Budget flights 'pose collision risk'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Budget flights 'pose collision risk'
From the BBC
Budget airlines are posing a heightened risk of mid-air collisions,
according to a report by air traffic controllers.
The report by the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (Gatco)
claims no-frills services are flying in skies with no controlled
airspace.
It says "hotspots" include Birmingham, Coventry and Doncaster
airports and Kent International Airport at Manston.
Gatco claims it is an oversight by the Civil Aviation Authority but
the CAA says it constantly reviews airspace.
Jonathan Nicholson, Civil Aviation Authority
The report, seen by the BBC, is due to be published on Monday, and
claims the situation is "an accident waiting to happen".
It outlines the rise in budget services operating from the four
airports and claims that areas around the sites could see flights
flying in uncontrolled airspace.
At Birmingham Airport, bmibaby has announced plans to serve up to 20
destinations while Thomsonfly has begun operating from nearby
Coventry Airport.
But the report claims there is no controlled airspace linking either
Birmingham or Coventry Airport with the UK national airway system
towards south Wales.
At Kent International Airport at Manston, EU Jet plans to fly to 21
destinations and aims to carry 500,000 passengers a year, the report
says.
'Paramount importance'
Gatco said it was supportive of airport expansion but was concerned
about the risks where aircraft were flying in uncontrolled
airspaces.
Richard Dawson, from Gatco, said: "The vast majority of UK airports
such Gatwick have "controlled" airspace around them.
"But Manston is outside controlled airspace because it is not as
developed as others.
"At Manston operations are starting without controlled airspace
being put in place.
"The concern is that collision risk is heightened at Manston as more
flights are starting to operate there without controlled airspace in
place."
'Few commercial movements'
Jonathan Nicholson, from the Civil Aviation Authority, said: "We
constantly review airspace and if there is a safety requirement at
one particular airport we will introduce it.
"We have a legal requirement that all UK airspace users are treated
equally - you cannot just shut off airspace.
"Manston has very few commercial air movements - if they gain
considerable movements we would certainly look at controlled
airspace as an option.
"The UK has one of the lowest rate of near misses in the world and
this figures is actually falling at a time when movements are
increasing."
A Birmingham Airport spokesperson, said: "All operations are
sanctioned under licence by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
through their Directorate of Airspace Policy.
"Birmingham operates within controlled airspace and all flights
receive the appropriate air traffic control service.
"Any operations outside of the Birmingham controlled zone are a
matter for the CAA and the airline concerned.
"Aircraft safety is of paramount importance to us and at no stage
would we allow our passengers to be put at increased risk."
Budget airlines are posing a heightened risk of mid-air collisions,
according to a report by air traffic controllers.
The report by the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers (Gatco)
claims no-frills services are flying in skies with no controlled
airspace.
It says "hotspots" include Birmingham, Coventry and Doncaster
airports and Kent International Airport at Manston.
Gatco claims it is an oversight by the Civil Aviation Authority but
the CAA says it constantly reviews airspace.
Jonathan Nicholson, Civil Aviation Authority
The report, seen by the BBC, is due to be published on Monday, and
claims the situation is "an accident waiting to happen".
It outlines the rise in budget services operating from the four
airports and claims that areas around the sites could see flights
flying in uncontrolled airspace.
At Birmingham Airport, bmibaby has announced plans to serve up to 20
destinations while Thomsonfly has begun operating from nearby
Coventry Airport.
But the report claims there is no controlled airspace linking either
Birmingham or Coventry Airport with the UK national airway system
towards south Wales.
At Kent International Airport at Manston, EU Jet plans to fly to 21
destinations and aims to carry 500,000 passengers a year, the report
says.
'Paramount importance'
Gatco said it was supportive of airport expansion but was concerned
about the risks where aircraft were flying in uncontrolled
airspaces.
Richard Dawson, from Gatco, said: "The vast majority of UK airports
such Gatwick have "controlled" airspace around them.
"But Manston is outside controlled airspace because it is not as
developed as others.
"At Manston operations are starting without controlled airspace
being put in place.
"The concern is that collision risk is heightened at Manston as more
flights are starting to operate there without controlled airspace in
place."
'Few commercial movements'
Jonathan Nicholson, from the Civil Aviation Authority, said: "We
constantly review airspace and if there is a safety requirement at
one particular airport we will introduce it.
"We have a legal requirement that all UK airspace users are treated
equally - you cannot just shut off airspace.
"Manston has very few commercial air movements - if they gain
considerable movements we would certainly look at controlled
airspace as an option.
"The UK has one of the lowest rate of near misses in the world and
this figures is actually falling at a time when movements are
increasing."
A Birmingham Airport spokesperson, said: "All operations are
sanctioned under licence by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)
through their Directorate of Airspace Policy.
"Birmingham operates within controlled airspace and all flights
receive the appropriate air traffic control service.
"Any operations outside of the Birmingham controlled zone are a
matter for the CAA and the airline concerned.
"Aircraft safety is of paramount importance to us and at no stage
would we allow our passengers to be put at increased risk."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Many is "Not Many"?
Jonathan Nicholson [CAA] is quoted as saying "you cannot just shut off airspace".....well when there is a commercial consideration such as Farnborough they have no problem.
I hope some-one will ask how many Air Transport Movements are needed to qualify for controlled airspace, it is truly a British outlook to insinuate that the cheeky airlines are operating into the wrong airports.....like the head-in-the-sand attitude on the Railways....wrong kind of snow/leaves/rain too wet etc. etc. ...always somebody elses fault !! Heaven forbid that people actually want to fly from a convenient airport at a fraction of the cost with no hassle!
I hope some-one will ask how many Air Transport Movements are needed to qualify for controlled airspace, it is truly a British outlook to insinuate that the cheeky airlines are operating into the wrong airports.....like the head-in-the-sand attitude on the Railways....wrong kind of snow/leaves/rain too wet etc. etc. ...always somebody elses fault !! Heaven forbid that people actually want to fly from a convenient airport at a fraction of the cost with no hassle!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
055166k - What would you propose then? Please remember that CAT is a minority of movements and if CAT wishes to operate outside controlled airspace then that is their perogative. If just one flight per day (CAT) uses say Doncaster, would you have Class D in force immediately? We do have the quite ludicrous hangover of an airway down to Jersey that has 2 flight (I think) at the last count per day.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for my ignorance, but all flights leaving BHX on published SIDS & STARs do so within the confines of controlled airspace and positive radar control. Even Coventry departures join controlled airspace at 1500 feet or am I missing something? Do I need to get my Air Law text books out again?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: nr Birmingham
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for my ignorance, but all flights leaving BHX on published SIDS & STARs do so within the confines of controlled airspace and positive radar control. Even Coventry departures join controlled airspace at 1500 feet or am I missing something? Do I need to get my Air Law text books out again?
Not sure of the 1500ft being the base of CAS, isn't it FL44 around that area for Coventry arr/deps?
WNC
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WorkingHard
Thinking more about places like Bristol International with over 50,000 Air Transport Movements a year. Controlled Airspace is not supposed to be a brick wall to keep traffic out, it should be merely a safe environment in which known traffic is provided with a better level of service.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I correct in thinking that in Germany below FL100, and outside of TMAs, there is NO controlled airspace?
Perhaps this would put the situation around the UK hotspots into perspective!
Perhaps this would put the situation around the UK hotspots into perspective!
Clone of Victor Meldrew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: england
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what about 'budget flights' in CAS? One of them seems to
have made it an SOP to ignore ATC imposed speed control.
At STN it appears 160 to 4 is being disregarded by that one
operator thereby reducing separation and losing what would have been gaps for departures!! Near MAY the other day we
were told to fly at 280 ...the cheap chap behind 270... but we
could watch him closing the gap on TCAS!! London then told us to 'fly as fast as possible!!!
have made it an SOP to ignore ATC imposed speed control.
At STN it appears 160 to 4 is being disregarded by that one
operator thereby reducing separation and losing what would have been gaps for departures!! Near MAY the other day we
were told to fly at 280 ...the cheap chap behind 270... but we
could watch him closing the gap on TCAS!! London then told us to 'fly as fast as possible!!!
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't need to be INCAS to get a radar service, assuming you need one.
You have 2 options OUTCAS:
1. Go VFR and look out of the window. (obviously VMC only)
2. Go IMC and get a radar service (LARS or Lon Mil if nothing else - VMC or IMC)
In either case you still have TCAS as a backstop.
This sounds more like NATS trying to protect their empire - heaven forbid crews should be flying around reponsible for their own traffic & terrain clearance. IMHO I don't see any major justification for slapping CAS around sparsely used areas.
Of course, should these areas become alot busier, that would be a different matter.
16B
You have 2 options OUTCAS:
1. Go VFR and look out of the window. (obviously VMC only)
2. Go IMC and get a radar service (LARS or Lon Mil if nothing else - VMC or IMC)
In either case you still have TCAS as a backstop.
This sounds more like NATS trying to protect their empire - heaven forbid crews should be flying around reponsible for their own traffic & terrain clearance. IMHO I don't see any major justification for slapping CAS around sparsely used areas.
Of course, should these areas become alot busier, that would be a different matter.
16B
>.....like the head-in-the-sand attitude on the Railways....wrong kind of snow/leaves/rain too wet etc. etc. ...always somebody elses fault<
055166k, I take some exception to your comments about the UK Railways as I happen to work in the industry (as I cannot currently secure employment in aviation but that is another matter!) and can assure you there is certainly no "head-in-the-sand attitude" and that ANY operational matters are taken very seriously, ESPECIALLY if they are safety related.
However we have our "friends" in the UK media to blame for all their inaccurate reports and general scaremongering and, coming back to the thread topic, the matter of certain flights outside CAS is yet another example of the media putting the fear of God into the travelling public when the risks are quite minimal.
What makes anyone think that they are not going to be involved in an airprox WITHIN CAS? Just because you are in CAS does not mean that nobody else is around and we must remember that not all flights are radar monitored at all times.
Even within the ANO there is a caveat that adequate lookout must be made at all times notwithstanding that the flight is being conducted under IFR.
Generally speaking I think the CAA have got the balance about right and airspace is under constant review. We must also remember that other airspace users have a right to use the skies and the CAT does not have an absolute monopoly on the use of airspace.
055166k, I take some exception to your comments about the UK Railways as I happen to work in the industry (as I cannot currently secure employment in aviation but that is another matter!) and can assure you there is certainly no "head-in-the-sand attitude" and that ANY operational matters are taken very seriously, ESPECIALLY if they are safety related.
However we have our "friends" in the UK media to blame for all their inaccurate reports and general scaremongering and, coming back to the thread topic, the matter of certain flights outside CAS is yet another example of the media putting the fear of God into the travelling public when the risks are quite minimal.
What makes anyone think that they are not going to be involved in an airprox WITHIN CAS? Just because you are in CAS does not mean that nobody else is around and we must remember that not all flights are radar monitored at all times.
Even within the ANO there is a caveat that adequate lookout must be made at all times notwithstanding that the flight is being conducted under IFR.
Generally speaking I think the CAA have got the balance about right and airspace is under constant review. We must also remember that other airspace users have a right to use the skies and the CAT does not have an absolute monopoly on the use of airspace.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PIK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry is unsafe ????
I have just read this nonsense credited to the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers. They are not a Union. They are an un-elected bunch of folks who often spout nonsense. Unfortunately it gets reported as a credible observation by "professionals".
Unless they refute this nonsense immediately then I am resigning.
Apologies to the rest of the sensible aviation community.
Guild of whatsits
Unless they refute this nonsense immediately then I am resigning.
Apologies to the rest of the sensible aviation community.
Guild of whatsits
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have stated in another thread, this is simply ATC trying to protect their own empire.
I'm not surprised they don't like pilots flying outside controlled airspace and outside their jurisdiction - god forbid we ever get out of their clutches and start thinking for ourselves!
16B
I'm not surprised they don't like pilots flying outside controlled airspace and outside their jurisdiction - god forbid we ever get out of their clutches and start thinking for ourselves!
16B
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote-------------
"A Thomsonfly 737 flying in from Valencia had to change course on its final landing approach after a light aircraft entered uncontrolled airspace between Birmingham and Coventry on May 12."
How do you 'enter' uncontrolled airspace? Surely it was already in it?
"A Thomsonfly 737 flying in from Valencia had to change course on its final landing approach after a light aircraft entered uncontrolled airspace between Birmingham and Coventry on May 12."
How do you 'enter' uncontrolled airspace? Surely it was already in it?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's simple you can't write anything that makes sence if you don't understand what you are writing about.
The person writing in thes local paper has not bothered to do any reserch , probably because the truth would get in the way of a good story and would not further there asperations of working for a quality national paper like the Sun !.
The person writing in thes local paper has not bothered to do any reserch , probably because the truth would get in the way of a good story and would not further there asperations of working for a quality national paper like the Sun !.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C - Let me just say that I know the journalist of this piece very well, and he has always tried to be as balanced in his reporting about CVT as possible. This GATCO claim was widely reported in other press, and at least this article gives plenty of space to the CAA to report back.
I normally get very irate when anyone who isn't a pilot or CAA spokesperson tries to go on about safety issues, but as 16 blades says, there may be some issues which need attention here at some stage, however small the risk may be (and I thought it was very wrong of GATCO to highlight the no frills airlines - presumably all those freight flights from CVT and MSE teleport themselves across uncontrolled airspace).
The Coventry Observer is one of the few papers to always quote both sides when a new issue is raised to do with CVT, and remember that they are the ones who rubbished CAECA when they tried to claim that infant mortality would rise 50% due to increased pollution.
Even sister paper the Rugby Observer let Andy King vent his spleen last week about how Thomsonfly "will probably fail", and how Coventry Airport shouldn't bother appealing over the terminal, as they "have no chance".
Next, King will be telling us that the government was serious about building Rugby Airport, that British Airways, Virgin and BMI were queuing up to relocate from Heathrow to Rugby, and that several consortia of banks had rushed forward to invest in the project.
And the next departure from runway 23 will be a pink farmyard animal.
If you want to see plenty of anti-CVT reporting, just read the Leamington Courier - see thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...readid=144401.
I normally get very irate when anyone who isn't a pilot or CAA spokesperson tries to go on about safety issues, but as 16 blades says, there may be some issues which need attention here at some stage, however small the risk may be (and I thought it was very wrong of GATCO to highlight the no frills airlines - presumably all those freight flights from CVT and MSE teleport themselves across uncontrolled airspace).
The Coventry Observer is one of the few papers to always quote both sides when a new issue is raised to do with CVT, and remember that they are the ones who rubbished CAECA when they tried to claim that infant mortality would rise 50% due to increased pollution.
Even sister paper the Rugby Observer let Andy King vent his spleen last week about how Thomsonfly "will probably fail", and how Coventry Airport shouldn't bother appealing over the terminal, as they "have no chance".
Next, King will be telling us that the government was serious about building Rugby Airport, that British Airways, Virgin and BMI were queuing up to relocate from Heathrow to Rugby, and that several consortia of banks had rushed forward to invest in the project.
And the next departure from runway 23 will be a pink farmyard animal.
If you want to see plenty of anti-CVT reporting, just read the Leamington Courier - see thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...readid=144401.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: frozen norff
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it that has made you see red , Arran? The statement by GATCO, or how it has been reported? The two are entirely different.
GATCO is a professional body run by people who are actually doing the job, like the Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEE). Some are actually elected, having the courage to stand up, offer their time without charge taking on regulators and big business without shrinking.
But if you're going to resign, you know all this. Don't you????
The newspaper report is a bog-standard piece of rubbish written by journos who are trained to tell a story, NOT necessarily the truth. Again, the two are different. Don't tell me; you didn't know that.....
I see Prestwick has CAS after many years without. If you worked there before CAS was re-introduced, give it a while and see the difference for yourself.
GATCO is a professional body run by people who are actually doing the job, like the Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEE). Some are actually elected, having the courage to stand up, offer their time without charge taking on regulators and big business without shrinking.
But if you're going to resign, you know all this. Don't you????
The newspaper report is a bog-standard piece of rubbish written by journos who are trained to tell a story, NOT necessarily the truth. Again, the two are different. Don't tell me; you didn't know that.....
I see Prestwick has CAS after many years without. If you worked there before CAS was re-introduced, give it a while and see the difference for yourself.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm the guilty party responsible for the story in question.
If I got some sort of technicality wrong then I apologise, but the simple fact is, and you'll have to excuse my arrogance here, you will not find a better balanced version of this story in any other paper.
Every single piece I have written about the Coventry Airport saga has been straight down the line, and my paper has been the only one to publish any kind of direct debate between the airport management and the protest lobby.
To suggest I have "not bothered" to do any research is below the belt.
I would love to see anyone here write over 30 stories a week without making one slight error...whilst earning barely £4.50 per hour!
If I got some sort of technicality wrong then I apologise, but the simple fact is, and you'll have to excuse my arrogance here, you will not find a better balanced version of this story in any other paper.
Every single piece I have written about the Coventry Airport saga has been straight down the line, and my paper has been the only one to publish any kind of direct debate between the airport management and the protest lobby.
To suggest I have "not bothered" to do any research is below the belt.
I would love to see anyone here write over 30 stories a week without making one slight error...whilst earning barely £4.50 per hour!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NL
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To suggest that commercial passenger flights operating in CAS are un-safe is very misleading to say the least:
What is un-safe is trying to cram more and more passenger flights into already congested CAS.
I am fed up of sitting in the hold and being given speed restrictions for no other apparent reason other than the one that ATC are struggling to cope. This congestion to me represents a far greater safety risk when compared to limited operations out of CAS. Our ATC system has broken down on a number of occasions (due to computer failure, etc).
Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for our chums on the other end of the radio and most do justice to their profession. They have to work with the system and do their best. It lets them down as much as us.
Therefore, I think articles like the ones that this thread refers to are actually missing the point and cause needless concern.
The aircraft we fly have windscreens. The reason they have one of those is so that we can look through it when required (surprise surprise). I find it rather strange how it can be still our ultimate responsibility to maintain separation with other aircraft (even in CAS) but that we are deemed unable (by this article) to maintain this without the help of ATC and that we are all going to start flying into each other. Even in IFR conditions GA (PPL) pilots have to hold additional qualifications to be able to operate an aircraft in such conditions. What this means is that there are adequate provisions under all flying conditions to ensure that a general level of airmanship prevails relevant to the flying conditions in which you are operating (nothing will ever be perfect).
What's more, with continuous improvement in aircraft avionics and equipment, it will not be long before even more responsibility will be given to pilots for their own navigation and separation (remember the days pre GPS, TCAS, etc?). So people better start getting used to it.
I myself prefer the lack of congestion and delays associated with the smaller airports. I am sure that the passengers do too.
I feel comfortable flying from them and at no time have I felt that such operations are in any way un-safe.
Happy (and safe) flying to you all.
What is un-safe is trying to cram more and more passenger flights into already congested CAS.
I am fed up of sitting in the hold and being given speed restrictions for no other apparent reason other than the one that ATC are struggling to cope. This congestion to me represents a far greater safety risk when compared to limited operations out of CAS. Our ATC system has broken down on a number of occasions (due to computer failure, etc).
Don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for our chums on the other end of the radio and most do justice to their profession. They have to work with the system and do their best. It lets them down as much as us.
Therefore, I think articles like the ones that this thread refers to are actually missing the point and cause needless concern.
The aircraft we fly have windscreens. The reason they have one of those is so that we can look through it when required (surprise surprise). I find it rather strange how it can be still our ultimate responsibility to maintain separation with other aircraft (even in CAS) but that we are deemed unable (by this article) to maintain this without the help of ATC and that we are all going to start flying into each other. Even in IFR conditions GA (PPL) pilots have to hold additional qualifications to be able to operate an aircraft in such conditions. What this means is that there are adequate provisions under all flying conditions to ensure that a general level of airmanship prevails relevant to the flying conditions in which you are operating (nothing will ever be perfect).
What's more, with continuous improvement in aircraft avionics and equipment, it will not be long before even more responsibility will be given to pilots for their own navigation and separation (remember the days pre GPS, TCAS, etc?). So people better start getting used to it.
I myself prefer the lack of congestion and delays associated with the smaller airports. I am sure that the passengers do too.
I feel comfortable flying from them and at no time have I felt that such operations are in any way un-safe.
Happy (and safe) flying to you all.