Stephen,

I do agree with your list of things that Norwich could do to be more friendly to GA.

However, some of us in the area are not interested in instrument approaches etc. and just want to fly around the area. These proposals will make it more difficult. Why should we be denied this just because Norwich wants to commandeer the airspace for a dwindling number of commercial flights.

I can vist a number of local airfields and land free if I uplift some fuel (which is cheaper than Norwich). Why would I want to go to Norwich? They have priced themselves out of the GA market. Today a PA28 was charged the following:

£27 odd landing fee.
£10 handling fee.
£4 ish airport tax.
All in it was circa £40 plus VAT including handling.

Old Buckenham charge about this for an annual membership and then all landings are free for a year.

I believe that Norwich airport is owned and run by the council. In my experience this means that there is an extremely inefficient operation with little regard for giving value for money. Giving them rights to the airspace will be expensive for users and ratepayers and will provide a minimal contribution to air safety, but they probably couldn't care as they are council run and value for money is hardly on their radarscreen.

ZA

The MD at Norwich airport, Elliot Summers, seems to ignore the fact that he is driving custom away from this little airport with over regulation. I have not landed there for several years because of their anti GA stance.

I was also a regular user of the link to Amsterdam for long distance flights but when they introduced the airport development fee I voted with my feet and now use Stansted. Norwich airport has a very limited population to service and the management are never going to increase their movements with the sort of tactics they currently employ.

They are very lucky they have the offshore oil industry helicopter traffic. They seemed to have messed up the Flybe opportunity.

Eventually there will just be a big empty airfield with a few scheduled and few charter movements - that will be deemed success from Norwich Airport Management people.

It's a great shame. As I have said before - the place should be a hugely busy Eurohub but unfortunately - it's never going to happen.

Which is why the airspace grab is even more pointless.............

Arc

goatface
"It's my understanding....", "and this is only what I've been told"...., "Despite the rumour that the airport is allegedly......, "allegedly simply refuse to listen"
Not the ideal statements to make if you are objecting, methinks !

Zulu Alpha
Omniport is the majority owner (80.1%) of Norwich Airport, which it acquired in March 2004 from Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council, who retain a minority share.

Phil Space
"The MD at Norwich airport seems to ignore the fact that he is driving custom away from this little airport with over regulation. I have not landed there for several years because of their anti GA stance."
Looks like the policy is working then ! :(

The only thing I saw above Norwich over last weekend was a raincloud!

> hatzflyer :ok: & that was probably only produced after the visit of Colchester FC ;)

Off watch,

Thank you I hadn't realised

Is there still a subsidy from the councils and any idea how much?

ZA

The Omniport website claims Google maps suggests it is only 69.8 miles from Norwich airport to Stansted.
:ok:

Its at least 90 miles by tractor!!!
ZA

would you then be a tractor boy?

Zulu Alpha - sorry, no idea about subsidies - maybe someone with access to the council's published accounts could answer that ?

TomTom Nav quotes 91.3 miles as quickest road journey distance, Norwich to Stansted, & 84.3 miles as the shortest so I think their claim is valid. ( I can set it for cycle or walking distances but no provision for tractors ;)

50 miles - 70 miles - 170 miles makes no odds...........The Stansted thing is just a red herring - the markets they serve are light years apart..................

- as is the mindset of the operators................... or maybe not 'cause GA is not welcomed at Stansted either :}

Maybe the Norwich Operators see the airport as their own private plaything - sort of like a kids railway set..................and now we need some more track to run our single clockwork engine on............

Arc

I learned flying at Norwich.... sad to hear all this.

Did anyone bother to write to the MD or the new majority owner and ask WHY as well as about their mid term plans for the airport? It seems to me it's the ideal training area and a minimalist hub at the same time.

Perhaps the intention is to run it down to sell the land for housing?

I fly close to Norwich, certainly close enough to be affected by this. My flying is ususally weekends and I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when Ive been close to them.
I have had several bo****kings from them for alleged infringments, wrong reporting etc.( as explained on other threads no need to repeat here).

If they are like that now, beware any one flying anywhere in eastern England in the future!

My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them.

I'm a simple 'ol country boy,but!
 

Unless I've understood all this incorrectly,we are expected to send our opposition/objection comments to the people who are actually applying for the extended airspace,ie Norwich International Airport.
In all other planning applications in the UK,the objections are sent to the organisation that will ultimately decide on the proposal,eg,Planning Dept at the local authority etc.
So why can't we do the same here,send our replies to the CAA and Military?
Sorry if I've misread the info.
Lister

Norwich needs:-

Good primary and secondary radar.
Sufficient trained and experienced controllers able to interpret that radar.

It is my belief they already have both.From my experience of operating both heavy commercial air transport and light aircraft to and from NWI I do not believe they have a case for any further controlled airspace given the very low level of movements they have.If they have an issue with poor airmanship from the military that needs to be addressed by their management and the military at the highest level.VBR Stampe

I have no problems with Norwich Controllers at all - they do a great job and manage us all very well when we are flying around locally. Actually I find them really helpful so lets not confuse two issues here.

The issue is why Norwich need the airspace they are trying to grab. So far from what I have read here no one would object if there was a valid reason for the requirement - there isn't as far as we are all aware and that is why we're all so vocal about it I think....................no problems with a safety argument - but it's not proven (not even close)

Lister - I think we are supposed to complain to NATS and we can do that via the LAA I think.

Arc

All I Can Say Is You Must Be Talking To Different Cotrollers To The Ones I Am.
Edited..WAS

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate? 1 out of 3 aint bad I 'spose. Hope the other guys sharing the airspace over Norfolk have a better lookout than you. ;)

Cheers,

LXGB

Lister,

Norwich are responsible for all costs, therefore the CAA dictate that all responses are sent to Norwich for them to collate and forward to the authority.

The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all local airfields, operators, county/local & parish councils and any other interested parties are;
1. Sent a copy of the of the final applicaton documentwhich is to be submitted to the CAA/SAP (in this case some 50 or so pages) together with a response form asking for their comments/approvals/opposition (sent to 250 or so parties).
2. A month before the closing date, sent a reminder to those who haven't responded (the majority).
3. Two weeks before the closing date, ring everyone who hasn't responded (the majority) asking for their response (yes or no), if a message has to be left on voicemail, the applicant has to ring again until they talk to a human being, print their response and lodge it with the final documents.

Thereafter, every response is collated and sent to the CAA.

There are checks and balances in place, imposed and regulated by the CAA, to ensure that the applicant is behaving in an impartial manner with the appropriate penalties if it can be proved beyond doubt that they didn't.

Niknak over on the ATC thread there is the thorny question of ROCAS which it now seems that it is not in your manual except where access to CAS has specifically been requested. In which case you are required to give an estimate of time etc. As you have been intimately involved with this application is it fair to assume you are aware of the impact it will have on GA in the area? If so are you absolutely confident that NIA will have the facilities in place to adhere to the ATC manual and not just issue a blanket ROCAS to every one who call on the RT? Are you just as sure that those resources will be maintained so as to be non detrimental to GA? I appreciate I am asking for your opinion and you cannot speak for the airport as such.
Thanks

WorkingHard
Re your "thorny question of ROCAS"
From MATS Pt.1 :
"The Manual of Air Traffic Services contains instructions and guidance for controllers providing Air Traffic Services to cater for both routine and many emergency situations. However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein."

In other words, just because it's not covered in MATS 1, doesn't mean the ATCO is wrong to say it.
If it concerns you so much, why not write to the SRG Head of ATC Investigations and ask what the view would be of an ATCO who hadn't said ROCAS to a pilot who then infringed ? (I don't mean one who asked for a clearance but was told to wait). I suspect a dim one !
I assume you are aware that any pilot refused entry into CAS can notify DAP, who will request an explanation from the Unit ?

LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft.
Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio.:ok:

Offwatch, thanks for the clarification on that. Presumably the opening paragraph that you quote does not negate the bit about when to expect a clearance or maybe it does. In the several decades I have been flying for both personal pleasure and a company aircraft, all of which is of course GA, I cannot remember ever been given the time when we might expect clearance through CAS. It is either ROCAS or sometimes "continue on course for crossing as requested"

WH
Now you mention it, in 3 1/2 decades of controlling, I don't think I've actually given a time to expect clearance or a time check for that purpose either - usually 'ROCAS & I'll call you back' !
I've just checked an old MATS 1 & when the procedure was stated in 1995, the phrase "advise pilot to remain outside controlled airspace" was not used.
I suspect it was brought in because of the increasing number of infringements - 330 in the London area in 2006 !

hatzflyer
"Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio" - that's no way to speak about your fellow pilots on the safety com freq. ;)

off watch, MATS Part 1 (CAP493) does indeed contain the paragraph you quote - it is at Section 1, Chapter 1, Introduction, para. 1.2, viz:
However it is worth mentioning that, prior to a recent revision (12 March 2009), it used to say ...
... which was far more permissive to the controller.

Clearly the revision was intended to tighten this up. So, whilst it may have been reasonable to argue that the earlier wording may have allowed some discretion to controllers to use the phrase "ROCAS" as a cautionary response whenever they felt it appropriate, the revision to the wording would now only permit this in "unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein". The vast majority of times you hear "ROCAS" nowadays are not in that category. Thus the current frequent and arbitrary use of "ROCAS" simply cannot be justified by the introductory paragraph in CAP 493 that you quote.

As I have said before, the appropriate and approved use of "ROCAS" is set out in Sec.3, Ch.1, para. 21 of MATS Part 1. Any other use (except in unusual circumstances, not covered by the procedures in CAP493) is entirely unapproved.


JD
:)

@ hatzflyer
Quote: "My experience of Norwich atc is such that I now fly as close to their airspace as is sensible but never speak to them."
"LXGB,I've been up there for over 30 yrs, haven't hit anything yet! "

The Captain of the 727 that had a mid-air in 1978 @ San Diego had over 10,000 hrs on 727's - he could've said the same thing !

Quote "My lookout can't be that bad.What's more whenever I fly with anyone else I'm always the first to spot any other aircraft. Thats 'cos I fly with my head out of the cockpit, not in it talking to idiots on the other end of a radio."

Congratulations, you've probably just set pilot/ATCO relations in Norfolk & Suffolk back about 10 years ! :mad:
If the Norwich management need some more justification for CAS, those statements should do nicely ! :*

Jumbo Driver
I agree with you 100% - the trouble is, in the event of an interview with the Boss or, even worse, the SRG Inspector after an infringement, it would be a brave chap who said 'sorry but MATS part 1 doesn't say I had to say ROCAS so don't blame me' (woops, forgot, we live in a no blame culture - don't we ? )

Off watch you are surely not suggesting that unauthorised statements are being transmitted as an arse covering exercise and to hell with the consequences for the GA pilot. Our British ATC is surely far too professional to even contemplate such a thing.

WH - as if ! :E
I take it that you never say "Good Morning" , "Goodbye" etc. ? They are not authorised either ;)

off watch, I don't think it would be particularly brave ... but it would certainly be professional ...


JD
:)

P.S. Courtesies are permitted by implication as (I'm sure you are aware ;)) Appendix E (p.2) suggests controllers should avoid their excessive use ...

JD
Patrick McGoohan was professional when he resigned in "The Prisoner" - & look where it got him :p

Re courtesies - right as usual :cool: - it even says the same in CAP413, the RT Manual, Ch.3, para 1.1.6.

I'm beginning to think we need to get out more ! :8

The prospect is they will get it.

If the helicopter/oil field traffic disappears this airport is doomed:ok:

It doesnt suprise me Norwich has problems with the US military. Years ago I did a US PPL with a outfit at Norwich, which got shut down by the CAA some years later. After the checkride, the US examiner asked me what altitude I would be flying home to Wellesbourne (I was in my own aircraft). I said 'various, down to 2400 feet'. He said 'what, why so low??' I said there is Class A at various altitudes, down to 2500 feet. He said 'THERE IS NO CLASS A ANYWHERE BELOW 18000 FEET'

:) :) :) :)

This was a US instructor examiner working for a UK flying school at Norwich, and like the others he was ex US military, ex Mildenhall/Lakenheath. If the pilots at those two know as much about UK airspace, no wonder Norwich gets some exciting moments sometimes :)

Stampe

I now agree with your earlier post re runway length - a Laden 752 takes an awfull lot of 27 before getting airborne and if Norwich thinks it has half a chance of being a real player a huge amount has got to change and class D is the least of its problems

Meanwhile a whole new housing estate has mushroomed around the eastern boundary of Norwich Airport.

The west has a road which is a major obstacle.As I see it there will never be a demand to exceed what exists already. If the oil helicopters and the small maintenance/spray shop disappears it will revert back to what it was. A little strip in the middle of nowhere

Well said Phil, most constructive. :8

The Eastern boundary being 4 miles away? Should have gone to Specsavers.

I suggest you take a drive up St Faiths Rd goatface.

I was visiting a friend on Norman Drive yesterday.

His house is probably about 200 metres from the landing traffic on 27

Where do you get your 4 miles?

The other end of the runway is 100 metres from the A140

Now-there would not,would there, possibly be the connection between this and the defuncted remains of the RAF Coltishall - would there?
And the fact that the ex base is about to be turned in to a Cetegory C prison for sex offenders? What are they in England? MPs husbands who watch porno videaos?
Perhaps making the area into comtrolled airpsace is nothing more than a variation on solitary confinement?|

A somewhat interesting, but completely incomprehensible post....