Olympic Airpsace Restrictions [Archive]

View Full Version : Olympic Airpsace Restrictions

Pages : [1] 2

'Chuffer' Dandridge

7th Mar 2011, 15:46

For those of you who fly in the South East of England, why not go on holiday for 2 months....:(

Airspace Restrictions (http://www.airspacesafety.com/olympics)

4015

7th Mar 2011, 16:07

Flying is overrated anyway.... :{

Deeday

7th Mar 2011, 16:47

A Prohibited zone is a portion of airspace where "the flight of aircraft is prohibited".

All IFR traffic to/from Heathrow, City etc. will be allowed into the Prohibited zone.

So it's not a prohibited zone at all, just a Restricted zone.

So, if words means anything, why don't they just call it that way?

Rod1

7th Mar 2011, 17:17

That will make getting to France interesting if the weather is at all marginal. I am based north west of the zones.

Rod1

dyslexnick

7th Mar 2011, 17:38

It will lead to some very interesting "choke points"

Nick

stiknruda

7th Mar 2011, 17:41

Okay - it might be a pain in the arse for a few weeks next summer but it didn't look all that onerous to me. I have lived and flown in countries where you needed to file a flight plan prior to every departure or circuit!

So I file, launch from aprivate strip, speak to ATC who'll verify my FP and clearance number. I'll then squawk my new personal code and long as I remain clear of the prohibited bit and speak to an agency, I should be able to wind my merry way to France through the restricted bit.

I'll need to learn how to file using their chosen website but it can't be that difficult, surely?

It might inconvenience me but I doubt it will stop me!

Stik

cumulusrider

7th Mar 2011, 18:20

eharding

7th Mar 2011, 18:37

Nice bit of planniing where all traffic avoiding the western side of the zone will be channeled over Lasham, the busiest gliding site in the country.
Peak movements can exceed 200/hr. Winch cables can be up to 3000ft agl.

Don't worry - the CAA will be round to confiscate your winch cables and have the tow planes grounded on a technicality in early July 2012.

They will no doubt under-estimate the plucky resolve of the gliding community, which will resort to having teams of volunteers physically pick up the gliders and throw them into the air.

I'm already sketching plans on a similar line to ensure I can keep aviating from my local field for the duration, albeit with a rather truncated endurance - I've read the CAA Restricted Zone document (twice), and nowhere does it use the terms "Trebuchet", "Shopping Trolley" or "Huge Bouncy Castle".

IanPZ

7th Mar 2011, 18:40

I'm learning in a microlight at Plaistows Farm, just north of the prohibited zone, and squeezed between Luton, Stansted and the London TMA. It's hard enough as it is, and looking at that, it gets even worse. All very well to say squark a code, but what if you don't have a transponder...

I've got someone who keeps offering to take me up in leicestershire. I think once I have my license (must get it by next year, right?) I'll be driving up there for weekend flying!

Ah well, I knew there was a reason I was learning!

wrecker

7th Mar 2011, 19:15

It should be remembered that these are just the temporary airspace changes for the olympics. There will be other security restrictions to flying imposed which will NOT go through any public consultative process.

Biffo Blenkinsop

7th Mar 2011, 19:42

Wonder what the authorities have in mind for zone-busters? Sidewinder up the proverbial? :eek:

ShyTorque

7th Mar 2011, 19:48

This will effectively prevent operations of helicopters into London, from other than airports, for the entire period.

fireflybob

7th Mar 2011, 20:24

More evidence if it were needed that we now live in a Police state.

Good grief huge swathes of restricted airspace - why?

Torque Tonight

7th Mar 2011, 20:26

Nice bit of planniing where all traffic avoiding the western side of the zone will be channeled over Lasham, the busiest gliding site in the country.

Not forgetting Lasham's next door neighbour, RAF Odiham, home of heavy rotary.

Captain Smithy

7th Mar 2011, 20:49

The "restricted" area is Class A anyway, which is pretty much restricted to we VFR bods. Glad I don't fly down there. Looking at the Southern England half-mil always scares me, what a horrendously complicated mess the airspace is down there. How anything moves at all is beyond me.

The "Prohibited" thing seems a bit overkill though?

Smithy

wrecker

7th Mar 2011, 20:54

one hears rumours that in the south of the uk nothing will get airbourne without having filed a flightplan and been issued with an approval number

Captain Smithy

7th Mar 2011, 20:56

Can't see that happening wrecker, even for Europe/UK's typical standards that's totally bonkers.

fireflybob

7th Mar 2011, 20:58

Olympic Restricted Airspace (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/How-to-use-the-restricted-zone)

wrecker,looks like you are correct, also no solo student cross countries - just what the flying clubs and schools in the south east need during their best weather windows!

IanPZ

7th Mar 2011, 21:05

Captain Smithy. Unless I missed it somewhere, it didn't say that the restricted area was only from 2500' base. Most of that area (except LTMA and around the major airports) is fine to fly below 2500'.

As fireflybob says, its gonna be a complete pain for any schools in that area, or as I was thinking, for any new pilots that have just got their license and want to "fly local" to build hours!

Ah well, what fun! I reckon there is money to be made just filinhg flight plans for students!

Captain Smithy

7th Mar 2011, 21:11

Considering how much bother it is causing, the complete arse that has been made of it so far and the fact that Britain is grinding to a halt for a few weeks to allow this glorified school sports day to go ahead, is there anyone left aside from atheletes and politicians who like or are interested in this anymore?

Rhetorical question, before anyone bothers to reply. :zzz:

IanPZ

7th Mar 2011, 21:14

I have a friend who lives in Gosport who are renting their house out to the Latvian (or some such) sailing squad for the duration, and are going on holiday. They are very interested, as thanks to the visiting sailing squad, a large chunk of their mortgage will be paid off!

So, maybe that's an idea. Where could I go for two months that I could fly undisrupted, and not have to take it all as leave....I wonder if I can convince work to send me to california for the summer!

IO540

7th Mar 2011, 21:17

The thing which is really crap is that there is no way around the restricted zone to the east, because of D138. Unless one flies a long way out over the sea. How important is the western end of D138 in reality?

all flight plans must include accurate timings and waypoints, including waypoints if leaving or entering the zone.

I wonder how closely VFR flight plans will be monitored. If they want waypoints and times at each WP listed, that will prevent sightseeing flights. What will be the flight plan format for this?

This is pretty drastic stuff, well OTT IMHO.

Torque Tonight

7th Mar 2011, 21:21

Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.

Circuit flying is permitted at airfields within the Restricted Zone without the need for a flight plan provided ac squawk a discrete transponder code.

Hmmm. Owner of an aircraft based within the restricted zone and not fitted with a transponder (or indeed an electrical system).

Captain Smithy

7th Mar 2011, 21:22

Well there's always God's country to the North! Although getting out of London with that jackboot stamped over the airspace might make things difficult to get out of there ;)

Whole thing sends a clear message to me. London's closed for business at that time. Stay away.

Will we have TRAs implemented for safety & security reasons at school sports days all over the country whenever they're on? I await with trepidation.

A and C

7th Mar 2011, 21:40

Don't you think that you are all over reacting? The map on the website has no indication of the restrictions that will be placed within the "restricted zone".

I can assure you that the civil servants inital idea was a total air excution zone within 50 miles of the Olympic site.............. untill it was pointed out that the closure of all the London airports might effect attendance numbers!

Fortunatly more wise persons have been consulted and the Military have put in place a person who flys light aircraft and understands GA flying to moderate the antics of the Civil Service idiots.

I expect that the Restricted zone will most likely require the same sort of clearance that you would expect in class C or D airspace with the addition of a flight plan.

IO540

7th Mar 2011, 21:44

It does say no airborne flight plans, which (if the RA is treated as CAS) means no flight, VFR or IFR, unless a written flight plan is submitted.

That's what the website says, anyway.

They may well relax it later to "radio contact required" which would make sense because it would deliver the same "known traffic environment" which is all this can be possibly about anyway. They want to be able to spot unknown radar returns ASAP.

Rod1

7th Mar 2011, 21:49

A and C

Have you read the links – the flight plan requirements – the clearance numbers before takeoff – the min equipment requirements.

Rod1

Torque Tonight

7th Mar 2011, 21:49

The map on the website has no indication of the restrictions that will be placed within the "restricted zone".

How to use the restricted zone (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/how-to-use-the-restricted-zone)

Roffa

7th Mar 2011, 22:15

Don't forget that in amongst the temporary restricted and prohibited airspace there will also be temporary CAS. Primarily around EGLF and EGMC that will affect traffic at typical light GA levels.

RatherBeFlying

8th Mar 2011, 00:24

This was the occasion of a $900,000,000 security spendfest:mad:

Crews operating within the Restricted area were required to apply months ahead for security clearances.

A number of floatplane operations were seriously impacted because security inspection of pax was required and many of the locations did not get a staffed security post; so, had to make an intermediate landing or shut down service.

Flight schools were effectively shut down. There are a number of lawsuits filed for business losses.

eharding

8th Mar 2011, 00:29

There are a number of lawsuits filed for business losses.

References would be much appreciated.:ok:

A and C

8th Mar 2011, 05:08

This is for two or three weeks and most light aircraft have the kit required, so what is the problem?

jaycee58

8th Mar 2011, 06:05

The restriction is from July 13th to September 12th. Hardly 2 or 3weeks. I'm glad I don't run a flying school in the zone!

IO540

8th Mar 2011, 06:34

I am not sure if I am reading the map correctly but there seems to be a piece of clean Class A (FL055+) in the middle of D138, so it looks just possible to squeeze past, along the edge of the RA. You will clip a tiny piece of D136...

There is going to be an awful lot of traffic trying to squeeze through there, at various heights up to 4300ft.

I can't see why the RA extends so far to the east. Are they using Southend to ferry a load of people?

I feel sorry for the schools in the area.

Bin Laden must be jolly pleased, to have the decadent west running around in circles like this. Thie must be the best value for money operation he has ever done.

gasax

8th Mar 2011, 06:52

It has to be said that actually the terrorists have won. The simple threat of 'something ' happening has lead the ar$e covering beaurocrats to try and shut down the airspace!

Given that they are already warning of a 'limited service' within the restricted area it looks pretty likely that this is a very topical challenge to 'my names Dave' talk about beaurocrats killing business.

steveking

8th Mar 2011, 06:54

We have 3 microlight schools at Damyns Hall. A lot of them don't have transponders. I wonder if non transponding aircraft will be allowed to fly.

Fuji Abound

8th Mar 2011, 07:00

So if you are a student, reading this and training anywhere within the zone whatever happens dont plan any solo or QCX during the period of exclusion!

Do these restrictions actuallys erve any purpose?

I have always thought if you had evil intentions, from anywhere around the zone you would be over the stadium in not very many minutes - realistically is there much chance of your being intercepted and "dealt" with? I wonder?

bad bear

8th Mar 2011, 07:02

I thought it was only Lybia that was getting a "no fly" zone.
bb

Captain Smithy

8th Mar 2011, 07:14

I spoke to someone in the know about this, and "capacity restriction" was specifically mentioned. Apparently they are expecting thousands of extra flights due to rich oil barons, heads of state etc. visiting. So in other words, expect a lot of disruption.

Never seen such a bizarre overreaction to something that should be so innocuous.

Smithy

fireflybob

8th Mar 2011, 07:22

I think there is something seriously wrong when citizens are prevented from going about their legitimate business. This seems a gross over-reaction to the situation.

Perhaps we should also recall that it was, in my opinion, the actions of the western world in invading Iraq which have made the world a much more dangerous place.

I wonder how the French would have reacted to similar swathes of restricted airspace?

ShyTorque

8th Mar 2011, 10:03

I wonder how the French would have reacted to similar swathes of restricted airspace?

They would blockade all the airports and minor airfields....... ooer!

eharding

8th Mar 2011, 10:20

They would blockade all the airports and minor airfields....... ooer!

The problem being that a protest in the French style involving leaving a pile of burning rancid sheep carcasses on the apron at Luton would be hampered by Ryan Air almost immediately picking them up, chopping them into bits, putting the remains in small plastic cartons, and flogging them to the punters at £15 a pop.

dublinpilot

8th Mar 2011, 10:24

Would setting up class D airspace for 50nm around London, and keeping a well armed helicoptor hovering 24/7 over any stadium in use not be an ecomonically cheaper solution?

Someone turning off their cleared track, and making a bee-line for the statium could easily be shot down.

It would be a lot more effective than trying to scramble aircraft to intercept when someone who has filed their flight plan and got their clearance number suddenly leaves their cleared track!

24Carrot

8th Mar 2011, 10:49

I wonder if we have the wrong end of the stick? After all, even Civil Servants must notice, eventually, that a light aircraft has all the the destructive power of a car on a motorway.

Maybe they just plan to flood the airspace with UAVs to watch people and traffic on the ground, and don't want us bumping into them.:*

Biffo Blenkinsop

8th Mar 2011, 15:01

Also, the Farnborough and Fairford airshows occur during this period - just to make life interesting.

vintage ATCO

8th Mar 2011, 15:56

RIAT in 2012 will be 07/08 July, Farnborough a week later.

ei-flyer

8th Mar 2011, 16:51

Sorry, I'm sure I'm missing something here...

Can anyone please tell me, what is going to (or what could) happen at the Olympic games that requires this restriction placed on the airspace for 20/30 miles around it in every direction?

Analogy: Do they restrict the airspace above a football stadium during a big game? No...

Very confused by this! I'd be tempted to turn the Xponder off and fly lowish...!

Will88

8th Mar 2011, 18:25

Utterly fecking barking.

I especially like this bit. Who sits down and makes up this crap?

Unpowered glider :

1. Launches from specified BGA/RAFGSA*** sites only, activation of which must be notified to the relevant control authority a minimum of 2 hours before launch.

2. Remain within 3nm of launch site.

Cross Country Gliding (unless launching and recovering from the sites above where exit from and entry to the Restricted Zone is solely contained within 3nm of the launch site) and Other Sites: Booker, Kenley.

1. File a Flight Plan on AFPEx or AFTN between 24 hrs and 2 hrs before take-off and follow it - no airborne or faxed flight plans will be permitted.
2. Receive an acceptance message and approval number to flight plan.
3. Establish and maintain 2 way RT with appropriate control agency quoting approval number.
4. Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.
5. Receive an ATC service and comply with ATC instructions.

:ugh:

John R81

8th Mar 2011, 18:44

Who arranges for thermals to line-up with your flight-plan? What if you are loosing height but can see a thermal 5mile off your flight-plan route? Do you get shot-down because you didn't stick to it? How do you file a revised flight-plan from your glider? How can you then hang on for 2 hrs before activating the deviation?

So many questions.......
So few braincells..........

Captain Smithy

8th Mar 2011, 19:47

How the fcek can you file a flight plan for a gliding flight? :ugh:

I can see AFPEX crashing spectacularly due to thousands of unnecissary flight plans being filed.

So many balls-ups, so little common sense.

Has anyone actually put thought into this? Or is it just that David Cameron and chums are neurotically ****ting themselves paranoid that something bad happens on the school sports day, and so have commanded from high, as usual, with their clunking iron fists?

Smithy

IanPZ

8th Mar 2011, 20:33

Steveking, That was my thought exactly. Our school is microlights, and none of our aircraft have transponders, and we are in the restricted zone. So, that basically means we are grounded from mid July to mid September. Now, given the olympics are 27 July to 12 August (which is 2 weeks), why the **** is there going to be an 8 week ban.

Are they worried that someone is going to take off 2 weeks before the olympics, and just keep circling in the clouds (in their radar invisible plane) so as to make something happen.

And as for a month afterwards, if that's the post-olympic party, I wanna go.

I think we should all lobby our representitive bodies (BMAA, LAA etc) and ask them to get involved.

I really hope it doesn't kill any businesses. That would be a disaster...Olympics come to town, businesses down the pan!

IPZ

IO540

8th Mar 2011, 20:41

As a comparison, when Greece had the games in 2004, they simply screwed their GA. No VFR flights at all within the relevant area. But IFR was apparently allowed, which is why I don't understand why they don't allow IFR within the RA (by IFR I mean flight planned airways IFR, under London Control). I assume that airway sections passing through the RA will be locked out via IFPS in this case. Not that that would help GA and flying schools which are mostly VFR-only.

John R81

8th Mar 2011, 20:41

Don't forget to ask your MP to help you get compensation for loss of earnings. If the restrictions are not both necessary and proportionate I don't see why you should loose financially

BEagle

8th Mar 2011, 21:35

Having seen the cost of attending this profligate waste of taxpayers' money in order just to watch a few people running, jumping, splashing about and throwing things, I would recommend anyone with such a burning desire to save money by buying themselves a 54" 3-D HD television set, several crates of wine and watching the whole b£oody nonsense at home.

It really is UTTER bolleaux!

rotarywise

8th Mar 2011, 21:51

I have to say that this thread reminds me of nothing more than my misspent youth when I would delight in poking a stick into a termite mound and watching the seemingly mindless panic of its inhabitants. Has nobody read the bit that says "The Government, CAA & NATS will work with airspace users and others to ensure that the planned measures, and their potential impacts, are fully understood and discussed before the Statutory Orders, to legally implement them, are made towards the end of 2011." Has nobody considered engaging with the process and explaining their concerns? Or is it just easier to bitch on an anonymous forum and expect someone else to sort it out?

AdamFrisch

8th Mar 2011, 21:55

If this takes place, which I'm hopeful it wont, but if, then every GA airplane in the UK should go up with XPNDR turned off and bust that airspace. I would like to see the CAA try to sort a hundred infringements out, or furthermore, try to prosecute that. Fat chance of backing any allegation up with evidence in such a case. A bit of civil disobedience does democracies good once in awhile.;)

But honestly, as someone said - if you really had bad intentions, which RAF scrambling aircraft would that be that could intercept an aircraft before it got to its target from outside the zone? It's utter madness. Nobody could reasonably intercept that, assess the situation, define if they're friend or foe in the time it takes to fly a couple of NM. Even if the interceptor was already airborne, in that quadrant and had the fastest aircraft known to man, could they achieve this.

IanPZ

8th Mar 2011, 22:05

Rotarywise. yes. i have, and am. Let's see if i get a response

AdamFrisch

9th Mar 2011, 03:02

I have no intention to, SoCal.

But hypothetically - prove that I busted that airspace. How are they going to do that without physically sitting next to me in the cockpit? In fact, turn transponder off and prove that I busted anything. Can't be done unless they visually see me do it.

IO540

9th Mar 2011, 06:25

Or is it just easier to bitch on an anonymous forum and expect someone else to sort it out?I would not call it "bitching". It is a debate which (as one tends to discover perhaps years later) is read by hundreds more people than post on here, and some of those silent ones are in a position to do something.

It is also read by the CAA (definitely daily, and has been for years), the DfT and god knows who else.

It must be obvious that the purpose of the RA is to create a "known traffic" environment which enables an "intruder" from outside the RA to be intercepted in time. But some bits of it don't make sense e.g. the gliding restrictions, and the pinching of the N-S route to the east of the RA which is bound to create a very narrow tunnel through which a load of planes will be squeezing through, trying to follow the exact line on their GPS.

I agree with Beagle and I immediately t0ss out the sports supplement of any newspaper, but that is a purely personal preference and a lot of people do enjoy organised and televised sports :) It probably won't make any money overall; it's a bit like the EU which is just a massive gravy train which people ride while it has steam.

Also I think the flying schools should get together and take legal action for compensation for loss of business. They probably can.

Sir Niall Dementia

9th Mar 2011, 08:36

Try looking at it as a charter helicopter operator. Under the current "rules" Battersea Heliport (10 000 movements a year) is shut from July until September. I flew in Athens as part of the broadcasting team for the 2004 Olympics and there was none of this total load of b******s.

If you are a commercial operation (flying school, air taxi etc) I suggest you go to the authorities and demand you fees back for that period as the authorities are effectively stoppping you trading.

Torque Tonight

9th Mar 2011, 09:44

But hypothetically - prove that I busted that airspace. How are they going to do that without physically sitting next to me in the cockpit? In fact, turn transponder off and prove that I busted anything. Can't be done unless they visually see me do it.

Errr, primary radar maybe. Turning your transponder off doesn't make you a stealth bomber!

rans6andrew

9th Mar 2011, 12:01

When this OTT c**p was first put around there was little to worry about. The area covered was much the same but the restriction was generally from 2500 feet upwards outside of the usual zones around the major airports. It seemed entirely reasonable in that commercial (big jets) traffic volumes may well be significantly increased but the flight paths will not be lower than they are today. Given that there is no conflict today, why will there be conflict when a few people in lycra are sweating/straining/exerting for a few weeks?

I don't know what has happened since then but It's just gone mental.

Rans6....

IanPZ

9th Mar 2011, 19:04

Anyone else tried to contact the CAA to clarify things? I sent an email, but obviously not had a response yet. Surprisingly, not had an automated response either, which is more the norm. I'll give it a couple more days, then send another to their inquiries line.

Good to get more clarification on this. As Rans6 says, if it was only above 2500', then it wouldn't be much of an issue. It's the whole "taking off, doing circuits, flying anywhere away from the airfield" that is going to kill things.

Surely the big schools who are affected, such as Cabair, will be up in arms?

Any cabair people here? From my understanding, this is going to hit Elstree, Denham, BlackBushe, Fairoaks etc. Ideas? How do we go around formally making our concerns known? I'm new to this, so don't know, but I'd be keen to see some form of consultation. Thoughts, anyone?

Captain Smithy

9th Mar 2011, 19:14

Good idea Ian.

But I sincerely hope that I am correct in suspecting that Adam is being tongue in cheek... :uhoh:

Smithy

FlyingKiwi_73

9th Mar 2011, 21:42

ShyTorque

9th Mar 2011, 21:54

Squawking 1200? They'd shoot you down then prosecute you for using an illegal transponder code. ;)

FlyingKiwi_73

10th Mar 2011, 03:26

sorry, standard VFR squawk here :-) would they bill you for the Missile? sub question (that i really always wanted to know) would a sidewinder acquire your average spam can????

There are some smarties out there surely they can tell me?

Cows getting bigger

10th Mar 2011, 05:46

Sidewinder wouldn't get you (heat seeking). The AIM120 AMRAAM would though :sad:

cessnapete

10th Mar 2011, 07:36

The proposals to fly in the Restricted airspace iclude filing a VFR plan by AFPex and ''receiving a Ack and clearance number.''
A VFR plan via AFPex does not send an acceptance message, unlike an IFR plan. Where do we get the required permission after AFPex?

How can you file a plan for a glider with ETAs annd turning points up to 24 hrs before a flight?

Proposed regulations seems to be written by people of little GA aviation knowledge.

AdamFrisch

10th Mar 2011, 07:43

Primary radar has bad accuracy in altitude. It has many blank spots and gives returns on anything from birds to kites etc and it suffers from clutter, interference, noise etc. It's not a very accurate tool (in altitude at least) and that's precisely why they came up with secondary (SSR) radar, i.e. the transponder that answers back with vital altitude information (that, by the way, can also be rigged by feeding the SSR system the wrong info, if one was so inclined).

An official disclaimer as some here seem to think I'm cheering mavericks and endorsing law breaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not something I plan to use or will ever try unless I was forced to by extraordinary circumstances (my country gets invaded and I need to escape, or fear of death etc).

But the hypothetical argument is interesting and a valid discussion.

It would be entirely possible to take off from a private field, fly under radar, pop up in the no fly zone, set off the alarm, drop down again and land at said field without anyone ever being able to know what aircraft had done so. How do I know this, because I have some acquaintances who, shall we say, did bust R-zones in the US, got 90 day suspensions and then preferred to leave the transponder off in their subsequent flying and have after that inadvertently bust R-zones again and had suspicions brought on them but upon questioning they couldn't prove it wasn't a malfunction or that it wasn't something else giving a return or give a more precise altitude. This is in military R-zones, where according to SoCal, all the equipment is so sophisticated they know if you're circumcised or not.

My subversive nature leads me to think that's exactly what they want you to think, as it keeps people in check, but I'm not so sure that's actually the case.

When the next Hitler comes along and invades my country, my escape will be flown low, with the transponder off...

chevvron

10th Mar 2011, 10:05

It doesn't seem to mention the RA(T)'s around Farnborough and Faiford which will be in force for at least the early part of the Olympic Restrictions. I understand there is also a proposal for CAS(T) around some airfields (including Farnborough) for the Olympic 'period' too, or do these proposed restrictions take their place?

Golf-Sierra

10th Mar 2011, 10:31

Primary radar has bad accuracy in altitude. It has many blank spots and gives returns on anything from birds to kites etc and it suffers from clutter, interference, noise etc.

Would that apply to an airborne radar as well, i.e. AWACS? Could your flight be picked up by satellite? Will the UK government employ such 'safety' measures?

There's a government website in the UK where I believe you can log a petition to the government and collect signatures. I think someone should raise one to pass a motion to effectively ban any such events being organised in London in the future. The city is already huge, overcrowded, the transport infrastructure is barely coping. It is already an extremely popular destination for tourists, language students, academic students, business people, rock stars, artists and broad range of filthy rich people. London does not need to become anymore popular. It should rather be downsized.

Golf-Sierra

eharding

10th Mar 2011, 10:44

gasax

10th Mar 2011, 10:46

The whole 'security' argument of this proposal is hopelessly flawed. It is typical of many so called 'security initatives' as it smacks of looking like something has been done.

Virtually prohibiting light aircraft from the huge zone achieves virtually nothing as the effects of crashing a light aircraft on a house is to break the windows and dislodge the roof tiles. Load it with explosives and it makes a white van look like a much more effective delivery tool.

And yet for this 2 month period potentially much increased scheduled traffic into Stansted, Luton and London City, Heathrow and Gatwick will all be within a couple of minutes of the venues - what represents the real security risk?

The risk assessment to justify the restrictions will never see the light of day as it would exposure the authors to complete and utter ridicule!

RatherBeFlying

10th Mar 2011, 12:56

If AQ seriously wants to perpetrate an outrage during the Olympics, bringing down a large a/c on approach over London with a missile would do considerably more damage than a Cessna loaded with a few hundred pounds of liquid explosives.

chevvron

10th Mar 2011, 13:05

Say an instructor wants to plan a trip out of the circuit to demonstrate aircraft handling characteristics including unusual attitudes; how do you put that on a flight plan?

Intercepted

10th Mar 2011, 13:24

Say an instructor wants to plan a trip out of the circuit to demonstrate aircraft handling characteristics including unusual attitudes; how do you put that on a flight plan?

I guess this would be interpreted as an erratic flight path and deemed as a security threat.

I can accept that general handling will have to take place outside the zone, but there must be suitable corridors for transit established for all airfileds within the zone. Weather related diversions might be an issue in a narrow corridor though.

Satcop

10th Mar 2011, 14:47

I have just had a chat with a very helpful chap at DAP regarding operations within the restricted airspace. He advised me to put forward various suggestions via airspacesafety.com with a view to getting some dispensations/exemptions issued. Apparently exemptions are already being looked at for the air show at Dunsfold and some operators who undertake several local flights a day.

If I understood him correctly DAP are acting as advisors to DfT on what is sensible regarding exemptions.

I will be having a meeting with our based operators in the next couple of weeks and putting forward a co-ordinated response from the Aerodrome in the hope that we might be able to retain some normality to our operation, especially for those aircraft without SSR.

chevvron

10th Mar 2011, 15:51

Whilst 'free lanes' for places like White Waltham and Blackbushe might be feasible, it would take considerably longer for traffic from Fairoaks or Redhill to exit the Restricted Zone and the length of the 'free lane' would probably be too great for it to be acceptable to the DfT.

IanPZ

10th Mar 2011, 16:22

All,

Here is the (surprisingly swift) reply from the CAA. Government, not CAA decision, and microlights would need a transponder, and yes, its from the surface. Oh my!

-----------

Thanks for your e-mail.

The decision to put restrictions in place, their size, location and the possibility to use that airspace is a decision taken by Government (Home Office / Department for Transport). Separately the CAA and NATS (with the MoD) are tasked with putting in place the operational system – with the proviso that everything has to be agreed by Government and, in particularly, its security teams.

The Government’s proposal is that the airspace runs from ground level to the base of controlled airspace and that for microlight flight a transponder would be required.

The Government has set up an e-mail address that you can use to raise issues over the basic principle of the restrictions, their size and the impact on business. I will forward your e-mail on to the Government for them to respond, but for your reference the address is: [email protected] (javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected] k','','',''))

The CAA and NATS has said that anyone with a suggestion or issue around the operational aspects of the airspace can contact us and we will work with them to see if a solution is possible, but these must be approved by the Government and, in particular, it’s security teams.

Any changes to the restrictions will be notified at www.airspacesafety.com/olympics (http://www.airspacesafety.com/olympics) where you can also sign up for automatic updates.

Regards

Jonathan Nicholson
CAA Corporate Communications

RatherBeFlying

10th Mar 2011, 16:54

In Canada I have seen restrictions published on RC and kite flying.

Some Fagin could get his jollies by handing out kites to sprogs in local parks:}

POBJOY

10th Mar 2011, 16:58

Well you could "emigrate" to the west country for a couple of months and not put up with all this nonsense.
Devon and Cornwall is a fantastic place to fly and plenty of "non radio" places still around.
Its just like the "firearms" issue, it stops the law abiding citizens, but does not prevent criminals getting what they want.
Nothing to do with security all to do with huges fees being paid to consultants to come up with something that looks like it is important.
I know someone who flew a very old aircraft through one of the "hottest" areas in the world "protected" by a massive and in its day up to date system, result the first they knew he was there was when he called finals !!
Nothings changed they would be better off using the "bush telegraph" system and the B.....y Spotters to really know what is going on.
What are they going to do about all the white vans driving around !!!
Its all a big excuse of a joke to pretend they have it under control.

Captain Smithy

10th Mar 2011, 17:18

eharding

10th Mar 2011, 17:56

So, there you are then - it's the Government with their leaden fists again screwing everything up.

If it's security that Dave, Nick, George and the other hateful tossers are so worried about, I'd be more concerned about what retribution a certain cheesed-off Libyan dictator might be planning, as opposed to paralysing the activities of private aviators in the South... :uhoh:

Smithy

Wake up at the back there.

1) Regulatory body publishes outrageously draconian proposals, conceived in-house on the basis of vague mandate from political management.

2) Affected community goes ballistic. Preparations are made for lawsuits. Community girds loins to apply heat direct to political management.

3) Attention is brought to how regulator inflicted massive damage on another section of the community less than 24 months ago on the basis of an equally unsubstantiated safety case.

4) Regulatory body has collective trouser-accident, wheels out spin-doctor to try and shift the focus of blame elsewhere.

FlyingKiwi_73

10th Mar 2011, 18:19

doesn't an aircraft carrier need to be doing X knts to have the wind over the nose for take offs? even with the steam cats?
I'd love to see an aircraft carrier try and do 30kts up the thames :-)!!!

Hope they don't park it of Canvey Island, they'd wake up to a floating metal skeleton after the locals were done :-) :eek:

Captain Smithy

10th Mar 2011, 18:19

Miroku

10th Mar 2011, 18:31

doesn't an aircraft carrier need to be doing X knts to have the wind over the nose for take offs? even with the steam cats?

Not if they use Harriers!

Oh no, I forgot, we got rid of those as we thought we'd never need themhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/bah.gif.

eharding

10th Mar 2011, 18:32

Think you're forgetting eharding that politicians/Whitehall have been involved, as we all know whenever these serpents get their grubby hands on anything it's bound to get hopelessly buggered beyond comprehension. :hmm:

CAA/NATS were commanded from on high to implement this at the wishes of HMG, I am led to believe.

Smithy

Wishes of HMG are that everything goes off without a hitch. Regulator attempts to implement that by effectively grounding everything VFR it possibly can.

I don't see NATS as the villain here - the proposed CAS(T) changes to cope with anticipated extra demand published last month seem perfectly reasonable.

fireflybob

10th Mar 2011, 20:42

So surprise, surprise it's the Home Office/Dept of Transport that have come up with this nonsense.

It's shows what the politicians and civil servants really think of general aviation. Remember that research that AOPA did about how much GA pumped into the UK economy and how many people are employed in GA?

The government in the UK still think GA flying is a rich man's sport and this is clearly demonstrated by these draconian restrictions.

I propose a day of (legal) protest of some sort. Any ideas?

IanPZ

10th Mar 2011, 20:58

fireflybob. I'm all for protests, but isn't it worth trying to get our representative bodies involved, and do a bit of lobbying? I think I'll write a letter to my MP, email to BMAA, and perhaps make a couple of calls to local flying schools. The more businesses affected that stand up and complain, the more likely something will happen (or at least, that's what I think).

But I'm open to suggestions. Any ideas?

fireflybob

10th Mar 2011, 21:15

IanPZ, yes I totally agree that we should protest through the normal channels - a fax is going to my MP - suggest we all do the same.

fireflybob

10th Mar 2011, 21:38

Perhaps another point that should be made is that at a time when many businesses are struggling for survival, limiting GA flying for this period of time, especially when the hours of daylight are longer and the weather factor is better, may be enough to tip some FTOs into insolvency.

Surely these FTOs and other GA organisations should get some sort of compensation from the EU funds which UK taxpayers contribute to on a fairly massive basis?

AdmlAckbar

10th Mar 2011, 21:49

Two points to add to this debate:

1) I have heard that the normally Class G areas of this zone will apparently be manned by RAF air traffickers rather than civvy (despite EGLF LARS covering most of it).

2) According to the AOPA website, after a meeting in March there was 'loose talk' of AWACS, Typhoons and Apaches being used for any unknown traffic entering the zone. If you were to fly non-squawking and unannounced, as AOPA says, brush up on your interception procedures.

IanPZ

10th Mar 2011, 22:11

It may just be me, but has anyone found a hi res version of the proposed zones, so we can get a proper list of all affected airfields and airstrips?

IanPZ

11th Mar 2011, 21:43

Hi,

Did anyone get a copy of the restricted and prohibited areas map? I was going to spend some time this weekend listing out which airfields are hit by it, but when I went to the website just now, it was gone (not just the map, but the whole web site!)

Ta, IPZ

ponshus

12th Mar 2011, 09:23

Perhaps the goons have realized that:-
1. closing South East England's airspace for 2 months for a 2 week event is just a little OTT. (I know it wouldn't technically be closed but in my neck of the woods Farnborough would be responsible and they can't really cope now)
2. Forcing the VIPs out of their helicopters and onto the roads is not a good security move

SkyCamMK

12th Mar 2011, 12:07

Map is still on BMAA web forum too, here's one they prepared earlier!

http://www.skywalkerassociates.co.uk/airspace restriction.jpg

IO540

12th Mar 2011, 12:18

It sounds like somebody has screwed up their server. It happens. The bigger the organisation, the more likely it is that nobody is in charge of keeping tabs on the hosting :)

The CAA has also stopped dealing with emails. You get the auto-responder reply but no response thereafter.

cladosporangium

13th Mar 2011, 13:41

No restriction on IFR traffic........

The aircraft that took-out the twin towers was VFR? :rolleyes:

Piltdown Man

13th Mar 2011, 20:56

I detect the edict of person who has their finger fully on the pulse of aviation security. We can all rest easy now because no naughty person with evil intent will be allowed to fly over the Olympic site, because it will be illegal. I'm sure a stiff penalty will persuade the very hottest militant to behave. And if they do go flying, I'm sure they'll be intercepted and shot down by... Errm... Er? How do we actually enforce this?

Forcing the VIPs out of their helicopters and onto the roads is not a good security move.

It's an excellent move. Make the buggers use the Tube like every other poor sod. With any luck, a few will get mugged. And you'll have to excuse me for being a bit anti-Olympic. The whole thing stinks and the sooner its over and done with the better. It's piss poor value for money, incredible disruption, only benefits a few and yet again, I'll be paying for another bloody fiasco.

PM

ShyTorque

13th Mar 2011, 21:14

Not all VIPs are moving to and from the Olympics. Some have their normal jobs to go to!

fireflybob

14th Mar 2011, 01:30

I would have thought all this attention to security for the Olympic games would be a perfect time for terrorists to launch an attack on one of the other large cities in UK!

mad_jock

14th Mar 2011, 11:29

The cynic in me says that the olympics are just an excuse so that the restrictions can be put in place. They may be relaxed but won't be put back to they way things were.

From my limited dealings with SB on the subject of aviation there is quite a large feeling that they want more control or more information about what private flights are up to. They seem not to bothered about IFR airways flights because there is a record of what you have been up to. But they really don't like the fact that a private flight can fire up and dissappear without anyone knowing where they are going or who and what they have onboard and not talk to anyone.

We even had a very excited SB Sgt turn up with instrument plates they had found on a forgien reg private aircraft wanting to know what they were. He was quite shocked to find out you could download them off the web. He wanted to confiscate my Luchars, Conningsby,Valley,Kinloss, Lossie and Marham plates under the anti terrorism act because they were mil fields and air defense bases. He was quite put out when I said it would be fun in court because the RAF sells them to anyone that phones up with a credit card for 16 quid a set if you phone this number. I might add he did phone the number and wasn't very happy with what the lady at the other end said to him.

Sallyann1234

14th Mar 2011, 12:09

Yes, the restrictions on GA area going to be a nuisance.
But the disruption to surface traffic, both private and public, is going to be appalling over the whole of central and east London. Plus the risk of terrorist action anywhere in the area.

The air restrictions won't affect me because I'm going to stay well clear of London for the entire period :ok:

IO540

14th Mar 2011, 13:36

We even had a very excited SB Sgt turn up with instrument plates they had found on a forgien reg private aircraft wanting to know what they were. He was quite shocked to find out you could download them off the web. He wanted to confiscate my Luchars, Conningsby,Valley,Kinloss, Lossie and Marham plates under the anti terrorism act because they were mil fields and air defense bases. He was quite put out when I said it would be fun in court because the RAF sells them to anyone that phones up with a credit card for 16 quid a set if you phone this number. I might add he did phone the number and wasn't very happy with what the lady at the other end said to him.

Did you get his name or serial number?

Something like that ought to get elevated all the way to the top.

Mind you, most professions are self selecting on the primary personality traits, and the "control other people" professions show this most strongly :)

Torque Tonight

14th Mar 2011, 13:46

they really don't like the fact that a private flight can fire up and dissappear without anyone knowing where they are going or who and what they have onboard and not talk to anyone.

and they're going to have to suck it up, because in a free country (which we certainly used to be) this information comes under the 'none of your goddam business' category. I'm sure they'd like 'flight plans' and 'special branch approvals' for yachts, speedboats, private cars, buses, Lambrettas, unicycles, rollerskates etc but the same applies.

mad_jock

14th Mar 2011, 14:50

Nah it was sorted.

I am not suprised he was concerned really. You wouldn't really expect to have someone out of the blue to show you plans for the UK's mil QRA bases in a nice little printed book. And if you know jack about aviation......

They should maybe though have a central information point though so that they don't look complete tubes and they have a country wide policy on such matters. From what I can tell each force has its own policy with different levels of involvement and different interpretations of the act.

To be fair our local ones arn't a problem, if anything is suspicious they get informed, they come and have a chat occasionally all quite friendly and the way it should be really. There boss has proberly more experence than most of terrorists, comes across as a hard but fair copper who you would be advised not to take the wee out of. I have no complaints to be honest.

WorkingHard

14th Mar 2011, 17:22

Mad Jock you might be amused by one here. Told we would arrive back at our own private strip at "about 1800hrs" I was informed "You must not land until I arrive". So I says 1) how will I know you have arrived? 2) if you are late what happens when I run out of fuel? etc etc. Up steps Sgt. who says to youngster "Go away and when you have learned we are here to serve, you may go outside once more" Well that was the gist of what he said anyway. Job done everyone happy

mad_jock

14th Mar 2011, 18:36

Yes it did amuse.

MrAverage

14th Mar 2011, 19:29

Mad Jock

Any chance of posting that number? I've been trying to find out how to get info/plates for Benson.

Actually, I'll take my compensation by repositioning the fleet there for the duration please Mr Cameron - FOC of course.

mad_jock

14th Mar 2011, 19:47

Don't have the number with me but its No 1 AIDU RAF Northolt.

From a quick surf the general enquires number for Northolt is 020 8845 2300.

MrAverage

14th Mar 2011, 22:31

Ta very muchly.

JOE-FBS

14th Mar 2011, 22:41

Word about a proposed legal challenge and associated fighting fund here:

http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=69015&start=285

mad_jock

14th Mar 2011, 22:46

You can't buy them as a one off they make you take the update service through the AIDU.

One of the lads got his off an Aerad subscription but its a bit of pot luck which set has which mil airfields.

They do them as separates.

AERAD Aerodrome Booklet : AERAD - Airplan Flight Equipment (http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=2135&osCsid=2150b2b13705c81ac7dc2df9cafe9a65)

And finally found a link https://www.aidu.mod.uk

BEagle

15th Mar 2011, 09:39

See: https://www.aidu.mod.uk/Milflip/products/UkMilAip/launch_aip.htm and look under 'Aerodromes' - all details for Benson, including approach charts, are included.

mad_jock

15th Mar 2011, 09:51

Bookmarked that link.

When did they go public again on the Mil AIP Beagle?

It was a bloody stupid and dangerous thing to do restricting it to try and earn some buttons in the grand scale of things

BEagle

15th Mar 2011, 12:44

Not sure, m_j and I can't recall who gave me the link.

I think that it went public again after the oh-so secret squirrel low flying stuff was moved elsewhere.

AlanM

15th Mar 2011, 17:37

From the BBC website:
"We are obviously very disappointed that the clock has suffered this technical issue," said a spokesman for the Swiss-based Swatch Group.

"The OMEGA London 2012 countdown clock was developed by our experts and fully tested ahead of the launch in Trafalgar Square," he added.

Should have bought British.

MrAverage

16th Mar 2011, 20:46

Well done BEAgle, I think you saved me £16. (Except cost of printing 16 pages of Benson stuff)

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Mar 2011, 17:01

I'll be working on my black rubberised coating for the PA28 then....

Just a quick poll, what would happen if you entered this zone Squawking 1200 and bimbling along at 2000ft? would they intercept you? monitor your progress. I'm sure i can guess what the CAA would do to you.

VFR conspicuity code in the UK is 7000.

1200 is autonomous fighter operations in the UK (but VFR conspicuity in many other countries).

This has embarrassed the occasional pilot just back from doing their licence in the USA !

G

mikehallam

31st Mar 2011, 13:54

Matters are coming to a head, next week, with the CAA & NATs both writing that they have little or no actual clout to get the Home Office lift some of the TWO MONTHS ban on VLA flying, right down to ground level, in the home Counties for two whole months, without let up, Summer 2012 !

The BMAA & LAA are known to be sending their own ideas forward on behalf of the membership. BUT unless many more affected Pilots, Owners and strip Operators affected write in too you may find you are forced to stop flying for months.

Apart from the above two organisations can I ask everyone concerned to drop a short line to both the below addresses. They appear to work in largely disconnected areas, but e-mails will add weight to the plea for some work around scheme.

Individuals can make their own responses by sending an email to [email protected] and [email protected]

Critical meetings take place next week so be quick about it. [Don't gripe if you later on suffer & didn't try harder].

mikehallam.

BHenderson

7th Apr 2011, 12:57

Aviation: Restricted Airspace: 6 Apr 2011: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com) (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-04-06a.378.0&s=Aviation%2C+%22General%2BAviation%22)

cessnapete

8th May 2011, 10:16

Could I suggest that perhaps AOPA UK designate a week in July/Aug this year, when we should all file VFR plans with AFPEX when we fly in the proposed zone.This will show 'the powers that be' the chaos that is likely next year with the number of normal flights that take place.
I have suggested this by E Mail to the .gov site-no reply of course!

AOPA might not wish to rock the boat while talking to MOD/DfT at the moment, but there is no reason why an unofficial PPrune advertised weeks trial could not go ahead.

Talking to an ATC chum recently he commented that the primary facility at the moment in the zone -Fboro LARS, would be completely overwhelmed and that a new dedicated London Mil Cell would have to be created to handle the proposed restrictions if NATS will not pay. (lots of money so unlikely to happen)

A and C

8th May 2011, 16:01

It takes as long to write a post on pprune as it takes to email your MP and you can guess how much influence on the situation a post on pprune has!

So guys get on to the They work for you website and make your MP do some work.

trevs99uk

9th May 2011, 10:20

A friend at Damyns Hall reported they had a visit from the CAA last week ref the Olympics, and they will be over time visiting all the Airfield in the affected area.

====

we had the CAA at Damyns yesterday (3 of them) to discuss (dictate) what will be happening over the olympics. ITS WORSE THAN WE FIRST THOUGHT!!!!!!!!

4 slots per hour (a slot is a take off or landing)

You have to book slots in advance and PAY for them.

Your aplication for a flight plan will not be accepted if it has not got your slot reference on it.

Slots are not transferable, if you book one and then dont need it and you cancel it (there is a time limit before you fly you must cancel it) the slot is not re-issued

If you have a slot booked and for some reason you dont use it (weather, puncture)and you miss the deadline to cancel it you will be fined £1000,00 !!!!!!

so if the flying club take of on a couple of 30 min trial flight, that will be all the slots gone for that hour.

they will not be able to operate under these conditions

Jodelman

9th May 2011, 12:36

I hope that's a wind up, trevs99uk.

RatherBeFlying

9th May 2011, 13:27

One of my suggestions during the Vancouver Airspace misery was that all the affected small airports lock up their fuel tanks for the duration.

The press, security and VIP fights could be most severely inconvenienced:E

However you will likely observe that one or more heli operators with their own fuel supply will be blessed by on high and make bags full of money:mad:

toptobottom

9th May 2011, 20:58

If you have a slot booked and for some reason you dont use it (weather, puncture)and you miss the deadline to cancel it you will be fined £1000,00 !!!!!!

I've never heard such absurd nonsense!!! Is the CAA seriously encouraging pilots to risk flying in dubious weather, rather than incur a £1k fine?!!

Someone's having a giraffe here, either trevs99uk or someone claiming to be from the CAA :=

Piltdown Man

9th May 2011, 21:40

It's amazing really isn't it? Some idiot, probably an expert in onanistic practices, fully expects that these restrictions will give some level of protection to the London 2012 fiasco. Mathias Rust's exploits show what can be achieved and I fully expect that Risk Assessments, Due Diligence and other such management w@nkspeak, let alone getting permission to shoot down an aircraft over London, will prevent a real threat from being intercepted. But meanwhile, virtually all local private flying will be grounded for "Security Reasons." And can the boys in blue dispatch a slow flying aircraft? I wouldn't like to be driving the target, but doing so would probably be safer than taking a walk in some parts of London after midnight.

PM

mary meagher

9th May 2011, 21:56

A few years back, about 30 gliders flying in a regional competition from Husbands Bosworth, struggling to round a turning point at Atherstone,got low and ended up landing in a nice big pasture. As sometimes happens, this got some locals all excited, and the police were notified, so they sent the emergency services to the site of the "crash".

The Director of the competition was somewhat nonplussed when he had a call from the Atherstone chief of police. Said the lawman, "The next time you intend 30 gliders landing in a field in my jurisdition, we will require 24 hours notice in advance...."

Thats how they think.

toptobottom

9th May 2011, 22:30

I've already mentioned this on the rotorheads forum, but given that none of this nonsense is actually going to stop anyone filing a bogus FP, loading their aircraft to the gunnels with high explosive and then launching same at one of several Government/State buildings (before anyone has the chance to say 'scramble'), what precisely is this restriction supposed to achieve?!

Why not have a programme whereby all pilots who are likely to fly in the Restricted Zone apply to the CAA by June next year for approval to do so. All the individual due dili and security checks can be conducted and once approved, a unique code is posted to the applicant's private address in a similar fashion to an interweb banking PIN.

On taking off, the pilot QSY's to a specific 'Olympic' frequency, when he/she will be asked for the 3rd and 7th letter (or whatever) of the unique identifier, is given a unique approval code (i.e. the CAA 'knows' this pre-vetted pilot is not a risk) which may be quoted and checked by other en-route ATCs and filed in his/her log book for subsequent ignoring.

This would provide a much higher level of security than the FP idea, but with a lot less hassle and a lot more spontaneity. The current proposal is simply preposterous: inpractical and inadequate.

flybymike

9th May 2011, 23:17

I think you have just given them an additional security measure to introduce as well as (rather than instead of) the existing ones ;)

toptobottom

10th May 2011, 07:32

Maybe!! The problem is, the existing proposal WILL NOT WORK!! The infrastructure just isn't there to support it but, more importantly, it will stop neither a terrorist, nor any other unhinged individual, from driving straight into town. :ugh:

MichaelJP59

10th May 2011, 08:48

fireflybob

10th May 2011, 10:02

With all this attention to the Olympics wouldn't this be the perfect time to launch an attack on some other city in the UK?

trevs99uk

10th May 2011, 13:04

It was,nt a joke..
This was posted on the group forum for Damyns Hall.

However there has since been a follow up to the Caa,s meeting and it turns out they where taking about IR flights...

IO540

10th May 2011, 14:18

So, only four IFR flights per hour per airfield, or what?

That is even more bizzare because normally IFR flights (in CAS) are on a Eurocontrol flight plan anyway so they are totally "known traffic".

fulham fan

10th May 2011, 16:04

Ok so how about some facts rather than I heard from a friend who heard from a friend. This was not a CAA visit, nor was it related to the security restrictions. It was actually a visit by the consultants involved in coordinating the slot control procedures for airports / airfields during the Olympics - primarily for upper end GA / commercial movements e.g. Farnborough etc. The DfT consulted on this.

billiboing

10th May 2011, 19:38

For the first time I personally we hope that for the entire time of the RA that it pours cats and dogs.

Anyone a rain dance instructor around here?

LowNSlow

11th May 2011, 03:14

What a load of horse droppings. Another demostration of "being seen to do something about security" at great expense to the taxpayers. I should be in security, it would save me having to work for a living.

Seeing as my aged Auster has no transponder and indeed, no electrical system with sufficient oomph to power one, I'll stay out of the country during the Olympics fiasco. :mad:

A and C

11th May 2011, 13:17

All this airspace restriction stupidity in my opinion is likely to make an attack on the Olympics more likely not less likely.

As the normal law abiding population of airfields shuts up shop for the airspace restriction period and puts the aircraft on Ground risk insurance and sods off to the South of France with the money saved the airfields will become depopulated by the normal users.

The result is that any unusual activity will go unnoticed, any extra police patrols (if they have the funds) would probably be unable to tell the diference between normal & non normal activity as they have no idea what is normal airfield activity. (any policeman will tell you that with out the help of the public they are next to helpless).

The best place to stop any aviation related terrorist attack is on the ground not in the air and the best people to provide airfield security in depth are the normal population of the of that airfield.

S-Works

11th May 2011, 13:46

I am not sure what all the fuss is about? According to the proposal, there is a bit of prohibited space which an area we are not normally allowed in anyway and then there is a bit that has some restrictions which while they are a little bit of a pain in the ass are not impossible to deal with. Basically flying clubs will need a daily transponder code, individuals will need to file a flight plan and IFR traffic is pretty much business as usual.

There may be a few flying as normal on the ragerdy edge of poverty or aircraft capability that don't have the required equipment but by large almost everyone is able to comply.

Am I missing something?

A and C

11th May 2011, 14:15

Try operating a flying club like this :-

No student solo flying.

Each filight has to have a flight plan & stick to it in terms of waypionts & EAT's etc (just how do you teach anything except navigation with those rules).

Filght plans can be rejected at any time. (great when the student turns up & cant fly).

I am sure that others will add more but this is enough to kill flying clubs in this time of economic troubles when most of the income happens in the summer months but I know of one airfield that estimates the loss of £0.5M business over the restricted airspace period.

S-Works

11th May 2011, 14:24

How many flying clubs are effected? Number of students?

Whats the problem with having to have a flight plan? We are quite lucky in being one of the few countries in Europe that does not insist on a flight plan for EVERY flight. I have flown in Europe under far more draconian restrictions which are the norm rather than the exception.

The airspace is not huge. From what I can see its 10 minutes flying to get out of it for all the clubs it covers so a lesson plan would involve exit of the zone, lesson content and return into the zone. All restrictions I have taught under in Europe without issue.

I think we may be making a mountain out of a mole hill here? Like I said a bit of a pain in the ass when we are used to greater freedom but not exactly the end of the world?

Just playing devils advocate!

A and C

11th May 2011, 14:36

No just being your normal provcative self

mikehallam

11th May 2011, 16:14

cessnapete

11th May 2011, 16:46

The next restriction.
They have applied for huge chunk of Class D airspace for the Olympics. Just south of DTY to WCO Harwell and bounding onto Brize.
All that is required is a small temporary extention of the Brize Zone to the East to accomodate radar positioning to 19/01 at Kidlington by Brize( Oxford have no radar)
There is an Oxford airport web address to comment on the application they have made.

Pace

11th May 2011, 16:49

I think we have to understand the reasons for the restriction? Is it because of the shear volume of traffic expected for the Olympics or some fear of terrorist attacks?

I know of one orgaisation in Doncaster who are hoping to secure high prices on jet parking with a 1 hr 40 min train ride to london.

Personally I cannot understand masses of people watching olympics but hotels are supposed to be full charging overbloated £700 per night so some people must get a kick out of watching the long jump or whatever :rolleyes: All to their own?

If its based on fear of terrorist attacks I was under the impression that attention was now on to derailing zero security high speed trains not aircraft?

I flew as a co pilot a couple of days after 9/11 up an airway which bordered the 20 mile restriction zone around London.
Passing 24000 feet the then Captain and i worked out that had we been terrorists with evil intent it would have taken us 3 minutes to reach central london so why the zone?

Pureley political for the ignorant public consumption.
But its a good reflection of the lack of importance given to light GA in Europe nowadays?

pace

A and C

11th May 2011, 17:00

As you say this has nothing to do with security it is all about being seen to be doing something ijn case something happens & it is all for public consumption.

IO540

11th May 2011, 17:33

The restricted zone is bollox. All that a terrorist needs to do is go through the hoops, or just depart from some field and fly low down and the only way to stop those would be a missile-armed helicopter patrolling near every site.

Greece basically grounded its GA around Athens in 2004, but this was bollox too as far as risk management because plenty of traffic could overfly, on flight plans, etc.

The funny bit was that they didn't bother much for the paralympics - presumably because bombing them was either less likely or less a matter of public interest.

Pace

11th May 2011, 17:57

As you say this has nothing to do with security it is all about being seen to be doing something ijn case something happens & it is all for public consumption.

I wonder if they have airline like security checks planned for the thousands/millions of people piling into trains and the London underground dragging their cases holding god knows what?

Somehow I doubt it as the City would seize solid if they even attempted a fraction of what is expected at airports.

Yet any terrorist would have easy pickings with the railway and underground network compared to the airlines and that as was discovered was the terrorists future intent not airports.

Pace

S-Works

11th May 2011, 18:08

Bose,

You really haven't a clue, have you ?

[The Home Counties & beyond have had a two months NO FLY zone imposed, affecting a great many small airfields & strips, not all on the charts. Microlight a/c and LAA typres normally don't need & rarely install transponders.]

I don't think you're acting Devil's Advocate - just acting up !

mikehallam.

Mike, no I am not acting up I am opening up discussion to wider than the doomsayers view the world has come to an end. I am looking at the notice and the restrictions and I am not seeing a NO FLY zone (other than the centre where light GA never has access anyway). What I am seeing is a bunch of requirements that may be a pain in the ass but are not the end of the world.

Please explain to me exactly what you are seeing in these restrictions that I am missing?

'Chuffer' Dandridge

11th May 2011, 18:11

There may be a few flying as normal on the ragerdy edge of poverty or aircraft capability that don't have the required equipment but by large almost everyone is able to comply.

Ok, I'll bite

Some (in fact, probably more than 50% if you include the microlight and glider fraternity) of us are quite happy to operate aircraft on a shoestring budget, not fly some plastic IFR wonderplane and swan off to the continent every weekend for lunch with our cravat wearing millionaire mates and their trophy wives..

Just wait till you submit your Flight Plan to go off to Le Touq and find the system has fallen over and you too are grounded..

Non radio, Non transponder equipped Jodel owner and proud of it:ok:

S-Works

11th May 2011, 18:22

What makes you think the system is going to fall over? I don't believe there have been any cases of the AFPEX system falling over to date?

I wonder how many movements there are inside that restricted zone on a normal flying day. By that I mean those that start and end the same flight inside the zone and how many of those are in aircraft that can't meet the requirements. Allowance seems to have been made for all types in the notice. It's just it will be a pain to follow but not impossible.

Like I said, I am happy to be shown what I am missing here that convinces you and others they will be grounded. Can you do me a favour and cut and paste the bits that concern you and explain why?

'Chuffer' Dandridge

11th May 2011, 18:37

Allowance seems to have been made for all types in the notice.

Well you obviously haven't read it very well then. Aircraft without transponders are specifically excluded. Why should I equip my aircraft with electronic devices just to exercise the privilege of flying VFR in Class G airspace for 2 months, when i can do it now with no problem?

Despite the impressive amount of posts, I reckon you are not very worldly wise when it comes to Grass roots aviation.:rolleyes:

S-Works

11th May 2011, 18:47

Please can you post where it says that aircraft without a transponder are prohibited?

Are you looking at a different site to me?

I think you will find as an LAA Coach and private strip flyer including flying an aircraft that has no radio, transponder or electrical system I am plenty worldly enough to understand the grass roots.

If it means I have to fly around with a handheld wired in for a couple of months then so be it......

S-Works

11th May 2011, 18:50

How will the restrictions work?

Airspace restrictions will be placed around all Games venues. The major restriction will be centred on London and the Olympic Stadium. These will run from 13 July 2012 to 12 September 2012 and will be implemented by the Government through its commitment to deliver a safe and secure Games. Airspace restrictions around other Games venues will only be in place for the duration of the event at each venue, in line with those used for major sporting events. Extra security restrictions may be placed on flights at any time. All restrictions are from ground level to the base of controlled airspace.

Prohibited Zone: Aircraft will not be allowed within the Prohibited Zone unless they are IFR traffic and have undergone crew, passengers and baggage screening in accordance with the relevant aviation security programme, and inbound to or outbound from Heathrow, London City, RAF Northolt, Biggin Hill and under the control of those airports or NATS TC or Thames Radar. They must also meet all the requirements to enter the Restricted Zone.

Restricted Zone: Aircraft will be allowed to enter the Restricted Zone if they can comply with a set of requirements defined by aircraft type (see How to use the restricted zone).

Airfields within the Prohibited Zone, and airfields within 3nm of the outer boundary of the Restricted Zone, may apply for certain exemptions to the restrictions subject to specific conditions to be agreed with the appropriate authorities. The following airfields have been identified as potential examples of these. Prohibited Zone: London City; Northolt; White Waltham; Denham; Fairoaks and London Heliport (Battersea). Restricted Zone: Duxford; Shuttleworth (Old Warden); Halton; Dunstable Downs; Lashenden (Headcorn); Earls Colne; Booker and Weathersfield. Applications will be considered on a case by case basis.

Aircraft that will be exempted from the restrictions include Police and Medivac operations and aircraft operating for the Olympic Broadcast Service. Special procedures apply to these aircraft.

How to use the restricted zone

Flight from, into or within the Restricted Area is prohibited, except for those aircraft listed below adhering to the regulations as listed. The availability of access to this airspace will be limited by ATC capacity.

Aircraft type* Regulations
Small/large Unmanned and Model Aircraft Current Air Navigation Order regulation applies.
Hot Air Balloon Obtain permission of the relevant control authority before launch.
Hang Glider
Para Glider
Position** of launch sites to be notified to the relevant control authority a minimum of 2 hours before launch.
Notify relevant control authority when cease flying.
Remain within 3nm of launch site.
Unpowered glider
Launches from specified BGA/RAFGSA*** sites only, activation of which must be notified to the relevant control authority a minimum of 2 hours before launch.
Remain within 3nm of launch site.
Cross Country Gliding (unless launching and recovering from the sites above where exit from and entry to the Restricted Zone is solely contained within 3nm of the launch site) and Other Sites: Booker, Kenley.
File a Flight Plan on AFPEx or AFTN between 24 hrs and 2 hrs before take-off and follow it - no airborne or faxed flight plans will be permitted.
Receive an acceptance message and approval number to flight plan.
Establish and maintain 2 way RT with appropriate control agency quoting approval number.
Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.
Receive an ATC service and comply with ATC instructions.
Microlight
Self Launching Motor Glider
Touring Motor Glider
Airship
Autogyro
Paramotor
All Helicopters
All powered fixed-wing aircraft
File a Flight Plan on AFPEx or AFTN between 24 hrs and 2 hours before take-off and follow it - no airborne or faxed flight plans will be permitted.
Receive an acceptance message and approval number to flight plan.
Establish and maintain 2 way RT with appropriate control agency quoting approval number.
Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.
Receive an ATC service and comply with ATC instructions.
Circuit flying is permitted at airfields within the Restricted Zone without the need for a flight plan provided ac squawk a discrete transponder code. Airfield managers must contact the appropriate control agency daily at commencement and cessation of flying for allocation and return of a daily changing code, and aircraft may not leave the visual circuit except on landing or in accordance with the rules at 1-5 above
* As defined by the ANO. ** Position reporting can be by OS Grid, Lat / Long or range and bearing from major feature. ***All except Booker and Kenley.

Additional Regulations: Flight Planning - all flight plans must include accurate timings and waypoints, including waypoints if leaving or entering the zone. No solo student cross country flying will be permitted in the Restricted Zone. For the Olympic Airspace Restrictions, both Mode S and Mode 3 A/C are considered as acceptable forms of compliance to SSR carriage outside of Mode S notified Controlled Airspace below FL100.

Exemptions from the Olympic Airspace Regulations are to be finally determined, but will include: Emergency Services - ASU and HEMS and military aircraft operating in support of Olympic security tasks. Aircraft operating on behalf of the Olympic Broadcast Service (London), and infrastructure inspection flights subject to certain conditions.

eharding

11th May 2011, 19:11

Pace

11th May 2011, 19:11

Bose

I take your point that if this is purely about filing a flight plan then that happens in France all the time but its the approval bit which is cause for concern and the track record of a lot of the security descisions holding little reason.

As stated the terrorists had plans to target trains not aircraft yet millions will use the rail networks.

You only have to see the volumes of people piling into the London tube on friday night to realise the problems.

Can you see all those people opening their cases, removing liquids, going through scanning machines, removing belts watches clothing etc?

Why do aircraft require more security than trains? They both carry equal numbers of passengers with equal potential disasters should terrorists strike yet the trains have NO security while aircraft have turned into a massive security industry spending $billions and employing thousands.

The difference is with aircraft they can with trains they cannot as the whole system would grind to a halt with any security restrictions even minor ones.

So my question is WHY? as it appears to be one rule for the aviation industry and none for equal potential hazards.
Who pays for all this? I am afraid our industry and our pilots.

Pace

mikehallam

11th May 2011, 19:24

Bose,

I think that whilst you can copy prodigiously you ought to read it through.
For the WHOLE TWO MONTHS all non txpdr a/c in the Restricted zone are thus far grounded. Even with flight planning it's likely to be rationed and severely restricted, if only by the time needed to issue approvals - if one has the necessary txpdr too.

As you doubtless are aware to cater for other Olympic's airspace & expected traffic surge into many large London area airfields, NATS/CAA are following a consultative procedure to lower and increase controlled airspace. Most GA users so far appear favourable to the process.

However the BAN was imposed without such procedure and all the private flying organisations now have to lift their efforts from countering unjust EASA dicta and spend time on trying to get HMG DfT to think harder and find some alleviation.

It's not a joke and commercial schools, and other airfield dependent business will suffer unprotected financial loss. Engineering overheads, Permit expiry 1/6th unused, 16% of annual insurance, ditto hangarage, rent, staff, hire purchase payments, radio and other essential Licences: ALL will be a one way drain without recompense.
Possibly very small firms will go under, hardly a joke or in need of flippant remarks.

mikehallam

Rod1

11th May 2011, 20:02

This lot represent most of us;

INDEX (http://www.gaalliance.org.uk/)

The Alliance includes all except AOPA.

Rod1

S-Works

11th May 2011, 20:06

I have still not read anything that says a transponder is MANDATORY. So instead of slinging insults please point me at where it says a transponder is MANDATORY. It is not my understanding that it is MANDATORY.

As I understand tithe glider guys who don't have transponders have already established transponder is not required. Two way radio does appear to be the only way you are going to get an approval number. However as I said for a two month period what's up with carrying a handheld and actually talking-to someone?

As I have said a number of times now, I a just trying to provoke some discussion rather pure negativity. I realise that the restrictions are a pain in the ass for those of us flying basic aircraft and I am included in this in my bimbling flying but at the moment I am not seeing anything that can't be worked around with a bit of effort.

Pace

11th May 2011, 21:26

As I have said a number of times now, I a just trying to provoke some discussion rather pure negativity.

Bose

My arguement is all about negativity but maybe not in the same way as yours.

My idea of negativity is the huge security industry which has grown up around aviation. Its now mostly about money and far removed from its purpose of security and safety.

Sadly i think it will take a major hit against the train travel network to make government realise that terrorism doesnt equal aviation. Secure aviation and terrorism has gone is not I am afraid the case.

Ie get off our backs and put the attention towards the other security holes that exist unplugged in oither modes of transport because the terrorist threat is unlikely to be from the air.

Pace

IanPZ

11th May 2011, 22:02

Bose,

I thought something similar to you, so contacted them. The answer is that to enter the restricted zone, aircraft must comply with the requirements, one of which is to squawk the allocated code.

This is a requirement for microlights, even if only doing circuit practice (at which point, we don't have to file a flight plan). When I asked them what I was meant to do since there is no requirement for a microlight flying in unrestricted airspace to have a transponder, and so the one I was learning in didnt have one, their suggestion was to tell my school they should fit transponders to all the microlights....good eh!

Funnily enough, I haven't suggested this to the school, as I don't want to get shot! Our CFI attitude is that if there is no way round it, then he will try and come to an arrangement with an airstrip just outside the zone. I think there will be some home counties airstrips that will be VERY busy for 2 months!

eharding

11th May 2011, 22:08

I have still not read anything that says a transponder is MANDATORY. So instead of slinging insults please point me at where it says a transponder is MANDATORY. It is not my understanding that it is MANDATORY.

As I understand tithe glider guys who don't have transponders have already established transponder is not required.

Purely on the basis of the quoted guidelines above, my reading would be that the requirement for powered aircraft to "Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority." implies that a transponder is mandatory. The guidelines note that the requirement for a discrete transponder code for aircraft remaining in the circuit is lifted, but implies that a local airfield-specific code will be issued - but doesn't clarify if circuit traffic are exempt from transponder operation completely (and this lack of clarity is typical of the whole slip-shod, incompetent and heavy-handed approach being taken by the authorities).

If you can point to a formal statement confirming that gliders are exempt from the transponder requirement (at odds with the quoted guidelines) then so much the better.....but if you can, why haven't you?

mikehallam

11th May 2011, 22:19

SoCal,

You are perhaps located too far away from this 60 miles around London grounding to have followed its intricacies on our more local if vociferous forums.

It's been discussed by the principal flying organisations and their members since early March when the bombshell dropped. Measured & more formal steps have and continue to be taken to try to get the DfT of HMG to permit a fairer but still secure middle path resolution.

NATS/CAA understand this and are also doing their best, being, till this surprise event, the Government's appointed & competent air usage representatives.

mikehallam

S-Works

12th May 2011, 09:04

For a well known self appointed pundit to chime in now two months later than the rest of the very concerned flying fraternity shows at least a certain obtuseness (willful or not !).

Whats with the personal insults? I am trying to have a discussion on a subject that clearly effects us all. I am not seeing the end of the world that some are claiming and have asked for some clarification as clearly I am interpreting things differently.

I contacted NATS through the contact page and asked what would happen with aircraft that are not transponder equipped and the reply was that they would be dealt with on a case by case basis.

So going back to my original comment, looking at the restriction, if you file a flightr plan, have a radio and if no transponder make appropriate arrangements you are going to be able to operate. In the case of my flying an aircraft with no transponder or radio I will have to take along the handheld to get two way contact and make arrangements in advance for no transponder. I will have to follow the flight planning requirements and I am good to go.

I realise this is a pain in the ass for those whose idea of flying is just doing as they please but it is not like this is a permanent arrangement, its a limited time for a pretty monumental occassion.

As I have said a number of times, if I am interpreting this incorrectly please cut and paste the evidence rather than just insulting me. I have nothing to gain either way, just interestied in discussion rather than mud slinging.

soaringhigh650

12th May 2011, 09:18

I'm with bose-x on this one.

There is a bunch of selfish pilots who have no radio, no transponder and insist on flying everywhere they like, whenever they like. They also belong to the 'civil liberties' group, and don't like controlled airspace and filing flight plans.

They consequently pay no regard to the safety of other airspace users.

Fuji Abound

12th May 2011, 10:02

I think there are two aspects to this.

Firstly I suspect there is some sceptism whether the arrangements will work as headlined. Government departments have become very good at leaving themselves plenty of wriggle room and there seems enough in the wording as it currently stands for the number of flights plans that are approved to be restricted.

Secondly there is the more general concern as to whether there is a proven case that these measures achieve the objective intended. It is right and proper that we continue to challenge (in every walk of life) measures that curtail our personal freedom unless and until it is demonstrated that there is a justified case for doing so.

While I dont entirely disagree with Bose equally I also beleive it is very easy for us as a community to accept ever more restrictions on what we do, until the point is reached when most of us cant be bothered to engage in flying any more.

I believe flights to the CIs remain a good case in point. We have legislation left over from NI days that is no longer relevant and cant be justified. Flying to the CIs is a pain, and in theory no longer possible at the drop of a hat and yet it is a tiny group of islands of little concern to anyone less than 40 minutes away for some of us on the south coast. The paperwork hoops to get their are nonesense, we know they are, doubtles so do the authorities, but it would seem no one can be bothered to do anything about it.

Rod1

12th May 2011, 10:23

“There is a bunch of selfish pilots who have no radio, no transponder”

That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation. I know a significant number of pilots who are prepared to fit a transponder, but the regulations will not let them. In order to fit such a device to a glider for example there has to be an approved installation, in many gliders this does not exist. Some pilots have been trying to overcome this for 3 years with no success.

Another example is the max empty weight rule. Many “new generation” micros are very close to this limit – 1lb being common. This is the reason aircraft like the Eurostar are unpainted. Under CAA regs if the aircraft is over this weight, even by a small amount, it is a garden ornament. When we were involved in the mode s consultation we asked for an exception to allow the devices to be fitted as has been done in other parts of Europe, but this has not happened. Well over 1000 micros cannot fit the device legally because of this rule.

As for radios, I take it you think any fool can take a hh radio up and just use it? I owned a Nipper with a VW and 2 L4 mags (originally designed for tractors in the 1920’s). This was a factory built aircraft which had transitioned to an LAA permit. I spent over a year trying to suppress the ignition so I could use my hand held. I could get the radio to work at the cost of a misfire, or the engine to work but blanket the radio. I never solved the issue.

It might be worth understanding the subject before grouping pilots as selfish.

Rod1

Pace

12th May 2011, 10:40

Fuji

I tend to go with your sentiments. After 9/11 there were big words and speeches about protecting our freedoms that many had fought to protect in the past.
Yet we are less free now than ever with more and more governemnt intervention in everything and anything we do.
Sadly for us aviation appears to be regarded as the only target for terrorists and a huge security industry built around it with dire consequences to our freedoms.
Hence why in my posts I have pointed out the total lack of security in an equal target the rail networks.
That makes me bitter as it is double standards by the authorities! Hit aviation because they can ignore the rest because hitting those areas would not be practical. Oh well lets hope for all our sakes the terrorists dont do what they claim they will with the rail networks?
Is This justified? I would think not! If its a matter of security then based aircraft at the airfields in question can easely be identified as can be their owners with no restrictions on those other than specific areas close to the games.
Aircraft that arrive from outside the airfields could pre register their intentions with security so they too can be checked.
If this is more about the huge demand that will be made on the airspace then thats another matter.

Pace

10W

12th May 2011, 10:55

For those who can't respond without casting personal insults, better re-assess your posts before hitting 'Send'. Those who do so in future will be thread banned. Simples.

Debate the issues and don't attack the posters.

S-Works

12th May 2011, 11:06

We are having 2 parallel conversations here.

One is around the percieved threat to our civil liberties and the other is around how we actually operate during the restriction period. As far as the restriction period is concerned I am not seeing any insurmountable issues that 99% of the GA population can't work around with a little effort. As with anything so draconian there are going to be a few people who are just unable to comply but I think the reality is that it will be a tiny tiny minority who are affected and while I have the greatest sympathy I am also pragmatic enough to acknowledge that all the people cant be kept happy all of the time.

I would also argue that even that minority have options open to them if they are really keen to keep flying an prepared to bend a little to the majority situation?

Regarding civil liberties that is a completely different issue and one that I need to dig my soapbox out for......

A and C

12th May 2011, 12:08

Lets just see the flying club problems.

I File a FP and the student is 5 min late because of traffic.....Flight Canx

I take a new student on first or second flight.....he is very sick, cant get back as I would be ahead of the return part of the FP to base so divert..... aircraft now stuck for at least 2 hours awaiting new FP...............the 2 following flights Canx due aircraft stuck away from base.

Flight with student going well............transponder fails........... unable to return to base..........have to divert............aircraft stuck away from base were the engineering support is.

So Bose-x all the above are normal club happenings that could normaly be resolved without extra expence but these stupid restrictions put the operating cost up by a huge %. would you like it if it was your business that was being forced towards insolvency?

S-Works

12th May 2011, 12:17

I would think that something like a transponder failure during a flight could be dealt with by sensible collaboration between the controller you are talking to and yourself.

I have been teaching and examining for quite a few years now and don't recall flights due to sick student being aborted as a common occurance. However again as you are in 2 way contact with the controller why do you think they would not be happy to let you abort the flight and return to base?

I don't see anythin the restrictions that preclude the aborting of a flight and return to a base. Again if you can show me something that supports your assumption then I would be glad to read and digest it.

I think there is a lot of assuming and doomsaying going on based on what i think is incorrect interpretation of the restrictions. A very typical British thing to create problems where non exist?

A and C

12th May 2011, 12:31

Bose -x you just don't get it, the rules say that you have to keep to a route & timings so you can't teach the basic flying inside the restricted area.

So you have to leave the restricted area so carry out this instructional flight, once outside you will have to be on time to made the inbound flight plan, any thing that stops you meeting inbound FP slot will result in you not being given clearance into the restricted zone.

S-Works

12th May 2011, 12:57

Yes I do get it and would appreciate if you would refrain from talking to me like a child.

The situations you are describing are abnormal termination of the flight and I can't imagine for one minute that having described the situation to the controller they are going to force you to land somewhere else. No one is denying that you won't be able to teach the basic stuff inside the area but looking at it the edges are only 10 minutes away and you can teach outside and return. When I have taught in Cyprus and Spain both have required me to transit tom training areas to conduct lessons.

If you are in possession of information that states otherwise then please share it. Otherwise if we are reading the same information I don't know where your assumption is coming from.

However I will write to NATS and ask them to clarify the situation.

mad_jock

12th May 2011, 13:02

bose you are presuming the controller has any choice in the matter. I would think there will be some numbnut with a cheap shiny suit deciding what should be done.

And I don't think NATS will have a clue with what will happen and even if they do they won't be allowed to tell you pre event.

S-Works

12th May 2011, 13:05

MJ, there is the rub. People are assuming the worst rather than reading the document as it stands. If they need clarification then surely writing to NATS and asking for it rather than assuming the worst is the better option?

mad_jock

12th May 2011, 13:14

To be honest I would presume the worse as well.

They don't want light aircraft in the sky full stop for not only security reasons.

They have to be seen to not completely shut everything down or they would have to compensate companys. They have to have to open the door a crack to pretend you can still continue with your business but in reality you will be grounded for all intents and purposes.

A and C

12th May 2011, 13:15

You are assuming that this is being driven by NATS & the CAA it is not, it is being driven by people who could write all they know about GA flying on a postage stamp but with total power in the name of so called security so you can expect the same amount of common sense as you get when you check for a flight at an airport.

If we don't get a workable system in place by October we never will because I am told that is when all the charts are to be printed.

KieranBal

12th May 2011, 13:42

I'm currently a student at Southend Flying Club which is just within the restricted zone. I was asking the instructors there how they were planning on running the club over the period and I think they're really struggling.

There was talk that they were going to move all the a/c to a small strip in Norwich so their students could still fly but it's a long way from Southend.

They quite often end up behind time by lunchtime, and as S-end ATC are requiring a flight plan to be filed at least 4 hours before the flight with a specific brakes-off time, it isn't going to work for them.

I think they're just going to have to shut up shop for a few months and just ride it out, but it's going to be a struggle for them.

KieranBal

A and C

12th May 2011, 13:56

Just for you I have copied the "how the airspace will work" part of the NATS website.

1.File a Flight Plan on AFPEx or AFTN between 24 hrs and 2 hours before take-off and follow it - no airborne or faxed flight plans will be permitted.
2.Receive an acceptance message and approval number to flight plan.
3.Establish and maintain 2 way RT with appropriate control agency quoting approval number.
4.Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.
5.Receive an ATC service and comply with ATC instructions.
6.Circuit flying is permitted at airfields within the Restricted Zone without the need for a flight plan provided ac squawk a discrete transponder code. Airfield managers must contact the appropriate control agency daily at commencement and cessation of flying for allocation and return of a daily changing code, and aircraft may not leave the visual circuit except on landing or in accordance with the rules at 1-5 above

* As defined by the ANO. ** Position reporting can be by OS Grid,

You will see from the first line that the flight plan must be followed and that no airborne flight plan can be filed, this seems to indicate that a change of intentions is likely to not be approved.

S-Works

12th May 2011, 14:52

A and C,

I already posted that in total earlier.

So where do you get the impression that not being able to file a flight plan in the air restricts you from being able to terminate an existing plan?

M609

12th May 2011, 15:11

1.File a Flight Plan on AFPEx or AFTN between 24 hrs and 2 hours before take-off and follow it - no airborne or faxed flight plans will be permitted.

LAT/LONG STAY1/0100 LAT/LONG inserted at the appropriate point in Field 15 and STAYINFO1/VFR MANOUVERS OVER LAT/LONG FOR FLT TRNG in Field 18

.....is part of a correct and valid flight plan ;)

A and C

12th May 2011, 15:56

Yes quite true but I wonder if the people driving this will understand that flight plan?, these are the things that need sorting before this is all set in stone.

I take the attitude that this is being driven by people who dont understand or give a damm about GA and Bose-X is taking the attitude that we will be dealing with people who will be fair and reasonable.

S-Works

12th May 2011, 16:00

I take the attitude that this is being driven by people who dont understand or give a damm about GA and Bose-X is taking the attitude that we will be dealing with people who will be fair and reasonable.

It is strange but I have found my passage through life has often been easier when I have started off with the approach that people are fair and reasonable rather than hanging them from a lamppost in case they may not be......

I can use a whole load of other euphemisms such as don't judge a book by it's cover etc but I hopefully you get the point?

A and C

12th May 2011, 16:07

I might treat people as if they are going to be fair and reasonable but to actualy think that is the truth of the matter is unwise to say the least.

S-Works

12th May 2011, 16:10

Well the proof will be in the pudding......

flybymike

12th May 2011, 16:50

I can use a whole load of other euphemisms such as don't judge a book by it's cover
To be pedantic I would call that more of a metaphorical platitude than a euphemism. ;)

mikehallam

12th May 2011, 17:57

I politely concede Bose X is (always) right, NATs are the authorising body, not Dft/HMG. The LAA/BMAA etc. can relax.

mikehallam

S-Works

12th May 2011, 18:31

Why the sarcasm Mike?

NATS are the controlling authority and responsible for managing the airspace. They are also responsible for answering any questions we as users may actually bother to ask.

Feel free to bury your head in the sand and sit out two months of flying to prove you were right.

Personally I intend on flying by following the guidelines.

Pace

12th May 2011, 18:59

I might treat people as if they are going to be fair and reasonable but to actualy think that is the truth of the matter is unwise to say the least.

I would have thought that fair and reasonable would be the way to go.
Sadly we pilots have been so attacked in very unfair and unreasonable ways that I am afraid i have become very sceptical of any fair and reasonable with anything to do with aviation regulations.
Just look at the charade from EASA. False promises, smiles,tea and biscuits but with empty promises.
Our IMCR rating a proven safety rating shafted!
The N reg debacle?
Sorry fair and reasonable is not in the dictionary when it comes to aviation nowadays.
Scepticism false promises and doubt yes.

Pace

mad_jock

12th May 2011, 19:02

What ever gave you the idea that NATS are controlling never mind an authority?

They are an Air traffic service provider.

They just do what they get told to do.

As part of the contact they have provisions which they must provide in relation to information distribution. But if they don't have the information they can't distribute it.

They advise and provide technical consultancy to the relevent goverment deptments before policy is made but have no right of veto or for that matter ability to dictate a change in policy.

flybymike

12th May 2011, 23:04

Why the sarcasm Mike?

Sorry, nothing personal. Timothy and I have been having a bit of a rant about abuse of the English language on Pprune lately (due to some horrendous posts on the Skyferry thread.) I have just been over excited and winding down, but have now reverted to keeping quiet again.

mikehallam

13th May 2011, 09:30

Members of & LAA/BMAA and other leading UK pilots' organisations have been working together via NATS to negotiate with HMGov. (if allowed) easements in the Ban covering not only London, but surrounding counties & beyond for the main summer flying period next year.

Summary, copied from HMG Issued Ruling (Not NATS !) for mid July to mid Sept. 2012 for the greater Restricted zone.

Microlight... All powered fixed-wing aircraft.

Flight is prohibited, except by adhering to the regulations, limited by ATC capacity.

File a Flight Plan 24 hrs to 2 hours before take-off and follow it. Receive an acceptance message ... use RT quoting approval number.
Squawk allocated discrete transponder code. Receive and comply with ATC instructions.
Circuit flying is permitted at airfields within the Restricted Zone without the need for a flight plan provided a/c squawk a discrete transponder code.

mike hallam

S-Works

13th May 2011, 09:42

At last..... And comments on exemptions for non transponder aircraft?

mikehallam

13th May 2011, 09:53

'At Last' was simply taken from your own long post.

mikehallam

S-Works

13th May 2011, 10:27

Ah right so we are back at square one. I thought you were posted something from the LAA/BMAA when in fact you were just adding bold to try and make me believe that if you but it in bold it changes the interpretation?

What I am trying to establish is where it says absolutely that an aircraft without a transponder will be unable to operate in the restricted zone.

Fuji Abound

13th May 2011, 10:49

If there is a part that concerns me it is "limited by ATC capacity".

I alluded to this earlier with reference to the authorities allowing themselves plenty of wriggle room.

What exactly does it mean?

Well it seems clear it could mean that if it suites ATC to have 10 aircraft in the zone at any one time, 10 it will be. In other words we are all trusting NATS to ensure they have the capacity to handle ALL the traffic that will want to operate within the zone during this period of time, or, if they dont have that capacity to enable the vast majority to do so. If they dont, from a practical point of view, we could see restrictions that amount to the zone becoming an exclusion zone other than in name only.

BHenderson

13th May 2011, 12:46

bose-x,

I struggle to see what wriggle room you have found in the wording:

"Flight is prohibited...except by...squawk[ing] a discrete transponder code."

Would you care to enlighten the rest of us?

Roffa

13th May 2011, 15:47

A and C,

I am sure that others will add more but this is enough to kill flying clubs in this time of economic troubles when most of the income happens in the summer months but I know of one airfield that estimates the loss of £0.5M business over the restricted airspace period.

I thought efforts to mount a Judicial Review of the airspace were stalling because of lack of interest or commitment to support it financially from potentially affected companies?

I thought I read from one of the instigators that only individuals seemed willing to pledge funds.

IO540

13th May 2011, 15:56

Yes, that's about it.

Maybe they have plans to shift their business to outlying airfields.

Somebody is going to be very busy...

But pledging money for a legal action is a difficult thing because one doesn't know how much will be needed.

S-Works

13th May 2011, 15:56

Where does it say flight is prohibited unless you sqwuak? It says flight is prohibited unless you abide by the regulations. However I am trying to understand how this relates to the possibility of operation without a transponder.

Not quite sure why you are trying to make me the enemy here. I am trying to ask some logical questions and discuss the situation. Shouting and abusing me won't change the situation. At the end of the day it matters not a jot to me, if I need to go through that area I will follow the regulation or I will go over the top IFR.

I will leave the rest of you to read blindly into the regulation and moan about it on forums.

I do understand that NATS/CAA are asking people to submit and indication of the financial implications of the restrictions. Perhaps worth submitting something around the costs of relocating elsewhere for the period and the cost of having to fly around the outside of the zone.

[email protected] if you are so inclined........

jez d

13th May 2011, 16:24

Bose, you are correct in stating that flight is prohibited unless you abide by the regulations: Flight from, into or within the Restricted Area is prohibited, except for those aircraft listed below adhering to the regulations as listed

But the regulations listed make it quite clear, in my view, that ability to be able to squawk a discrete code is required (even in the circuit). The only exceptions appear to be balloons, hang gliders and para gliders:

How to use the restricted zone (http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/how-to-use-the-restricted-zone)

As to NATS being able to cope with the amount of demand it is likely to receive, I quote the following from the CAA:

The simple answer is no-one knows the activity levels in class G.

Over the past few months we’ve been doing work with QinetiQ to try and get some kind of baseline figures which has been useful but needs more work and there is a proposal that one day this summer everyone is asked to file a VFR flightplan to get an idea of the demand.

NATS is working on its plans for what capacity will be available in the restricted area and they’ll publish that later but they have said they will be putting significant extra resource into AFPEx during the period and there will be extra ATC resource.

Regards, jez

robin

13th May 2011, 20:24

The simple answer is no-one knows the activity levels in class G.

Over the past few months we’ve been doing work with QinetiQ to try and get some kind of baseline figures which has been useful but needs more work and there is a proposal that one day this summer everyone is asked to file a VFR flightplan to get an idea of the demand.

NATS is working on its plans for what capacity will be available in the restricted area and they’ll publish that later but they have said they will be putting significant extra resource into AFPEx during the period and there will be extra ATC resource.

IIRC there was a survey about 6-8 months ago where qinetic were asking about our movements in Class G. At the time I filled it in but commented that it was only looking at people based at airfields in the SE. If you were based elsewhere it only wanted to know about your flights in your local area. It would be impossible to respond to the questionnaire for flights into the SE.

It would appear my fears about that survey were more than justified and the data seriously misused.

IO540

13th May 2011, 20:38

They can easily get an idea of most movements by looking at radar images.

Most primary radar targets in Class G are non-transponding so they can't get the altitude, but it's obvious from any actual flying around the UK that almost all non-transponding targets are flying at very low levels; typically under 1500ft.

bad bear

13th May 2011, 21:06

but it's obvious from any actual flying around the UK that almost all non-transponding targets are flying at very low levels; typically under 1500ft.

I doubt if many on the 2,000 gliders in the UK spend much time below 1,500' on cross country flights. Mostly we spend our time around cloud base down to approx 1/2 the height of cloud base, normally 3,000' + Also gliders are frequently above 10,000' when wave soaring sometimes at FL195 and exceptionally in the mid 20,000' to 30,000' levels.
Cross country Glider flights are typically 3-5 hours long and sometimes 10 or more. This makes gliding a significant part of the total aviation picture. 200 movements per hour is achieved from Lasham so watch out if these Olympic airspace restrictions funnel all GA into small volumes of airspace. Transiting past lasham will be more than interesting
bb

A and C

13th May 2011, 21:56

You still don't get it do you.

Quote from the Olympic airspace website:- 4.Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.

Quote from Bose-x post#219 :- Where does it say flight is prohibited unless you sqwuak?

I cant see how the requirment for a transponder could be more clear.

UAV689

13th May 2011, 22:51

Why don't we all just protest libya style, and all just get airborne at friday prayer time in the middle of the opening ceremony and stick 2 fingers up at them all. Gliders,microlights, tmgs,sep,helos the whole shebang.

They won't shoot us all down!

It is incredible how in this country we let this drivel happen! it is absolutely pathetic.

I will tell you all a story now.

3 years ago I started work at heathrow. I turned up on first day, 2 days after an interview where I provided no id, references etc. No management was on site. I walked striaght through the cargo shed and was underneath a ba 747 within 2 mins of knocking on the door. Mental.

Still work there, and to this day I could put a device on a flight. Without a shadow of a doubt.

That is a security issue. Not gliders carrying no fuel. Not micros.

A 40 tonne truck loaded with fertiliser driving outside the stadium would cause a hell of a lot more carnage than a pa28 nose diving into the long jump pit at vne.

Let's all just get airborne when it happens, mass protest.

UAV

ps - those of you saying why not screen train passengers when the games go on, because the buggers will probably be on strike and no trains running! We need bob crow running aopa et al!

mad_jock

14th May 2011, 05:49

I would get rid of that post UAV although i agree with it someone from security will claim your making threats and exposing security holes and make life difficult.

mm_flynn

14th May 2011, 06:45

BadBear,

An interesting post on glider ops, but totally irrelevant to the thread. About the highest the restricted area goes is 3,500. Above that you are clear of the restricted area and have no problems. You just need to have an IR and be on an IFR flightplan and conform to the normal class A airspace rules ;)

S-Works

14th May 2011, 08:05

Bose-X
You still don't get it do you.

Quote from the Olympic airspace website:- 4.Squawk and maintain discrete transponder code as allocated by the appropriate control authority.

Quote from Bose-x post#219 :- Where does it say flight is prohibited unless you sqwuak?

I cant see how the requirment for a transponder could be more clear.

Yes I get it fine thanks. What I also get is pissed off at you talking at me like a child.

Have you actually bothered to contact NATS/CAA and ask them for a statement on the transponder requirement? I listed the address earlier. Lets start with that and ask for a clear interpretation rather than making your own and then bludgeoning people into agreeing with you.

If the case is that unless you have a transponder you are sat on the ground or have to move outside the zone then you need to state the financial case to the CAA via the address I gave. As I understand it they are looking for people to actually present a case. This requires direct input to them rather than opinion on forums.

We are also side tracking away from my original point that even if those without a transponder are effected it would be interesting to see the actual numbers. For the rest of the users in the restricted zone who have a transponder I do not see the issue. The rules are a pain but not impossible and are no different from the permanent rules that exist in many of the European countries I have taught in. As I said before, when I taught in Cyprus, every flight had to have a flight plan and we had to fly to the training area to conduct training and notify they return time.

Why is there always so much doom and gloom from pilots?

Fuji Abound

14th May 2011, 09:00

As I said before, when I taught in Cyprus, every flight had to have a flight plan and we had to fly to the training area to conduct training and notify they return time.

Which to be fair is irrelevant. We dont have corporal punishment but the us does, doesnt make it a good thing though.

Pilots whinge because also to be fair there is constant regulatory pressure to limit what we do; i am not aware of similiar pressure in any other enviroment. Moreover there is often no case to be answered.

Dont run down those that challenge changes in whatever way they wish but i agree every encouragement to make their vies known through the official channels is to be applauded. :D

IanPZ

14th May 2011, 10:12

All,

No axe to grind, no insults, nothing like that. However, I think my post (178) got lost in all the banter.

As bose suggested, I had previously contacted FAQ then Olympic airspace, and they confirmed to me that microlights would need a transponder installed to fly in the restricted airspace, EVEN if only doing circuits. I can PM anyone who wants a copy of the email.

That's not my opinion or interpretation, but from the horses mouth (or other parts, depending on what you think of this legislation)

Ta. IPZ

UAV689

14th May 2011, 15:11

It does seem very strange to strangle us ppls, gliders etc, when the last attack using civilian aircraft were all ifr, on flight plans, with transponders etc, carrying passengers having departed from large airports, and the attack still happened.

Such a load of tosh. That bearded goat sh@gger has won. He is not walking this earth and we are still terrified.

A and C

14th May 2011, 17:18

As it happend I have take some action, my MP has my letter on the restricted zone subject, and we are awaiting a reply from the Minister for Transport, I would say the more letters he gets on his desk the more chance we have of getting the rules relaxed.

The reply to the CAA/NATS is underway as I need to get the numbers clear in my head as to what these restrictions are likely to cost my business

mad_jock

14th May 2011, 22:59

The problem is that the primary radar coverage of the UK is particularly pants.

They have a whole heap of problems with a thing called mosaque which is the level which they swap over feeds from one radar head from the other. And there are huge areas that they can't get much at all.

And there isn't a mil topcover option anymore after they scrapped a certain airframe type.

So basically I can understand why the want things to have a transponder because otherwise they can't see alot of traffic.

TC_LTN

15th May 2011, 05:56

mad_jock

15th May 2011, 08:25

Fair enough you have more info than I do.

My only experence of this is having an airprox while under an old RAS and the traffic was never seen on radar because that mosaque thing. Well that was one of the factors along with microlights not giving a very strong return linked with them not going very fast causing the software to not to paint them on the controllers screen.

But by your handle alone I bow to your knowledge and conced I was talking bollocks as it is obviously your area. :ok:

AnglianAV8R

15th May 2011, 11:16

Mad Jock, I also mourn the slaughter of a certain aircraft type. However, if by top cover you mean the ability to have a comprehensive radar picture form the air, The E3 AWACS is still with us and very active at present. The capabilities of that aircraft are quite simply staggering. I reckon they could even verify that you pick your nose as you proceed thru the restricted zone ;)

Whether this restrictions nonsense serves any practical purpose is another matter :mad: Osama may well be departed but he's got some of us frightened of our own shadows. :ugh:

soaringhigh650

18th May 2011, 10:08

That shows a remarkable lack of understanding of the situation. I know a significant number of pilots who are prepared to fit a transponder, but the regulations will not let them...

Another example is the max empty weight rule. Many “new generation” micros are very close to this limit – 1lb being common... Well over 1000 micros cannot fit the device legally because of this rule.

Thanks for explaining - rest assured that I'm not talking about those hampered by regulatory issues. I'm talking about the other group...

As for radios, I take it you think any fool can take a hh radio up and just use it? ... I could get the radio to work at the cost of a misfire, or the engine to work but blanket the radio. I never solved the issue.

So your aircraft needs sorting out. Does your aircraft engine misfire when it flies near a ground transmitter or when you fly near other aircraft making radio transmissions? This sounds really dodgy...

NigelOnDraft

18th May 2011, 12:52

every flight had to have a flight plan and we had to fly to the training area to conduct training and notify they return time.

Why is there always so much doom and gloom from pilots? Did that Flt Plan have to be submitted 2+ hours before? How often was it refused and you were just grounded, maybe for days?

This is a principal concern - the way the rules have been written, traffic levels can easily be restricted to some random / near zero level.

NoD

mikehallam

25th May 2011, 17:49

Copied From the Flyer Forum------Glum pointers from Dawn Lindsey who was our NATS mediator with DfT.

"Monday 23rd May.
The Department of Transport and the CAA at the recent EBACE exhibition in Geneva, provided further insight into arrangements for the 2012 Olympics (writes Rod Simpson). FLYER was able to pose a number of questions to representatives Phil Dykins (Department of Transport) and Dawn Lindsey (Head of CAA Olympic Airspace Planning) and they said their objective was to cause as little disruption as possible to existing airspace users........
...................More Guff,................. then :-
It seems certain that the restrictions will be burdensome and will prevent much private VFR flying for the two-month period. Pressure is being brought by many flying organisations but it appears that all the other pressures on the system make it unlikely that there will be much relaxation of the proposals."

Has anyone yet got any feed-back on any concessions at all, for non txpdr a/c pls ?

mikehallam

SandL

2nd Jun 2011, 00:52

just a thought
I feel sure that security would be much better if a "dry run" is inisiated maybe a date should be chosen ... a nice good weather week end this summer... then we all fly as if the restrictions were in place... choke points would appear, Radar would become cluttered and controllers would become over swamped and the flight planning system would crash. maybe the RAF could join in on this excersize and "painball" a few stray GA aircraft. maybe, just maybe, this would create a rethink as long as they don't ground us all, we must remember that some security guys ass is on the line and that's the only reason it's happening, ... it's nothing to do with security it's all about protecting the security guys jobs... imagine if , if ... if a GA aircraft "landed" on an olympic event and there was no airspace restriction in place... who would be at fault? the government?, GA? or some poor security "fall guy" sitting behind a desk?. if no flying then that's 1 threat removed, no one died following a GA security breach ... job done, pension paid.
if you never fly, you never crash ! no GA flights, no security problem from the air problem solved .... pension paid so anyone fancy a dry run ?

bad bear

2nd Jun 2011, 05:44

The way bad bear sees it there are 2 main risks;

1 An exec jet could use an airliner for cover and follow it down the approach before breaking off from a 10 mile final for Heathrow and be on the main village before anyone could do any thing about it. There are two things that could minimise this risk, firstly have all exec jets land at a NATO base for search and crew check before being allowed to continue to the security zone. Secondly make sure that no biz jets are allowed within 60 miles of the stadium.
2 the Exec jets and their VIP passengers could be a target from ground bases missiles as the proposal forces the jets down to low level for a very long time rather than keeping them high and safe.

As I say bad bear knows nothing but would guess that any bad guys would see the existing proposals and laugh their legs off. There is nothing to stop bad guys coming from a country that supports terrorism with an exec jet and have the British ATC vector them to within a few miles of target before aiming for the village from close range.
Just get rid of the exec jets and let the airlines have some club class passengers and much of this will go away.

SandL

2nd Jun 2011, 12:29

Just thinking about the practicalities.... if NATS/ CAA are responsible for air space and security are trying to save lives by preventing terrorism, then with the restrictions in place choke points are created, so more chance of a midair collision which could result in loss of life, atc will only offer a basic service who then is responsible for the midair /, the PIC for look out, but could it then be argued in court that if the choke point were not there would the accident have happened. Will we see an increase in midair collisions operated by spamcan pilots with head in the office transfixed on a GPS for fear of deviating from the permissable airspace for fear of being "shot down" or fined. I just think there is a safety issue in these restrictions and I'm not sure a midair could solely be put down to PIC look out. if not then maybe the "lifesaving" security organisation will have to pick up the tab and explain themselves to the families. Are olympic spectators lives more valuable than those crash on in a village hall 30miles away ?

englishal

2nd Jun 2011, 14:39

There is also going to be a big restricted area centred on Portland for the sailing events. Why is that no depicted anywhere as this will have serious implications to SW pilots.

M609

2nd Jun 2011, 14:56

There is a lot of the "...they can just do that and turn for the stadium..." og "...the bad guys can just do that..."

Sure, most of them are true, but it's all about creating a more known enviroment for the air defense people in the area around the prohibited zone. That makes id'ing bad guys easier, and gives the asset they want to use to bring it down more lead time. (Don't get too hung up on fighters on CAP or ground QRA)

Having worked in airspace with similar restrictions when we gave Obana the Nobel prize (shameful, I know....), and just commenting on stuff that the mil boys allready fronted in the media at time: They don't need much time from a unknown breaching the zone, to having sensor on target that CAN id it, and then bring it down.

I'm quite sure the UK MOD will have similar systems available to them if deemed prudent.

Actually given the infringement stats in the UK, having a big buffer zone round the prohibited zone is probably a good idea! (Less pilots will get to see various RAF platforms close up ;) )

gasax

2nd Jun 2011, 15:40

OK M609

Our very clever military can identify a 'rogue' aircraft within a couple of miles. So they could decide to bring it down with a CAP or with 'ground assets'.

The end result is very much in the same ballpark as crashing the aircraft into a stadium. With any level of control it would be aimed at an area of population density.

And then we would see how the 'clever military' - and their political masters - dealt with the fallout of downing an aircraft because it was in the wrong place...................

Like virtually everything about security this is a window dressing exercise, meant to make people think there is something of substance behind it. It does not take much thinking to realise there are more holes than the average lace curtain.

toptobottom

2nd Jun 2011, 23:05

"Less pilots"?! Didn't you mean "Fewer pilots"?

M609

2nd Jun 2011, 23:34

*cough* Yes, sorry!

PompeyPaul

3rd Jun 2011, 02:12

By stripping us of our liberty the bad guys have already won.

As a side note, it's a shame that Fairoaks is just in the no fly zone, by about 2 miles.

Fitter2

3rd Jun 2011, 07:09

In an attept to insert sanity into the 'consultation' the BGA has sent this

http://tinyurl.com/5tb7dkp

and in an attempt to make things even worse, Oxford Airport propose this:

http://tinyurl.com/66y2vlb

We could all admit the terrorists have won in their attack on (sensible) liberrtarian values and emigrate. But where to?

'Chuffer' Dandridge

11th Jun 2011, 09:32

Just in case you wondered where the priorities lie in the world of Aviation,

Order of the British Empire

Philip ROBERTS, Assistant Director, Airspace Policy, Civil Aviation Authority. For services to the Airline Industry.

From the Queen's Birthday Honours list

sycamore

11th Jun 2011, 21:04

Anybody know him ? is he an Air Trafficker?.is he a Pilot..What is his background ?

A and C

12th Jun 2011, 06:34

I don't see this guys OBE as any sort of issue when it comes to the Olympic airspace restrictions as these are all being cooked up by the Home Office.

At the moment the only way to get anything changed is to get someone who the Home Office know and trust to push the case for GA.

This is what a group of GA stake holders are doing, Lord Stevens is heading up the efforts to ease the restrictions and I would urge all of you to write to your MP's asking them to ask the Minister to meet with Lord Stevens and take his advice as he has a well informed views from both a security and GA standpoint.

So in the time it takes for you to reply to this post you can get on to TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament? Hansard++ (http://www.theyworkforyou.com) and dash off a short letter to your MP to put pressure on the Minister for Transport to meet with Lord Stevens and get some balanced advice.

'Chuffer' Dandridge

12th Jun 2011, 10:10

I wrote to my MP, a decent sort of bloke, when this lunacy was released to the public. He copied me the reply letter he had received last week from James Brockenshire MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Crime And Security.

Despite the padded out 2 pages, my own take on that letter is there's absolutely no chance of anything being changed. The 'security' keyword was mentioned several times, as were public safety, threat, all in the public interest, bla bla.... The fact that several businesses at my home airfield will go belly up doesn't appear to be an issue to them.

The terrorists have indeed won, despite what HM Government would like you to believe..

Hang on, there's a black Vauxhall Omega just pulling up outside:E

A and C

12th Jun 2011, 11:38

I think that the people who put this thing together had no idea of the full effects that it would have on the GA industry and have been surprized at the level of objection that has been receved from the GA sector. For the first time that I can remember AOPA, LAA, BGA and others have been united in responce to the airspace restrictions.

The tone of the letter from the Transport minister was one of further talks with GA stake holders and more local arangments. I take this to indicate that airfields will get entry & exit routes that will not be subject to the full restrictions if we push the issue a little harder.

Having got the Transport Minister to think for a second time on the issue we cant afford to not send in the best man for the job, Lord Stevens has held high profile security jobs (including head of the Met Police) so another letter to your MP asking that Lord Stevens should meet with the Minister for Transport on the basis that he is the man best placed to give a balanced opinion on the subject would add further pressure for more talks.

mad_jock

12th Jun 2011, 11:56

I think they did know and they really don't care either.

The security services for quite a while have not liked the freedoms available to private pilots and the lack of control they have over them.

And to be honest although I don't like to say it, I can understand why.

ShyTorque

12th Jun 2011, 14:48

So would you like to see these freedoms removed forever? If one perceived threat is removed, another will take its place.

mad_jock

12th Jun 2011, 15:19

no I don't want them removed because if we do have them removed the terrorists have won.

IO540

12th Jun 2011, 15:36

Has anybody wondered why terrorists have not used light aircraft, despite the constantly touted "apparent effectiveness" and "apparent ease" etc etc etc of doing so?

flybymike

12th Jun 2011, 17:00

The security services for quite a while have not liked the freedoms available to private pilots and the lack of control they have over them.

And to be honest although I don't like to say it, I can understand why.

I wonder then whether they are even more concerned about the freedoms available to truck drivers.

mm_flynn

12th Jun 2011, 17:00

Has anybody wondered why terrorists have not used light aircraft, despite the constantly touted "apparent effectiveness" and "apparent ease" etc etc etc of doing so?

Because like the young American nutter, you look a plank dead with your C172 sticking out the side of a building and the only result of your effort is some broken windows and several office workers wearing their coffee after your aircraft's crunch woke them from their computers?

Possibly they should consider restricting the access to the Boris Bikes to prevent terrorists from using them ;)

mad_jock

12th Jun 2011, 18:37

I wonder then whether they are even more concerned about the freedoms available to truck drivers

Yep they are especially tankers.

A and C

13th Jun 2011, 11:48

A lot of hot air on this forum but who has writen to their MP to put a bit more pressure on ?

Your opinions on pprune may be valid but carry no weight when it comes to changing the airspace restrictions so why post here when the same amount of effort will get your opinion seen were in matters.

The more of you who take this democratic action the more pressure is put on, as far as I can see if you don't write to your MP on this issue you don't have the right to protest when you cant fly for two months.

robin

13th Jun 2011, 12:15

A & C

I hear what you say, but, to be honest, the responses I've had from my local MP have been next to useless.

They copy in a standard letter without comment and when you respond pointing out that the letter did not address the question, they get all huffy.

When I wrote on this subject, the response that came back was one of the most rude and insulting letters I have ever read, (except one or two from my ex-wife's solicitor). It went on and on about how playboys such as us can go somewhere else for the duration and that the world would be better if we were all grounded.

Some of you may have half-decent representatives, but this one is a complete numpty.

lotusexige

13th Jun 2011, 12:34

Care to name him (or her)?

A and C

13th Jun 2011, 14:12

If as you say you got a rude and insulting letter from your MP (mine has always been very polite) then I think is is probably an issue for the Parlimentry Standards.

I think that I would contact the They work for you website, these peope are very keen on keeping MP's in line and they could probably sent you in the correct direction to get some redress.

The bottom line is that your MP works for you and should be made to understand that fact. Perhaps a letter to your local paper pointing out your MP's stance and the lack of concern for the job losses of the woking class people who are employed to keep us playboys flying would be a good line to take.