Farnborough Airspace Proposal
you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?
The consultation document doesn't seem to realise this, citing making GA follow more predictable routes as a positive thing. It may be of benefit to them, but it certainly isn't of benefit to GA.
2 Sheds
....that "GA is excluded" is nonsense; if you consider that clearance has been refused on a particular occasion for no good reason, then file a report about it and the facts can be ascertained. And if you do route around or below CAS, what is the problem? There could be as many or as few unknown aircraft near your level as in any other part of Class G airspace - and you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?
MJ
Ps. Oh, and patronising.
I am not patronising anyone; I thought that emphasising a good look-out was a compliment. But all the talk of choke points etc is still avoiding the fundamental point that Class D airspace is there for transiting as well as any other purpose - under VFR if required - and yes, with ATC clearance.
I would have thought that some of the contributors here were vociferous enough to make their feelings known if, heaven forbid, they were refused clearance on the odd occasion.
2 s
I would have thought that some of the contributors here were vociferous enough to make their feelings known if, heaven forbid, they were refused clearance on the odd occasion.
2 s
Thread Starter
Trouble with the notion "all you have to do is to contact ATC for clearance " to access Class D is trying to get a transmission in edgeways when the frequency is extremely busy, which is usually the case for Farnboro W .
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that being allowed through Class D is a bit of a lottery...
I have been told to orbit 3 miles from the overhead at Doncaster whilst a C152 was on 'Finals'... He turned out to be on a 12 mile Final, and when he did make it to the runway he went around at 1500ft below my altitude.
On the other side of the coin, I wanted a transit around the outside of Liverpool Class D, and they almost insisted that I transit overhead the Liver Buildings and Docks area.
Also Manchester has been particularly obliging, letting me do a photo session around Joderal Bank and then on to Matlock, even though they were busy with heavy traffic.
I have been told to orbit 3 miles from the overhead at Doncaster whilst a C152 was on 'Finals'... He turned out to be on a 12 mile Final, and when he did make it to the runway he went around at 1500ft below my altitude.
On the other side of the coin, I wanted a transit around the outside of Liverpool Class D, and they almost insisted that I transit overhead the Liver Buildings and Docks area.
Also Manchester has been particularly obliging, letting me do a photo session around Joderal Bank and then on to Matlock, even though they were busy with heavy traffic.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dont overfil
How will Farnbourgh cope when their class D is in place?
I have been told to orbit 3 miles from the overhead at Doncaster whilst a C152 was on 'Finals' (sic)
2 s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire
Age: 71
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont forget the airfield a few miles to the west of farnborough with 60,000+ movements per year. The proposals would force skirting traffic dirctly overhead. The warning of wires up to 3000ft might give you a clue
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20110831NIANATMACBrief.pdf
I suggest some of you read the ruling about Norwich. I really don't think you have a hope in stopping it.
I suggest some of you read the ruling about Norwich. I really don't think you have a hope in stopping it.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi 2sheds, I was given a transit of the Doncaster Overhead at not below 2000ft, but at 3 miles out I was asked to orbit as there was a C152 reported to be on Finals. Not too sure if Tower had any access to radar, but the C152 was over 10 miles out, so took an age to get to the runway.
I cannot remember if I was working Approach whilst the C152 was talking to Tower.
I was quite happy doing the orbits, even had a chance to see Doncaster's long runway and other facilities, so didn't think it needed a report... No harm done, just 5 minutes added to my cross country. If I remember correctly it was a VFR day with very few clouds.
I cannot remember if I was working Approach whilst the C152 was talking to Tower.
I was quite happy doing the orbits, even had a chance to see Doncaster's long runway and other facilities, so didn't think it needed a report... No harm done, just 5 minutes added to my cross country. If I remember correctly it was a VFR day with very few clouds.
Hi phiggs
I don't doubt what you were apparently required to do, but I certainly would be interested in the further details and the reasons, some of which you might not be aware of, of course. e.g, - and I don't wish to make a meal of it here - were you on a VFR clearance (interesting that you say "not below 2000 ft", which is unusual); if given a level restriction, why also the hold; etc
2 s
I don't doubt what you were apparently required to do, but I certainly would be interested in the further details and the reasons, some of which you might not be aware of, of course. e.g, - and I don't wish to make a meal of it here - were you on a VFR clearance (interesting that you say "not below 2000 ft", which is unusual); if given a level restriction, why also the hold; etc
2 s
I suggest some of you read the ruling about Norwich. I really don't think you have a hope in stopping it.
MJ
Last edited by Mach Jump; 3rd Mar 2014 at 20:13.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 sheds, I've had a few "not below" clearances in various Class D CTRs. All have been because the circuit was active with traffic and I've been passing directly over the relevant airfield.
wb9999 - sure, I don't doubt it, although one has to be very circumspect with its use for VFR flights, e.g. not below ... while overhead the ATZ. I was just observing that something apparently subtle such as that was initially decreed, but eventually for no good reason. I would love to know what was going on, but do not necessarily immediately infer that ATC screwed up or was being awkward!
2 s
2 s
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that GA has any significant influence on proposals like this.
Norwich, whilst doing bugger all movements, at least has public transport operations.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have landed there more than a few times and its always been in a CAT aircraft on an AoC.
And I thought TAG hold AoC's in UK Spain and Switzerland. So a lot of the biz jet movements will be counted as CAT.
And I thought TAG hold AoC's in UK Spain and Switzerland. So a lot of the biz jet movements will be counted as CAT.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on definition of CAT I suppose. I am talking regular scheduled or charter public transport operations.
Doubtless many, if not most of the "fat cat" operations are AOC but that doesn't mean they are not still GA.
The proposal seems to be "one law for the rich, another for the poor"
Doubtless many, if not most of the "fat cat" operations are AOC but that doesn't mean they are not still GA.
The proposal seems to be "one law for the rich, another for the poor"