'Cambridge Airport safety concerns highlighted in leaked emails'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK Manchester
Age: 40
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Cambridge Airport safety concerns highlighted in leaked emails'
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another airspace grab coming up?
'Cambridge Airport safety concerns highlighted in leaked emails'
Is this the prelude to another airspace grab like Farnborough and Southend, for instance.
If the owners/operators of these places had to pay for the airspace- that's yours and mine - perhaps they might not be so keen. If aircraft operators and owners have to pay for .833 spacing radios and Mode "S" transponders, is it unreasonable for these others to pay for the airspace?
Just a thought.
Is this the prelude to another airspace grab like Farnborough and Southend, for instance.
If the owners/operators of these places had to pay for the airspace- that's yours and mine - perhaps they might not be so keen. If aircraft operators and owners have to pay for .833 spacing radios and Mode "S" transponders, is it unreasonable for these others to pay for the airspace?
Just a thought.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southend
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I disagree. Controlled airspace is there to protect. Unless you want to get a very good view of a Cessna, glider, micro light when jetting off on your yearly jaunt to the med. it is also worth remembering that unless you are asking at one of the 'big' airports the crossing service is normally very good. Controlled airspace application is a rigorous process and is not granted without a safety benefit being obvious, given the choice between bob in his p28a being able to fly anywhere without taking to anyone opposed to monitored protection for commercial flights I know what I would choose!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SATCO at Cam is a PPL/IMC/CRI when he gets his finger out.
A more pro GA ATCO you will struggle to find.
As someone who used to operate into there in a CAT TP it can get particularly hairy both in and out when you dropped into indian country.
Also due to the screwed up rules of ATSOCA its actually less restrictive for the radar controller to be working in controlled airspace than out. VFR is automatically separated from IFR.
personally I think a lot of the current airspace grabs are to do with this ATSOCA the requirements in class G are almost impossible to comply with.
A more pro GA ATCO you will struggle to find.
As someone who used to operate into there in a CAT TP it can get particularly hairy both in and out when you dropped into indian country.
Also due to the screwed up rules of ATSOCA its actually less restrictive for the radar controller to be working in controlled airspace than out. VFR is automatically separated from IFR.
personally I think a lot of the current airspace grabs are to do with this ATSOCA the requirements in class G are almost impossible to comply with.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
VFR is automatically separated from IFR
NS
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vested interest?
Wonkerlykonk of Southend, do you have a vested interest in Southend perhaps? You could have the protection that you, not unreasonably, expect if you used Stansted - but what an inconvenience for you!
Have you been following Farnborough's proposals? Have a look and see how much Class G airspace will be left in the South of England if the proposals are accepted.
So, if "they" want the airspace, let "them" pay for it! This would apply to the the airports concerned and the airlines that use them. Commercial flights operate into these places to make money, no other reason.
Perhaps, then, the revenue could be used to subsidise the cost of equipping GA aircraft with the equipment needed to transit the controlled airspace and provide us all with the protection that you mention -a win-win situation.
You would do well to read AOPA's response to Farnborough's proposals.
Have you been following Farnborough's proposals? Have a look and see how much Class G airspace will be left in the South of England if the proposals are accepted.
So, if "they" want the airspace, let "them" pay for it! This would apply to the the airports concerned and the airlines that use them. Commercial flights operate into these places to make money, no other reason.
Perhaps, then, the revenue could be used to subsidise the cost of equipping GA aircraft with the equipment needed to transit the controlled airspace and provide us all with the protection that you mention -a win-win situation.
You would do well to read AOPA's response to Farnborough's proposals.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind GA
What about us glider pilots. We would be happy with class D if controlers could us clearances for example not below altitude 4500 feet to SFC but they can't/won't most of the time.
What about us glider pilots. We would be happy with class D if controlers could us clearances for example not below altitude 4500 feet to SFC but they can't/won't most of the time.
