Coventry - is this usual for GA traffic?
Coventry appeas to be kow-towing to the commercial aspirations of ThomsonFly at the expense of GA. I urge everyone to object to the aerodrome's attempt to achieve more airspace regulation; view http://www.wellesbourneairfield.com/...nsultation.pdf and send your comments to [email protected] , copied to the Head of the Directorate of Airspace Policy at [email protected] .
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by airac
shy torque. It was meant to be a short reply to your posting with reference to controlling VFR tfc "in some cases providing 5nm separation". That simply would not happen .IFR tfc may be vectored away from vfr a/c , if that VFR tfc was not identified ,but we in the uk have no requirement to provide standard separation between VFR flightsand or any other flights.
Your second point about the MSA .I was pointing out that yet again you were wrong ,if Rugby masts are 1122' you would not have a MSA figure of 1700' also under what rules do VFR flights have to comply with the MSA anyway??
apologies if you thought I was speaking in a foriegn tongue
airac,
Well, I must disagree. I can certainly give one recent example where this definitely happened to myself and a colleague in class G after requesting only a FIS. In view of your robust comment denying this possibility I have checked the detail of the route we were flying, which was planned to avoid Coventry and Brum's airspace. I have measured the separation directed - ATC turned us off track to go to Draycott Water VRP - which was no closer than 6nm to their inbound IFR traffic on the ILS to 05. We (two pilot ops) were bemused by the demand and discussed it as we continued to the VRP. We remained VFR/ VMC in good visibility at 1500 feet, below cloud at all times (icing was very likely that day) and we watched and listened to the progress of the IFR traffic, also seeing him land.
I can give at least one other example and will do so for further discussion if you so wish. I presume by your response that you are a bona fide ATCO at EGBE. In any event, I think better only by pm, rather than in public.
The 1700 feet MSA comes from plotting the boundaries of the proposed new Class D airspace on the CAA half mil chart. It is based on the 650' mast in the northern part of Leicester city. I didn't include the Rugby masts, although I am well aware of them as I have to overfly them about twenty times a week, I was referring to avoidance of the proposed new airspace which will send pilots even further east and thus likely to be more than 5nm from Rugby. If a pilot flies within 5nm of Rugby then yes, certainly that further increases the danger of attempting to remain below the south eastern part of the 1500 ft CTA and actually reinforces my point, rather than detracting from it (although you were just taking a snipe at my credibility).
Of course VFR flights don't have to comply with MSA - please give me some credit - I'm not completely ignorant, for goodness' sake! However, basic airmanship dictates that a pilot flying VFR, especially in marginal weather (as he is entitiled to do) must be aware of MSA, or at least SSA off the chart at all times. A poor weather situation is exactly when the biggest danger of underflying the CTA chokepoint will occur - scud running in poor vis, possibly with unknown opposite way traffic. My concern about ATC "overcontrolling" traffic in Class G is this: it makes a pilot think twice about talking to that ATC unit at all, increasing the chance of a conflict.
Originally Posted by airac
shy torque. It was meant to be a short reply to your posting with reference to controlling VFR tfc "in some cases providing 5nm separation". That simply would not happen .IFR tfc may be vectored away from vfr a/c , if that VFR tfc was not identified ,but we in the uk have no requirement to provide standard separation between VFR flightsand or any other flights.
Your second point about the MSA .I was pointing out that yet again you were wrong ,if Rugby masts are 1122' you would not have a MSA figure of 1700' also under what rules do VFR flights have to comply with the MSA anyway??
apologies if you thought I was speaking in a foriegn tongue
airac,
Well, I must disagree. I can certainly give one recent example where this definitely happened to myself and a colleague in class G after requesting only a FIS. In view of your robust comment denying this possibility I have checked the detail of the route we were flying, which was planned to avoid Coventry and Brum's airspace. I have measured the separation directed - ATC turned us off track to go to Draycott Water VRP - which was no closer than 6nm to their inbound IFR traffic on the ILS to 05. We (two pilot ops) were bemused by the demand and discussed it as we continued to the VRP. We remained VFR/ VMC in good visibility at 1500 feet, below cloud at all times (icing was very likely that day) and we watched and listened to the progress of the IFR traffic, also seeing him land.
I can give at least one other example and will do so for further discussion if you so wish. I presume by your response that you are a bona fide ATCO at EGBE. In any event, I think better only by pm, rather than in public.
The 1700 feet MSA comes from plotting the boundaries of the proposed new Class D airspace on the CAA half mil chart. It is based on the 650' mast in the northern part of Leicester city. I didn't include the Rugby masts, although I am well aware of them as I have to overfly them about twenty times a week, I was referring to avoidance of the proposed new airspace which will send pilots even further east and thus likely to be more than 5nm from Rugby. If a pilot flies within 5nm of Rugby then yes, certainly that further increases the danger of attempting to remain below the south eastern part of the 1500 ft CTA and actually reinforces my point, rather than detracting from it (although you were just taking a snipe at my credibility).
Of course VFR flights don't have to comply with MSA - please give me some credit - I'm not completely ignorant, for goodness' sake! However, basic airmanship dictates that a pilot flying VFR, especially in marginal weather (as he is entitiled to do) must be aware of MSA, or at least SSA off the chart at all times. A poor weather situation is exactly when the biggest danger of underflying the CTA chokepoint will occur - scud running in poor vis, possibly with unknown opposite way traffic. My concern about ATC "overcontrolling" traffic in Class G is this: it makes a pilot think twice about talking to that ATC unit at all, increasing the chance of a conflict.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy torque pm by all means, but do not make assumptions.
BEagle I can accept that people like you object to airspace changes and always fear the worst, don’t. A known traffic environment is safer for all concerned. I personally just cannot understand why people on these forums offer sympathy to family and friends etc (most of the time when they have absolutely no idea who or what type of persons they were) when pilots die in mid air collisions, and yet when organisations endeavour to make the whole thing safer cry like stuck pigs.
BEagle I can accept that people like you object to airspace changes and always fear the worst, don’t. A known traffic environment is safer for all concerned. I personally just cannot understand why people on these forums offer sympathy to family and friends etc (most of the time when they have absolutely no idea who or what type of persons they were) when pilots die in mid air collisions, and yet when organisations endeavour to make the whole thing safer cry like stuck pigs.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Airac,
I was going by your profile, which says you are in ATC (although I did wonder about the location stated as "North"). Your responses to this particular subject came across as strongly authoritative, as if you knew the situation from an informed and local view.
If that isn't the case, there is no point us discussing it further, so I won't.
I was going by your profile, which says you are in ATC (although I did wonder about the location stated as "North"). Your responses to this particular subject came across as strongly authoritative, as if you knew the situation from an informed and local view.
If that isn't the case, there is no point us discussing it further, so I won't.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by airac
Shy torque pm by all means, but do not make assumptions.
BEagle I can accept that people like you object to airspace changes and always fear the worst, don’t. A known traffic environment is safer for all concerned. I personally just cannot understand why people on these forums offer sympathy to family and friends etc (most of the time when they have absolutely no idea who or what type of persons they were) when pilots die in mid air collisions, and yet when organisations endeavour to make the whole thing safer cry like stuck pigs.
BEagle I can accept that people like you object to airspace changes and always fear the worst, don’t. A known traffic environment is safer for all concerned. I personally just cannot understand why people on these forums offer sympathy to family and friends etc (most of the time when they have absolutely no idea who or what type of persons they were) when pilots die in mid air collisions, and yet when organisations endeavour to make the whole thing safer cry like stuck pigs.
Your post seems to assume that all GA traffic simply wishes to take-off from point A, fly by a predetermined route to point B, then land there. This is far from true of a great deal of GA traffic.
To refer to class A or class D as a "known traffic environment" isn't really true - it is a controlled environment. Open FIR with RIS or FIS is arguably a "known traffic environment". Mind you, to a large extent, so is a competent lookout and good visibility.
We are all in favour of the maximum available information about "known traffic", what we don't wish is to be controlled.
G
airac, there is no justification whatsoever for any change to the airspace in the vicinity of Coventry. The fact that ThomsonFly operate a few 737s for CAT purposes does not justify the attempted lebensraum airspace-grab which Coventry are proposing. Your emotive safety scaremongering is nonsense; if ThomsonFly think that it's so hazardous to operate from Coventry, then they should move their operations elsewhere.
Known traffic environment, my eye. Exeter, Newquay and Humberside cope without Class D airspace - you at least have the Birmingham CTA. So it costs a few minutes of flight time for ThomsonFly. Tough!
Known traffic environment, my eye. Exeter, Newquay and Humberside cope without Class D airspace - you at least have the Birmingham CTA. So it costs a few minutes of flight time for ThomsonFly. Tough!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
Your post seems to assume that all GA traffic simply wishes to take-off from point A, fly by a predetermined route to point B, then land there. This is far from true of a great deal of GA traffic.
To refer to class A or class D as a "known traffic environment" isn't really true - it is a controlled environment. Open FIR with RIS or FIS is arguably a "known traffic environment". Mind you, to a large extent, so is a competent lookout and good visibility.
We are all in favour of the maximum available information about "known traffic", what we don't wish is to be controlled.
G
To refer to class A or class D as a "known traffic environment" isn't really true - it is a controlled environment. Open FIR with RIS or FIS is arguably a "known traffic environment". Mind you, to a large extent, so is a competent lookout and good visibility.
We are all in favour of the maximum available information about "known traffic", what we don't wish is to be controlled.
G
All I am saying is, is it not to every bodies benefit to take the odd turn to allow safe passage through a known approach path. It is not necessary to talk to Mil controllers if you wish to transit through a MATZ, but most pilots would consider it folly not to do so, so why all the moaning just because it is a developing civil airfield. I do not wish to spoil anybodies flying by being awkward and putting unnecessary restrictions to your particular route or preferred track, but you must surely accept that sometimes just sometimes mind that it is for the best reasons.
As for your comments re A and D airspace, since an A/C cannot fly in such airspace with out ATC permission, it is a totally known TFC environment.
Half the problems with new "restricted" airspace is pilots fear that it will become a totally no go area. From my perspective this would not be the case,
all I can suggest is that you contact the unit concerned and ask for a group visit, you might find , contrary to popular opinion ATCO's actually enjoy providing the best service they can and what’s more are only to pleased to accept such visits in order to allay PPL's fears.
Shy Torque, you must do what you feel is right for you .The problem is with these forums that the written word can often be misconstrued and since they are in theory anonymous people often use that in order to slag one another off .That has never been my intention.
BEagle great word but so is bxxxxcks ,how can you use possibly justify it's use
Last edited by airac; 1st Apr 2006 at 21:46.
Moderator
Thread Starter
I regret Airac that to me your comments still seem to be based upon a total misunderstanding.
The only time that I can comfortably accept flying in what you regard as a "totally known environment" is the occasions when I'm flying A-B on a known and pre-planned route. The rest of the time I am constantly manoeuvering, changing height, changing my mind, sometimes very low level. The burden upon RT of the amount of GA traffic remaining "totally known" during such flying would bring the whole thing to a halt.
The reality is that expanding controlled airspace for a minimal amount of instrument traffic serves to make life a lot easier for ATC, very slightly more expensive for a very small amount of commercial traffic (who will simply pass the costs onto their customers anyhow), and extremely difficult for a large amount of GA, many of whom are paying for their own flying. Put bluntly, it's unsupportable from any neutral viewpoint; ATC are there to work with the available environment I'm afraid.
G
The only time that I can comfortably accept flying in what you regard as a "totally known environment" is the occasions when I'm flying A-B on a known and pre-planned route. The rest of the time I am constantly manoeuvering, changing height, changing my mind, sometimes very low level. The burden upon RT of the amount of GA traffic remaining "totally known" during such flying would bring the whole thing to a halt.
The reality is that expanding controlled airspace for a minimal amount of instrument traffic serves to make life a lot easier for ATC, very slightly more expensive for a very small amount of commercial traffic (who will simply pass the costs onto their customers anyhow), and extremely difficult for a large amount of GA, many of whom are paying for their own flying. Put bluntly, it's unsupportable from any neutral viewpoint; ATC are there to work with the available environment I'm afraid.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it is worth I agree entirely with Beagle's last post. How do we object to this airspace grab? Airac please remember that CAT are in the MINORITY and you should remember that when defending such things as airspace changes.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Working Hard, Genghis, BEagle et al
Whilst the number of CAT aircraft may be less than GA the total number of human beings involved is considerably higher.
The safety of the travelling public is what drives the Regulators, who (among many other Government Agencies) drive the Airports to deliver the safest possible environment for all aviation. (my emphasis)
The only safety case an Airport in class G can make to mitigate against close encounters is proscribing the provision of a RAS to CAT aircraft. For the very reasons that you all tub-thump, GA has freedom to do what it wants in Class G; so if a GA pilot wishes to fly through the FAT to an Airport and in doing so conflicts in any way (under RAS conditions) with the CAT traffic, the safety case is shot to bits.
The only way a legal requirement is placed on the GA (or any other traffic) is to establish CAS.
I have controlled in Class G for 33 years, both Mil and Civil, and I do not wish the establishment of CAS at my Airfield. I have many cubic miles of air in which to vector 737s to avoid GA traffic but eventually that aircraft will have to land at my airfield or divert at great cost. We have an extremely good relationship with GA operators at local (within 30nms) light airfields and with few exceptions they call us, wear one of our squawks and, being known traffic allow us to reduce the RAS separation requirements. Some still want to fly though the ILS at 2000ft at 7nm final, and these I ask to descend/climb/reroute slightly, seldom with any demur. But if they refuse or are not speaking to me the CAT cannot make the approach. Over the last couple of years the number of transit aircraft doing this has noticeably increased.
I fly, and have owned my own aircraft, and I am irritated when "told" to re-route in class G, but I always did it if it was legally possible to do because I could not see the traffic situation and I knew full well that the guy had little other recourse if I didn't. I like to call it airmanship.
Air travel is with us to stay; it is not just the preserve of people lucky enough to hold Flying Licences and having access to light aircraft and the joy that brings. To say the TUI/MYT/EZE etc can go somewhere else if they don't like it is failure to grasp facts. Equally, to say that CAT should accept the Airspace divisions as they are, and to confine themselves to protected airfields is failing to see that the airspace surrounding those airfields evolved through similar conflicts. Many of us faced with daunting task of applying for CAS at the insistance of the Regulators might secretly wish for a "nasty" - Not at their Airfield, of course, but it would sure as hell speed the process!
The groundswell of feeling against being "controlled" in Class G has always been there, but pilots should try to cut ATC some slack. We have more masters than you sadly.
Whilst the number of CAT aircraft may be less than GA the total number of human beings involved is considerably higher.
The safety of the travelling public is what drives the Regulators, who (among many other Government Agencies) drive the Airports to deliver the safest possible environment for all aviation. (my emphasis)
The only safety case an Airport in class G can make to mitigate against close encounters is proscribing the provision of a RAS to CAT aircraft. For the very reasons that you all tub-thump, GA has freedom to do what it wants in Class G; so if a GA pilot wishes to fly through the FAT to an Airport and in doing so conflicts in any way (under RAS conditions) with the CAT traffic, the safety case is shot to bits.
The only way a legal requirement is placed on the GA (or any other traffic) is to establish CAS.
I have controlled in Class G for 33 years, both Mil and Civil, and I do not wish the establishment of CAS at my Airfield. I have many cubic miles of air in which to vector 737s to avoid GA traffic but eventually that aircraft will have to land at my airfield or divert at great cost. We have an extremely good relationship with GA operators at local (within 30nms) light airfields and with few exceptions they call us, wear one of our squawks and, being known traffic allow us to reduce the RAS separation requirements. Some still want to fly though the ILS at 2000ft at 7nm final, and these I ask to descend/climb/reroute slightly, seldom with any demur. But if they refuse or are not speaking to me the CAT cannot make the approach. Over the last couple of years the number of transit aircraft doing this has noticeably increased.
I fly, and have owned my own aircraft, and I am irritated when "told" to re-route in class G, but I always did it if it was legally possible to do because I could not see the traffic situation and I knew full well that the guy had little other recourse if I didn't. I like to call it airmanship.
Air travel is with us to stay; it is not just the preserve of people lucky enough to hold Flying Licences and having access to light aircraft and the joy that brings. To say the TUI/MYT/EZE etc can go somewhere else if they don't like it is failure to grasp facts. Equally, to say that CAT should accept the Airspace divisions as they are, and to confine themselves to protected airfields is failing to see that the airspace surrounding those airfields evolved through similar conflicts. Many of us faced with daunting task of applying for CAS at the insistance of the Regulators might secretly wish for a "nasty" - Not at their Airfield, of course, but it would sure as hell speed the process!
The groundswell of feeling against being "controlled" in Class G has always been there, but pilots should try to cut ATC some slack. We have more masters than you sadly.
Last edited by Punditgreen; 2nd Apr 2006 at 14:02.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Punditgreen - very well put and I concur with most of what you say. HOWEVER, it is my experience (I should like to hear from others) that some ( note some only) atc are trying to issue too many "instructions" to traffic in class G. There are also many many controllers who simply do not allow GA into their airspace. Now the remedy for both is in your (ATC) hands not ours but when something like Coventry airspace grab crops up, do not be surprised at the reaction. I also have avery good relationship with local ATC and try whereevr possible to accomodate directions from ant ATC unit. I never fly without a xponder. A couple of years ago in class G, I was "instructed" to "descend immediatly to 500 feet" which I declined but offered to take up whatever heading was requested. They are the people that give ATC a bad name. BTW a chat later with the SATCO illicited that it was more convenient for the controller to get me down and out of the way of someone inbound on a very long ILS descent.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also many many controllers who simply do not allow GA into their airspace.
I would expect some action if the situation is as you describe.Personally, I think the airspace volume being asked for is too much, compared to some other busier airports with CAS already who seem to manage OK. Hopefully the proposal will become something more reasonable as the horse trading begins within the consultation process.
As a general aside, I think we should learn the lesson from our trans Atlantic cousins and introduce Mode C 'veils' around such airports and TMAs. Cue more gnashing of gums
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very interesting comments. I like the one about the safety case regarding VFR flights in class G. How could one be successful in proving the the see and be seen concept is unsafe while at the same time not having any effect on the safety status of the current activities in class G such as low level high speed military flights with no NOTAM or other notification and no radar services?
Yes it is true that a safety case could easily be established which required some control over IFR flights.
Given the numbers of movements at BE, one would expect that the airspace would suit Class E. That would achieve everything that ATC seem to want without having any restriction on the routes available to GA in the airspace concerned.
Having read the previous ATC comments I can not see how they could say that Class E would not suit their purpose?
Regards,
DFC
Yes it is true that a safety case could easily be established which required some control over IFR flights.
Given the numbers of movements at BE, one would expect that the airspace would suit Class E. That would achieve everything that ATC seem to want without having any restriction on the routes available to GA in the airspace concerned.
Having read the previous ATC comments I can not see how they could say that Class E would not suit their purpose?
Regards,
DFC
Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by WR
Genghis:
The only time I've flown into Coventry was probably in the summer of 2004 when three of us Aeronca's called in. I think the landing fee was free for pre-1960's aircraft. I remember not knowing where to park etc. but we ended up booking in at a/the flying club. I wonder if you inadvertently ended up booking in at some expensive "compulory handling agent"? Everyone was fine on our visit, but I've had days like you had at other airfields and they leave you very p***ed off!
I hope Coventry hasn't changed that much since my visit, which was enjoyable, as I intend flying in again soon.
(I haven't read all the earlier posts, so sorry if I've dived in!)
The only time I've flown into Coventry was probably in the summer of 2004 when three of us Aeronca's called in. I think the landing fee was free for pre-1960's aircraft. I remember not knowing where to park etc. but we ended up booking in at a/the flying club. I wonder if you inadvertently ended up booking in at some expensive "compulory handling agent"? Everyone was fine on our visit, but I've had days like you had at other airfields and they leave you very p***ed off!
I hope Coventry hasn't changed that much since my visit, which was enjoyable, as I intend flying in again soon.
(I haven't read all the earlier posts, so sorry if I've dived in!)
G
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that you got the 10 mins prior for removal of restriction, 737 landing, then 10 mins prior to reintroduction of restriction so with a couple of aircraft landing as well that comes to about the 24 mins wait you had - but I do not see any reason ATC could not have mentioned it to you, maybe they were too busy making tea as they had nothing else to do while this was all going on
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by WorkingHard
I was "instructed" to "descend immediatly to 500 feet" which I declined
Would it not be prudent to act on an "immediate" first and argue later, after pointing the aircraft in the different direction? Or are there controllers in the habit of routinely saying "immediate" unnecessarily?
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is probably going to be more and more of a problem with the introduction of 'low cost airlines' seeking to fly into unknown and under used airports because it's ... lower cost than real (sorry, controlled airspace based) airports.
"London Coventry" and "London Doncaster" and "London Girona" (and others) will be demanding Class D airspace and start to push the prices up.
And then, the LCA's will be off to "London Gamston" and "London Catfoss" in order to get the price performance again.
I'm sure there was a reason why airlines used to fly into major established airports, with controlled airspace around them but like Boxer, I can't quite remember why ...
"London Coventry" and "London Doncaster" and "London Girona" (and others) will be demanding Class D airspace and start to push the prices up.
And then, the LCA's will be off to "London Gamston" and "London Catfoss" in order to get the price performance again.
I'm sure there was a reason why airlines used to fly into major established airports, with controlled airspace around them but like Boxer, I can't quite remember why ...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude - you may be correct but an immediate drop of 2500 did not seem reasonable without an explanation which was NOT forthcoming. Brilliant viz and class G, it did seem odd to put me into the well known path of FJ traffic which abounds in these parts.
Ghengis
In reply to your actual question - guess that's a big fat yes!!!
like I've mentioned elsewhere - it amazes me what a company will accept to try and make a 'market'.
Often witness airliners flying outside cas, cutting the corner - often through an AIAA - with fare-paying pax onboard.
Great effort and industry is made ensuring that aircraft operate to class 1 perf but seem happy to take lumbering aircraft into in class G airspace where their only defence is to see and avoid.
Whether they 'see' by remaining fixed to the TCAS or actually look out of the window is of little help to those of us who are also trying to make a living but actually not impinging on anyone else.
Coventry -
Not sure what incentives were given to get commercial airliners operating into EGBE but who did the risk assessment for such an operation -
you must wear a hi-viz vest on the apron but feel free to pay for a trip on an clumsy aircraft making a prolonged approach into an airfield offering such indequate protection for such a flight.
Next thing you'll find is that they want to enlarge the atz to justify such insignificant traffic................................
Those of you that use low-cost carriers from 'regional' airports needing to justify larger cta will have helped to choke up the country.
like I've mentioned elsewhere - it amazes me what a company will accept to try and make a 'market'.
Often witness airliners flying outside cas, cutting the corner - often through an AIAA - with fare-paying pax onboard.
Great effort and industry is made ensuring that aircraft operate to class 1 perf but seem happy to take lumbering aircraft into in class G airspace where their only defence is to see and avoid.
Whether they 'see' by remaining fixed to the TCAS or actually look out of the window is of little help to those of us who are also trying to make a living but actually not impinging on anyone else.
Coventry -
Not sure what incentives were given to get commercial airliners operating into EGBE but who did the risk assessment for such an operation -
you must wear a hi-viz vest on the apron but feel free to pay for a trip on an clumsy aircraft making a prolonged approach into an airfield offering such indequate protection for such a flight.
Next thing you'll find is that they want to enlarge the atz to justify such insignificant traffic................................
Those of you that use low-cost carriers from 'regional' airports needing to justify larger cta will have helped to choke up the country.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,635
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
"Next thing you'll find is that they want to enlarge the atz to justify such insignificant traffic....."
It's not just a larger ATZ they want......if only it was! Very soon, if Coventry get their way, almost the whole of the Class G "Midlands transit area" (my description) will be Class D, which will be of some benefit to the large Coventry operators (don't see it benefitting the smaller operators or training aircraft), at the expense of everyone else trying to transit that area.
Thompson knew this when they began operations there, it's not that the transit traffic has increased significantly since.
It's not just a larger ATZ they want......if only it was! Very soon, if Coventry get their way, almost the whole of the Class G "Midlands transit area" (my description) will be Class D, which will be of some benefit to the large Coventry operators (don't see it benefitting the smaller operators or training aircraft), at the expense of everyone else trying to transit that area.
Thompson knew this when they began operations there, it's not that the transit traffic has increased significantly since.
