SLOTS

[Nigel Hitchman]

Hi Ian,
re marshallers, I believe Sywell arent using the excellent team of marshallers that have volunteered before at PFA Rallies. As far as I understand (from hearsay) they are using some marshallers from "MKAS" Milton Keynes Aviation society, perhaps these are people they use at their airshows.
I also understand from reading between the lines that it is MKAS who have said no airside access!!


Jonathan makes some good points. I agree that "land after" is the key for handling a lot of aircraft at once. As done at previous Rallys (inc the last one(s?) which were as a FISO unit rather than full ATC) this works very well.
He also makes a good point about having some sort of flight planning guide like an AIC. I think this helps people a lot, although perhaps the later Kemble ones were a little too extensive. Im not sure why some people in the LAA hierachy were against an AIC, I think they misinterpreted that it was because of having an AIC that we got all the costs, whereas it cost nothing to the LAA (except when they used to send out copies before the days of the www)
However I disagree with Jonathan when he says he thinks that "the ATCOs at theold PFA rallies didnt fully discharge their responsibilities..." Surely by having a good AIC procedure to follow for the joining and approach procedure, with published holding patterns available for use if the traffic got too busy, they were discharging their responsibilities in a much better way than trying to speak to every aircraft 3 or 4 times in the circuit and creating a situation where important communications couldnt get through due to a constant stream of aircraft reporting downwind etc!
Quite agree with the comments about some people's flying incompitance! Good job the majority are up to the job and can compensate for the others.

I do think though that the biggest impediment to safety is the CAA over the top requirements and costs. The good safety record at the rally was down to very good controllers and a good procedure, all of which was there without any CAA input, yes the CAA were helpful in producing and distributing the AIC and providing the restricted airspace, but much of the other requirements did nothing. Why did we need to spend thousands of pounds on recording equipment when most of the time nothing was being said! In any case surely this requirement might be relevant to Heathrow tower, but not to light aviation. Why did we need to buy thousands of pounds worth of new radios to meet some new spec when the old ones worked fine. Why do perfectly compitant Air Traffic controllers who are do their job day to day have to be re-licenced again to operate at the rally at vast cost, particularly when those controllers are the ones with experience of this type of event, the CAA tester presumably never having done anything like it! Someone from the CAA also came to check the equipment every year at more cost etc etc.

Without all these costs, having a traditional PFA rally type ATC without needing slots would be much more viable!

[macconnacher]

Does any one remember the time the CAA decided to do ATC it properly at Wroughton? If I remember correctly with upwards of 100 aircraft wandering about Membry and some stating their fuel state was perilous the female CAA controller decided she couldn't cope and walked out leaving the PFA crew to sort it out and within 30 mins all was going smoothly. Perhaps they have not forgotten the humiliation of that day and invented slot times.

[Alan George]

Has anybody tried getting a slot at Sywell recently? I can make a provisional booking on the website and then it says you will get an email to confirm. Unfortunately I never get that email and the booking disappears after a few hours. Am I missing something ?

[John Dean]

Alan, you need to click on a link in the email to confirm your booking.

Could the email have disappeared into your Spam or Junk folder? It worked fine for me a couple of days ago.

[steveneale]

Jonathan mentioned that a large part of the problem is managing land afters i.e. clearing the runway to keep the flow manageable. The event has also been billed as a dress rehersal for a full Rally, my issue is that for many years I have worked as part of the marshalling team at the rally and although I have contacted my rally manager and emailed other contacts I have not had a response. Does that mean that our services are no longer required?
If there are more than 500 arrivals then it could be interesting....

Ian, you have a PM

Steve

[Jonathan Smith]

I was really pleased to read that an exemption to Rule 14 appears in the Briefing for the Sywell event, particulalry as I had re-iterated to me by a person from SRG, at another location recently, a FISO would be obligated to report any observed breach of Rule 14 via the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme!

I fervently believe that any such event, with the number of movements anticipated, is unworkable without such an exemption. I do however, have some questions about the exemption as described in the briefing which I am addressing separately to Sywell but would like to share for the benefit of other attending pilots.

The brief states;

An exemption to rule 14 (2) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007 has been approved and pilots may land with other aircraft on the runway provided that;

1. There is sufficient room for the proceeding aircraft to safely stop behind the aircraft on the runway. For aircraft landing on 03L/21R once speed is under control move to the east side of the runway (right side on runway 03, left side on runway 21) There is to be no overtaking on the runway.

2. Aircraft landing on 03R/21L (Grass) can expeditiously vacate the runway to the east as soon as speed is controlled. Those landing on 03L (Hard) must continue to abeam the upwind end of the Grass 03R runway and vacate at taxiway Bravo, those on 21R must continue to the runway end and vacate left onto taxiway Alpha. No crossing the Grass runway is permitted unless advised by AFIS. Aircraft crossing at the upwind end of grass runway 03R at B2 should do so expeditiously when cleared by AFISU.

If these are the limitations granted by the CAA as part of the Rule 14 exemption, does that mean if I arrive non-radio that I cannot exercise the exemption if landing on 03L, indeed does this mean I cannot use 03L non-radio since I require positive permission from the FISO to cross the 03R overshoot at B2?

While I fully appreciate that the ability to vacate the runway and the runway strip must be fundamental to the Authority granting a Rule 14 exemption, I would be interested to read the actual wording of the exemption itself and wonder whether Sywell may have missed a trick in the way the CAA's exemptions are prescribed in the brief.

One final point/question is since the brief reiterates that the parallel
runways and are 104 mtrs from centreline to centreline but for this unlicensed event they may be used as parallel runways for landing, with caution, then presumably the Rule 14 exemption is also required as an enabler to allow this to happen otherwise with that separation the runways would have to be regarded as one? Interestingly the brief goes on to say that departures will see them treated as one, i.e. no parallel departures which was presumably another restriction specified in the Rule 14 exemption issued by the Authority?

Perhaps I am being a little too anal over this but having gone to the effort of establishing such a major and fundamental concession from the CAA, I do feel that Sywell could be a little clearer in the delivery and application of the technique within the brief.

[Norfolkjohn]

From what I have read elsewhere on the internet there seems to be some major doubt that the exemption to Rule 14 has been or will be granted at all. Does anyone know for sure what is actually happening !!!!

[Rod1]

“Does anyone know for sure what is actually happening !!!!”

With respect I think you should ask Sywell. If you get a reply I am sure the rest of the LAA will be interested to read the response, but this is a Sywell issue and the LAA will have no input.

Rod1

[Norfolkjohn]

Apologies - I'm a fairly new member of LAA and very new to posting on this Forum. That said I have seen a LOT of comments about the Sywell event and the extent to which LAA is or is not (now) involved. I don't want to in any way reopen that debate but as the previous post was almost entirely about the exemption to Rule 14 at Sywell I thought it fair to ask if others viewing this Forum new what was happening.

I've now sent an e-mail to Sywell asking for clarification. If / when I get a reply I'll post it in this thread.

A.T.B. John

[Jonathan Smith]

Hello Jonathan,

Many thanks for your e mail. Bad news I'm afraid is that after deliberation the CAA have decided not to give us Rule 14 exemption as FISO's, I had understood Kemble had such exemptions with FISO's but was told by the CAA this was not the case.

Landing on 03L and crossing upwind of 03R will be controlled by a FISO waving aircraft across the upwind end of 03R. This was an option put to me by the CAA 2 years ago and again cuts down on r/t. Of course aircraft landing on 03R or 21L grass can vacate as soon as possible at any point.

The parallel runway use was included in my safety case to the CAA and was approved irrespective of Rule 14. As aircraft split from a single stream on finals then parallel approaches and landings are almost eliminated unless someone decides to speed up on finals when one ahead has split for a different runway.

Departures are obviously a different ball game, hence one departure at a time, to eliminate 2 aircraft upwind wanting to turn towards each other.

I tried to keep it as simple as possible including minimum r/t, it seemed to work well 2 years ago albeit with only one runway available for landing, so it should work better with 2 available.

Rgds,

Jeff Bell
AFISU Manager
Northampton/Sywell Aerodrome.

I trust Jeff will not mind me sharing his response with the forum. I am very disappointed for him and his team as well as rally participants that an exemption has not been granted. More importantly I will urge him to update the briefing document as a priority. The concession for non-segregated parallel runway operations is helpful although quite surprising given that Duxford have been trying to achieve a similar concession for years.

[Nigel Hitchman]

Jonathan,

thanks for sharing Jeff's reply.

Jeff's understanding of FISOs having an exemption from rule 14 at Kemble (PFA Rally) is correct. The person from the CAA who told him that this didnt happen is either mis-informed or economical with the truth! The PFA Rally always had this exemption and for at least the last year, possibly the year before that was operated as a FISO service. (It may be the case that most of the controllers at the RAlly were full controllers, but they were re-licenced as FISOs for the event)

I was also lead to believe that the CAA person approving the PFA rally procedures was only happy for these procedures when operated by controllers/FISOs from the existing PFA rally team with their experience.

Yes it is a real shame that the CAA have decided not to give this exemption, which would enhance real safety at the event, instead they prefer their bureaucracy and rule book. rather than looking at what would be a good idea in the real world.

I believe Sywell have since emailed all registered participants with the revised procedures document.

[Norfolkjohn]

This link will take anyone interested to the revised procedures document :

http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/docume ... ctions.pdf

I note the LAA logo has crept back onto the front page.

John A

[Jonathan Smith]

APPENDIX H – ARRIVALS RUNWAY 21 GRASS RUNWAY ONLY AVAILABLE appears still to have the incorrect map attached.