Circling aircraft over Gatwick
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shoreham
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Circling aircraft over Gatwick
I have a question, but it isn't as dumb as the title suggests!
3 or 4 times in the last few months, i've noticed light singles (C152's and PA28's) doing circles a few thousand feet over Crawley (Just south of Gatwick)
Does anybody know what this is about? Although the zone around LGW is class D airspace, I can't imagine them allowing people to carry out what looks like basic PPL training manouvers so close to the airport. I have flown from Redhill and Shoreham, and have always gone out over Edenbridge or Eastbourne to do this kind of thing
Can anybody shine any light on this?
BTW, there's one out there now, 17:00, Sunday 1st
WO
3 or 4 times in the last few months, i've noticed light singles (C152's and PA28's) doing circles a few thousand feet over Crawley (Just south of Gatwick)
Does anybody know what this is about? Although the zone around LGW is class D airspace, I can't imagine them allowing people to carry out what looks like basic PPL training manouvers so close to the airport. I have flown from Redhill and Shoreham, and have always gone out over Edenbridge or Eastbourne to do this kind of thing
Can anybody shine any light on this?
BTW, there's one out there now, 17:00, Sunday 1st
WO
Guest
Posts: n/a
Due to a restriction in the MATS Pt 2 VFR singles aren't allowed to transit the Gatwick ATZ, so unlikely to have been fixed wing VFR traffic waiting to cross the airfield. Don't shoot me for mentioning this particular rule please, I only apply them not make them.
More likely to have been some sort of survey flight or one of those operators that take photo's of houses then go door to door to try and flog them. These are not at all unusual.
WF.
More likely to have been some sort of survey flight or one of those operators that take photo's of houses then go door to door to try and flog them. These are not at all unusual.
WF.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S'funny that, cos Sunday morning about 10 am there was a C172 doing orbits at about 1000 feet near Droylsden, a suburb in Manchester which happens to lie under the approach for 24 at Manchester..... I concluded, watching him, that he might have been doing a survey/photos, but who knows...... maybe We Are Being Watched !!!!!
Incidentally, a police Islander is being seen a lot more than the police chopper in the last few days over Manchester.... is he fully operational yet, or is he evaluating/ piloting (!!!) ?
Incidentally, a police Islander is being seen a lot more than the police chopper in the last few days over Manchester.... is he fully operational yet, or is he evaluating/ piloting (!!!) ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
carbheatcold,
[/QUOTE]
The bit in the MATS 2 about EGKK zone transits says.....
SVFR/IFR Helicopter and All Fixed Wing Aircraft
These flights are to be kept under radar control at all times and routed either east or west of Gatwick ATZ as appropriate
---
VFR heli's via the airfield are not a problem subject to the prior approval of the air controller at the tower.
WF
[/QUOTE]
So what is the MATS Pt 2 VFR rule concerning singles over Gatwick? Does the same rule apply to heli's?
SVFR/IFR Helicopter and All Fixed Wing Aircraft
These flights are to be kept under radar control at all times and routed either east or west of Gatwick ATZ as appropriate
---
VFR heli's via the airfield are not a problem subject to the prior approval of the air controller at the tower.
WF
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand the logic behind not allowing singles through the ATZ. Surely the safest way for an aircraft to transit over an airfield is directly overhead at 90 deg to the runway, especially for single runway airfields like Gatwick?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a/c circling Droylesdon
Poetpilot,
That Cessna was probably one that operates out of your home airfield, does quite a few photo details in and around the area.
The new Police Islander (actually a Turbine Defender) is now fully operational, based at EGCC adjacent to NEA.
That Cessna was probably one that operates out of your home airfield, does quite a few photo details in and around the area.
The new Police Islander (actually a Turbine Defender) is now fully operational, based at EGCC adjacent to NEA.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BB,
I suppose our regulators must have a different view on what may or may not be acceptable.
Whatever, I suppose if it's done in the USA it must be the best way and we're daft not to slavishly follow the same procedures they do. But then to date, to the best of my knowledge, we've not suffered the pain of a mid-air between a light single and an airliner whilst both were operating inside controlled airspace in the vicinity of an airfield.
WF.
Quite right PhilD. Phoenix, Sky Harbor has a VFR route straight through the overhead and is at least twice as busy as sleepy little Gatwick.
Whatever, I suppose if it's done in the USA it must be the best way and we're daft not to slavishly follow the same procedures they do. But then to date, to the best of my knowledge, we've not suffered the pain of a mid-air between a light single and an airliner whilst both were operating inside controlled airspace in the vicinity of an airfield.
WF.
Last edited by Warped Factor; 3rd Sep 2002 at 21:10.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wf
Whatever, I suppose if it's done in the USA it must be the best way and we're daft not to slavishly follow the same procedures they do.
The way I'd look at it, is that if it's possible in one country, it's possible in another.
But then to date, to the best of my knowledge, we've not suffered the pain of a mid-air between a light single and an airliner whilst both were operating inside controlled airspace in the vicinity of an airfield.
Ah, San Diego perhaps? That was a total balls up, lessons were learned, and procedures changed. It's not the same system anymore, things have changed.
San Diego now has class E "tunnels" through the Class B, no clearance required as it's Class E. Works well. LAX has a special flight rules "tunnel" thorough the class B. No clearance required as it's SFRA. Works well. PHX has VFR transition corridors through the class B, clearance required, I've never been refused, works well.
There have been a few near misses recently in UK "positive" controlled airspace. Only a matter of time before something collides, and the UK will be unable to continue with it's justly proud claim. The problem in the UK is that ATC is totally under-resourced and so cannot handle small aircraft doing something as simple as transiting a class D control zone. By the sounds of it, the systems regularly cannot handle the jet traffic it is supposed to.
In the US, GA is considered an asset and to have equal rights to use the National Airspace. Resources are therefore allocated and available to allow small transponder equipped planes to be safely separated from jets in far busier airspace than you find in the UK. Maybe that is the best way? cheers
Whatever, I suppose if it's done in the USA it must be the best way and we're daft not to slavishly follow the same procedures they do.
The way I'd look at it, is that if it's possible in one country, it's possible in another.
But then to date, to the best of my knowledge, we've not suffered the pain of a mid-air between a light single and an airliner whilst both were operating inside controlled airspace in the vicinity of an airfield.
Ah, San Diego perhaps? That was a total balls up, lessons were learned, and procedures changed. It's not the same system anymore, things have changed.
San Diego now has class E "tunnels" through the Class B, no clearance required as it's Class E. Works well. LAX has a special flight rules "tunnel" thorough the class B. No clearance required as it's SFRA. Works well. PHX has VFR transition corridors through the class B, clearance required, I've never been refused, works well.
There have been a few near misses recently in UK "positive" controlled airspace. Only a matter of time before something collides, and the UK will be unable to continue with it's justly proud claim. The problem in the UK is that ATC is totally under-resourced and so cannot handle small aircraft doing something as simple as transiting a class D control zone. By the sounds of it, the systems regularly cannot handle the jet traffic it is supposed to.
In the US, GA is considered an asset and to have equal rights to use the National Airspace. Resources are therefore allocated and available to allow small transponder equipped planes to be safely separated from jets in far busier airspace than you find in the UK. Maybe that is the best way? cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
slim,
For a Brit I have a fair amount of experience of US ATC courtesy of friends that work in ATC over there and there is much in the system I admire, but also some parts and procedures I do not.
In passing might I suggest then that you join in the fight with NATCA to stop your truly national ATC system going down the path that we've taken ours here. If the privatisers get their way you may find your "best way" very quickly becomes a distant memory.
WF.
In the US, GA is considered an asset and to have equal rights to use the National Airspace. Resources are therefore allocated and available to allow small transponder equipped planes to be safely separated from jets in far busier airspace than you find in the UK. Maybe that is the best way? cheers
In passing might I suggest then that you join in the fight with NATCA to stop your truly national ATC system going down the path that we've taken ours here. If the privatisers get their way you may find your "best way" very quickly becomes a distant memory.
WF.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a Brit I have a fair amount of experience of US ATC courtesy of friends that work in ATC over there and there is much in the system I admire,but also some parts and procedures I do not.
Such as?
In passing might I suggest then that you join in the fight with NATCA to stop your truly national ATC system going down the path that we've taken ours here. If the privatisers get their way you may find your "best way" very quickly becomes a distant memory.
That's why I pay money to AOPA who pay money to legislators to look after the people with money. It's the American way
Such as?
In passing might I suggest then that you join in the fight with NATCA to stop your truly national ATC system going down the path that we've taken ours here. If the privatisers get their way you may find your "best way" very quickly becomes a distant memory.
That's why I pay money to AOPA who pay money to legislators to look after the people with money. It's the American way
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF
Time spent in ATC facilities or procedures?
Either or both. I am definitely interested in how you would improve procedures.
keef
... until a 777 has to go around, and passes over the runway at 1500 feet, climbing.
PHX has class B airspace, a clearance is required, and ATC is responsible for separation between VFR and IFR traffic. Why would there be a problem? If in VMC (and that is a given as the smaller plane would be flying under VFR) the 777 is responsible for separation too. The PHX VFR corridor runs over the approach end of the runways, about 2000 ft AGL. Your mythical 777 has no business being close to any light aircraft that has been cleared through that airspace, go around or not.
Basically, PHX approach knows what it is doing, as does the 777 captain. I'd rather be flying in the VFR corridor than below the class B where I am not talking to anybody, I don't have ATC providing a radar service, and I am mixing it with other VFR traffic flying 200 ft below the floor of the class B. I would hasten a guess that the 777 captain would also prefer the target on his TCAS to be talking to approach.
Time spent in ATC facilities or procedures?
Either or both. I am definitely interested in how you would improve procedures.
keef
... until a 777 has to go around, and passes over the runway at 1500 feet, climbing.
PHX has class B airspace, a clearance is required, and ATC is responsible for separation between VFR and IFR traffic. Why would there be a problem? If in VMC (and that is a given as the smaller plane would be flying under VFR) the 777 is responsible for separation too. The PHX VFR corridor runs over the approach end of the runways, about 2000 ft AGL. Your mythical 777 has no business being close to any light aircraft that has been cleared through that airspace, go around or not.
Basically, PHX approach knows what it is doing, as does the 777 captain. I'd rather be flying in the VFR corridor than below the class B where I am not talking to anybody, I don't have ATC providing a radar service, and I am mixing it with other VFR traffic flying 200 ft below the floor of the class B. I would hasten a guess that the 777 captain would also prefer the target on his TCAS to be talking to approach.