Airport in a bid for control of airspace

8:30am Friday 31st August 2012 in News By Emma Thomas

SOUTHEND Airport bosses hope to take control of airspace within 2.5 miles in an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security.

An application is being made to the Civil Aviation Authority forcing pilots of any planes over Southend Airport to seek permission from its air traffic control tower.

At the moment, aircraft are permitted to fly within 2.5 miles of the airport without having to contact the control centre.

This can lead to delays for scheduled flights arriving and departing.

The airport has not controlled the airspace since 1992 because, up until now, so few flights used Southend Airport.

A temporary zone was installed during the Olympics, which proved successful.

Alastair Welch , managing director, said having control of airspace over the airport would help with safety and security.

He said: “Controlled airspace safeguards aircraft when they are approaching and departing the airport.

“Temporary controlled airspace around the airport was operated very successfully during the London 2012 Games, and we are now seeking to have this reinstated as a permanent feature.”

It is also hoped added control over flights will improve the carbon footprint of the airport because delays can mean fumes pumping out of plane engines as they wait. Mr Welch added: “Improving our efficiency by getting aircraft in and out of the airport without last-minute alterations and delays will minimise the impact of the airport’s operations on the local community and is much better for the environment.”

The application is expected to be handed in to the authority in 2014 and will include a public consultation set to take place in late 2013.

Comments (19)

10:30am Fri 31 Aug 12

Max Impact says...

More GOOD news for the airport
More GOOD news for the airport Max Impact

10:59am Fri 31 Aug 12

jayman says...

Southend airport and surrounding airspace up to 2.5 nautical miles is class G airspace.

this application to change the class of airspace is a bit cheeky and is a pus by the airport to see if they can get away with it.

stobart knew that the existing airspace around the airport had limited control when they brought it. It may be the case that they cannot squeeze enough aircraft through the soup of congested airspace above our heads. therefore carving a corridor through the soup would benefit there profit margin magnificently..

i cant see other airports not taking kindly to this as at the moment Southend airport can only control 2000ft of airspace. a re-classification of the airspace will probably increase this and disrupt there operations.

i await 'spotter walt mitty' aka max to find some issue with this.

i sinisterly hope that the authority refuse this application.

to coin a phrase 'they brought it how they saw it'
Southend airport and surrounding airspace up to 2.5 nautical miles is class G airspace. this application to change the class of airspace is a bit cheeky and is a pus by the airport to see if they can get away with it. stobart knew that the existing airspace around the airport had limited control when they brought it. It may be the case that they cannot squeeze enough aircraft through the soup of congested airspace above our heads. therefore carving a corridor through the soup would benefit there profit margin magnificently.. i cant see other airports not taking kindly to this as at the moment Southend airport can only control 2000ft of airspace. a re-classification of the airspace will probably increase this and disrupt there operations. i await 'spotter walt mitty' aka max to find some issue with this. i sinisterly hope that the authority refuse this application. to coin a phrase 'they brought it how they saw it' jayman

10:59am Fri 31 Aug 12

jayman says...

Southend airport and surrounding airspace up to 2.5 nautical miles is class G airspace.

this application to change the class of airspace is a bit cheeky and is a pus by the airport to see if they can get away with it.

stobart knew that the existing airspace around the airport had limited control when they brought it. It may be the case that they cannot squeeze enough aircraft through the soup of congested airspace above our heads. therefore carving a corridor through the soup would benefit there profit margin magnificently..

i cant see other airports not taking kindly to this as at the moment Southend airport can only control 2000ft of airspace. a re-classification of the airspace will probably increase this and disrupt there operations.

i await 'spotter walt mitty' aka max to find some issue with this.

i sinisterly hope that the authority refuse this application.

to coin a phrase 'they brought it how they saw it'
Southend airport and surrounding airspace up to 2.5 nautical miles is class G airspace. this application to change the class of airspace is a bit cheeky and is a pus by the airport to see if they can get away with it. stobart knew that the existing airspace around the airport had limited control when they brought it. It may be the case that they cannot squeeze enough aircraft through the soup of congested airspace above our heads. therefore carving a corridor through the soup would benefit there profit margin magnificently.. i cant see other airports not taking kindly to this as at the moment Southend airport can only control 2000ft of airspace. a re-classification of the airspace will probably increase this and disrupt there operations. i await 'spotter walt mitty' aka max to find some issue with this. i sinisterly hope that the authority refuse this application. to coin a phrase 'they brought it how they saw it' jayman

11:03am Fri 31 Aug 12

jayman says...

sorry for the double post.. i really must not use my phone to make comments the tiny, tiny keyboard is tricky to use.
sorry for the double post.. i really must not use my phone to make comments the tiny, tiny keyboard is tricky to use. jayman

11:41am Fri 31 Aug 12

Max Impact says...

So you would rather aircraft operating to/from other airports operate without talking to Southend descending to lower altitudes and flying headings set by controlets miles from Southend.

Should Southend be granted the control of this pocket of aerospace than it can be better controlled at the local level.

The aerospace in question was for decades controlled bt Southend and should revert to that operation.

By Southend taking control again less flights will pass overhead, surely that is best all round.
So you would rather aircraft operating to/from other airports operate without talking to Southend descending to lower altitudes and flying headings set by controlets miles from Southend. Should Southend be granted the control of this pocket of aerospace than it can be better controlled at the local level. The aerospace in question was for decades controlled bt Southend and should revert to that operation. By Southend taking control again less flights will pass overhead, surely that is best all round. Max Impact

12:05pm Fri 31 Aug 12

jayman says...

thats why southend airport has a radar and why aircraft have transponders dear boy..
thats why southend airport has a radar and why aircraft have transponders dear boy.. jayman

12:36pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Ian P says...

jayman wrote:
sorry for the double post.. i really must not use my phone to make comments the tiny, tiny keyboard is tricky to use.
I assume that is the reason for spelling mistakes and lack of capital letters as well. You could always try SpecSavers.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: sorry for the double post.. i really must not use my phone to make comments the tiny, tiny keyboard is tricky to use.[/p][/quote]I assume that is the reason for spelling mistakes and lack of capital letters as well. You could always try SpecSavers. Ian P

1:12pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
thats why southend airport has a radar and why aircraft have transponders dear boy..
Not all aircraft light aircraft carry transponders, not all radars do height. By giving control of that small bit of aerospace around and above the airport will give the tower much more control.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: thats why southend airport has a radar and why aircraft have transponders dear boy..[/p][/quote]Not all aircraft light aircraft carry transponders, not all radars do height. By giving control of that small bit of aerospace around and above the airport will give the tower much more control. Max Impact

4:51pm Fri 31 Aug 12

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
thats why southend airport has a radar and why aircraft have transponders dear boy..
Not all aircraft light aircraft carry transponders, not all radars do height. By giving control of that small bit of aerospace around and above the airport will give the tower much more control.
you really don't have a clue about aviation regulations do you max.. your just a troll.

see

http://www.caa.co.uk
/docs/33/Mode_S_Fact
_Sheet.pdf

the only aircraft that are exempt from carrying a transponder are some vintage aircraft, and some models of older gliders.

and yes max, modern radar does do 'hight' relative to sea and ground level.

are you sure you have a pilots license?
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: thats why southend airport has a radar and why aircraft have transponders dear boy..[/p][/quote]Not all aircraft light aircraft carry transponders, not all radars do height. By giving control of that small bit of aerospace around and above the airport will give the tower much more control.[/p][/quote]you really don't have a clue about aviation regulations do you max.. your just a troll. see http://www.caa.co.uk /docs/33/Mode_S_Fact _Sheet.pdf the only aircraft that are exempt from carrying a transponder are some vintage aircraft, and some models of older gliders. and yes max, modern radar does do 'hight' relative to sea and ground level. are you sure you have a pilots license? jayman

5:33pm Fri 31 Aug 12

firedog says...

jayman.Your anti airport credentials
are glareingly obvious,I hope you are not a pilot,your log book would be a mystery to all.
jayman.Your anti airport credentials are glareingly obvious,I hope you are not a pilot,your log book would be a mystery to all. firedog

5:43pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Max Impact says...

I said not all light aircraft, the wood and Irish Linen types are light aircraft so no transponders.

I said not all radar has hight and you CAN still find them in use in the UK.

At long last your have left your council office and actually checked on most of your facts its about time, you normally spout such diarrhea that it spills into the sea poluting out beaches....

So your the reason we lost the blue flags.

I am a pilot (with out a ride) but a spare Continental TSIO-520-BE aero engine. Now to fit it into the go cart!
I said not all light aircraft, the wood and Irish Linen types are light aircraft so no transponders. I said not all radar has hight and you CAN still find them in use in the UK. At long last your have left your council office and actually checked on most of your facts its about time, you normally spout such diarrhea that it spills into the sea poluting out beaches.... So your the reason we lost the blue flags. I am a pilot (with out a ride) but a spare Continental TSIO-520-BE aero engine. Now to fit it into the go cart! Max Impact

6:05pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Nebs says...

If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached?
If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?
If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary? Nebs

6:42pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Max Impact says...

Nebs wrote:
If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?
It's safe now, no security issues if there were the CAA would have shut the airport.

There are very few delays, the main reason is to help keep the airport as one of the ebst preforming in the UK and give the airport its own dedicated control zone, which it had until closed when the number of flight declined.

Supprised the anti-airport lobby are so against a move that would force over flights higher or around Southend.

probably those that want Southend closed but are more than happy to use other airports for their holidays, there are a few on here like that.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?[/p][/quote]It's safe now, no security issues if there were the CAA would have shut the airport. There are very few delays, the main reason is to help keep the airport as one of the ebst preforming in the UK and give the airport its own dedicated control zone, which it had until closed when the number of flight declined. Supprised the anti-airport lobby are so against a move that would force over flights higher or around Southend. probably those that want Southend closed but are more than happy to use other airports for their holidays, there are a few on here like that. Max Impact

7:04pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Nebs says...

Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote:
If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?
It's safe now, no security issues if there were the CAA would have shut the airport.

There are very few delays, the main reason is to help keep the airport as one of the ebst preforming in the UK and give the airport its own dedicated control zone, which it had until closed when the number of flight declined.

Supprised the anti-airport lobby are so against a move that would force over flights higher or around Southend.

probably those that want Southend closed but are more than happy to use other airports for their holidays, there are a few on here like that.
I am sure it is safe now, with few delays and no security issues. But that begs the question of why these three factors are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article as the reasons for the application.

I know very little about the air industry, but reading between the lines it seems to me that possible future delays, when the airport is at full capacity, is the real reason for the application. Nothing wrong with that, but why not just come out and say it.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?[/p][/quote]It's safe now, no security issues if there were the CAA would have shut the airport. There are very few delays, the main reason is to help keep the airport as one of the ebst preforming in the UK and give the airport its own dedicated control zone, which it had until closed when the number of flight declined. Supprised the anti-airport lobby are so against a move that would force over flights higher or around Southend. probably those that want Southend closed but are more than happy to use other airports for their holidays, there are a few on here like that.[/p][/quote]I am sure it is safe now, with few delays and no security issues. But that begs the question of why these three factors are mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article as the reasons for the application. I know very little about the air industry, but reading between the lines it seems to me that possible future delays, when the airport is at full capacity, is the real reason for the application. Nothing wrong with that, but why not just come out and say it. Nebs

7:57pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Max Impact says...

Why not ask the operator yourself.
Why not ask the operator yourself. Max Impact

12:09am Sat 1 Sep 12

emcee says...

Nebs wrote:
If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached?
If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?
When, Stobart took on the airport they did so in the hope that it would become quite a busy airport. Without airspace control the airport could, and indeed does, function adeqautely. However, as it seems quite likely that the airport will meet, and possibly excede, all operational expectations within the next few years it is would be daft that the control for this airspace was not given back to the airport for efficient and safe operational puposes. The airport will operate quite safely and efficiently without airspace control for a while, but the busier it gets the need for this control will become increasingly sensible. So, based on that, 2014 seems reasonable.
Control can be given and taken away by the CAA at anytime that they deem is necessary. It is not an "award" it is a ATC operational strategy. For example, what is the point of having an airport, with few movements, taking control of airspace. This is why control was removed from Southend in 1992. Likewise, when an airport gets busy, it is only wise and sensible that control is given to an airport for the reasons of safety and efficiency.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?[/p][/quote]When, Stobart took on the airport they did so in the hope that it would become quite a busy airport. Without airspace control the airport could, and indeed does, function adeqautely. However, as it seems quite likely that the airport will meet, and possibly excede, all operational expectations within the next few years it is would be daft that the control for this airspace was not given back to the airport for efficient and safe operational puposes. The airport will operate quite safely and efficiently without airspace control for a while, but the busier it gets the need for this control will become increasingly sensible. So, based on that, 2014 seems reasonable. Control can be given and taken away by the CAA at anytime that they deem is necessary. It is not an "award" it is a ATC operational strategy. For example, what is the point of having an airport, with few movements, taking control of airspace. This is why control was removed from Southend in 1992. Likewise, when an airport gets busy, it is only wise and sensible that control is given to an airport for the reasons of safety and efficiency. emcee

3:41am Sat 1 Sep 12

jacb says...

LONDON THAMES GLOBAL AIRPORT, THURROCK, ESSEX (site of DPWorld LONDON GATEWAY PORT)...twin SW runways to supplement existing runway capacity in the SE offering global links to BRIC economies...endorsed by leading MP's and industry experts...a new Airport for ESSEX other than expansion of Stanstead and Southend Airports...HS shuttle links to CROSSRAIL (Heathrow) and EBBSFLEET INTERNATIONAL via new LOWER THAMES CROSSING...under 10 years to deliver....EXCELLENT alternative investment for DPWorld....LTGlobal.
...the future....jaybee

......this is why Southend Airport is trying to secure airspace
LONDON THAMES GLOBAL AIRPORT, THURROCK, ESSEX (site of DPWorld LONDON GATEWAY PORT)...twin SW runways to supplement existing runway capacity in the SE offering global links to BRIC economies...endorsed by leading MP's and industry experts...a new Airport for ESSEX other than expansion of Stanstead and Southend Airports...HS shuttle links to CROSSRAIL (Heathrow) and EBBSFLEET INTERNATIONAL via new LOWER THAMES CROSSING...under 10 years to deliver....EXCELLENT alternative investment for DPWorld....LTGlobal. ...the future....jaybee ......this is why Southend Airport is trying to secure airspace jacb

7:35pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Nebs says...

emcee wrote:
Nebs wrote:
If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached?
If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?
When, Stobart took on the airport they did so in the hope that it would become quite a busy airport. Without airspace control the airport could, and indeed does, function adeqautely. However, as it seems quite likely that the airport will meet, and possibly excede, all operational expectations within the next few years it is would be daft that the control for this airspace was not given back to the airport for efficient and safe operational puposes. The airport will operate quite safely and efficiently without airspace control for a while, but the busier it gets the need for this control will become increasingly sensible. So, based on that, 2014 seems reasonable.
Control can be given and taken away by the CAA at anytime that they deem is necessary. It is not an "award" it is a ATC operational strategy. For example, what is the point of having an airport, with few movements, taking control of airspace. This is why control was removed from Southend in 1992. Likewise, when an airport gets busy, it is only wise and sensible that control is given to an airport for the reasons of safety and efficiency.
Seems sensible, thanks for a clear and concise explanation.
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If this application is, as described, an effort to cut delays and improve safety and security, yet will not get approved until 2014, does this mean that until 2014 there will be excessive delays and unacceptable safety and security, or is it just forward planning for when peak capacity is reached? If it is approved, can it subsequently be removed if, for example, an airport were to be built in the estuary?[/p][/quote]When, Stobart took on the airport they did so in the hope that it would become quite a busy airport. Without airspace control the airport could, and indeed does, function adeqautely. However, as it seems quite likely that the airport will meet, and possibly excede, all operational expectations within the next few years it is would be daft that the control for this airspace was not given back to the airport for efficient and safe operational puposes. The airport will operate quite safely and efficiently without airspace control for a while, but the busier it gets the need for this control will become increasingly sensible. So, based on that, 2014 seems reasonable. Control can be given and taken away by the CAA at anytime that they deem is necessary. It is not an "award" it is a ATC operational strategy. For example, what is the point of having an airport, with few movements, taking control of airspace. This is why control was removed from Southend in 1992. Likewise, when an airport gets busy, it is only wise and sensible that control is given to an airport for the reasons of safety and efficiency.[/p][/quote]Seems sensible, thanks for a clear and concise explanation. Nebs

9:37pm Fri 21 Sep 12

BASILBRUSH says...

I've only just seen this story, and still laughing at jayman calling someone a Troll..... Pot, Kettle and black spring to mind.

Definition:-
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted.".

Jayman, you fit that perfectly..
I've only just seen this story, and still laughing at jayman calling someone a Troll..... Pot, Kettle and black spring to mind. Definition:- In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted.". Jayman, you fit that perfectly.. BASILBRUSH

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree