is attached.
The current GASCo policy is for organisations to make their own comments unless the Council asks GASCo to submit specific or general comments. Responses can be e-mailed to [email protected] . During the Cardiff/Bristol Consultation GASCo sent the following response; let me know if you wish the same to be sent to Norwich:
1. GASCo supports this proposal as it provides all the airspace that is necessary to maintain the safety standards of commercial traffic using these airports whilst taking into account the needs of general aviation.
2. This is based on the proviso that there are sufficient appropriate staff are available, to ensure the requirements for access to Class D by General Aviation aircraft seeking to fly within or across the airspace.
The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.
John Thorpe, Chief Executive
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. This is based on the proviso that there are sufficient appropriate staff are available, to ensure the requirements for access to Class D by General Aviation aircraft seeking to fly within or across the airspace.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just looked at the Norwich Airport Airspace Change Proposal document mentioned above, which is on the BMAA website.
At para 2.4.7, it says that ... the Consultation Period ... is planned to close on 28 July 2009. (i.e. tomorrow!)
This is in conflict with the date of 28th August 2009 mentioned above as the closing date for comments - so has the time available for responses been extended?
JD
At para 2.4.7, it says that ... the Consultation Period ... is planned to close on 28 July 2009. (i.e. tomorrow!)
This is in conflict with the date of 28th August 2009 mentioned above as the closing date for comments - so has the time available for responses been extended?
JD
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just answered my own question by inspecting this document on the Norwich Airport website.
It was re-issued on 22 May 2009 as version 2.0 (rather than version 1.1 which is on the BMAA website) and can be found here.
The new para 2.4.7 now shows the amended Consultation Period as closing on 28 August 2009.
JD
It was re-issued on 22 May 2009 as version 2.0 (rather than version 1.1 which is on the BMAA website) and can be found here.
The new para 2.4.7 now shows the amended Consultation Period as closing on 28 August 2009.
JD
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial air traffic has doubled at Norwich during the last 10 years
Looking at todays departures we can all see that the total number of commercial flights FROM here, ignoring the duplicate schedule entries (obviously put there to make the number look even more impressive!
) is..........18!!!. Many of these being oil platform helicopter departures and only 9 'proper' commercial aircraft.Norwich International will always struggle to survive (let alone expand) due to it's location and the transport infrastructure in the area. Does it need this Class D airspace...I don't think so.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal opinion is that Norwich looks around and sees other people doing it and says 'we'd better do that too.....'
Major commerical operators have departed Norwich in the last few years and as a Eurohub it has tremendous potential which has never been fulfilled. It could easily be another Amsterdam Schipol if it wanted but it just prefers to continue in its normal (mismanaged) way.
Anyway with the appaling local road system, lack of motorways, un-connected railway system (the nearest station is 10 miles away), and wierd local attitudes to development and progress this Class D is never going to be required without a major sea-change.....................
Arc
Major commerical operators have departed Norwich in the last few years and as a Eurohub it has tremendous potential which has never been fulfilled. It could easily be another Amsterdam Schipol if it wanted but it just prefers to continue in its normal (mismanaged) way.
Anyway with the appaling local road system, lack of motorways, un-connected railway system (the nearest station is 10 miles away), and wierd local attitudes to development and progress this Class D is never going to be required without a major sea-change.....................
Arc
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annex D makes interesting reading. 68 occurences over a period of 2 years 10 months i.e less tha one per fortnight. There do not appear to have been many if any significant conflicts.
More to the point a quick reading would seem to suggest that out of the 68 some were plainly outside the proposed class D i.e. No 48 -16nm north west, 53 - 6nm west low level, some may well have been outside, eg nos 22, 27,28, 34 etc. In all there appear to be about 25 + that do not clearly appear to have been within the proposed class D airspace; so over one-third. Two occurrences appear to be London Mil refusing to take traffic because of workload.
If one ignores the 25 we are left with 43 in a 34 month period so an average of 1.27 occurrences per month.
I'm due to fly from Norwich in a fortnight - do you think I should cancel?
More to the point a quick reading would seem to suggest that out of the 68 some were plainly outside the proposed class D i.e. No 48 -16nm north west, 53 - 6nm west low level, some may well have been outside, eg nos 22, 27,28, 34 etc. In all there appear to be about 25 + that do not clearly appear to have been within the proposed class D airspace; so over one-third. Two occurrences appear to be London Mil refusing to take traffic because of workload.
If one ignores the 25 we are left with 43 in a 34 month period so an average of 1.27 occurrences per month.
I'm due to fly from Norwich in a fortnight - do you think I should cancel?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH has also posted on the ATC forum on the same subject.
The public consultation period for Class D airspace at Norwich has been on the go for nearly 4 months, the project itself has been well within the public domain and active for nearly two years.
An enormous amount of work (at considerable cost to Norwich Airport and man hours by staff who have done a lot of the work in their own time for nothing) has gone into ensuring that every interested party in the area and National Organisations across the board, likely to be affected by the proposal has been consulted.
Anyone else who wanted their opinions to be heard has had ample opportunity to do so, (and still does) via the Airport Website or their representitive organisation.
I can't imagine what WH considers he has to add by attempted stirring of the big spoon, failing miserably and making himself look very silly by displaying his ignorance and lack of ability to keep up with what is freely available within the public domain.
The public consultation period for Class D airspace at Norwich has been on the go for nearly 4 months, the project itself has been well within the public domain and active for nearly two years.
An enormous amount of work (at considerable cost to Norwich Airport and man hours by staff who have done a lot of the work in their own time for nothing) has gone into ensuring that every interested party in the area and National Organisations across the board, likely to be affected by the proposal has been consulted.
Anyone else who wanted their opinions to be heard has had ample opportunity to do so, (and still does) via the Airport Website or their representitive organisation.
I can't imagine what WH considers he has to add by attempted stirring of the big spoon, failing miserably and making himself look very silly by displaying his ignorance and lack of ability to keep up with what is freely available within the public domain.
Last edited by niknak; 29th Jul 2009 at 19:16.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NikNak - I think you are a bit harsh. WH starts his post by saying that he has only just become aware and are you suggesting that this somehow invalidates his comments or concerns? Even if the project has been on the go for 2 years the final consultation draft was only published two months ago. Norwich has operated very well without class D for many years. The figures show that movements have not increased significantly and it is never going to become a major international airport - too close to Stanstead, relatively small local population and as a previous poster has stated the road and rail links are very poor. Further, the details set out in annex D do not establish a major problem.
Many of us have seen how Norwich has developed delusions of grandeur and has outpriced or made GA unwelcome. Many years ago I used to keep a Pitts in hangar 9 and never had a problem. Now I feel decidedly unwelcome.
Before you flame me, Norwich is my airport of choice and whenever its suitable if I am flying commercially I use the KLM service to AMS and then transit onwards. I am flying out of Norwich in a couple of weeks. Further, Norwich ATC are first class. I fly a PA32 locally and part own a cub at Priory Farm. For my part I don't think that the class D will really affect me other than the occasional ability to fly an instrument approach outside controlled airspace. As Naarfolk is fairly flat I suppose many of use will just have to create our own GPS approaches without a precision let down and low level RTB I'm sure I will get transits if necessary and in the cub I'll just bimble along outside the zone below 1500'.
That being said is it really necessary? Will the aviation industry and NWI come to a grinding halt without class D? I suspect not.
Many of us have seen how Norwich has developed delusions of grandeur and has outpriced or made GA unwelcome. Many years ago I used to keep a Pitts in hangar 9 and never had a problem. Now I feel decidedly unwelcome.
Before you flame me, Norwich is my airport of choice and whenever its suitable if I am flying commercially I use the KLM service to AMS and then transit onwards. I am flying out of Norwich in a couple of weeks. Further, Norwich ATC are first class. I fly a PA32 locally and part own a cub at Priory Farm. For my part I don't think that the class D will really affect me other than the occasional ability to fly an instrument approach outside controlled airspace. As Naarfolk is fairly flat I suppose many of use will just have to create our own GPS approaches without a precision let down and low level RTB
I'm sure I will get transits if necessary and in the cub I'll just bimble along outside the zone below 1500'.That being said is it really necessary? Will the aviation industry and NWI come to a grinding halt without class D? I suspect not.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much the same can be said of the Humberside proposals, and were also said of the Doncaster proposals. More and more aircraft having to duck and dive around CAS, and with less room in which to do so, and also to worry at the flight planning stage as to whether access will be available ( how does one plan the unplannable route?) and yet more potential for infringements and the resultant cries of licence loss from the holier than thou lynch mob....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me it's not about the category of the airspace - it's the amount of the airspace that they are trying to grab IMHO.
Is it really all required ??? - and as with legal Approach - GA at Norwich is definately being squeezed and it is expensive to operate from there. I believe however that the costing strategy comes from 'on high' and is no reflection of the actual attitude to be found on the airfield itself.
and Norwich, delusions of grandeur ?? - 'Moi ?'
Arc
Is it really all required ??? - and as with legal Approach - GA at Norwich is definately being squeezed and it is expensive to operate from there. I believe however that the costing strategy comes from 'on high' and is no reflection of the actual attitude to be found on the airfield itself.
and Norwich, delusions of grandeur ?? - 'Moi ?'
Arc
What really annoys me about this proposal is that they state in the consultation that a large part of the proposed zone in the West (to be known as the Swanton Box) will not be required by NIA for 70% of the time so when they don't want it they will delegate it to the military to be controlled out of Marham. So you want to transit & call NIA, they have delegated it to Marham and can't be bothered to call Marham to see if they can allow transit so you will be denied access to airspace that is probably empty and likely to stay that way for the duration of your transit. All this without the military haveing to make a case for having the airspace.
Submit your objections before it's too late.
By the way:
In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the CAA’s requirements a period of 12 weeks is allowed for consultation. In order to make allowance for the May Bank Holiday period NIA has extended the consultation period to 14 weeks. Thus the Consultation Period begins on 22 May 2009 and is planned to close on 28 August 2009 .
Submit your objections before it's too late.
By the way:
In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the CAA’s requirements a period of 12 weeks is allowed for consultation. In order to make allowance for the May Bank Holiday period NIA has extended the consultation period to 14 weeks. Thus the Consultation Period begins on 22 May 2009 and is planned to close on 28 August 2009 .
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Norfolk UK
Age: 81
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L4 Cub-thread drift
Interesting,there are three Priory L4 group members on this thread plus one I bought my share from.
I've been flying her today,while you are all working.
Sorry,but there is some good from becoming old and grizzled
Lister
I've been flying her today,while you are all working.
Sorry,but there is some good from becoming old and grizzled
Lister
Norwich airspace
I have just very briefly read bits of this consultation document, and it is an unmitigated disgrace.
Their executive summary is riddled with lies and fallacies:
"NIA... has become a major Regional Airport" - lie #1 - no it hasn't - it is a minor regional airport by any reasonable definition
"This Agreement effectively protected NIA traffic from military and other itinerant traffic operating in the vicinity" - fallacy #1 the "military traffic" from which NIA was protected has now gone with Coltishall's closure; lie #2 Coltishall never protected NIA from “itinerant” traffic as this was never obliged to receive any air traffic service; fallacy #2 they use a derogatory term to describe GA traffic (“itinerant” conjures images of vagrants) to support their argument
“Accordingly there has been a commensurate increase in ATC workload” - fallacy #3 - large amounts of airspace to control will also increase ATC workload
“...avoiding action and delaying action is commonplace which has been, on several occasions, to the general detriment of flight safety” - fallacy #4 - taking avoiding action is exactly about ensuring safety - it would be to the detriment of safety NOT to take avoiding action
Let me copy the final paragraph in full:
“NIA is an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) approved under Article 100 of the Air
Navigation Order and, as such, must satisfy the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as to their
competence to provide air traffic services (ATS) and that the services are safe. In meeting
its statutory responsibilities for safety management of the ATS provided and in order to
assure an acceptable level of flight safety for aircraft inbound to or outbound from NIA in the
critical stages of flight, NIA proposes to submit a case to the CAA to establish Class D
controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich Airport.”
This is absolute drivel, and fallacy #5 - the logic of it is “we have a responsibility for safety therefore we need Class D airspace” - they have not submitted any relevant material in support of this assertion, instead just repeating the words “safe” or “safety” ad nauseam to browbeat the reader without submitting any evidence or reasoning - re-read the paragraph and count these words!
Someone suggested on another thread that there should be an airspace tax, whereby airports pay an annual amount per cubic mile of airspace they control - I think this is an exceptionally good idea, and it would make sure that airports don’t take any more airspace than they need. Also this concept is widely precedented - for example, in radio spectrum licensing fees (for e.g. mobile operators).
In short, this is an absolute disgrace. Whilst it won’t affect me personally, as a point of principle and to help our fellow aviators in East Anglia, I will be responding to the consultation in the strongest possible terms. I urge all others to do likewise.
Their executive summary is riddled with lies and fallacies:
"NIA... has become a major Regional Airport" - lie #1 - no it hasn't - it is a minor regional airport by any reasonable definition
"This Agreement effectively protected NIA traffic from military and other itinerant traffic operating in the vicinity" - fallacy #1 the "military traffic" from which NIA was protected has now gone with Coltishall's closure; lie #2 Coltishall never protected NIA from “itinerant” traffic as this was never obliged to receive any air traffic service; fallacy #2 they use a derogatory term to describe GA traffic (“itinerant” conjures images of vagrants) to support their argument
“Accordingly there has been a commensurate increase in ATC workload” - fallacy #3 - large amounts of airspace to control will also increase ATC workload
“...avoiding action and delaying action is commonplace which has been, on several occasions, to the general detriment of flight safety” - fallacy #4 - taking avoiding action is exactly about ensuring safety - it would be to the detriment of safety NOT to take avoiding action
Let me copy the final paragraph in full:
“NIA is an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) approved under Article 100 of the Air
Navigation Order and, as such, must satisfy the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as to their
competence to provide air traffic services (ATS) and that the services are safe. In meeting
its statutory responsibilities for safety management of the ATS provided and in order to
assure an acceptable level of flight safety for aircraft inbound to or outbound from NIA in the
critical stages of flight, NIA proposes to submit a case to the CAA to establish Class D
controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich Airport.”
This is absolute drivel, and fallacy #5 - the logic of it is “we have a responsibility for safety therefore we need Class D airspace” - they have not submitted any relevant material in support of this assertion, instead just repeating the words “safe” or “safety” ad nauseam to browbeat the reader without submitting any evidence or reasoning - re-read the paragraph and count these words!
Someone suggested on another thread that there should be an airspace tax, whereby airports pay an annual amount per cubic mile of airspace they control - I think this is an exceptionally good idea, and it would make sure that airports don’t take any more airspace than they need. Also this concept is widely precedented - for example, in radio spectrum licensing fees (for e.g. mobile operators).
In short, this is an absolute disgrace. Whilst it won’t affect me personally, as a point of principle and to help our fellow aviators in East Anglia, I will be responding to the consultation in the strongest possible terms. I urge all others to do likewise.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just emailed this;
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in response to the consultation regarding the proposed increase in controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.
I write as a pilot and aircraft owner who regularly visits airfields around Norwich, although I regret to say that it is some time since I have actually flown into Norwich itself, as the escalation in charges to general aviation traffic has all but prevented this.
I am puzzled by many of the claims and aspirations which you state in your consultation document, as most of them appear to be unrealistic and/or distortions of the truth.
Far from being an "increasingly busy regional airport", the numbers of movements at Norwich have actually fallen over the last 3 years by 20%. Moreover, the projection for movement numbers doubling in the near future, is willfully unrealistic. With a lack of supporting infrastructure (road links and rail services) and continuing government investment in Stansted, Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick and an ever deepening recession, these movements are likely to fall further - rather than increase.
The uncomfortable truth for Norwich is that there are actually GA fields in the south-east of England with more movements, who exist with only a modest ATZ and FIS, so I think that the demand for a massive increase in controlled airspace is unrealistic, unnecessary and tantamount to 'dog-in-the-manger' behavior, founded upon ill-conceived delusions of grandure.
On these grounds, I strongly object to any expansion of controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.
Yours faithfully,
Dear Sirs,
I am writing in response to the consultation regarding the proposed increase in controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.
I write as a pilot and aircraft owner who regularly visits airfields around Norwich, although I regret to say that it is some time since I have actually flown into Norwich itself, as the escalation in charges to general aviation traffic has all but prevented this.
I am puzzled by many of the claims and aspirations which you state in your consultation document, as most of them appear to be unrealistic and/or distortions of the truth.
Far from being an "increasingly busy regional airport", the numbers of movements at Norwich have actually fallen over the last 3 years by 20%. Moreover, the projection for movement numbers doubling in the near future, is willfully unrealistic. With a lack of supporting infrastructure (road links and rail services) and continuing government investment in Stansted, Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick and an ever deepening recession, these movements are likely to fall further - rather than increase.
The uncomfortable truth for Norwich is that there are actually GA fields in the south-east of England with more movements, who exist with only a modest ATZ and FIS, so I think that the demand for a massive increase in controlled airspace is unrealistic, unnecessary and tantamount to 'dog-in-the-manger' behavior, founded upon ill-conceived delusions of grandure.
On these grounds, I strongly object to any expansion of controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.
Yours faithfully,
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there's a thing.
Working Hard has just posted on the ATC forum on precisely the same subject (a thread he started) and wsmempsons post is almost the miror image of that post - I wonder if they could be identical twins!
All I'll say to WS and Key Pilot is, the public consultation is just that, public and there for you to make your contribution, so do it via the methods explained on the airport website and your opinion will be listened to and noted by not only the Airport Authority, but also any replies, positive or negative have to be forwarded to the CAA and the DAP who, will ultimately decide if the airspace application will be granted.
I am just a small cog in the wheel and I've been involved in just some of the massive amount of work put into this project, but the only thing I would say is, if you are going to make comments which you want anyone outwith Norwich Airport to consider, make them a little bit more constructive.
Working Hard has just posted on the ATC forum on precisely the same subject (a thread he started) and wsmempsons post is almost the miror image of that post - I wonder if they could be identical twins!
All I'll say to WS and Key Pilot is, the public consultation is just that, public and there for you to make your contribution, so do it via the methods explained on the airport website and your opinion will be listened to and noted by not only the Airport Authority, but also any replies, positive or negative have to be forwarded to the CAA and the DAP who, will ultimately decide if the airspace application will be granted.
I am just a small cog in the wheel and I've been involved in just some of the massive amount of work put into this project, but the only thing I would say is, if you are going to make comments which you want anyone outwith Norwich Airport to consider, make them a little bit more constructive.
Last edited by niknak; 30th Jul 2009 at 19:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For niknak and wsmemperson I did copy and past from wsmemperson to the ATC forum as I thought the questions posed may realise some comment that us GA pilots would be hard pressed to find elsewhere. I did also stae it was copied from here and not my words. No harm done (or so i thought). wsmemperson you put it far better than did I so that is why I copied and attributed.