Norwich Airspace Grab

[wsmempson]

Ta v. much.

[Bigglesthefrog]

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.

[goatface]

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.

[Bigglesthefrog]

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
Thanks

[Lister Noble]

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

[niknak]

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.

[Jumbo Driver]

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

[Stampe]

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

[WorkingHard]

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.

[Arclite01]

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

and who actually pays for the application ??

Arc

[goatface]

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

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.

and who actually pays for the application ??

Norwich Airport Ltd.

[Legalapproach]

and who actually pays for the application ??

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

Future investment that the ADF will support includes:
- Establishment of controlled airspace to enable more efficient management and routing of the increased level of flights

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

[goatface]

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.

[Zulu Alpha]

....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

[flybymike]

but in reality you just get a 'standby and remain clear' response

That should of course be "remain outside"

[WorkingHard]

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?

[Zulu Alpha]

That should of course be "remain outside"

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

ZA

[flybymike]

That should of course be "remain outside"

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

Perfectly true!

[Stephen Furner]

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.

[goatface]

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.