Another choke point in SE England / Southend get controlled airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kent
Age: 61
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another choke point in SE England / Southend get controlled airspace
I studied the four plans attached to the CAA issue letter. My aim was to compare before and after sizes; and then the RMZ 'trial' zone size too.
The CAA are telling lies.
Their first (of four) plans, described it as 'Pre-consultation' which implies that was the old original S'end zone: cunningly put that way it looks as if there's only been a minor change to the zone old versus new.
This is blatant if not careless bias by the CAA. Their 'Pre-Consultation' plan is actually the big one as initially claimed by S'end and NOT the original zone.
Also observe how their new zone drawing just happens to miss out depicting all the surrounding aerodromes now closely affected.
Nor to they address the question of poor old & weakly represented GA whose pilots will permanently suffer the dangers of the pinch effect now promulgated between London & S'end
Neither do they show the RMZ, temporarily tried, but shot down -
and by whom ?
Well purely on the say so of who else but S'end themselves ! With no-one else in the loop at this phase to challenge it.
Look at your charts, the true original Zone is quite a bit smaller !
mike hallam.
The CAA are telling lies.
Their first (of four) plans, described it as 'Pre-consultation' which implies that was the old original S'end zone: cunningly put that way it looks as if there's only been a minor change to the zone old versus new.
This is blatant if not careless bias by the CAA. Their 'Pre-Consultation' plan is actually the big one as initially claimed by S'end and NOT the original zone.
Also observe how their new zone drawing just happens to miss out depicting all the surrounding aerodromes now closely affected.
Nor to they address the question of poor old & weakly represented GA whose pilots will permanently suffer the dangers of the pinch effect now promulgated between London & S'end
Neither do they show the RMZ, temporarily tried, but shot down -
and by whom ?
Well purely on the say so of who else but S'end themselves ! With no-one else in the loop at this phase to challenge it.
Look at your charts, the true original Zone is quite a bit smaller !
mike hallam.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why a choke point? It's just Class D.
Although why airfields like Southend, Norwich and Doncaster have it or want it is quite frankly beyond me. I was at Gloucester last weekend talking to one of the wheels and they have up to 500 movements a day. They seem to manage quite well. As do Humberside who I think I'm correct in saying have far more movements than Doncaster just down the road. Although who knows, Gloucester Class D incoming? Maybe we should just make the whole of the country Class D and have done with it.
Although why airfields like Southend, Norwich and Doncaster have it or want it is quite frankly beyond me. I was at Gloucester last weekend talking to one of the wheels and they have up to 500 movements a day. They seem to manage quite well. As do Humberside who I think I'm correct in saying have far more movements than Doncaster just down the road. Although who knows, Gloucester Class D incoming? Maybe we should just make the whole of the country Class D and have done with it.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaming ridiculous. Jumped up bunch of wassernames. Choked to the East of Stansted. Can't go further east due to D138. How about giving the great unwashed a couple of miles between Sarfend and London City to crash in. "I say Carruthers good form old chap"
And then we get the Airlines wanting GA to pay for services they are forcing on us. Why not make them pay for low powered 8.33 and Mode s? It's them who are making the profits at our loss.
That is one huge area of controlled airspace for a small airport. Why make it so complicated?
It makes me think about selling my aircraft and taking up Scrounging for a living. At least there is profit in it.
And then we get the Airlines wanting GA to pay for services they are forcing on us. Why not make them pay for low powered 8.33 and Mode s? It's them who are making the profits at our loss.
That is one huge area of controlled airspace for a small airport. Why make it so complicated?
It makes me think about selling my aircraft and taking up Scrounging for a living. At least there is profit in it.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on how they implemented ATSOCAS.
Also what the airlines want.
Southend though do seemed to have pissed off a large percentage of the local airspace users that don't use the airport.
They had an airprox with a jet and a commercial helicopter last year due to the helicopter not speaking to them. Which seems pretty common practise in the area.
Its all to do with de confliction service and them trying to get a sterile approach 5000ft high 8Nm by 10Nm and controlling VFR out of it.
Also what the airlines want.
Southend though do seemed to have pissed off a large percentage of the local airspace users that don't use the airport.
They had an airprox with a jet and a commercial helicopter last year due to the helicopter not speaking to them. Which seems pretty common practise in the area.
Its all to do with de confliction service and them trying to get a sterile approach 5000ft high 8Nm by 10Nm and controlling VFR out of it.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How few did know of the established RMZ there last year? When I read the document I suspect nobody gave a damn to the RMZ, maybe even disabled display of G in all the electronics gadgetry? So it is consequent to make CTR now out of it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Southend though do seemed to have pissed off a large percentage of the local airspace users that don't use the airport.
(They did once climb me into cloud and sounded very apologetic when I reported "G-CD level at 3,000, it's india mike charlie up here" but of course I'd have refused the request if I hadn't liked it.)
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Uk
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chickenhouse,I would hope that anyone flying close to Southend would be aware of the RMZ, it is in the Notams which we check before each flight, don't we ?
I'm not keen on more Class D but why would it be 'pretty common practice' not to speak to a nearby commercial airport with big commercials flying ? Just because we can doesn't mean we should
FWIW in my experience i've never had any problem with Southend ATC, my encounters (dozen in the past year) with them have been nothing but professional, maybe I've been lucky.
I'm not keen on more Class D but why would it be 'pretty common practice' not to speak to a nearby commercial airport with big commercials flying ? Just because we can doesn't mean we should
FWIW in my experience i've never had any problem with Southend ATC, my encounters (dozen in the past year) with them have been nothing but professional, maybe I've been lucky.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was all part of the process of getting it.
Even if every single plane had squirted mode C. The fact they weren't speaking to them or told them to poke it if they tried to control them out the way so they could give a de confliction service to a CAT with the possibility of a straight in unrestricted visual.
Didn't matter what the out come was they were going for it.
Its more an indication of how they have managed to annoy the majority of airspace users into not wanting to speak to them.
The fact that class D is less restrictive with separation also helps ie if the traffic is VFR it doesn't need separated form IFR. Which they would want to do under a de-confliction service.
The ATSOCAS is meant to be getting revamped, but they are not admitting what a complete and utter failure which has been detrimental to flight safety that the current system is.
Millions has been spent of controlled airspace due to it and the practise of regional airports in class G.
Your now more likely to have an airprox with a basic service than not taking a service at all.
Even if every single plane had squirted mode C. The fact they weren't speaking to them or told them to poke it if they tried to control them out the way so they could give a de confliction service to a CAT with the possibility of a straight in unrestricted visual.
Didn't matter what the out come was they were going for it.
Its more an indication of how they have managed to annoy the majority of airspace users into not wanting to speak to them.
The fact that class D is less restrictive with separation also helps ie if the traffic is VFR it doesn't need separated form IFR. Which they would want to do under a de-confliction service.
The ATSOCAS is meant to be getting revamped, but they are not admitting what a complete and utter failure which has been detrimental to flight safety that the current system is.
Millions has been spent of controlled airspace due to it and the practise of regional airports in class G.
Your now more likely to have an airprox with a basic service than not taking a service at all.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK - North Weald (EGSX) & Southend (EGMC)
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a positive note...
I have always found that the folks in ATC at Southend are almost without exception very helpful and friendly and some are GA type people themselves.
Talk to them and they will do their utmost to ensure you get a good service.
There have been many incidents of people "exercising their rights to the airspace" in the vicinity in the last few years who have caused problems by not thinking about what might be going on around them. Just because some airspace is uncontrolled doesn't mean you should use it without thought of what else might be there.
I fly in this airspace quite frequently and have always spoken with Soutehnd even when I haven't had to.... they have always been most helpful.
I have always found that the folks in ATC at Southend are almost without exception very helpful and friendly and some are GA type people themselves.
Talk to them and they will do their utmost to ensure you get a good service.
There have been many incidents of people "exercising their rights to the airspace" in the vicinity in the last few years who have caused problems by not thinking about what might be going on around them. Just because some airspace is uncontrolled doesn't mean you should use it without thought of what else might be there.
I fly in this airspace quite frequently and have always spoken with Soutehnd even when I haven't had to.... they have always been most helpful.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because we can doesn't mean we should
The only problems they have caused is the in ability of being able to give the separation that has been dictated locally as required on a de-confliction service.
And the commercial guys are fully aware of the "problems" it creates and their hearts bleed that easyjet has to do more track miles and therefore makes less profit.
Easier and cheaper to not speak to them.
The cost of obtaining the CAS will be passed onto the customer and the airport will not be as attractive as it was as the prices will go up.
BTW the major airprox which was more luck than judgment there wasn't smoking holes in the ground at southend was a commercial helicopter transiting 10-15 miles away not speaking to them while the radar was down. My reading of it was the CAT aircraft put themselves in danger by exposing themselves sub 5000ft for a long period doing the complete unprotected procedure. But they don't seem to want to look how the CAT aircraft are being operated in class G which does require a different way of thinking to in protected airspace.
They have cleaned up their act a lot since the solo student was killed as far as I can tell. But people have long memory's and a lot don't want anything to do with them.
But its cost the owners of Southend millions just to force pilots into speaking to them.
Last edited by mad_jock; 31st Jan 2015 at 10:28.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Para 2.2 of the CAA letter
"LSA produced a Consultation Report demonstrating that it had taken account of stakeholder input to the consultation and as a result the shape and size of the proposed CTR/CTA was reduced to take account of the requirements of stakeholders"
Oh yes? Call me cynical but is there any proof of other than miniscule changes being made?
LSA producing the consultation report smacks of the fox being put in charge of the henhouse.
Coming up next. Farnborough and Inverness finalised airspace grabs after "consultations"
"LSA produced a Consultation Report demonstrating that it had taken account of stakeholder input to the consultation and as a result the shape and size of the proposed CTR/CTA was reduced to take account of the requirements of stakeholders"
Oh yes? Call me cynical but is there any proof of other than miniscule changes being made?
LSA producing the consultation report smacks of the fox being put in charge of the henhouse.
Coming up next. Farnborough and Inverness finalised airspace grabs after "consultations"
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically anyone that is willing to pay the consultants and apply's for controlled airspace is going to get it in the current state of play.
It doesn't matter what anyone says or how stupid the amount of air they want to grab they will get ruffly the same which will be a CTZ with 5 miles either side of it by 8 miles off the end of the runway up to 3.5k feet. The areas outside that which reverse wedding cake up with bits coming off to link into airways. Or not in the case of Norwich.
As with Inverness's case sometimes the amount of airspace they are given will mean you can go places which currently they try and bully you out of.
But realistically it matters not one jot what anyone says about the proposed airspace the powers that be will always say that Class D does not restrict the movement of GA and it is safer than class G. So any bitching that it will exclude GA users will be ignored.
Both Inverness and Farnborough will get there airspace.
After Norwich got it, it was pretty much obvious that anyone that pay's the money to jump through the hoops will get it. Mainly because if it was refused an subsequently there was a mid air nobody wants the finger pointed at them to say they are to blame for refusing the application.
It doesn't matter what anyone says or how stupid the amount of air they want to grab they will get ruffly the same which will be a CTZ with 5 miles either side of it by 8 miles off the end of the runway up to 3.5k feet. The areas outside that which reverse wedding cake up with bits coming off to link into airways. Or not in the case of Norwich.
As with Inverness's case sometimes the amount of airspace they are given will mean you can go places which currently they try and bully you out of.
But realistically it matters not one jot what anyone says about the proposed airspace the powers that be will always say that Class D does not restrict the movement of GA and it is safer than class G. So any bitching that it will exclude GA users will be ignored.
Both Inverness and Farnborough will get there airspace.
After Norwich got it, it was pretty much obvious that anyone that pay's the money to jump through the hoops will get it. Mainly because if it was refused an subsequently there was a mid air nobody wants the finger pointed at them to say they are to blame for refusing the application.
Class D does not restrict the movement of GA
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 31st Jan 2015 at 16:14.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is nothing in theory to stop it going in.
Which is what the airport requesting CAS will say.
But as we all know that once the airspace is controlled the ATCO's have the power of refusal due to a variety of reasons.
But in this case you will still be a huge pain in the arse under the stub without a transponder as you will keep going in and out of the primary and keep giving them pop up primary traffic and because your not squirting mode C.
Mode A only is going to be an even bigger pain because its going to give loads of traffic warnings on the CAT TCAS. Mode C at 1400ft is going to give anything below 2500ft Resolution advisory's.
So actually they will have been stopped giving the current profiles used with unrestricted decent they will have to step it and keep them higher to a lot nearer in. Something which if they had done anyway they wouldn't have the current issues.
And quite how they are going to manage when the radar is out is anyone's guess as the procedures will still take them outside controlled airspace at 1500ft.
Similar to Inverness its going to stop them trying to move you out of certain bits of airspace which they currently try to with inbounds.
Which is what the airport requesting CAS will say.
But as we all know that once the airspace is controlled the ATCO's have the power of refusal due to a variety of reasons.
But in this case you will still be a huge pain in the arse under the stub without a transponder as you will keep going in and out of the primary and keep giving them pop up primary traffic and because your not squirting mode C.
Mode A only is going to be an even bigger pain because its going to give loads of traffic warnings on the CAT TCAS. Mode C at 1400ft is going to give anything below 2500ft Resolution advisory's.
So actually they will have been stopped giving the current profiles used with unrestricted decent they will have to step it and keep them higher to a lot nearer in. Something which if they had done anyway they wouldn't have the current issues.
And quite how they are going to manage when the radar is out is anyone's guess as the procedures will still take them outside controlled airspace at 1500ft.
Similar to Inverness its going to stop them trying to move you out of certain bits of airspace which they currently try to with inbounds.
Last edited by mad_jock; 31st Jan 2015 at 16:58.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I was unsure about the XPDR settings in Europe I just looked up the German AOPA and they state in classes C, D, TMZ, night and flights above 5000 MSL/3500AGL even VFR Mode-S is mandatory. Is the UK so different and wasn't there something with SERA and unified airspace?
I also spent time to read on RMZ and am confused. When looking at EASA settings I see a mandatory lock in to the frequency and listen, but when I see at the AIPs I find "initial call mandatory", which is not in the original frame. Am I wrong or the local people sattling rules on top of otherwise unified regulations are just sabotaging the unified approach?
I know in the US is is quite easy and may of my old friends sell their pulled Mode A/C equipment to there, but within Europe I am still amazed to see all that "flexibility" ... I guess I have to take some theory lessons b4 flying there again.
I also spent time to read on RMZ and am confused. When looking at EASA settings I see a mandatory lock in to the frequency and listen, but when I see at the AIPs I find "initial call mandatory", which is not in the original frame. Am I wrong or the local people sattling rules on top of otherwise unified regulations are just sabotaging the unified approach?
I know in the US is is quite easy and may of my old friends sell their pulled Mode A/C equipment to there, but within Europe I am still amazed to see all that "flexibility" ... I guess I have to take some theory lessons b4 flying there again.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the UK so different and wasn't there something with SERA and unified airspace?
At work we won't let none UK pilots go to the UK if they have to operate in Class G.
There is nothing in theory to stop it going in.
And of course, as you said, a controller can always refuse entry and there is little to do against it, certainly not during the flight. At best one one could question the refusal afterwards, but what good could come of that?
Is the UK so different
wasn't there something with SERA and unified airspace
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but at first it doesn't change much in practice - countries are at liberty to file exceptions and most have done so, to various extents. The one advantage of SERA is that the exceptions become exceptions, I reckon they are supposed to disappear over time.