Norwich Airspace Grab
 

I have just become aware of this and as I frequent that bit of airspace frequently it really has my attention. Am I being too pessimistic or is this another exercise in boosting egos (it is after all now Norwich INTERNATIONAL Airport). As I said to the duty manager if he would tell me where norwich DOMESTIC is I will use that instead!
Please may I have your views on this. With thanks to GASCO:-

GASCo
24th July 2009

To: All Board & Council Members

GASCo Info Notice 03/09 – Proposed Norwich Controlled Airspace

1. Introduction

You may already be aware of a proposal to implement controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich International Airport. I only became fully aware of it this week as the Formal Notification dated 22 May had gone elsewhere in GASCo. I attempted to download it from the promulgated site but for some reason it failed. Nevertheless, the 86 page document can be readily accessed on the BMAA Web Site BMAA Online under Consultations together with their Response. Alternatively, I have obtained from Norwich a copy by e-mail and can Forward it to anyone who requests it. At the front it has:
This document and the information contained therein is the property of Cyrrus Limited. It must not be reproduced in whole or part or otherwise disclosed to parties outside of Cyrrus Limited without the prior written consent. This must take the 2009 prize for the daftest thing in a Consultative Document!

Commercial air traffic has doubled at Norwich during the last 10 years and the closure of Coltishall after 36 years of an integrated arrangement meant that there was a loss of the known traffic environment. The proposal does include arrangements for airspace sharing and Letters of Agreement with those affected eg Felthorpe, Ludham and Swanton Morley. It also states ‘Transits through the proposed CTR/CTA by both VFR & IFR flights will be accommodated on direct routings to the maximum possible extent’. I also note that nearly half of the problem events during a recent 2 year period were known to be military aircraft. A Chart of the proposal is attached.

The current GASCo policy is for organisations to make their own comments unless the Council asks GASCo to submit specific or general comments. Responses can be e-mailed to [email protected] . During the Cardiff/Bristol Consultation GASCo sent the following response; let me know if you wish the same to be sent to Norwich:
1. GASCo supports this proposal as it provides all the airspace that is necessary to maintain the safety standards of commercial traffic using these airports whilst taking into account the needs of general aviation.

2. This is based on the proviso that there are sufficient appropriate staff are available, to ensure the requirements for access to Class D by General Aviation aircraft seeking to fly within or across the airspace.

The closing date for comments is 28th August 2009.

John Thorpe, Chief Executive

Is this in every airspace proposal? Then the airport management gradually reduce staff numbers in the name of profits (perfectly reasonable as they are private companies) and transits become more difficult....

I have just looked at the Norwich Airport Airspace Change Proposal document mentioned above, which is on the BMAA website.

At para 2.4.7, it says that ... the Consultation Period ... is planned to close on 28 July 2009. (i.e. tomorrow!)

This is in conflict with the date of 28th August 2009 mentioned above as the closing date for comments - so has the time available for responses been extended?


JD
:)

I have just answered my own question by inspecting this document on the Norwich Airport website.

It was re-issued on 22 May 2009 as version 2.0 (rather than version 1.1 which is on the BMAA website) and can be found here.

The new para 2.4.7 now shows the amended Consultation Period as closing on 28 August 2009.


JD
:)

:hmm:

Looking at todays departures we can all see that the total number of commercial flights FROM here, ignoring the duplicate schedule entries (obviously put there to make the number look even more impressive! :ok:) is..........18!!!. Many of these being oil platform helicopter departures and only 9 'proper' commercial aircraft.

Norwich International will always struggle to survive (let alone expand) due to it's location and the transport infrastructure in the area. Does it need this Class D airspace...I don't think so.

My personal opinion is that Norwich looks around and sees other people doing it and says 'we'd better do that too.....'

Major commerical operators have departed Norwich in the last few years and as a Eurohub it has tremendous potential which has never been fulfilled. It could easily be another Amsterdam Schipol if it wanted but it just prefers to continue in its normal (mismanaged) way.

Anyway with the appaling local road system, lack of motorways, un-connected railway system (the nearest station is 10 miles away), and wierd local attitudes to development and progress this Class D is never going to be required without a major sea-change.....................

Arc

Annex D makes interesting reading. 68 occurences over a period of 2 years 10 months i.e less tha one per fortnight. There do not appear to have been many if any significant conflicts.

More to the point a quick reading would seem to suggest that out of the 68 some were plainly outside the proposed class D i.e. No 48 -16nm north west, 53 - 6nm west low level, some may well have been outside, eg nos 22, 27,28, 34 etc. In all there appear to be about 25 + that do not clearly appear to have been within the proposed class D airspace; so over one-third. Two occurrences appear to be London Mil refusing to take traffic because of workload.

If one ignores the 25 we are left with 43 in a 34 month period so an average of 1.27 occurrences per month.

I'm due to fly from Norwich in a fortnight - do you think I should cancel?

WH has also posted on the ATC forum on the same subject.

The public consultation period for Class D airspace at Norwich has been on the go for nearly 4 months, the project itself has been well within the public domain and active for nearly two years.
An enormous amount of work (at considerable cost to Norwich Airport and man hours by staff who have done a lot of the work in their own time for nothing) has gone into ensuring that every interested party in the area and National Organisations across the board, likely to be affected by the proposal has been consulted.
Anyone else who wanted their opinions to be heard has had ample opportunity to do so, (and still does) via the Airport Website or their representitive organisation.

I can't imagine what WH considers he has to add by attempted stirring of the big spoon, failing miserably and making himself look very silly by displaying his ignorance and lack of ability to keep up with what is freely available within the public domain.

NikNak - I think you are a bit harsh. WH starts his post by saying that he has only just become aware and are you suggesting that this somehow invalidates his comments or concerns? Even if the project has been on the go for 2 years the final consultation draft was only published two months ago. Norwich has operated very well without class D for many years. The figures show that movements have not increased significantly and it is never going to become a major international airport - too close to Stanstead, relatively small local population and as a previous poster has stated the road and rail links are very poor. Further, the details set out in annex D do not establish a major problem.

Many of us have seen how Norwich has developed delusions of grandeur and has outpriced or made GA unwelcome. Many years ago I used to keep a Pitts in hangar 9 and never had a problem. Now I feel decidedly unwelcome.

Before you flame me, Norwich is my airport of choice and whenever its suitable if I am flying commercially I use the KLM service to AMS and then transit onwards. I am flying out of Norwich in a couple of weeks. Further, Norwich ATC are first class. I fly a PA32 locally and part own a cub at Priory Farm. For my part I don't think that the class D will really affect me other than the occasional ability to fly an instrument approach outside controlled airspace. As Naarfolk is fairly flat I suppose many of use will just have to create our own GPS approaches without a precision let down and low level RTB:ok: I'm sure I will get transits if necessary and in the cub I'll just bimble along outside the zone below 1500'.

That being said is it really necessary? Will the aviation industry and NWI come to a grinding halt without class D? I suspect not.

Much the same can be said of the Humberside proposals, and were also said of the Doncaster proposals. More and more aircraft having to duck and dive around CAS, and with less room in which to do so, and also to worry at the flight planning stage as to whether access will be available ( how does one plan the unplannable route?) and yet more potential for infringements and the resultant cries of licence loss from the holier than thou lynch mob....

For me it's not about the category of the airspace - it's the amount of the airspace that they are trying to grab IMHO.

Is it really all required ??? - and as with legal Approach - GA at Norwich is definately being squeezed and it is expensive to operate from there. I believe however that the costing strategy comes from 'on high' and is no reflection of the actual attitude to be found on the airfield itself.

and Norwich, delusions of grandeur ?? - 'Moi ?'

Arc

What really annoys me about this proposal is that they state in the consultation that a large part of the proposed zone in the West (to be known as the Swanton Box) will not be required by NIA for 70% of the time so when they don't want it they will delegate it to the military to be controlled out of Marham. So you want to transit & call NIA, they have delegated it to Marham and can't be bothered to call Marham to see if they can allow transit so you will be denied access to airspace that is probably empty and likely to stay that way for the duration of your transit. All this without the military haveing to make a case for having the airspace.

Submit your objections before it's too late.

By the way:

Quote:

---

In accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Consultation and the CAA’s requirements a period of 12 weeks is allowed for consultation. In order to make allowance for the May Bank Holiday period NIA has extended the consultation period to 14 weeks. Thus the Consultation Period begins on 22 May 2009 and is planned to close on 28 August 2009 .

---

L4 Cub-thread drift
 

Interesting,there are three Priory L4 group members on this thread plus one I bought my share from.:)
I've been flying her today,while you are all working.
Sorry,but there is some good from becoming old and grizzled;);)
Lister:)

Good to see you're back up and mended Lister.
May the traffic lights always be on green!:ok:

Lister - who are the others? I'm obviously not well up on Pprune user names

L4 group
 

I'm sure they'll let you know:)
If I tell you I might be shot:}
Lister

Norwich airspace
 

I have just very briefly read bits of this consultation document, and it is an unmitigated disgrace.

Their executive summary is riddled with lies and fallacies:

"NIA... has become a major Regional Airport" - lie #1 - no it hasn't - it is a minor regional airport by any reasonable definition

"This Agreement effectively protected NIA traffic from military and other itinerant traffic operating in the vicinity" - fallacy #1 the "military traffic" from which NIA was protected has now gone with Coltishall's closure; lie #2 Coltishall never protected NIA from “itinerant” traffic as this was never obliged to receive any air traffic service; fallacy #2 they use a derogatory term to describe GA traffic (“itinerant” conjures images of vagrants) to support their argument

“Accordingly there has been a commensurate increase in ATC workload” - fallacy #3 - large amounts of airspace to control will also increase ATC workload

“...avoiding action and delaying action is commonplace which has been, on several occasions, to the general detriment of flight safety” - fallacy #4 - taking avoiding action is exactly about ensuring safety - it would be to the detriment of safety NOT to take avoiding action

Let me copy the final paragraph in full:

“NIA is an Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) approved under Article 100 of the Air
Navigation Order and, as such, must satisfy the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as to their
competence to provide air traffic services (ATS) and that the services are safe. In meeting
its statutory responsibilities for safety management of the ATS provided and in order to
assure an acceptable level of flight safety for aircraft inbound to or outbound from NIA in the
critical stages of flight, NIA proposes to submit a case to the CAA to establish Class D
controlled airspace in the vicinity of Norwich Airport.”

This is absolute drivel, and fallacy #5 - the logic of it is “we have a responsibility for safety therefore we need Class D airspace” - they have not submitted any relevant material in support of this assertion, instead just repeating the words “safe” or “safety” ad nauseam to browbeat the reader without submitting any evidence or reasoning - re-read the paragraph and count these words!

Someone suggested on another thread that there should be an airspace tax, whereby airports pay an annual amount per cubic mile of airspace they control - I think this is an exceptionally good idea, and it would make sure that airports don’t take any more airspace than they need. Also this concept is widely precedented - for example, in radio spectrum licensing fees (for e.g. mobile operators).

In short, this is an absolute disgrace. Whilst it won’t affect me personally, as a point of principle and to help our fellow aviators in East Anglia, I will be responding to the consultation in the strongest possible terms. I urge all others to do likewise.

I have just emailed this;

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in response to the consultation regarding the proposed increase in controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.

I write as a pilot and aircraft owner who regularly visits airfields around Norwich, although I regret to say that it is some time since I have actually flown into Norwich itself, as the escalation in charges to general aviation traffic has all but prevented this.

I am puzzled by many of the claims and aspirations which you state in your consultation document, as most of them appear to be unrealistic and/or distortions of the truth.

Far from being an "increasingly busy regional airport", the numbers of movements at Norwich have actually fallen over the last 3 years by 20%. Moreover, the projection for movement numbers doubling in the near future, is willfully unrealistic. With a lack of supporting infrastructure (road links and rail services) and continuing government investment in Stansted, Luton, Heathrow and Gatwick and an ever deepening recession, these movements are likely to fall further - rather than increase.

The uncomfortable truth for Norwich is that there are actually GA fields in the south-east of England with more movements, who exist with only a modest ATZ and FIS, so I think that the demand for a massive increase in controlled airspace is unrealistic, unnecessary and tantamount to 'dog-in-the-manger' behavior, founded upon ill-conceived delusions of grandure.

On these grounds, I strongly object to any expansion of controlled airspace around Norwich Airport.

Yours faithfully,

Well there's a thing.

Working Hard has just posted on the ATC forum on precisely the same subject (a thread he started) and wsmempsons post is almost the miror image of that post - I wonder if they could be identical twins!:rolleyes::p

All I'll say to WS and Key Pilot is, the public consultation is just that, public and there for you to make your contribution, so do it via the methods explained on the airport website and your opinion will be listened to and noted by not only the Airport Authority, but also any replies, positive or negative have to be forwarded to the CAA and the DAP who, will ultimately decide if the airspace application will be granted.
I am just a small cog in the wheel and I've been involved in just some of the massive amount of work put into this project, but the only thing I would say is, if you are going to make comments which you want anyone outwith Norwich Airport to consider, make them a little bit more constructive.

For niknak and wsmemperson I did copy and past from wsmemperson to the ATC forum as I thought the questions posed may realise some comment that us GA pilots would be hard pressed to find elsewhere. I did also stae it was copied from here and not my words. No harm done (or so i thought). wsmemperson you put it far better than did I so that is why I copied and attributed.

Ta v. much.;)

I have used Norwich airport for many years to fly to and from Aberdeen airport and Schiphol in the Netherlands. Using Eastern on the Aberdeen leg, I have been aware that their service seems to have been trimmed down rather than increased. On the Schiphol leg I’ve used KLM Cityhopper and I’ve never seen any increases in their schedules or a full aircraft either. There is a helicopter operator (Bristows) who I have used to travel offshore, but offshore helicopter travel in this part of the world is forecast to decline over the next few years and anyway, Bristows have competition off Norwich airport by CHC helicopters at nearby North Denes that services the same area.
Norwich airport can never be expected to be any more than a small regional airport whilst the ground travel infrastructure is so bad. The main railway station (with filthy trains) in the centre of Norwich can take almost an hour to get to by taxi when the city traffic is bad, which is very often the case! So I can’t see why in anyone’s wildest dreams they think they need class D airspace.
Just recently, I have been so sick and tired of the journey from Norwich Airport to my home near Ely (not that far away) and visa versa that I have started to use London airports. People travelling from Norwich airport are further annoyed by having to pay an extra £5 on top of their ticket for an airport development fund. So now I know what this fund is for, I will definitely be travelling from London!
Personally I would like to see Norwich Airport authorities getting back to basics by shelving silly delusions of grandeur and instead provide a better service for their customers. Then put all their other efforts into lobbying for the improvement of the dreadful land travel situation that has existed for far too long.

Well Biggles, I suspect that you'd really love to be able to use Norwich all the time and just frustrated to hell with the crap road networks to virtually any airport, aside from Stansted in the UK.
But I've got to say that's one of the most bizzare cases against any form of controlled airspace I've ever seen, please submit it as an objection via the correct means, I love to see it hung on the walls of CAA & DAP HQ. :p:ok:

Yes Goatface, it is a bit bizzare as a case against airspace restrictions as I read it now and you are quite correct about my frustration. But my point is angled towards what I see as an airport in decline and if this is indeed the case, what is the point of applying for class D airspace?
I have to say I agree with you, it would look good on the wall of the CAA HQ however:ok:
Thanks

There are plans afoot to put in a northern Norwich by-pass,which will probably make some road travel easier.
Even so,I can't see Norwich airport ever becoming much more important for air travel than it is now.
Surely the most sensible way forward would be to see how commercial air traffic develops over a period ,then if does then become neccessary to have Class D,forward the proposal at that time.I have travelled a couple of time from Norwich,once was direct flight and OK but the other we routed via Schipol which was a pain.
Stansted is not too far away from Norfolk and has good connections to most destinations,it is my choice whenever possible.
Lister

As I've posted before, I've played a very small part in the huge amount of work which goes into such an application.

You are absolutely correct that at present, traffic movements at Norwich are significantly lower compared to what they were when the application process frist started, however, there has been little or no reduction in the number of other movements and associated risks to aircraft operating in and out of the airport.
These are clearly measured within the evidence forwarded to date to the CAA and DAP.
Get them from the CAA and DAP if you don't believe me.

Additionally, it is generally accepted that, whilst the current recession has been worse for aviation than any other, there is light at the end of the tunnel within the commercial sector within the next 6 months. The majority of commercial airline and airport operators are working this in to their business plans, so are we.
If we were to ditch the application now it, we would have to replicate the same amount of work again when commercial times are better and that would be at considerable cost, so there's no reason why we shouldn't go for it now and be prepared for the upturn when it happens, just like any other commercial consideration.

Once again, if you think you have a valid & constructive objection to the application, by all means make it through the proper channels and the CAA & DAP will consider it appropriately.

What you seem to be saying, niknak, is that the airspace is not justified now and it is only on NIA's expectation (and not actual fact) that the application is being pursued. Moreover it seems to be going ahead in its present form only because it would be too much work for it to be changed to suit actual and perhaps more realistic requirements.

My opinion is that an airfield the size of Norwich might find it nice to have a Class D CTR/CTA the size proposed but it really is not necessary. Considering other "stakeholders", it would actually be perfectly adequate to simply safeguard the IAP lanes with a much narrower CTR along the extended runway centrelines within the vertical limits proposed - perhaps with something more the shape of a MATZ - leaving much more Class G unaffected by the CAS "grab". Furthermore, I see absolutely no reason to have such a large CTA, with its base extending at the ridiculously low level of 1500' all the way out to 13nm from the ARP.

I speak with experience in both commercial aviation and GA and I have to say, in summary, that I do not see the proposal as being reasonable, given either the traffic density expected or the IFR routings required.


JD
:)

I,ve commanded B757 and B738 aircraft in and out of Norwich on about 7 occasions over the past 10 years.I,ve always found the Norwich radar controllers very good and never had any reason to be concerned.The airport has very low traffic levels I can,t possibly support any airspace beyond the current ATZ and possibly as suggested by a previous post a matz like structure.My only concerns at Norwich have been over runway length especially in challenging conditions....perhaps an area management at Norwich might expend their effort on to a greater safety benefit than controlling vast areas of airspace with little traffic.If they get exclusive use airspace we need to be sure sufficient funding is in place to gaurantee enough controllers to service all airspace users all the time.Previous experience tells me that is unlikely.""Standby (for ever) remain clear of controlled airspace""VBR Stampe

Just to keep this alive I have copied what is written on the ATC thread:
Not had any replies to the question yet!

21 Joining and Overflying AircraftWhen an aircraft requests permission to enter controlled airspace for the purposes of landing at the associated aerodrome or transiting the airspace, it may not be possible, for traffic reasons, to issue that clearance immediately. In such situations controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance
and give a time check.

For those pilots who transgress CAS without permission (i.e. NOT operating the aircraft withing the regulations) there are sanctions so would anyone care to tell us what sanctions may be applied to a controller who similarly transgresses please? It is there in the regulations saying "requests permission" and "shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check" It does not say thou shalt issue the instruction ad nauseum.
There are clearly poor pilots and poor controllers and I think it would be better if we were treated as individuals and not make such might assumptions. Before any one really takes me to task I should re-iterate what I have said many times that the UK controllers are the best in the world so please dont let standards slip.

another thought - who actually decides that they need more airspace at Norwich in the first place ?

and who actually pays for the application ??

Arc

The decision to apply is made by the Airport Authority, the CAA and the Military (DAP) make the final decison as to grant it or not.

Norwich Airport Ltd.

I think you mean it's us who pay - through the nose by the over-inflated landing fees (compare them with a regional airport in say France) and if you're a commercial pax by way of the passenger, airport development tax, sorry, fee.

Quote from the Airport website

So next week the approach family will be donating £25 towards restricting my future flying around Norfolk.

Legal.

I'm pretty sure that no one would disagree with you regarding the G.A landing fees. It's my understanding that the airport was made PPR to non based operators so that all GA could be handled by the FBO Saxonair. Saxonair charge about £10 of the landing fee as their handling fee, the rest goes to Norwich Airport Ltd, so how the MD at Norwich can say (and this is only what I've been told) that they make no money out of GA landing fees is beyond me and a complete embarassment to everyone there.
Despite the rumour that the airport is allegedly in very very deep financial poo and many staff making very sensible suggestions about cutting fees to attract more GA, the people who run the place (Omniport/Norwich Airport Ltd) seem to have their head in the sand and allegedly simply refuse to listen.

As for the ADF, that's something that every commercial passenger at every airport in the UK pays - it's just that most squirrel it away into the "taxes & charges" part of your ticket costs. At least airports like Norwich, Liverpool, Newquay and a few others are honest enough to let you know about it.

....Back to the original post re the airspace.

I will be objecting. This is a huge area/volume of airspace to commandeer for just a few commercial flights.

There are always these weasel words about allowing transits and giving clearances, but in reality you just get a 'standby and remain clear' response. Either because the controller can't be bothered or because the low volume of commercial traffic means thay cannot afford the right staffing levels to deal with all the transit traffic.

ZA

That should of course be "remain outside" ;)

Flybymike please read my post No.31 above. The quote is straight from MATS PART 1, Sect 3, CH1, Para 21. So a blanket "ROCAS" should not be used and ONLY if a request is made for transit then "controllers shall advise the pilot to remain outside controlled airspace, when to expect clearance and give a time check."
Does any GA pilot remember that happening in recent years? How do we set about ensuring the ATC "bible" is adhered to anyone?
Norwich, if approved, will soon go the same way as the majority of CAS elsewhere and transits and anything other than a basic service will be denied because of "controller workload". Then if a complaint is made it will be stated that "GA" does not pay its share. It is soon and very conveniently forgotten that the airspace was free to all before a minor little airfield wanted "control" so why should we pay more?

Should really be "cleared to cross as requested"!!!!!

ZA

Perfectly true!;)

Its not dealing with the problem
 

Looking through the document it appears to me that Norwich is arguing that it is necessary to have controlled airspace primarily to protect its incoming and outgoing routes from conflicting with military traffic.

If the problem is inadequate co-ordination with military aviation then surely this is what they should be addressing rather than trying to take control themselves of all the local airspace around the airport. It states that they have tried to co-ordinate with the military but have not been able to establish any agreement that will resolve the problem. Unfortunately, it is not clear what they attempted and why it was not successful. Simply stating in para 5.4 that the problem military traffic is not locally controlled but managed centrally through the MoD, or by an on station AWAC not in contact with Norwich ATC, does not I feel adequately answer this point.

The significant impact on the implementation of an additional large control zone on the recreational aviation that takes place in East Anglia is not well developed and elaborated in this document. The impact on costs and customer experience for recreational operators of the additional levels of organizational complexity created by the proposal are not well thought through or explained. While recognizing that recreational aviation takes place on local airfields the limit of their response is to state that a letter of agreement or MoU will be put in place and that they will provide transit through their area of control when it is reasonable to do so. The difficulty with these and other good will statements in the document is the lack of any quantified performance measures for what Norwich means by reasonable or that commit Norwich to a minimum quality of service for recreational and other GA traffic.

I would have been more impressed with a clear commitment to developing local recreational aviation and Norwich as the East Anglian destination of choice for recreational and GA pilots and some clear statement about what they will do to achieve this. For example some Scottish airfields offer weekend deals on landings and parking - £30 for the weekend and as many landings as you want. No sign of this kind of thinking in this proposal document.

To offset the considerable costs that Norwich’s proposal will cause the recreational community some attempt could have been made to control costs for GA people flying into Norwich. A simple performance measure could have been given such as fixing the total price for visiting Norwich in typical spam can at no more than the median cost of a landing at any East Anglian ICAO airfield. A similar approach could be taken to parking with again the cost being kept at or below the median for East Anglia. This could have been integrated with a commitment to much better marketing and communications into the recreational and wider GA community through its www site and other routes.

Since safety lies at the root of this proposal this may also offer an opportunity for Norwich to improve the value of the proposal to the wider community that are losing access to the airspace they wish to take control of. A simple metric for this could be 6 ATC safety weekends per year where Norwich invites recreational flyers come on in and practice their skills at instrument approaches and other ATC procedures at a token cost. This could have additional community impact if Norwich donated the token charges from the recreational pilots to charities such as GASGO or to support the Fly-On-Track www site and/or RAFA, British Disabled Flying Association . . . etc.

Generally, in the UK I think a lot more proactive work needs to be done by ATC controlled airfields to get recreational GA using them. It should be easier and cheaper for a recreational GA pilot to take his or her family shopping in towns with a good airfield such as Norwich by flying in rather than by adding to the congestion on the roads and trains. Also, from a safety perspective frequent and easy access to the airport and its ATC procedures will build confidence and, I believe, increase a pilot’s willingness to talk to the ATC unit when in the local area.

Stephen.

Very eliquently put, your post just about sums up everything that the ATC and other operational staff at Norwich and other operators have been saying since the process began.

They've all been comletely ignored so if you, or in fact, everyone, were to write the same thing to the MD at Norwich, Elliot Summers and the Ops Director, Richard Pace, it would be interesting to see if you got the same response.

Good luck.:ok: