[Squadgy]

NATS have now opened a consultation process for proposed changes to the Manchetser CTR (including the LLR).

Details can be found here.

This proposal has been specifically drafted to be of benefit to GA traffic operating in the area as it seeks to 'hand back' large portions of Class D airspace to Class G, as well as allowing greater 'land clear' options and ease of navigation in the LLR.

[JonEBgood]

Great to see increased aircraft performance enabling the optimisation (trimming) of older Class D design, and reducing ATC radio/workload, where possible.

Perhaps an ATCer can expand on the Liverpool radar vectoring requirements that keep the LLR, 10 or so more miles to the east, quite so low?

[dunny]

Its great news to get more Class G but will these proposals make that much difference? The corridor is the same size with a similar vertical limit and so will not be really impacted by the change.

Flying from Barton to the North will have the benefit of the increased vertical limit but I am not sure this is of particular value.

The changes in the airspace to the South of the corridor makes sense but again just allows a climeb a little earlier doesnt it?

I could have it wrong and I know Squadgy has been working on this but how much of a benefit will it be??

[Flameproof coat donned in anticipation]

D

[Vince C]

Heading north up the LLR you will be able to turn right earlier for Barton, south of Thelwall Viaduct. Also, tracking south east out of the bottom of the LLR you will be able to turn left earlier. It's true that LLR itself is pretty much unchanged.

But it's good to see CAS retreating like this - a move in the right direction!

[dunny]

[quote='Vince Chadwick'] But it's good to see CAS retreating like this - a move in the right direction![/quote]

Agreed, and as you say there are some reasonable benefits, particularly the earlier turn into Barton.

D

[Squadgy]

[quote='dunny']Its great news to get more Class G but will these proposals make that much difference? The corridor is the same size with a similar vertical limit and so will not be really impacted by the change.

Flying from Barton to the North will have the benefit of the increased vertical limit but I am not sure this is of particular value.

The changes in the airspace to the South of the corridor makes sense but again just allows a climeb a little earlier doesnt it?

I could have it wrong and I know Squadgy has been working on this but how much of a benefit will it be??
[/quote]

I haven't actually been working on this directly, although some other forumites certainly have. I have given a little input by way of comments to my boss at Barton.

I think that the main advantages are:

Area 'B' on page 11 of the pdf . This will allow direct routing from Stretton towards Barton - this has often been the cause of infringements where pilots have made an early turn.

The area 'C' - again this is a hotspot for infingements.

LLR increase to 1300ft - whilst this may not seem like a lot it will allow ac to overfly built up areas in the LLR at a legal 1000ft AGL (note for instance Stretton, adjacent to Warrington is 270ft AMSL). Mode C also only reports in 100ft increments on radar

My only concern is that by making the CTR tighter around EGCC a zone infringement would occur closer to EGCC or the Final Approach/ Departure Tracks then had the airspace been retained to offer more of a 'buffer', however this is largely mitigated by the use of the 7366 listening in squawk.

[dunny]

I dont want to sound like a soothsayer because I think this is a really positive move. I am a little disappointed however that the vertical limits havent been increased very much or that the orientation of the LLR hasnt slightly changed to make the transit easier.

D

[JonEBgood]

[quote='dunny']I dont want to sound like a soothsayer because I think this is a really positive move. I am a little disappointed however that the vertical limits havent been increased very much or that the orientation of the LLR hasnt slightly changed to make the transit easier.

D[/quote]

My guess is there will be few who don't share that disappointment. I can kind of understand the motivation for not allowing the LLR to widen towards the two airports, but would like to know (for the learning) the detail about the Liverpool radar vectoring requirements -
as the document says these are why the option to increase the vertical limit (more than 50ft) was rejected.

[Vince C]

I often operate in the LLR on its western edge including where the extended Liverpool centreline crosses the LLR. Those Easys and Ryanairs look awfully close and I wouldn't want to be any higher!

[JonEBgood]

I often operate in the LLR on its western edge including where the extended Liverpool centreline crosses the LLR. Those Easys and Ryanairs look awfully close and I wouldn't want to be any higher!

They are being vectored at 2300 QNH ten miles from the airfield?

[Vince C]

I often operate in the LLR on its western edge including where the extended Liverpool centreline crosses the LLR. Those Easys and Ryanairs look awfully close and I wouldn't want to be any higher!

They are being vectored at 2300 QNH ten miles from the airfield?

Errr, yes, possibly. But it looks lower! If they are intercepting the glideslope from below at say 5 miles (1550 feet QFE), then they could well be at that height over the western edge of the LLR.

[Squadgy]

[quote='JonEBgood'][quote='Vince Chadwick']I often operate in the LLR on its western edge including where the extended Liverpool centreline crosses the LLR. Those Easys and Ryanairs look awfully close and I wouldn't want to be any higher![/quote]

They are being vectored at 2300 QNH ten miles from the airfield?[/quote]

Not sure where you're getting 10 miles from - the Western Edge of the LLR is 7nm from the 27 threshold at Liverpool. I make that 2100ft as they descend on the ILS at that point. In fact the [url=http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGGP/EG_AD_2_EGGP_8-4_en.pdf]procedural approach[/url] has a base turn at 2000ft across the top of the LLR.

[GrahamB]

From a quick glance at the AIP, large aircraft flying the 27 ILS procedure will be at 2000' QNH out to about 10nm east of the 27 threshold, whilst turning right to intercept the ILS.

I don't have a map handy, but that sounds close!

Edit: crossed posts with Squadgy.

[Vince C]

There are also visual joins for 27 from the left. My sister lives just south of the 27 centreline on the western edge of the LLR, and from the ground some of those visual joins look quite low!

[JonEBgood]

[quote='Squadgy']In fact the [url=http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/ad/EGGP/EG_AD_2_EGGP_8-4_en.pdf]procedural approach[/url] has a base turn at 2000ft across the top of the LLR.[/quote]

So 2000ft over the LLR (middle of which is ten miles) is as low (so far discovered) as they go - i.e. maintaining 700ft of vertical separation is what is keeping the LLR from going up to 1500ft. Doesn't seem unreasonable, but interesting to understand what the trade-off is.