It was running at something like 100-120/day weekdays and 60-70/day weekends and PH when I left.

The evidence seems fairly firm that even with the best feasible unassisted lookout, pilots don't see a high proportion of conflicting traffic. The rarity of collisions in class G airspace is therefore more down to the bigness of the sky and the sparsity of traffic in it. So if you make the sky small and the traffic dense, looking out of the window may give a very false sense of reassurance. This is particularly the case at the low levels available around Farnborough, where people aren't going to be following quadrantal or semicircular rules.

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
 

I think that just shows just how naive and ill informed you are. :ugh:


MJ:ok:

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

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 .

When Doncaster became class D the frequency became much busier (obviously).

How will Farnbourgh cope when their class D is in place?

D.O.

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.

They have an 'approach' frequency for their important 'planes. IF they get any Class D they might not even be bothered about all those unimportant planes on LARS West any more, and shut it, and save some money...

That sounds very melodramatic, but what were the facts - IFR, VFR, Special VFR, radar in operation or not, day/night (perhaps before VFR at night)? Did you talk to the ATC Watch Supervisor later? If it really was as simplistic - and daft - as you are implying, did you file a report?

2 s

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

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.

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.

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 agree. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that GA has any significant influence on proposals like this.


MJ:ok:

Normally when I cross Donny it's not above a certain height (usually the height you're at when you make the initial call).

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:rolleyes: immediately infer that ATC screwed up or was being awkward!

2 s

The irony of your remark is that all of Farnborough's traffic is GA

Norwich, whilst doing bugger all movements, at least has public transport operations.

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.

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"