Norwich airspace proposal
 

When are the decisions going to be made on this airspace,when will we know results?
Lister:)

I too would be interested to know, but I don’t think that there can be a definite answer, unless Norwich chooses to declare one, as it is partly in their hands and partly CAA/DAP.

“The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.”

niknak post no. 62: “Thereafter, every response is collated and sent to the CAA.”

They might take a day, or a month, or longer, or decide it is not worth the gamble (that last is unlikely in my opinion – sounds like they are unimpressed with arguments about how little justification there is and are determined to try to look like a big, important, international airport and they want the airspace to look like it).

Then the CAA/DAP will take as long or short as they want.

I would have thought October decision at the earliest, and longer/indefinite if one or other chooses to delay or take more soundings. Anyone got anything more definite?


I would also expect there to be some political workings – publicly or behind the scenes.

Chris N.

Mode S in the Cub Lister :-)


Arc:}

Arclite01

I have seen that one coming.

"Papa Kilo squawk ****"

"Negative squawk, Papa Kilo"

"Roger, negative service remain clear...."

Although Lakenheath can handle us without a transponder, I bet you Norwich wont. Mind you, by the time the class D is established it will be mandatory anyway.

Yeah that is true............... I had to put it into the thread though.........:}

Visions of Lister with a Squawk Box/hand crank generator in the back of the Cub to run the Mode S - great fun................ high pilot workload - whole new meaning !!

Any shares coming up in the Cub ??

Arc

Arc I'll pm you

At least it's not London Norwich International...............:E

Deadline Approaching
 

The deadline for a response to the Consultation is fast approaching. If you think Norwich's bid to impose Class D airspace on us is unacceptable, have a look at this from the Light Aircraft Association: norwich

The LAA have put forward a very good response, which includes this statement: '..The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison.

I urge you to write your own response; as the LAA link above says, it doesn't have to be a long response - they even suggest the points you could cover - you only have until 28th August.

Cheers,
WW

whirlwind
"The proposed CTA would cover 978 km² compared, for example, to 920 km² at London Gatwick....' now there's an interesting comparison."
Is it relevant though ? Gatwick is surrounded by many other airfields, including Heathrow of course, all looking for their own protection - doesn't really apply to Norwich does it ? I would be interested to see the comparison in km3 as well.
Anyway, just because one airport hasn't got what it wants is surely not grounds for refusing another ?

Offwatch I take your point but why does such a small airport with very limited traffic and limited to smaller aircraft NEED such a large volume of CAS?

If Tesco (other supermarket chains are available) wanted to nick a playing field or public park for a new store there would be an outcry. Saying that it encourages commercial development would cut no ice at all.

Whereas nicking open airspace for "commercial" reasons is regarded as wholly justifiable.

Discuss

.

A response is not expected until early 2010 at the very earliest

Complete nonsense and utter crap, a transponder is not mandatory and won't be for a long time.

From what I've read, it appears that the LAA have failed to be completely objective and consequently, it appears that many of their members have forwarded objections based on what the LAA have published rather than checking the facts, their loss as dramatic statements of no consequence count for nothing.

From what I understand, many objections have been made on conjecture, not fact and if that is the case it's a shame because not only will those objections not count for much, the LAA, who appear to have encouraged them, will look pretty daft.

goatface,perhaps then you'd post what you contend are the facts, and correct the LAA's errors, here yourself?

Classic! :}

It is only when you examine the proposed volume of airspace which Alan Partridge Intergalactic Spaceport seeks to obtain for its miniscule number of daily CAT movements, that the magnitude of their greed becomes apparent:


This application is absurd. It is totally disproportionate for a minor regional aerodrome whose 6040ft runway (the secondary 4154ft runway being wholly unsuitable) will never be able to support the level of movements which the owners seem to think they can encourage.

You only have to look at the nonsense of RobinFinningleyDoncasterHoodie to realise the folly of approving applications to aerodromes whose expectations of growth are so totally unrealistic. Hopefully DAP won't make this mistake again!

All I know is that transponders won't be mandatory and I'd like to think that there won't be a problem for anyone who wants to operate in or transit the airspace, whoever they are.
Providing we adopt adult operatonal rules and work together, there's no reason for any problems to arise.

I would also like to think this. However, until someone guarantees this I will not be supporting the proposal.

This is a huge piece of airspace and entry will be at NIAs discretion. What option will I have when trying to transit in the future and am told to standby and remain clear.

The time to object is now. This is a huge area to restrict in the name of 'safety'.

ZA

Zulu,I'm in total agreement with your sentiments and have made my response to the proposers.
Sorry Niknak ,but the amount of airspace requested seems out of all proportion to the actual need.
Lister

Zulu Alpha the answer to your question is essentially simple. If the controller should respond with a simple "ROCAS" and nothing more then ask for an expected time for entry. Read the earlier posts and you will see what I am talking about. unfortunately no controller has responded to a number of questions posed around this thread which I find a bit disappointing. We need to learn each others perspective but the GA fraternity do not have the resources available to ATCOS so these forums are of great importance for feed back.

A thought: Norwich Airport distributed their consultation document, quite correctly to a very wide distribution list as per the CAA procedure. Their document was full of inaccuracies which were designed to strengthen the case for the airspace. The non aviation related consultees (such as Parish Councils, The Broads Authority etc) will not realise that they have been fed a biased document and will not understand the potential impact of the proposal. They will react to “5 Airproxes over Norfolk” and assume that more controlled airspace will make the skies safer.

I suspect that the local Parish Councils would be very interested to hear that the implementation of the airspace will create choke points in the skies over their heads increasing the risk of mid air collisions. Moreover, aircraft will be forced to fly lower creating more noise for their parishioners.

A consultation where a large proportion of the consultees have been deliberately misinformed is a disgrace.

A highly valid point,Jupo,I don't know how one informs the parish councils etc of these thoughts.
I hope you send your comments to the proposers,although I'm still not happy that all comments are initially received by the developer rather than going straight to the decision makers.
Lister

Careful chaps - on the one hand we have:
"...I have never seen another aircraft in the sky when I've been close to them"
& on the other :
"the implementation of the airspace will create choke points in the skies over their heads increasing the risk of mid air collisions. Moreover, aircraft will be forced to fly lower creating more noise for their parishioners."

So, what will the answer be when DAP ask just how many non-commercial flights will be affected by the proposal, and where will these 'choke points' be?

For those who insist the size of the airspace is too big, try overlaying the Instrument Approach Charts for 09 & 27 - that should give you a clue. Bear in mind also that there is a template for each approach, designed in accordance with ICAO PANS Ops, which allows for nav errors etc. & consequently covers a much bigger area than appears on the charts.

Norwich Charts are HERE . As stated above the proposed CAS is there to cover the existing Instrument Approach Procedures.

To address the people voicing concerns over getting ROCAS'd...

The whole point of having Class D is to achieve maximum flexibility for all airspace users and create a safer "known traffic environment". It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.

LXGB

It's function is not to prohibit all non Norwich Airport traffic from transiting the area.
Does that mean some then?
I am against it even though I don't live near that Airport. I don't think Doncaster is working at all well, so how does Norwich think their airspace will?
We tend to get squeezed between Doncaster and Humberside even though Humberside has no class D. How Doncaster can justify Class D airspace with 2 budgies and a butterfly using the Airport daily is beyond any comprehension. How many commercial movements will Norwich actually have per day?
And if they don't will they give the Class D up?

That is the whole point. The scale of the proposed airspace grab which Alan Patridge Intergalactic is seeking for its tiny handful of daily CAT flights is totally disproportionate.

No, that's not what I meant.

The statistics are all in the public domain. These are not made up figures, it's actual data. A320, B737 and B757s are not what I would call small aircraft. We are talking public transport flights here, with hundreds of people a day travelling in and out of Norwich Airport (As well as the scheduled Dash 8s and F70s, private charters, flying training and offshore helicopters).

My personal view is that CAS is the best way to provide a safe service to all of these flights as well as to those transiting the area.

Don't worry, it soon will have . They have an application in too....:rolleyes:

It's good to share.
 

Many of the posts here and most of the objections seem to be working on the premise that the airspace around Norwich will effectively become closed if Class D is established. This is simply not the case.
Norwich ATC enjoys good relations with the large majority of the GA community that fly in the Norwich area and in my experience the majority of GA pilots are happy to speak to Norwich ATC and advise them of their intentions. There is also a small fraternity who have no wish to speak to Norwich ATC or receive any kind of service. That is also their right. However….
The majority of passenger flights that use Norwich will only accept a Deconfliction Service. The terms of this service are that ATC is to endeavour to provide a minimum of 5nm lateral or 3000’ vertical separation (where Mode C info is available). If an unknown aircraft chooses to operate in the vicinity of one of the approaches to Norwich at the same time that a passenger flight is trying to make an approach to land then that aircraft simply cannot make the approach. It may be that the light aircraft concerned may be vertically well above or below the approach but without that info from the pilot, ATC cannot satisfy the terms of the service. Therefore that one pilot choosing not to talk to Norwich may be inconveniencing an aircraft full of passengers. Do you not think that those passengers also have a right to share that piece of airspace ?
The whole point of Class D at Norwich is not to close the airspace to anyone but simply to create a known environment in which everyone can operate safely and with the minimum of delays to all concerned. Whatever your opinion of the Management at Norwich Airport (polite thoughts only please) they are not the ones who ultimately have to implement these changes and I know that Norwich ATC have every intention of ensuring that as few people as possible will be inconvenienced if these changes were to go through.

Unfortunately that is what they all say! Well they would would n't they to use a famous quote.

What actually happens is that one you have control of an area like this it is much more convienient to say 'RCOCAS' and keep the entire area sterile.

Strangely it seems the the less busy this type of airspace is - the more difficult it is to get a transit. Presumably it messes up the nice empty radar display or disturbs the tumble weed?

I'm sure the intentions are good, what happens afterwards is the concern that many of us have. If there was a process for only granting this airspace once a threshold of traffic was reached - and - it was removed if traffic fell below that, many of us would trust the process much more.

For those of us who do not and wish to protest about this - the closing date is 28th August.

I understand that the very large majority of the objections from aviation organisations who are against the proposal, have been given in the above format or something very similar, i.e. shallow and without foundation, the CAA and DAP will almost certainly put these on the "not worthy of further consideration" pile.
Whereas those who have taken the trouble to study the proposal in detail and put their objections constructively will have their comments heard and taken seriously.

Its worthy of note that, despite JUPOs condescending suggestions about the consultation document and the ability of councils and other professional bodies to understand it, the majority of such organisations have asked for further information or even a presentation and then put in their "support" or "no comment" vote.

Oh and by the way, it appears that the Military have no objections either.

Three days to go chaps, scurry along, if you ask nicely the LAA might give you a lift to the polling station!:p

The LAA's response is well researched and well written.

For this insignificant little aerodrome with its delusions of grandeur to be granted such a massive chunk of CAS is wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.

With significant expansion of Stansted now approved, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be any significant expansion at Alan Partridge Intergalactic.

5'n'3:Really? So how does it go then: "Jersey 1234 turn right heading 060 routing you to the hold due to unknown traffic at 6nm on the 09 approach"? Or "Jersey 1234 radar service terminated due to unknown traffic on the approach" "Roger in that case we're diverting to Stansted"?

Or is it more like "Jersey 1234 unknown traffic in your 12 o'clock range 6 miles no height information, unable to continue with deconfliction service are you happy to continue against that traffic on a Traffic Service?", with the Flybe then making a decision based on his in-flight conditions, or possibly asking for the reciprocal runway if wind permits?

If it's clear from the unknown radar returns that this is a manoeuvring fast jet then the controller's options will be much more limited - but then again any FJ ought to be squawking so there will be height info too, and the squawk will indicate who (if anyone) he is talking to.

NS

Unfortunately BEagle's chip is bigger than any shoulder in the UK.
He appears to be a bitter and twisted individual with no capacity for rational debate, little knowledge of current commercial operations and apparantly no knowledge of the current debate.
In any post on PPrune I've yet to see him contribute anything of worth, perhaps he's best left to his bath chair and memories of "how it was in his day".

You are reminded of the Terms and Conditions of PPRuNe.

Abusive personal attacks are no longer tolerated.

NorthSouth. You have no idea. :ugh:

LXGB:I'm always open to that possibility but some substance to the response would be good.
NS

I've made my objection. That's it. no abuse, just plain objected.
As for any one having a pop at the skills of Air traffic control, I never saw any. Just considered opinions until the usual personal attacks.:=

Huh?

I merely stated that the scale of CAS proposed is wholly disproportionate for the scale of CAT. I alos doubted the growth figures suggested for Alan Partridge International and yes, I do consider it to be a small regional aerodrome with delusions of grandeur.

But unprofessional staff? Not something I've ever alleged.

Neither do I 'own PPRuNe'. But I've been very supportive of recent efforts to tidy the place up.

Sorry everyone but what surprises me is how small the proposed airspace is. They have taken the decision not to connect the new CAS to the airways system. This will mean commercial traffic will still be spending long periods in uncontrolled airspace, and vulnerable to many of the same conflicts listed in Appendix D of the proposal. There will still be lots of extended routings due to avoiding action and airlines will have to take that into account in their decisions about operating to/from Norwich. The CAA now requires airlines to have carried out a safety assessment when contemplating starting new services to an airport outside controlled airspace but it doesn't apply to airlines already operating there, nor to foreign airlines.
NS

Ok, I'll give it a shot...

What is the point of having a Deconfliction Service if your response to encountering conflicting traffic is to downgrade to a Traffic Service?
Do you really think that an ATCO would vector an airliner into an unknown contact on his screen? What if it was your family on board? Wouldn't you want the best available service for them?

As you said, Military aircraft in the UK Low Flying System don't have to be talking to anyone. They can operate autonomously on a 7001 Squawk (which is deemed unvalidated and unverified). No chance of coordination on that.

I'd recommend you have a read of CAP 774 Appendix A . This is the book that the prosecution lawyers would throw at the controller that didn't discharge his duty of care.

Hope this helps to explain the viewpoint from the other end of the radio.

Best Regards,

LXGB

LXGB:A tad over-emotional in my view. The situation I was envisaging was pop-up traffic (hence not predictable by the controller), as regularly encountered by Norwich controllers (and I should add, in case you were in any doubt, highly professionally dealt with by them). And the response I was envisaging was similar to those in incidents 12, 13 and 27 in Appendix D of the ACP. Ultimately it's down to what the Ops Manuals of the airlines operating into Norwich say about the numerous scenarios they are likely to encounter around there.
NS