Draconian 3 day airspace restriction

[nonrad]

It would appear that for THREE days, over 6-8 May, a large amount of airspace will have a 10nm dia RA(T). This is for a ONE-day medium sized air display at Abingdon, with seemingly no Red Arrows participation.

It comes from CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy, ‘Airspace Coordination Notice’ 2011-05-0003 dated 15/3/11

This is remarkable compared to many far larger airshows that do not have a RA(T) and certainly not for the 2 days before the event. Let’s be clear - this is not Farnborough or Fairford; this is a one day airshow much smaller than many others that would only have a RA(T) for the Red Arrows (and then only for about 50 minutes on the day).

Obviously a 3 hour airshow the size of Abingdon must have protection, but a ban on flying over a diameter of 10 nm & for 3 days and a total of 12.75 hours is disproportionate. In the last few days we have seen airspace departments that are detached from reality, have no concern for GA and need some sort of ombudsman to keep them in check.

This seems to be taking the proverbial; it follows on nicely from the attitude we have seen from the Olympic airspace restrictions. This needs to be watched as it may be the start of a new era for GA.

[J.A.F.O.]

Do you really have a pressing need to be within 10 nm of Abingdon during those 12.75 hours?

Is it that big a deal?

Would it have ever got to this if airshow organisers hadn't had years of numpties busting their airspace?

You get what you deserve in this life and, I think, GA is the same.

[Torque Tonight]

This sort of restriction is actually far more sensible than the Olymics restrictions. I haven't looked at the lineup for Abingdon, but presume there will be fast jets displaying, which take up a lot of space, particularly formations. Segregating the airspace is not a bad idea, for all parties. This sort of thing I cannot argue against; the Olypmic restrictions on the other hand.....:ugh:

[proudprivate]

:hmm:

Sometimes people get things noone deserves :
- A 9-Richter earthquake
- Alzheimer
- EASA

[nonrad]

This is a one day airshow and it is relatively small compared to others that have much less restricted airspace.

No fast jet formation teams are listed on the website or the ACN.

Why 3 days with a RA(T)?

[Malcom]

If you look at the show website, the reason is obvious.

They've only gone and invited the Daleks! Did you see the chaos they created a couple of Christmas specials ago? Just asking for trouble, hence the need for the RA(T)!

[Daysleeper]

Do you really have a pressing need to be within 10 nm of Abingdon during those 12.75 hours?


Caveat I haven't read the ACN... however,

A RA(T) of 5 mile radius from Abingdon closes the Brize-Benson "gap" which can be one of the busiest pieces of GA airspace in the UK.

[J.A.F.O.]

which can be one of the busiest pieces of GA airspace in the UK

Not for those 12.75 hours it can't.

[TC_LTN]

I am sure that you could always ask for access to the RA(T) and if it is not supporting display activity at that given point then access would be granted by the organiser. Or that is at least how it should work.

[WorkingHard]

I do feel that those shooting down NONRAD are missing the point being made. Just because someone can apply for and have an RA(T) granted does not mean it is reasonable or acceptable. There appears to be no way of challenging such matters, especially when it is the military setting the scene. J.A.F.O. your comments are at best somewhat idiotic for those who may have a requirement to be near to Abingdon at that time and as for the "get what you deserve comment" it is frankly insulting. Because a few non professional pilots make an error from time to time it does not follow that all GA pilots are in the same category. Are all CAT pilots the same because the odd one busts an assigned level? Are all military pilots idiots because a few continue to bust ATZ (and Controlled Airspace for that matter). Remember the last two categories are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL pilots and they get it wrong occasionally.

[Danscowpie]

They've only gone and invited the Daleks!

So, if the Arrows aren't displaying, the RA must be for the Daleks climbing up the stairs?

You understand that this is for display purposes only because it wouldn't happen in real life would it? It wouldn't would it????????????:confused::{

[J.A.F.O.]

WorkingHard

Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone here had busted displays or that anyone here deserved it as an individual; it just seems to me that the reasoning behind the extended buffer zone may stem from the actions of a few in the past.

I honestly can't see it presenting a problem though, there'll be a controlling authority for the airspace, if you have a dire need to be within 5nm of Abingdon during the few hours of display practices on the previous two days then ask and, if it's not needed for safety, then I'm sure they'll sort something out.

They wouldn't have asked for the RA(T) if they didn't feel they needed it.

It's a few hours on a couple of days to protect those practicing and then a bit longer on the day itself. I don't get why it's a big deal.

[astir 8]

JAFO

I refer you to the AAIB report (Formal Report 5/2010 published September 2010) on the Tutor/glider midair near Didcot in June 2009 which included a chart of the traffic density near Abingdon on that day. The Brize/Benson gap is one of the busiest pieces of Class G in the country. And it appears that the said gap is being closed for 3 days.

This is serious for GA. As commented, it appears possible for the system to impose this RAT without the slightest comeback for all the other airspace users affected. Democracy in action??? :=:=:=

[chevvron]

Nonrad: I don't see your problem. I spent a lot of time at Farnborough explaining to people that RA(T) is NOT prohibited airpsace and that one of the conditions of granting it is that other pilots should have access provided they make 2 way contact and obey ATC instructions. Even glider pilots operating from Lasham and Parham were happy with this. Treat it like Class D airspace and you won't go far wrong.

[J.A.F.O.]

chevvron - That's what I was trying to say, I don't see why it's a problem.

Astir

I refer you to the AAIB report (Formal Report 5/2010 published September 2010) on the Tutor/glider midair near Didcot in June 2009 which included a chart of the traffic density near Abingdon on that day. The Brize/Benson gap is one of the busiest pieces of Class G in the country.

Which is precisely why you'd want a bit of protection if you were wanging round on display practice.

And it appears that the said gap is being closed for 3 days.

No, it isn't. It has some restrictions for a few hours on those days.

[astir 8]

JAFO

I think you're missing the point. Some nameless bureaucrat has issued a restriction on the free use of a very heavily piece of airspace without the slightest consultation of those who will be inconvenienced.


We are supposed to live in a democracy where the bureaucrats work for all of us, not just the organisers of some airshow. Doh!

[soaringhigh650]

It does beg the question of why temporary controlled airspace wasn't issued instead.

Maybe it's easier and safer to get a clearance from Brize and fly through their area.

[chevvron]

Temporary Controlled Airspace (CAS{T}) will be airspace under which the rules for entry are ICAO standard, whereas in Temporary Restricted Airspace (RA{T}) the rules are whatever (within reason) the sponsors or controlling authority decide.

[nonrad]

I am very, very pro airshows, but taking the p with a RA(T) does them harm, that is my big worry. The RA(T) on the day is understandable, but not the additional days.

Someone has been unprofessional in requesting this extra restriction and it should be addressed; there should be a better check in the allocating system to stop any abuse. Having what is absolutely necessary is fine, but what has been obtained is excessive and is unfair on other users.

It is a smallish ONE day airshow with about 15 displays, if this airspace had to be paid for I think they would have managed without the extra 2 practice days. I do hope Brize have extra staff on duty to cope with all the radio calls and there are no ‘standby and remain clear’ replies. Hopefully Abingdon would be pleased to pay for the workload on the 2 extra days. I also feel sorry for the non-radio pilots in the area

The Olympics’ airspace is for 8 weeks instead of 4; here we see ‘our own’ doing the same. Shooting and foot spring to mind.

[ShyTorque]

If anyone has been affected by issues in this thread..... why not get your own back, by claiming to fly kites all day every day, anywhere within three nm of your house, up to cloudbase level and getting that in the permanent NOTAMs?

:E

[Jim59]

It comes from CAA Directorate of Airspace Policy, ‘Airspace Coordination Notice’ 2011-05-0003 dated 15/3/11




Can someone give me a clue as to where to find this please - including a URL. I've tried searching - including the CAA's site.

[J.A.F.O.]

Astir I think you're missing the point I wasn't missing the point, just trying to let you know that you didn't have a valid one, sorry it took so long.

[astir 8]

JAFO

Sorry, but I still feel very strongly that the imposition of a RAT covering a very heavily used choke point piece of class G airspace without any form of consultation is an abuse of authority. And it will adversely affect non radio aircraft wanting to transit north -south through the Brize -Benson gap.

You don't share that view but that's up to you. Have a nice day. Out

[biscuit74]

This does seem to be a somewhat pointlessly excessive measure, imposed arbitrarily without any clear justification provided - and apparently without any such justification being required within the system.
Of itself, not necessarily worth making a huge fuss about, but when you then look at the utter nonsense being proposed around next years' Olympics, you see a dubious trend.

Never mind what the true duration is, let's add an arbitarary length of time either side, because we can. Typical bureaucrat thinking.
Andf if that is not kicked back against, HARD, it recurs and expands.


As for JAFO and others views about it being simply a mild form of controlled airspace to which we can still get access if we ask for permission (and if we have the requisite kit) - take care. This is the thin end of the wedge. Why should we?
It should be for 'the authorities' to justify their need for a restriction, not for us to have to seek permission and justify our flying plans.

This incidentally, conforms to what I was taught a long time ago as a basic part of how good leadership operates.
If you explain clearly WHY something is being done, then you are much more likely to get people working with you, through knowledge & understanding. All too often failure to explain is because no clear reasons exist. The 'because I say so' weak argument used all too often by parents!

If this type of, rather peculiarly British, obssession with control is not pushed back, all flying may soon require explicit permission to take place.

[soaringhigh650]

And it will adversely affect non radio aircraft wanting to transit north -south through the Brize -Benson gap.

I would consider buying a handheld radio then. They've come down a lot in price these days.

This is the thin end of the wedge. Why should we?
It should be for 'the authorities' to justify their need for a restriction, not for us to have to seek permission and justify our flying plans.

There is a group that considers airspace change proposals where representatives from airspace users groups are given a say in things before they are implemented. Restrictions don't just pop up left right and center. If you are not happy I would suggest writing to your representative group instead. Most likely they would already be seeing assurances for access.

Sometimes I get wound up when the non-radio, non-transponding, "maximize every chunk of uncontrolled airspace", VFR-only pilots, who just want to fly everywhere whenever they want, however they want, at the complete disregard for the safety of all airspace users, which includes themselves, in an increasingly crowded sky.

[chevvron]

To get this airspace approved, the organiser of the air show would have had to put a VERY robust case to DAP. If DAP did not accept that airspace restrictions were necessary for the safety of ALL air traffic, they would not have authorised the restriction and put it before parliament. Even then the parliamentary committee dealing with this could still throw it out, but they haven't, so it's been promulgated.
Live with it, and learn to use your radio to ask permission to transit, after all there'll be plenty of daylight in May, so you could always fly through outside the hours of activity.

[BillieBob]

This does seem to be a somewhat pointlessly excessive measureI entirely agree! We are, of course referring to the quite ludicrous posts of nonrad, et al, aren't we?.

The statement "It would appear that for THREE days, over 6-8 May, a large amount of airspace will have a 10nm dia RA(T).", apart from being ungrammatical, is clearly a lie (Lie: A false statement deliberately presented as being true). Nowhere does it 'appear' that the RA(T) will be in place "for THREE days", it will be in place for only a few hours on each of three days to protect aircraft involved in two display rehearsals and one display. The airspace is not closed but its use is restricted and is entirely in the interests of flight safety, which is more than can be said for some of the self-seeking opinions in this thread.

Incidentally, those that raise the spectre that "all flying may soon require explicit permission to take place." might be well advised to examine carefully the published plans of EASA (Part-OPS) and Eurocontrol (Standardised European Rules of the Air). In reference to the latter, the BHPA have stated "It would appear that Eurocontrol only exists to meet the needs of the Commercial Air Transport industry". Perhaps less hyperbole over inconsequential airspace restrictions and more attention to the bigger picture would be more effective in protecting all of our interests.

[Neil Porter]

I'd like to point out we put out an RA(T) over the show weekend as we weren't sure of the amount of practices to be held on the Friday, or Saturday for those few hours the RA(T) were to be in force, obviously Sunday was a must for the actual displays.

The reason was we have had some 'strays' as we call them wander into the Zone in the past, two particulary come to mind when the RNLAF F16 was approaching to start its practice & the Hawk had to abandon its practice and 'shoe off' the offender last year before restarting.
I have nothing against all flyers but i do wish some would read the NOTAMS etc beforehand or answer their radios!.

In my eyes as the Org, i would never forgive myself IF something should happen. I'd rather see some form of safety implied for the periods we have the Practices / Displays going - at least with the RA(T) theres a better safety window.
We worked very closely this year with Brize who were excellent throughout.

And if your unaware, we rescinded the Friday RA(T) as all the practices were on the Saturday... so there was no reason to enforce in the end the RA(T).

Thanks

[astir 8]

Neil

So are the RATS on 3 days likely to be annual from now on?

[Neil Porter]

Almost certainly for a couple of hours on the Saturday for rehearsals & for the main display on showday yes but the minimum we require - Friday is not required as previously thought. Same dimensions ie: 5nm radius / up to 7000ft amsl. Previously there were just NOTAMS ie 3nm radius up to 7000ft amsl but especially after the two incidents mentioned it was felt by all to put the RA(T) in place as fast movers and light GA don't mix :(

Again we will consult with Brize who help us no end.