As an example of a low-CAT-used Class D, this was posted on a glider pilot forum about Doncaster. I have changed some references and corrected some spelling for clarity, but the original can be seen at Glider Pilot Network > uk.rec.aviation.soaring > Doncaster Class D .

------------------------------
27 Apr 2009

This week-end I was part of a group at Pocklington, with PH and
SK. On Sunday 26th a 500km. task was set Pocklington – Barnard Castle- Newark- Catterick- Pocklington.

A fantastic looking sky and an easy run round Barnard Castle, approaching
Pontefact I called Doncaster, eventually I was answered and gave my
details, including I was an open class glider and I had a transponder. I
was given a squawk code and then told I could not enter their airspace. I
descended down to the height that was allowed in the "Upton Corridor". I
informed the controller I was going down the corridor but was directed to
the west and ended up over the M1/M18 junction, more than 45 degrees off
track. On leaving their class D airspace asked to change to 130.40 and was
asked to stay on frequency around Newark. I returned to the east of the
Doncaster class D and eventually got permission to change after crossing the
M62.

I was not the only pilot to be refused entry into their airspace, the
controller was very busy and could not cope with the volume of traffic.

If you are planning a task through Doncaster airspace for a badge or a
record, be aware of this problem.

Good luck.
-------------------------------
This was not my flight – I have copied what another pilot wrote – but it shows how difficult an ATCO at a little-used airport can make life for pilots whose flying needs he either does not understand or will not accommodate for some other reason.

I note that the glider pilot said that the controller was very busy. The implication is that his/her workload was not with the small numbers of CAT he had to deal with but rather with all the transiting traffic that he was trying to cope with. The larger the CTA, the more transits it is in the way of, and the busier the radio gets.

That is what I and others fear from Norwich, and I am not reassured by what ATCOs on this thread have written, nor by the apparent abandon of any attempt by the applicant (NIA?) to collate data to show that they understand and will not repeat this sort of exclusion and/or interference with gliders trying to transit the area.

And, by the way, most gliders do not have a transponder, and can’t. I don’t, and can’t because EASA prevents me having one fitted at present.

Chris N.

Doncaster: redressing the balance.
 

I fly regularly around the (newish) Doncaster control zone. I have never been refused a transit and I have only ever heard one transit request from another pilot denied. On that one occasion, the pilot's radio work was of such a poor standard that I was not at all surprised it was greeted with the reply 'remain clear of controlled airspace'.

What I'm saying is, refusals are, in my experience, very much the exception rather than the norm, and the Doncaster controllers have a very good working relationship with local airfields, to the extent that I have been offered crossings even before I've asked on occasions.

We heard all the same old arguments about controlled airspace when Doncaster applied for their zone, and to be honest I can't say that I really notice it's even there. I'd hope for the same for Norwich. :ok:

On a personal note-I find it disappointing that the GA community immediately objects in a 'knee-jerk' fasion to every bit of proposed controlled airspace. Class D isn't that difficult to negotiate and the controllers in all of the zones I have been into or through (and that's a fair proportion of them) have always been first rate.

B

This is the interim NIA report

Of concern is the following:
and

I am amazed at their arrogance and have just emailed Phil Roberts, who is listed on the CAA website as the person responsible for airspace management. His email is phil.robertsATcaa.co.uk if you want to do the same.

ZA

Don't all use the same words though or you'll be accused of orchestrating the protest.

Cusco:ugh:

I have written to confirm that I wrote independent of any worldwide conspiracy against Norwich International Spaceport (NIS) and, that 537 people have written to object, may just be confirmation that 537 people have all seen the same flaws in NIS's proposal.

I do think that the tone of point 3.2 which is quoted above is extraordinary; it makes the CAA sound like a little girl who has dropped her ice-cream on the ground...:rolleyes:

Whilst there are good arguments in favour of protecting airspace around commercial IFR traffic the traffic levels around airports like NIA do not justify permanent class D airspace. I prefer the system in e.g. Germany to protect intermittent IFR arrivals at minor airports.

The airport is protected by class E airspace - this allows VFR traffic entry without prior permission, and without any need to speak on the radio. however, ATC can upgrade the airspace to class F when IFR traffic is about to arrive or depart by making a radio broadcast, after which radio contact is mandatory. By implication all VFR traffic entering the airspace whilst it is class E must maintain a listening watch on the appropriate frequency.

A pity the CAA want to abolish all class E & F airspace.

Not sure it is the CAA at fault here. It sounds like NIA have exceeded their brief

I started this thread after reading the proposal somewhere else and i am so pleased I did. I have written to the CAA tonight and hope a huge many readers will do the same. As Cusco says, use your own words to write and not those of someone else please.
Good luck to all.

I was reading the LAA forum and I'm staggered to see that the airspace grab still seems to be proceeding.

The falsehoods and general deviousness of the Norwich application is just about breath taking - see here Light Aircraft Association :: View topic - Norwich bids for Lebensraum

Gasax this is absolutely spot on and thanks for bringing this up again. I would urge ALL GA pilots to read this and keep it at the forefront of the forum

Are the rules regarding Class F different in Germany to the UK then ? I thought that airspace classes had the same regs across Europe.

Lucky that Norwich has that little traffic they can have a BBC film crew in for the day fannying around with hot air ballons.

H'mm Airports round the UK with way more movements than Norwich but don't see the need for Controlled airspace, off the top of my head

Inverness
Blackpool
Humberside
Teeside
Cambridge


Wick proberly has more movements if you count all the helibuses transits.

Conducting instrument approaches in uncontrolled airspace sounds dodgy to me. It sounds like an accident waiting to happen once sufficient traffic levels are met.

More than likely a go-around is needed to avoid an airprox, wasting both time and fuel.

Surely the best solution is to ensure AVGAS duty+VAT gets channeled back into aviation, and hence fund the controllers needed to co-ordinate traffic to improve airspace access and safety, as well as costs incurred by the airport for landings, etc.

People are wondering why AVGAS prices are approaching £2 per litre and still have issues with access to airports and airspace! :ugh:

Well done LAA
 

Having just read the LAA's reply to their meeting with NIA, I'd like to thank them for their extremely convincing and well-reasoned response.
Living as I do under the Norwich circuit, it is blatantly obvious that NIA is anything but a busy regional airport and that their request for Class D airspace is totally unjustified. Let's hope that they realise the futility of their application and save everyone a great deal of time and effort...

Derry (Eglinton EGAE) (Though not sure if total movements exceed Norwich though certainly in region).

As I have said before Norwich has little or no traffic if you don't count the North Sea helicopters.

I suspect the bulk of the numbers they have used in the submission are the very same GA aircraft that they seem to not want.The oil industry is the only thing that make the airport viable. KLM's flights to Amsterdam are way overpriced at £150 a time and the airport development fee is another reason I no longer use Norwich. It is a difficult airport to get to by road so it beats me why the management want to impose further obstacles such as the awful drop of car park.

As I have said before this used to be a great little place for a GA visit.So sad they have ambitions beyond their station.

Does anyone have the GA figures for Norwich to extract from their submission?

Which probably means, in an ideal world, an extremely good chance of getting a clearance! It shouldn't be any more difficult than passing through the ATZ of Cambridge, for example.

I learnt to fly in Florida and haven't had any issues with transitioning Class D, C or B airspace out there. It is nice to have controllers give you traffic information or separate you from other aircraft in busier areas. But then their infrastructure is centrally funded.

Here are todays movements at Norwich from 1500 until close of business. As you can see a lot is North Sea helicopter traffic that is low level.

Arrivals
SVH Misc Private Strips 14:55
KL1511 Amsterdam 16:45
T3727 Aberdeen 17:10
BE547 Edinburgh 18:30
BE446 Manchester 18:55
BD1316 Aberdeen 19:30
T3729 Aberdeen 20:50
KL1515 Amsterdam 21:20
And departures
BHL1530 Gas Platforms 15:30
BHL1700 Gas Platforms 17:00
BHL1715 Gas Platforms 17:15
KL1512 Amsterdam 17:25
T3728 Aberdeen 17:40
BHL1840 Gas Platforms
18:40 BHLL1845 Gas Platforms
18:45 BHL184 Gas Platforms
18:45 BE548 Edinburgh
18:55 E447 Manchester
19:20 BD1317 Aberdeen

Not exactly rushed off their feet are they!

Shouldn't it be about now that the application is due to be ruled on.

Should it?

Based upon your previous posts I would suggest that you demonstrate little knowledge and expertise regarding Norwich Airport and the subject of Airspace Planning.

I would question your motives, but of course you can always enlighten us. :rolleyes: