Farnborough Airspace Proposal

[Blink182]

Farnborough's proposal for a chunk of airspace so that the rich and famous can arrive and depart in controlled airspace has been published here.....

TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation (http://www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com/)

[The500man]

More Class D in that already cramped area is just what we needed. On the plus side it will spare some jet pilots from having to look up slightly when arriving/departing Farnborough.

[Romeo Tango]

It would be less annoying if one could actually use Farnborough in anything smaller than a bizjet.

[ics]

One of the justifications is environmental - that it would avoid slight increases in flight time/distance whilst navigating around traffic, and therefore reduce CO2.

How about not flying small numbers of people in jets in the first place? :)

[ShyTorque]

One of the justifications is environmental - that it would avoid slight increases in flight time/distance whilst navigating around traffic, and therefore reduce CO2.

Surely, the introduction of CAS in that particular choke point would simply mean holding outside for any number of "non Farnborough" transit aircraft, which would largely offset any perceived gain for business aircraft. It's bad enough trying to get through Southampton's airspace, let alone this proposal.

[Piper.Classique]

I hate even thinking about the impact on the largest gliding club in the UK, between Farnborough and Southampton. As a safety improvement I would give this proposal, on a scale of 1 to 10, minus 10.

[The500man]

The environmental benefits kept being mentioned in the proposal but they make it clear they would actually use longer routings to avoid overflying noise sensitive areas. They make a big deal about noise over the environment which could simply be because if the locals complain that'll be their lot!

The gliding community need not worry, they will still be ALLOWED to fly on a "limited" number of days!

[1.3VStall]

All of us must oppose this most draconian attempt to muscle in on UK airspace - the biggest attempted grab in decades. The potential effect on GA and gliding in the south of England is horrendous.

The LAA/BGA/BMAA et al will be coordinating an appropriate response; please monitor one, or all, of their websites and, when the time is right, but in your three penn'orth.

No-one else is going to fight this on our behalf, so it is vital we all get involved.

[mad_jock]

Well after the Norwich grab I suspect its going to happen what ever people say or campaign against.

The person that decides these things stated that he has to approve anything that increases safety and controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled.

[Marchettiman]

I can just about understand when controlled airspace replaces Class G for the protection of commercial Air Transport (CAT) movements but Farnborough doesn't have any. So if their plans are approved by the CAA this would be a ground-breaking and very unwelcome development in airspace management.
I would ask whether one class of private aircraft user (i.e wealthy Russians, Middle East potentates who like to come to London for their shopping and to escape the heat of the desert, international company CEO's, and bankers) should have more "protection" in their flashy aeroplanes than we mortals who are lower down the aeronautical food chain?
Farnborough is the birth place of British aviation and we have already been denied access to an airfield that was originally paid for and developed by the British taxpayer in the interest of it's current operator's profit. To then deny us free access to large chunks of valuable airspace would be morally indefensible yet alone illogical.

[flybymike]

mad_jock

The person that decides these things stated that he has to approve anything that increases safety and controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled.

I wonder what the logical conclusion of that argument might be.

[Blink182]

The person that decides these things stated that he has to approve anything that increases safety and controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled

And what about the effect on the surrounding airspace...Increased traffic squeezed into choke points and "Mig Alleys"

Will that be safer because of this proposal ?

Makiing one area " safer " to the detriment of surrounding areas does not make any sense

[mad_jock]

I did wonder myself flybymike.

Marchettiman alot of those aircraft are AOC aircraft and are counted as CAT.

As far as I can see they are mainly trying to sort out the G5's etc coming in from the North. Which from personal experience can be pretty hairy on a good wx day in a crappy TP doing 160-240knts clean.

The actual SFC up area is relatively small and I think they have set it up to stop people going round the corner of the TMA not speaking to anyone. Is this a known infringement point trying to get past the TMA and the airport?

The other bits are feeding into the airways system which can also be a huge pain in the bum if you get a remain outside instruction.

It could have been a hellva lot worse to be honest.

I suspect they will get it as well. And to be honest I can see more of an argument requiring it than either Doncaster or Norwich.

If there is an argument that it will help with infringements to the TMA your pretty well stuffed.

To be honest now with this ATCOCAS pish you might as well be in class D at least the controller can let you visually separate yourself from traffic.

[chevvron]

TMA? Shirley you are referring to the Heathrow CTR, shortly to become class D airspace also.

[mad_jock]

Aye chevron

Never really flown VFR round there apart from a couple of dodgy positioning flights due to slots.

Is there much infringements around that corner?

I should imagine that arrivals get quite close to it low enough to start bums twitching if someone is shaving the corner.

Although there boundarys as usual are almost set up to screw VFR flyers up.

Why couldn't hey make the line along the A3100 and A283 to the east and a line Weybridge Bracknell reading to the north.

[soaringhigh650]

So if their plans are approved by the CAA this would be a ground-breaking and very unwelcome development in airspace management.

Nothing groundbreaking. In the USA, airports with enough IFR movements qualify for an upgrade in their airspace.

[Romeo Tango]

Nothing groundbreaking. In the USA, airports with enough IFR movements qualify for an upgrade in their airspace.

Yes but in USA one can almost always get clearance through said airspace. Not always the case in these parts.

[abgd]

I used to transit the atz fairly often and generally found them helpful. But also had a radio failure over Guildford trying to get to Blackbushe... Aircraft with no transponder. Eventually sorted it but more airspace could have made doing something sensible close to dusk trickier.

[abgd]

I suppose the corollary should be that airports with insufficient ifr movements get a downgrade?

[Romeo Tango]

Farnborough have been nice to me in the past but we don't want to depend on them being reasonable for ever more.

There are other zones who are rather less helpful.

[Bob Upanddown]

The times I have used Farnborough, they have sometimes be protective of "their" even though they didn't really own it. I have been turned but then just left to my own navigation. If they get to own the airspace, I can see VFR transits being more difficult than from Solent. This is going to cause mid-air collisions by forcing VFR traffic into ever smaller rat-runs or choke-points. Maybe someone should count the number of infant schools, puppy farms, hospitals, and the like under the choke-points and ask the question what will happen when two aircraft collide and land on a school full of children, then give that to the Daily Wail.

The document they present is factually incorrect. If you look at the figures for movements at Bournemouth, they must be counting only scheduled traffic, not the huge number of IFR movements due to private flights and training by the flying schools.

Now, if someone deliberately or otherwise gives incorrect information to gain advantage, then the application should be thrown out.

[NorthSouth]

Hmmm, ceding a big chunk of the Odiham ATZ (never mind the MATZ) to Class D, and putting SIDs and STARs straight through a HIRTA that extends to 10,500 feet? I can't see the MoD or the CAA agreeing to that.

[ShyTorque]

To be honest now with this ATCOCAS pish you might as well be in class D at least the controller can let you visually separate yourself from traffic.

Which is exactly the same situation as in Class G airspace....

What Farnborough are trying to get is the authority to hold/delay other traffic to give preference to their own movements.

[chevvron]

I blame it all on TCAS.
Farnborough are trying to create a 'known traffic' environment in order to avoid pilots and controllers having to fill out endless reports due to TCAS RAs. Every RA generated, all parties concerned have to fill in a report you see, whereas prior to TCAS, the controller gave traffic information or avoiding action and everybody was happy.
Although TCAS has its uses in class G, it's very annoying (and potentially dangerous) when you pass details of a non transponder aircraft to an aircraft with TCAS, then the aircraft with TCAS gets an RA from other traffic and climbs or descends straight at the non-squawker!!

[ShyTorque]

Thankfully our TCAS doesn't give RA's. I look at it and decide what action to take so no reports need generating.

The annoying thing is GA pilots who have a transponder equipped aircraft but choose to use it on Mode A only, not C. Some say: "But that's what my (200 hour TT) instructor told me to do...!"

[The500man]

The annoying thing is GA pilots who have a transponder equipped aircraft but choose to use it on Mode A only, not C. Some say: "But that's what my (200 hour TT) instructor told me to do...!"

Reminds me of all the school aircraft I've flown with mode a/c and "NO ALT DATA" placards!

There are also those of us that leave the transponder off entirely.. and for good reason. Somehow we're still alive. ;)

[Mach Jump]

There are also those of us that leave the transponder off entirely.. and for good reason. Somehow we're still alive.

Why would anyone deliberately fly with a serviceable transponder switched off?

MJ :confused:

[hoodie]

There are also those of us that leave the transponder off entirely.. and for good reason. Somehow we're still alive. ;)

I've heard this said a couple of times, but never really understood what the good reason is. What have I missed?

[The500man]

When not flying predominantly straight and level. Think of the poor controller trying to pass traffic information to other aircraft.

The idea some have that if they are not in receipt of a radio service and using a transponder that they will have a collision is slightly ridiculous.

Class G isn't a known traffic environment and for GA's sake let's hope it stays that way.

[Mach Jump]

When not flying predominantly straight and level. Think of the poor controller trying to pass traffic information to other aircraft.

That's very considerate of you 500man! :ugh::(

MJ

[hoodie]

That's not a good reason!

[Mach Jump]

Think it through guys.

I have thought it through, and I'd rather know that someone is manoeuvring near me than not at all.

What kind of flying activity are you involved in that you don't want anyone to see?:suspect:

MJ

[hoodie]

Quite so. What's it to you/us anyway? Squawking is not just for a "known traffic environment".

Let the radar jockeys do what they're paid for - they can always ignore you when they see you are manoeuvring, or outside their area of interest - but they might still want to factor your presence into their decision making - and why not?

Also, the PowerFLARM and TCAS users can be alerted to you if necessary, which is a bonus to you as well as to them as you say. Even the best lookout might not be sufficient, as quite a few people have unfortunately found out over the years.

As a civil operator then if you have a xpdr I can see no good reason not to use it to its fullest extent. Stack the decks in everybody's favour.

[LAI]

Couldn't agree more. Furthermore, if you're "constant changing of direction" etc. involves aerobatics, why not squawk 7004. Then at least every radar controller around will KNOW what you're doing and provide appropriate separation/traffic info to those who do choose to use a service.

Makes everyone's life easier, including yours. Better than just being called as another primary only contact that I suspect many will just chuck out another "roger" for and carry on along their merry way in your vicinity... :uhoh:

[ShyTorque]

The500man,

Good grief! That is one of the most naive, if not stupid, posts I've read in my 18 years on PPRuNe, and in almost 40 years of professional aviation. You obviously have no real idea of how TCAS is used, or what it does and you show ignorance of how ATC and more knowledgeable pilots operate in Class G airspace.

TCAS is used as part of a normal lookout scan; it takes a split second to look down at the screen, which is why it's situated at the top of the instrument panel. There is also an audio warning system which alerts the crew about aircraft getting threateningly close. The equipment enables me to see transponding aircraft over ten miles away. If I see an aircraft on TCAS, I assume the pilot hasn't yet seen me (he/she/you won't have at ten miles), and will take avoiding action much earlier than is possible when constrained by the limitations of the human eye.

Judging by the lack of adherence to the rules of the air by many light aircraft pilots we see (they don't see us), I know it's an invaluable piece of equipment. It helps provide an extra level of safety to all parties involved, not just ourselves.

Obviously, if you insist on not using your transponder, in your ignorance, belligerence, or whatever, you deny yourself and your fellow occupants that extra margin of safety that is there for the taking.

[flybymike]

I think that part of the "anti Xpdr" problem is a result of the CAA using a squawk to identify and prosecute the pilot who bust the Red Arrows RAT in 2003' whilst the other four non transponding aircraft all got away unidentified and unprosecuted. A definite shot in the foot for the CAA.
Mode S with specific aircraft ID exacerbates this problem.

[Jim59]

Farnborough have been nice to me in the past but we don't want to depend on them being reasonable for ever more.They may not be able to be nice to you in the future. On 4th December this year the UK will be putting into force the Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA). One of the provisions relates to the need for a pilot to be at least 1,000 feet vertically distant from cloud for a visual clearance through controlled airspace and with a greater flight visibilty than now. The CAA's assessment of this change is:
Except for Special VFR in Control Zones (CTRs), scope for reduced flight visibility of less than 5 km below 3000 ft in the VMC minima at SERA.5001 is limited to Classes F and G airspace. This will result in the removal of the current Rule 27 and associated UK Difference to ICAO Annex 28, resulting in more restrictive operating conditions to that which currently exist in the UK FIRs. It is acknowledged that this may lead to pilots opting to route around affected Control Areas (CTAs) in deteriorating weather rather than seek clearances through the affected airspace. Alternatively it may compel pilots to request Special VFR (SVFR) or IFR clearance through CTRs with consequential impact on air traffic control workload. Both may lead to an increase in demand for air traffic services for which service providers may not always have the capacity to meet.
4.6.2 It is additionally recognised that prevailing traffic conditions within a CTR or CTA may be such that clearances to cross a particular airspace when most needed (i.e. in adverse or deteriorating weather conditions) may not be forthcoming. All may in turn contribute to the creation of bottlenecks in or around particular airspaces that lead to increases in the possibility of airborne conflict.

The change in VFR minima from current UK to the SERA standards are acknowledged to potentially lead to more pilots needing to reroute, or obtain a SVFR or IFR clearance in deteriorating weather. However, the CAA is of the view that, from an ATC perspective, the SERA procedures are simpler and ensure that VFR flight in CTR is conducted in meteorological conditions that ensure pilots are able to comply with their collision avoidance responsibilities in airspace within which ATC do not separate VFR flights from IFR flights.

The CAA is about to publish details of the changes plus an education programme.

(P.S. at the same time they introduce the semicircular rule to replace the quadrantal rule below FL195.)

[flybymike]

Does this mean that the 10k vis requirement for SVFR will be scrapped?

[Jim59]

Does this mean that the 10k vis requirement for SVFR will be scrapped?

Current rule
SERA.5010 Special VFR in control zones
Special VFR flights may be authorised to operate within a control zone, subject to an ATC clearance. Except when permitted by the competent authority for helicopters in special cases such as medical flights, search and rescue operations and fire-fighting, the following additional conditions shall be applied:
(a) by the pilot:
(1) clear of cloud and with the surface in sight;
(2) the flight visibility is not less than 1 500 m or, for helicopters, not less than 800 m;
(3) at speed of 140 kts IAS or less to give adequate opportunity to observe other traffic and any obstacles in time to avoid a collision; and
(b) by ATC:
(1) during day only, unless otherwise permitted by the competent authority;
(2) the ground visibility is not less than 1 500 m or, for helicopters, not less than 800 m;
(3) the ceiling is not less than 180 m (600 ft).

Proposed change to above (NPA 2014-05) deletes text in red.
SERA.5010 Special VFR in control zones
Special VFR flights may be authorised to operate within a control zone, subject to an ATC clearance. Except when permitted by the competent authority for helicopters in special cases such as medical flights, search and rescue operations and fire-fighting, The following additional conditions shall be applied: ...

[soaringhigh650]

500man, now you are being foolish.

A transponder with ALT reporting help others from colliding into you as it alerts both aircraft traffic alert systems and ATC systems.

Switch it off if you so please but don't run back to us if someone rams up your rear.

:ugh:

[b1obthebuilder]

Below is a copy of a letter I wrote to Boris. Prompted by the latest proposals of Farnborough to make better use of 'their' airspace.

I'd be interest to hear the thought of Private flyers. Also encourage you to stand up for your airspace.




-------------------------------------
Dear Sir

I am writing to regarding the future issues that are arising out of the need for more airport capacity in the South East of England.

I am prompted to write to you after reading a proposal for the future expansion of controlled airspace proposed by the operators of Farnborough Airport.
The operators of Farnborough understandibly wish to have more airspace under their control for their convenience. However this will be at the expense of every other general aviation activity. More importantly is the issue of air safety which will be severely compromised due to the funnel effect of general aviation having to pass through narrow corridors around the proposed airspace grab. This is already a chronic problem.

I would like to offer a solution which I believe be beneficial for everybody - Commercial and private aviation, local communities and land based transport in the South East. The solution is to build a new airport to the East of London as has been already proposed although perhaps nearer to London. This would be for the use of large intercontinental and cargo aircraft.

Secondly I suggest the existing Heathrow airport to remain but be scaled back. Operations at Farnborough, Manston, London City and perhaps Luton or Stansted could be combined and operate out of Heathrow. This provides immediate improved space, facilities and ground based access for these operators and their customers.

This would be advantageous to everybody for the following reasons:

1. Airspace traffic control and its flight paths will be hugely simplified.

2. A large proportion of flights will be over the North Sea instead of overland. Particularly when large aircraft are at low altitude in the approach to landing. This alone would provide a multitude of benefits.

3. Aerodromes such as Farnborough and Manston can be scaled back and provide opportunities for housing or light industry. I.e local jobs for local people.

4. General aviation does not tend to use airspace in the North Sea. Therefore it will conflict far less with airline traffic if the East London proposal went ahead. Most importantly, the current controlled airspace taken by Heathrow, London City and Farnborough can be dramatically scaled back. This would eliminate all of the current bottlenecks and funneling of general aviation resulting in; improved safety, no delays requiring holding patterns to be flown, lowered pilot workload, far less noise for those on the ground.

Currently Heathrow is a 'joke' main national airport. This is due to the abysmal ground transport links. There are no fast main line rail links so those arriving by train have to get a bus from the nearest station, e.g Woking, and then spend too much time in the worlds biggest car park i.e the M25. There is not enough space to build the road access that is so badly needed, even before any future expansion.

Moving Heathow to the East of London would eliminate weekday traffic jams of several miles length on the M25. Should an airport be built to the East of London then fast efficient rail and road networks are absolutely essential. The overall effect would be a huge benefit to everyone, the environment and the economy.

[chevvron]

Please say you're joking.

[flybymike]

We should be able to get all that lot up and running by the end of next week.

[ak7274]

Dartford Crossing wouldn't be a problem?
You have just got to be taking the mick.

[PA28181]

"This is due to the abysmal ground transport links. There are no fast main line rail links so those arriving by train"

London Underground, Heathrow Express

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Images/Content_images/LHR_Train_Map.gif

[chevvron]

He MUST be joking then.

[beerdrinker]

I have had a few thoughts about this and tried to simplify my objections.

This airspace grab really is quite huge and at low level involves grabbing a chunk of current Class G airspace and turning it in to Class D. TAG are claiming that this is for noise, ecological and Flight Safety reasons. They omit to mention that last June the MD of TAG Farnborough stated in an interview in Flight Magazine that having more control over the airspace would expedite the arrivals and departures for his clients.

It would appear that it OK for a light GA aircraft to waste time and fuel, but it is not OK for TAG's clients' fast, shiny bizjets to do so.

BD

[chevvron]

I've read that somewhere before beerdrinker!!

[2 sheds]

Some of the objectors might have more credibility if they refrained from referring to an airspace "grab". What is it that they do not understand about the operation of class D airspace and why does its establishment involve a waste of time and fuel?

2 s

[Mach Jump]

Some of the objectors might have more credibility if they refrained from referring to an airspace "grab". What is it that they do not understand about the operation of class D airspace and why does its establishment involve a waste of time and fuel?

I'm afraid their fears and objections are based on what has happened elsewhere. Far more CAS than necessary is 'grabbed', and then, despite assurances to the contrary, GA is excluded. They are then required to fly around the outside, thus wasting time, and fuel, and at the same time increasing risk of collision by funnelling them through the remaining narrow gaps. Once CAS is established, it can't be shifted, and the promised periodic reviews of it's operation almost never happen. :(


MJ:ok:

[The500man]

b1obthebuilder, I think Boris very much wanted a Thames Estuary airport but I think it has already been ruled out on economic grounds. If you're real objection is to a third runway at Heathrow then I think you would be better off investing in some good quality ear plugs! ;)

[chevvron]

Mach Jump, you are wrong. Southend had its controlled airspace reviewed by the CAA and disestablished, and Prestwick had its airspace reviewed and changed from class D to class E so it DOES happen.

[hoodie]

That addresses MJ's last sentence chevvron (but - cough - Doncaster, Norwich...). Do you have an opinion on the rest of his post?

[Mach Jump]

Southend had its controlled airspace reviewed by the CAA and disestablished...

Sorry, just remind me how many decades ago this was? :rolleyes:


MJ:ok:

[chevvron]

Not sure, but I think it was after airspace classifications came in. Prior to that it was called 'Special Rules' airspace. Blackpool lost its controlled airspace about the same time and that was about 1998ish.

[thing]

Have to say I've never understood why Donny is class D. Humberside which is a stones throw from Donny just has an atz. A quick google of movements show that in 2012 Humberside had some 25,000 movements and Doncaster had 10,000. Confused? I am.

[wb9999]

I have never had a problem with getting a Class D transit, and so have no objection to an "airspace grab". Personally I think any airfield with a published instrument approach should have some form of controlled airspace which encompasses the whole of the procedure.

[2 sheds]

Far more CAS than necessary is 'grabbed', and then, despite assurances to the contrary, GA is excluded. They are then required to fly around the outside, thus wasting time, and fuel, and at the same time increasing risk of collision by funnelling them through the remaining narrow gaps. Once CAS is established, it can't be shifted, and the promised periodic reviews of it's operation almost never happen. :(

I can only repeat that the objectors might have more credibility if they refrained from referring to an airspace "grab". It is a change of status after due process; also, any introduction is subject to a later review. To make a blanket statement that "GA is excluded" is nonsense; if you consider that clearance has been refused on a particular occasion for no good reason, then file a report about it and the facts can be ascertained. And if you do route around or below CAS, what is the problem? There could be as many or as few unknown aircraft near your level as in any other part of Class G airspace - and you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?

As regards the dimensions of CAS, they are the minimum necessary to contain the IFR routes and procedures; as wb9999 refers, the establishment of CAS for that purpose is actually the ICAO norm, the pilots and pax in such aircraft deserving a better deal than just hoping for the best in Class G, albeit with a TS or DS.

2 s

[phiggsbroadband]

There has been some speculation about the amount of movements at Farnborough, but I think the following link points to about 60-70 per day at present...


http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12436&p=0


Some of the noise and air pollution graphs are a bit confusing, and maybe not linked to aircraft at all.

[flybymike]

And if you do route around or below CAS, what is the problem? There could be as many or as few unknown aircraft near your level as in any other part of Class G airspace
One can hardly compare the vast swathes of ClassG in some parts of the country with all of the choke points around Farnborough, and the more class D there is, the less Class G there is.
and you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?
Somewhat patronising question, teacher ( is it not?)

[chevvron]

It was running at something like 100-120/day weekdays and 60-70/day weekends and PH when I left.

[abgd]

you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?

The evidence seems fairly firm that even with the best feasible unassisted lookout, pilots don't see a high proportion of conflicting traffic. The rarity of collisions in class G airspace is therefore more down to the bigness of the sky and the sparsity of traffic in it. So if you make the sky small and the traffic dense, looking out of the window may give a very false sense of reassurance. This is particularly the case at the low levels available around Farnborough, where people aren't going to be following quadrantal or semicircular rules.

The consultation document doesn't seem to realise this, citing making GA follow more predictable routes as a positive thing. It may be of benefit to them, but it certainly isn't of benefit to GA.

[Mach Jump]

....that "GA is excluded" is nonsense; if you consider that clearance has been refused on a particular occasion for no good reason, then file a report about it and the facts can be ascertained. And if you do route around or below CAS, what is the problem? There could be as many or as few unknown aircraft near your level as in any other part of Class G airspace - and you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?

I think that just shows just how naive and ill informed you are. :ugh:


MJ:ok:

Ps. Oh, and patronising.:*

[2 sheds]

I am not patronising anyone; I thought that emphasising a good look-out was a compliment. But all the talk of choke points etc is still avoiding the fundamental point that Class D airspace is there for transiting as well as any other purpose - under VFR if required - and yes, with ATC clearance.

I would have thought that some of the contributors here were vociferous enough to make their feelings known if, heaven forbid, they were refused clearance on the odd occasion.

2 s

[Blink182]

Trouble with the notion "all you have to do is to contact ATC for clearance " to access Class D is trying to get a transmission in edgeways when the frequency is extremely busy, which is usually the case for Farnboro W .

[dont overfil]

When Doncaster became class D the frequency became much busier (obviously).

How will Farnbourgh cope when their class D is in place?

D.O.

[phiggsbroadband]

I must admit that being allowed through Class D is a bit of a lottery...


I have been told to orbit 3 miles from the overhead at Doncaster whilst a C152 was on 'Finals'... He turned out to be on a 12 mile Final, and when he did make it to the runway he went around at 1500ft below my altitude.


On the other side of the coin, I wanted a transit around the outside of Liverpool Class D, and they almost insisted that I transit overhead the Liver Buildings and Docks area.


Also Manchester has been particularly obliging, letting me do a photo session around Joderal Bank and then on to Matlock, even though they were busy with heavy traffic.

[Talkdownman]

How will Farnbourgh cope when their class D is in place?
They have an 'approach' frequency for their important 'planes. IF they get any Class D they might not even be bothered about all those unimportant planes on LARS West any more, and shut it, and save some money...

[2 sheds]

I have been told to orbit 3 miles from the overhead at Doncaster whilst a C152 was on 'Finals' (sic)
That sounds very melodramatic, but what were the facts - IFR, VFR, Special VFR, radar in operation or not, day/night (perhaps before VFR at night)? Did you talk to the ATC Watch Supervisor later? If it really was as simplistic - and daft - as you are implying, did you file a report?

2 s

[cumulusrider]

Dont forget the airfield a few miles to the west of farnborough with 60,000+ movements per year. The proposals would force skirting traffic dirctly overhead. The warning of wires up to 3000ft might give you a clue

[mad_jock]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20110831NIANATMACBrief.pdf

I suggest some of you read the ruling about Norwich. I really don't think you have a hope in stopping it.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi 2sheds, I was given a transit of the Doncaster Overhead at not below 2000ft, but at 3 miles out I was asked to orbit as there was a C152 reported to be on Finals. Not too sure if Tower had any access to radar, but the C152 was over 10 miles out, so took an age to get to the runway.
I cannot remember if I was working Approach whilst the C152 was talking to Tower.


I was quite happy doing the orbits, even had a chance to see Doncaster's long runway and other facilities, so didn't think it needed a report... No harm done, just 5 minutes added to my cross country. If I remember correctly it was a VFR day with very few clouds.

[2 sheds]

Hi phiggs

I don't doubt what you were apparently required to do, but I certainly would be interested in the further details and the reasons, some of which you might not be aware of, of course. e.g, - and I don't wish to make a meal of it here - were you on a VFR clearance (interesting that you say "not below 2000 ft", which is unusual); if given a level restriction, why also the hold; etc

2 s

[Mach Jump]

I suggest some of you read the ruling about Norwich. I really don't think you have a hope in stopping it.

I agree. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that GA has any significant influence on proposals like this.


MJ:ok:

[thing]

Normally when I cross Donny it's not above a certain height (usually the height you're at when you make the initial call).

[wb9999]

2 sheds, I've had a few "not below" clearances in various Class D CTRs. All have been because the circuit was active with traffic and I've been passing directly over the relevant airfield.

[2 sheds]

wb9999 - sure, I don't doubt it, although one has to be very circumspect with its use for VFR flights, e.g. not below ... while overhead the ATZ. I was just observing that something apparently subtle such as that was initially decreed, but eventually for no good reason. I would love to know what was going on, but do not necessarily:rolleyes: immediately infer that ATC screwed up or was being awkward!

2 s

[flybymike]

I agree. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that GA has any significant influence on proposals like this.
The irony of your remark is that all of Farnborough's traffic is GA

Norwich, whilst doing bugger all movements, at least has public transport operations.

[mad_jock]

Well I have landed there more than a few times and its always been in a CAT aircraft on an AoC.

And I thought TAG hold AoC's in UK Spain and Switzerland. So a lot of the biz jet movements will be counted as CAT.

[flybymike]

Depends on definition of CAT I suppose. I am talking regular scheduled or charter public transport operations.

Doubtless many, if not most of the "fat cat" operations are AOC but that doesn't mean they are not still GA.

The proposal seems to be "one law for the rich, another for the poor"

[Mach Jump]

The irony of your remark is that all of Farnborough's traffic is GA

Yes. I guess I should have said, light GA. I too have flown something bigger into there several times, and i'm not against Class D zones in principle, in fact I think that all instrument approaches should be protected, but when I look at the size of the Gatwick Zone I wonder why much smaller places need such big zones. Also, when you see who has a zone and who doesnt, (someone mentioned Doncaster and Humberside in this respect) it makes you wonder if it's more down to the clout of the operator, rather than the traffic.


MJ:ok:

[Talkdownman]

Depends on definition of CAT I suppose. I am talking regular scheduled or charter public transport operations
Which I believe are known as ATMs (Air Transport Movements). Are the number of ATMs not the CAS deciding factor?

[wb9999]

Norwich, whilst doing bugger all movements, at least has public transport operations.

Is that the same Norwich that has more ATMs than Cardiff, Bournemouth, Durham, Isle of Man and any non-Class D airfield? Strange that no-one ever complains about the long-established Class D zones.

[Tagron]

There is indeed, or was once, a distinction to be made between ATMs and other flights that happen to operate under an AOC. In past times the whole concept of UK controlled airspace centred on the perceived need to protect the fare paying public. There were benchmarks that an airport had to meet in terms of of annual totals of ATMs and terminal passenger numbers before it could be considered as eligible for the establishment of CAS. There is no way that Farnborough could have met those requirements.

There were always exceptions of course. Brize Norton and Lyneham traffic was considered to be sufficiently similar to CAT to warrant Class D or Rule 36 as it was. Bournemouth was allowed to keep its CAS on the basis of its particular traffic mix whereas other airports whose traffic had fallen below the benchmarks lost theirs, Prestwick Blackpool and Southend being examples. However, these rules were relaxed, I think on the grounds that Airspace Policy determined a more flexible approach was necessary when issues of safety were deemed to be overriding.

Here perhaps is the crux of the matter. Traditionally UK airspace policy has attempted to balance the requirements of competing interests. A compromise satisfactory to GA has not always been possible given the political imperatives of protecting the country’s air transport infrastructure or the defence of the realm. But expediting the passage of one group of
private operators at the expense of other private groups surely does not fall in the same category. Is the safety case for the whole Farnborough area so strong as to merit such a major proposal ?

The issue of Class D as most GA pilots in the UK (unlike the USA) will be aware is that in effect it can amount to airspace closure. Not because of the rules as written but because of issues such as frequency loading, control capacity or occasionally one suspects plain disinterest.And of course keeping aircraft out of the air is a time honoured way of achieving aviation“safety”

.

[2 sheds]

when I look at the size of the Gatwick Zone I wonder why much smaller places need such big zones

To contain the procedures for the aircraft types operating under IFR?

2 s

[mad_jock]

is there anything happening to the class A up in shetland or has it already gone since the last time I was up there?

That's the airspace class A not the other class A you get off the Russian trawlers.

[PaulisHome]

But expediting the passage of one group of
private operators at the expense of other private groups surely does not fall in the same category. Is the safety case for the whole Farnborough area so strong as to merit such a major proposal ?

Hear hear.

This proposition (and airspace grab is a polite phrase for it) is designed to improve TAG's commercial interests by giving their GA customers priority. It does this at the expense of decreased amenity for and increased risk to other GA users.

The decreased amenity is obvious - people fly around rather than through class D. The increased risk comes from the increased traffic density in the choke points.

At last weekend's BGA conference a very interesting graphic was shown of traffic around Doncaster, pre and post class D. As you may know, a good number of gliders carry loggers and post their results on the web, which is a really good source of actual data about who flies where. The picture before the class D had traffic fairly evenly distributed about the area. Post class D, there were real choke points as everyone flew around the CAS. So clearly, in order to provide a better environment for a couple of flights a day, a significant number of people were subject to increased risk.

TAG is claiming that their proposal is about increased safety. It's not. It's about improving their commercial position at the expense of others' safety. We should resist this encroachment into the public's class G in the same way we'd resist Barrett taking over the village green in order to build some houses.

Paul

[HyFlyer]

Hear hear.

This proposition (and airspace grab is a polite phrase for it) is designed to improve TAG's commercial interests by giving their GA customers priority. It does this at the expense of decreased amenity for and increased risk to other GA users.

The decreased amenity is obvious - people fly around rather than through class D. The increased risk comes from the increased traffic density in the choke points.

At last weekend's BGA conference a very interesting graphic was shown of traffic around Doncaster, pre and post class D. As you may know, a good number of gliders carry loggers and post their results on the web, which is a really good source of actual data about who flies where. The picture before the class D had traffic fairly evenly distributed about the area. Post class D, there were real choke points as everyone flew around the CAS. So clearly, in order to provide a better environment for a couple of flights a day, a significant number of people were subject to increased risk.

TAG is claiming that their proposal is about increased safety. It's not. It's about improving their commercial position at the expense of others' safety. We should resist this encroachment into the public's class G in the same way we'd resist Barrett taking over the village green in order to build some houses.

Paul

Nail firmly and squarely bashed on the head.

[Mach Jump]

So the same question remains unanswered. How does Gatwick manage to keep it's procedures within a smaller zone, whilst at the same time dealing with some of the biggest aircraft and heaviest traffic in the country?

Maybe if the operators had to pay for the CAS they wanted by the cubic metre, there would be a lot less of it!

MJ

[wb9999]

MJ, most of Gatwick's procedures start in the LTMA - which is outside of the Gatwick CTR/CTA. Missed approach and holding is in the LTMA. If the LTMA was not there then Gatwick's CTA would be larger.

[Mach Jump]

But not the CTR.


MJ:ok:

[wb9999]

MJ, it doesn't look like Farnborough's proposed CTR is bigger than Gatwick. Gatwick's is 18NM x 9NM (slightly narrower in the NE corner). Farnborough looks like it's approximately 11NM x 9NM.

[Talkdownman]

LF three-and-a-half degree GP...

[Mach Jump]

Well, that's something then. As I said before, I'm not against protecting IAPs, just the creation of excessively large zones, and the tendancy to use them to effectively exclude other traffic.


MJ:ok:

[wb9999]

I agree with that. Farnborough's proposed CTR doesn't look too bad - the CTR is smaller than most (probably all) Class D CTRs. It's the CTA that looks like the worst bit.

[Mach Jump]

Yes. The 1,500' areas look like the worst bits. I think that Talkdownman is suggesting that 3.5° glidepaths might help out there. Also the RMZ to the east is a worry, as, in my view, that is just CAS by the back door, and effectively extends the CTR.


MJ:ok:

[mad_jock]

The GP have always been 3.5 degrees.


The other bits of CAS are to join into the various airways that are near by.

[chevvron]

No they were 3 deg on the main runway 07/25 (now 06/24) and 18 and 12 (11) when I started there; 36 was 4.5 deg, 30 (29) was 3.5 deg. A review of the way the iaps were designed in the early 80s (APATC-1, a 'standard NATO' system) caused the thresholds to be moved and all GP on all runways became 3.5 deg.
24 could actually have been lowered to 3 deg in 2003 but we didn't do it for noise reasons.

[John R81]

Given the proposed restrictions to "transit only" for a good chunk of the available airspace for flight schools at Fairoakes, Blackbushe, Redhill, etc, how can this be in the economic interest of any of those businesses or, in turn, those airports?

[chevvron]

John:
Any so called 'restriction' will only be similar to what happens during CAS(T) for Royal Flights and LESS restrictive than airshow RA(T). During CAS(T) you can be cleared through, but during RA(T), the very nature of some of the displays means you sometimes can't.

[cats_five]

Not just for glider pilots:

http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/airspace/FARNBOROUGHAIRSPACECHANGEPROPOSAL-MEETING.pdf

[chevvron]

There'll also be a meeting aimed specifically at Fairoaks users on 19 Mar at 7 pm in the bar at Fairoaks Flight Centre.

[Fitter2]

Can anyone possibly explain to me why a private airfield where a similar (or lower) number of GA movements to other local GA airfields, carrying one or two passengers, should need more airspace than Gatwick?


Incidentally, a 737 operating into Lasham for maintenance recently was refused clearance through 'Farnborough Airspace' (i.e. Class G, although covered by Farnborough LARS) until they had confirmation that Lasham runway was clear. Who do they think they are?

[chevvron]

Don't forget Lasham are operating without any sort of iap at the moment until the 'new' radar is approved by CAA, so they would ask Farnborough to hold traffic off until the runway is clear of gliders.

[cessnapete]

I think the problem is caused by NATs not wanting IFR FAB arr traffic to be handled in the LTMA. All intermediate app manoeuvring is planned out of the LTMA hence the huge expanse of new CAS airspace required.
I would have thought that IFR departures out of FAB could be held on the ground until climb clearance direct into the LTMA was obtained, thus not requiring any new manoeuvring area.

[Talkdownman]

Lasham are operating without any sort of iap at the moment until the 'new' radar is approved by CAA, so they would ask Farnborough to hold traffic off until the runway is clear of gliders.
The type of approach is totally irrelevant. Farnborough will not permit inbound aircraft to leave PEPIS until the maintenance organisation has confirmed that the runway is under its jurisdiction. There is absolutely no point in commencing an approach to a runway which is obstructed by gliding operations.

[Fitter2]

Farnborough will not permit inbound aircraft to leave PEPISSorry, Farnborough will not permit an aircraft to do something in Class G airspace outside their ATZ? I say again, who do they think they are, and what powers do they have? If that is their attitude, GA Traffic definitely does not want this airspace grab attempt to succeed.

[Talkdownman]

Basically it is an SOP which is merely part of a LARS 'agreement'.

From the UK IAIP:
After leaving the Airways System pilots will normally be provided with a radar service outside controlled airspace by Farnborough ATCso it's part of the radar service 'deal'. Certainly Farnborough may not insist that the aircraft remains in the hold, but in Farnborough's defence it's probably more convenient for all parties if it wasn't just wandering around willy-nilly whilst waiting for a vacant runway. It's all about how they 'package' it really, and, more to the point, how the deconfliction service is 'delivered'.

[Fitter2]

To interpret 'Provide a radar service' as 'control and require compliance as if in controlled airspace' takes a stretch of the imagination.


I ask again, why should a private company catering for a relatively small number of GA aircraft be handed a larger slice of airspace than Gatwick need to the exclusion of many more other airspace users?

[mad_jock]

it does if your on a de-confliction service.

[chevvron]

Holding at PEPSI? Bet Southampton really enjoy that!!

[Fitter2]

Mad Jock:


'A Deconfliction Service is a surveillance based ATS where, in addition to the provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in Class F/G airspace, or for positioning and/or sequencing. However, the avoidance of other traffic is ultimately the pilot responsibility.'

The service is not controlling, it is issuing information. Very different.


I see no-one is interested in answering my question.

[mad_jock]

Your choosing to ignore the

or for positioning and/or sequencing

Like or not the current pish services in class G are set up so the ATCO's can ignore you and give you nothing useful if they so wish but if they can get you to accept a contract with them you are just as controlled as if your in Class A.

And it doesn't matter what class of airspace your in the pilot is always responsible for avoiding other traffic and the ground.

Which gives us the silly situation that the number of airproxes involving aircraft taking a service is increasing and the number for aircraft who aren't speaking to anyone is decreasing.

Apart from the highly rare occurrence of you getting a de-confliction service.

[Fitter2]

Hi MJ


I did not ignore anything. The definition of the service is clear


the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned deconfliction minima
If you are saying that the service provider can refuse to provide this information unless the aircraft in receipt of the service accepts that it may be 'refused entry' into a section of Class G airspace, then so be it. This makes it even more important that the airspace in question remains Class G, and other GA aircraft are no forced into a further squeezed choke point with the attendant increase in collision risk.


(by the way, the abbreviation for 'you are' is 'you're'.)

[flybymike]

(by the way, the abbreviation for 'you are' is 'you're'.)
Jock has copyright on the use of "your, you're, there, their, they're, to, too two, must of, proberly and many other unique inventions provided that they are all used incorrectly. We agreed many years ago not to correct him. It is the only way we can tell his posts are genuine.

[TCAS FAN]

Chevvron

Holding at PEPSI? Have you been taking too many additives with yours? Surely it is PEPIS, without the additives?

[mad_jock]

That's the way this ATCOCAS pish is all set up so they can control in class G.

And you won't have a clue what the company's SOP's say about that run, it may very well be that its stipulated that they have to follow the instructions to satisfy the safety case. And there is a standing agreement that they stay where ever they are told to until the runway is declared glider free and a runway inspection done.

Its not just the ATS which is involved here.

[chevvron]

TCAS FAN: I was being sarcastic. Southampton vector in that area often in class G.
Why do I need to explain anyway; everybody else understood.

[Marchettiman]

Let’s look at the situation in the London area which I think puts Farnborough’s grandiose claims for airspace protection into perspective.
There are 11 airports which offer executive jet facilities in the London area, they are: Northolt, Luton, Stansted, Southend, Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Cranfield, Farnborough, Oxford, Lydd and Manston.
The first three are all within Class A (currently) and D airspace and Southend may soon be. Oxford and Cranfield certainly have more IFR movements than the rest but operate successfully in Class G as do the others. What is so special about Farnborough?
If we look at the map of airspace from Ground Level to the base of the London TMA around the London CTR there are blocks of Class A and D at Gatwick, Stansted, Brize Norton and Southampton which necessarily funnel VFR traffic into the area of Class G around the London CTR and increase the density of traffic there beyond what is normally found in the rest of the UK. This traffic density is also a function of the large number of smaller GA airfields that exist with a 60nm radius of the City and comprises local training and pleasure traffic as well as all the transit traffic that is squeezed into it by the layout of the existing CTR’s. If Farnborough deserves class D protection then so may Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Cranfield, and Oxford and where does that leave us, with a ring of controlled airspace around London that squeezes all the smaller GA aircraft into even more densely populated airspace than ever before?
Let’s also look at the real reason behind TAG Aviation’s proposals. I suggest they are simply to gain a competitive advantage over their competitor airfields around London. If Mr Russian Oligarch’s wife is really concerned about flying into an airfield protected by controlled airspace when she comes to London to do her shopping then she can elect to use Northolt, Luton, Stansted and maybe soon, Southend. I don’t think that her protection or convenience is any more important than my own, or that of many aviation companies in the area, when going about our business using or transiting an area which then becomes even more congested than it already is.
I think it is also time for Farnborough’s operator to realise they chose to establish and grow their business from an airfield they knew was in a congested piece of free airspace near London. To then demand protection with controlled airspace, however large or small, is the same mindset as those who buy houses near established airfields and then complain about the noise.
I hope the GA community and our representative organisations will fight these proposals like never before and not succumb to the archetypal form of compromise we British seem so fond of.

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Farnborough expects 50,000 movements per year by 2019. Not sure if that's a limit.

Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport currently handles over 160,000 movements per year, with executive jets all the time, cargo stuff, police and other helicopters, flight training, general private flying with a lot of Cirruses, twins, etc. Much more than we have in UK skies! Several smaller GA fields close by. Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International a few miles way, and Miami International around 25 miles away.

Look at a Miami sectional to see how they set out their airspace. Makes Farnborough's grandiose proposals a sick joke.

One decent radar controller for the area, working with Heathrow could deal with Farnborough in his sleep.

[cumulusrider]

Just a reminder that the meeting about Farnborough airspace at Lasham is tommorrow sun 23rd at 13.00hrs. People flying in are reminded that it is PPR as it is a gliding site so no overhead joins unless you want 1000ft of steel cable round your prop.. All of the grass on the north side is landable as we have not suffered from the wet weather as much as some local airfields

[Blink182]

Just over 3 weeks left to submit your comments on this proposal. Get your letters / e-mails in by 2 May

[soaringhigh650]

with a ring of controlled airspace around London that squeezes all the smaller GA aircraft into even more densely populated airspace than ever before?


Do you have a problem using your radio to enter the Class D? :ugh:

[PA28181]

Quote: "Do you have a problem using your radio to enter the Class D?"


Is this from a knowledge of the area in question?

I suspect not. The problem is not the ability to use a radio, but the access that will be restricted due to the imposition of unneeded "Controlled airspace"

[Sam Rutherford]

How did the meeting go?

I've filed my opposition, but not heard anything back. How they have worded the questions is impressively Machiavellian!

[wsmempson]

One of the main problems with airspace applications is that the applicant is responsible for assembling all of the replies within their report to the CAA and arguing the case for and against the airspace.

That is akin to holding a trial where there is only one barrister working for both the defence and the prosecution, who happens to be employed by the prosecution.

Why would Farnborough's management do anything other than recommend this airspace?

I attended a presentation at White Waltham by the Farnborough team, where a member of the audience pointed out that the report to non-aviation residents said something completely different to the report prepared for the pilots and the only response was some footshuffling and smirking.

Farnborough themselves said that they are processing between 3 and 6 IFR movements per hour, with an average of 2 people on board, as against 30-100 VFR GA transiting movements per hour, with an average of 2 people on board. Therefore, the brutal truth is that this proposal will result in the maximum inconvenience for the majority, in the interests of an ever shrinking minority as for the last five years, Farnborough's movements have shrunk, year on year. It will also result in some appalling VFR traffic choke-points which will make the Manchester low-level corridor look safe.

Very important to resist this proposal.

[Marchettiman]

I have no doubt that Farnborough's submission to the CAA will be gilded with a thin veneer of balance towards the views of all airspace users as well as those of other interested consultees. But in the end it is a document intended to achieve a commercial aim and advantage for TAG aviation so I don 't think there will be any prizes given for guessing it's final conclusions; let us hope that the CAA and NATCS are able to resist the inevitable wining and dining and glitzy presentations.

I think that there is a fundemental flaw in the traffic forecasts TAG are using to bolster their case which I hope our GA representatives (AOPA, BGA etc) will not leave unnoticed.

In the original planning permission for use and development of the airfield granted in 2000 there were specific conditions which relate to the number and more importantly TYPE of aircraft movements. For instance the permission relates specifically to Business Air Transport Movements (BATM) and excludes bulk freight, scheduled passenger services, most training flights and recreational flying.

A later permission granted at appeal to increase the number of annual movements to the current planned levels relied heavily on the support of the government's Air Transport White Paper 2003 which specifically encourages the growth of Business Aviation.
I know from personal experience as a passenger in chartered jets out of Farnborough that a significant number of current movements have nothing to do with business they are purely personal transportation using a class of aircraft commonly referred to as a business jet. It is the obverse of my practice of using my private aircraft for a business trip.

Whether or not the local authority have picked up on what I see as a clear breach of the planning permission relating to use of the aerodrome I know not, but I do think it is a strong argument in questioning the data which is being used to support the proposed airspace restrictions around a wide part of the SW of London.

Maybe with this proposal Farnborough have opened a can of worms they would have preferred to have kept firmly closed.

[soaringhigh650]

ut the access that will be restricted due to the imposition of unneeded "Controlled airspace"

And almost all of our airspace in the USA is controlled, so what's your problem?

Infringement of your civil liberties?

[Tall_Guy_in_a_PA28]

In the US and much of Europe one can flightplan on the presumption of a class D transit request being granted (from memory, in the US you only have to establish 2 way comms). In the UK, one has to pesume it will be denied or delayd "due to controller workload" and plan alternatives. As a result most VFR pilots will avoid Class D as a matter of course.

The situation is probably better now than it was a few years ago and there are notable exceptions , but this requires local knowledge.

Remember that UK airspace is controlled by a company 42% owned by the airlines. It is not a public asset for all to share.

[soaringhigh650]

In the USA clearance is implicit by 2-way comms. But you can also be denied access when your tail number is NOT acknowledged. The radio exchange is different but there is still a right of refusal and we do have to plan another route if we're asked to remain clear.

It is not a public asset for all to share.

And the other half is owned by the government. So don't ya think that access issues to airspace should be addressed instead of resisting it?

Controlled airspace is designed to make more traffic known because it causes safety issues otherwise.

In other words it's obvious nobody's gonna listen if you object on the sole basis you just wanna keep flying around without the radio. :E

[flybymike]

Do "ya wanna" do us all a favour. Stop pontificating about matters you know bugger all about in the UK, and we promise not to do the same about what goes on over there.

[ak7274]

I suppose a Glider from a club that has existed for years within a few miles of the proposed area could just ask for a transit.


Or indeed even all the GA aircraft that outnumber the proposed passenger movements by a considerable factor could ask for permission to depart their own airfield from a company who proposes to create Controlled airspace just to oblige Private aircraft with 2-4 passengers.


Infringement of Civil liberties my wassername . It's a private company that is proposing this, not Government.


Oligarch's wives shopping trip to Harrods or Sheiks visiting for the nightlife which they abhor in their own country. Do you really think after looking at the proposal that there is any justification? Well do ya?

[DeeCee]

Soaringhigh; as you are so interested in everyone hearing your opinion why don't you study an aviation map of the area concerned before giving us the benefit of your 'advice'? You seem happy to jump in with both feet in this, and other threads, when you obviously have no idea of the real issues. Many people on here will have flown in Florida and appreciate the space and freedom. Contrast that to flying in a narrow, congested, corridor and you have to develop a whole lot of different skills.

A lot of knowledgable guys from the US post on here and provide welcome advice. Why don't you join them?

[Dave Gittins]

I don't have any problem using a radio but to the SW of London I have a problem being able to get a word in edgeways. I fly out of Redhill and if I am going west the Farnborough Radar frequencies are pretty busy at weekends.

If I have to get a class D clearance to visit White Waltham or Booker, I am pretty sure that on a nice Sunday morning that will cause congestion, delays and add risk. At least right now I don't HAVE TO contact Farnborough West. In future I won't have a choice and will maybe have to orbit for clearance.

I just got back from 2 superb weeks in Florida with clear skys, free airfields and huge areas to fly in albeit controlled but with helpful controllers and few restrictions. I crossed the overhead at Orlando and T&G'd at Sanford (and about 20 other fields as well) FOC

If we did the same as in the US where the norm is an overhead transit through the busiest airspace, or a minimal size shelf system then that would make life a lot easier. Trouble is our solution seems to be to keep us GA pilots out instead of accommodating us safely and sensibly.

If we cannot be assured that the 10 people per hour who benefit won't delay the 100 of us peasants who don't we have to find against this proposal.

[Fitter2]

If we cannot be assured that the 10 people per hour who benefit won't delay the 100 of us peasants who don't we have to find against this proposal.


Since half of the movements are positioning flights with no passengers, 10 is being extremely generous.


Twice the airspace that Gatwick needs for less than 1/1,000th of the passengers (and Gatwick's are at least CAT punters, not GA taxi limousine guests) is ludicrous.


Reducing a 15 NM VFR choke point to less than 4.5 NM is a serious safety hazard, and should lay the CAA open to a charge of corporate manslaughter if they allow this, and a fatal collision does occur.

[soaringhigh650]

In other words it's obvious nobody's gonna listen if you object on the sole basis you just wanna keep flying around without the radio.

Stop pontificating about matters you know bugger all about in the UK,

Okay I will do you all a favor - I'll be back in 6-12 months time and we shall see who's won.

Put your feet into the other guys shoes irrespective of whether you're carrying rich people or poor people. You're working hard flying an instrument approach. Do you want to be broken off and vectored around all over the sky just because suddenly something pops up and you have no idea what the other guy is gonna do? How much of this then becomes the breaking point where action is needed?

Object all you like about some piece of Class D airspace but until YOU can sufficiently show there willl be GREATER issues to flight safety by the establishment of such airspace, nobody will listen.

[ak7274]

Of course there will be greater flight safety. No bugger will be allowed in.:ugh:
Have you actually seen the proposal and the negative effect it is going to have on a not inconsiderable number of aviators?

[Prop swinger]

Okay I will do you all a favor - I'll be back in 6-12 months time and we shall see who's won.

Put your feet into the other guys shoes irrespective of whether you're carrying rich people or poor people. You're working hard flying an instrument approach. Do you want to be broken off and vectored around all over the sky just because suddenly something pops up and you have no idea what the other guy is gonna do? How much of this then becomes the breaking point where action is needed?

Object all you like about some piece of Class D airspace but until YOU can sufficiently show there willl be GREATER issues to flight safety by the establishment of such airspace, nobody will listen.Don't be ridiculous.

They've been operating perfectly safely for decades, they already offer a radar service & have a known environment in Class G. They want Class D so they can tell people to go away. This has nothing to do with safety.

[dont overfil]

Apologies if this has been suggested. Compromise. Allow them class E :)

D.O.

[LowNSlow]

According to their submission TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation (http://www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com/) Farnborough handled 23,000 movements last year which is an average of 63 flights/day or 3 flights/hour based on a 20 hour operating day.

Must have counted the airshow traffic cos I didn't see anything like that when I stayed at the very nice TAG Hotel one weekend.

As the website helpfully points out, there are 22 days before the consulation closes.

[chevvron]

There wasn't an airshow last year (2013) so you're not very observant are you?
In any case, there's a severe limitation on weekend movements meaning they average about half those on a weekday which by the way, is max 15 hours (7 am - 10 pm) not 20 due to local planning conditions and no extensions permitted.

[soaringhigh650]

have a known environment in Class G.

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[LowNSlow]

Oooh chevvron, did you get out of the wrong side of the bed or something?

I made a stab in the dark at the 20 hour ops but now that you have kndly provided the correct duration I'll use that. Even reducing the operating period to 15 hour ops makes it 4.2 movements/hour assuming 365 days ops. Heathrow it obviously ain't so why the LHR'esque airspace ambitions at the expense of thousands of existing users of the airspace?

Damn, you are going to tell me that they are not open on Christmas Day and New Years Day now aren't you? That'll jack the movements up to 4.22/hour....

Even the proposed 50,000 movements that they have permission for (and by no means can that be guaranteed, look at Norwich for example) that puts the hourly movement rate up to a highly congested 9 per hour period......

As has been pointed out there are other bizjet orientated airfields (eg Luton) which operate in a much less restrictive fashion than TAG Farnborough are proposing.

[PaulisHome]

Object all you like about some piece of Class D airspace but until YOU can sufficiently show there willl be GREATER issues to flight safety by the establishment of such airspace, nobody will listen.

It may be counter-intuitive initially, but one of the biggest arguments against TAG's proposals is that they will actually decrease safety.

They take a large amount of airspace currently available to all, and give a small number priority there. The effect of that may be to reduce very slightly an already small collision risk for the few, but increase it substantially for the many who are pushed into the choke points.

Add to that the question of why those few should take preference over the many and these proposals should be resisted strongly.

It's no use arguing that Class D is open to all. Real traffic data shows that GA pilots route around it when it is created, pushing traffic into those choke points. It doesn't really matter why, it's what happens. But in fact there are good reasons why. For glider pilots for example, the likely restrictions on routing are a severe problem. And the new SERA rules on VFR are going to make it very difficult to fly in that airspace, since gliders will not legally be able to climb to within 1000ft of cloudbase. For other GA pilots it's much simpler to plan around it than run several plans just in case a crossing clearance isn't granted.

There are much better ways of addressing TAG's issues than granting swathes of class D.

I'd encourage everyone to object to TAG's proposals on their website. Don't answer their questions - they're designed to get the answer they want. There's a chance to put some free format stuff in section E. Say what you think.

[India Four Two]

Don't answer their questions - they're designed to get the answer they want.
There's a chance to put some free format stuff in section E. Say what you think.

Done. :ok:

[mad_jock]

to be honest the way the thing is done you need to step away from the process and attack it from within the communities and at a political level.

As shown by Norwich when they write the report up they can basically sideline all objections by saying the responses were outside the normal data collection remit. And also claim that D fixes all problems.

I suggest you also go and gather statistics from the airprox board and present it to the local communities and politicians.

Per say they will assume that controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled. So unless you attack it from the safety point of view that its going to decrease safety to a vast majority your going to be stuffed.

I suspect though that the powers that be will want this airspace because it protects that corner with Heathrow.

[rans6andrew]

What they are trying to do may be a good thing except it really needs to be done somewhere else. The last thing any of us really needs, and GA in particular, is any further restrictions in the key corridor between HR and GW zones.

For those of us that fly from White Waltham, Brimpton, Siege Cross, Firs Farm, Whittles, Chiltern Park, Englefield and a surprisingly large handfull of private strips to the west of HR zone this is a key routing. It is needed for visits to Rochester, Redhill, Biggin Hill, Headcorn, Fairoaks and onto the Calais/Le Touquet lunch stop.

[dash6]

Just bringing this up again as a reminder. Not long to get your comments in.

[Chris Royle]

Edited text of an e mail received "on the grapevine"

From: Patrick Naegeli
Sent: 23 April 2014 08:20
Subject: Re: Farnborough ACP
Dear all,
I met with Dan Foster (NATS Farnborough) yesterday evening at Shoreham.
Prior to the meeting, I asked Dan what the status was of ACP responses made through the website. He told me that they had identified a problem that persisted for the period between 11 and 16 April, that prevented responses being registered on the site. As a consequence, anyone that has not received a confirmatory email will need to resubmit their response.
TAG are considering extending the submission deadline to 12 May - though that has not been decided or confirmed as yet.
At this stage, we need to make sure that all contacts are aware of the situation and resend their inputs if they are in any doubt as to whether or not they were successful first time around. TAG will handle any duplicates they end up with.
Regards.
Patrick

A colleague of mine (CR) strongly suggests that responses should be copied to [email protected] as well.
Hope this is helpful

(p.s. I am only the messenger. I can tell you no more than that above :))

[Mach Jump]

Tag seem to be going out of their way to enable everyone to have their say, and may be perfectly genuine in doing so, but watch out for a technique I have seen used succesfully before in the quest for large chunks of Class D airspace. (And wind turbine farms.)

First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.

The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.

Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.

The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.

The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.


Just me being cynical? :=

[flybymike]

The standard developer technique for planning applications is to over specify, and then settle for the "compromise" (which was all that was actually wanted in the first place)

[cats_five]

Consultation extended to 12th May:

Consultation Extension | TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal (http://www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com/consultation-extension/)

[Fitter2]

Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.

The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.

The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.

Just me being cynical?


In this case, not a cat in hell's chance of few objections being raised to any proposal by TAG that wants their handful of movements to take priority over the other nearly 400,000/yr GA movements in the airspace affected.

Any changed proposal will have to start again from scratch, and given the area affected by any extra Farnborough airspace will meet the same opposition.

If anyone attended the Shoreham meeting, they would wonder just what TAG are playing at:



Dan Foster, who represented TAG Farnborough, gave a very poor, badly constructed case, which seemed to immediately rile the audience somewhat.

Patrick Neageli's case was, in comparison, a joy to watch. The Farnborough ACP was comprehensively demolished in a very surgical, yet brutal presentation by Patrickwhich was even applauded by Dan Foster at the end.

There is no question that this ACP is very misleading, flawed and totally without business case. As Patrick, a management consultant and business man himself said, he fails to see what this poorly designed and uncompromising ACP really wants to achieve?

[dash6]

Droned past Farnborough today. Radar had four aircraft on frequency,one was a twin doing some approaches into Lasham.We were squawking,but not talking,in free airspace,so was he. We saw each other in plenty of time. I gave way in accordance with the rules. F.Radar gave him an advisory shortly afterwards.Thewatchword today was:Limited service due high traffic density.(Mostly gliders out of Lasham.) Fight this sky grab because,no matter what they say about clearances,you will never have access to this airspace again. "Unable transit due traffic."Meanwhile,millions of pounds worth of Gulfstreams sit anxiously awaiting their tax evaders and oligarchs. Get your comments in NOW,:mad:

[chevvron]

Depends which frequency you were listening to; you don't know how many were on the other frequency do you. I've had situations (usually emergencies) where we've had to use all 3 radar frequencies at the same time.

[dash6]

All operated by the same controller? At the moment you can listen for a few minutes,decide whether or not to join in,and carry on.In future the default position will be"Remain outside controlled airspace" I don't suppose extra controllers will be recruited to facilitate GA transit flights?

[chevvron]

Before I retired, there were always sufficient controllers rostered to operate with one per frequency.
I always said it would take 3 to replace me!!

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Mach Jump you’re not being cynical just ill-informed.

Tag seem to be going out of their way to enable everyone to have their say, and may be perfectly genuine in doing so, but watch out for a technique I have seen used succesfully before in the quest for large chunks of Class D airspace. (And wind turbine farms.)

The process for establishing any CAS is documented in CAP725 if you would care to peruse it and educate yourself. It’s not a riveting read but woe betide any Operator (to use your incorrect phrase) that doesn’t comply with it, fully; but it does outline the 'technique' that you refer to.

First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.

First the Operator has to produce a basic proposal that is compliant with the numerous, equally riveting ICAO docs, Annexes, IFP design criteria, EASA publications, UK CAPs, UK CAA policy statements and UK derogations (filed differences) – containment of IFPs is a major datum setter. This results in the (usually) overly large initial design that you refer to; but it is at least compliant with aeronautical REGULATIONS; you must have heard of those, other types of REGULATION probably apply to your aeroplane too. The proposal is then exposed to the CAA at a Framework Briefing who tell you – at length – how to conduct the process including the phenomenal level of detail required and the consultation requirements.

The initial design is then usually submitted to Focus Group scrutiny. The composition of Focus Groups is detailed in the CAP725; they can’t include everyone. The 'starter for 10' design is reviewed in the light of the inputs received and those inputs that are capable of mitigation against the aforementioned aeronautical REGULATIONS are assimilated into the design. All the changes have to be documented as to why they’ve been made. This takes time as safety arguments have to be marshalled, REGULATIONS consulted again and again to ensure that the CAA doesn’t laugh when the Operator submits the final proposal with so many REGULATORY non-compliances as to lose all credibility.

The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.

The revised proposal from the Focus Group stage goes out to extensive consultation as you say. The minimum consultation period is 12 weeks – that’s a quarter of a year; if a PH is included in that period then more time has to be allowed, usually an extra week for each PH day. The manner and depth of the consultation is as ‘advised’ by the CAA and the Operator had better hue to that advice. As you rightly say the Interested Bodies (in PC speak “Stakeholders”), having been whipped up their respective lobby groups, object in their hundreds frequently saying ‘we haven’t been consulted on this!’ The CAA, btw, takes no part in the design or consultation process so there’s no point in responding there.

Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.

Not a bit of it. Having received a huge number (your words) of objections (many of which regurgitate the same thing) I imagine that it takes a bit of time to catalogue them (yes, the CAA will check when the Operator submits – they all have to be presented [even the abusive ones] and cross-referenced in true bureaucratic style) and all the salient inputs extracted and addressed. However, if the Operator receives 200 objections all saying the same thing, that becomes one item to address, not 200! That’s not doing anything underhand, it’s a statement of fact.

The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.

The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.

Well, actually no. Inevitably, there are usually very reasonable cases made during the consultation and all objections have to be addressed and either accommodated, if all possible, or explanations detailed as to why not – usually REGULATORY non-compliance where acceptable mitigation is not available. This takes time, as agreements have to made, viable compromises have to be sought, more safety assessments conducted and arguments for non-compliance against those pesky REGULATIONS marshalled, and it all has to be documented. There is no requirement for a second round of consultation (many believe the Focus Group stage is a first round consultation but it’s usually aimed locally to wring out the initial shortcomings), unless something really major results from the consultation requiring a wholesale change, but usually a report on the consultation is issued.

Only then does the Operator submit the case to the CAA for their inspection and arbitration – another 12-week period. If the arguments are not presented convincingly, facts incorrect, or the consultation flawed or inputs not addressed sympathetically, then the case fails. The CAA is an independent arbiter on CAS applications and do not have the wool pulled over their eyes readily.

Or you can go on believing its done on the back of a fag packet and agreed in smoke-filled rooms.

[Mach Jump]

Downwind.Maddl-Land

Thankyou for your detailed explanation of the process. I'm sure we all understand the situation better now.

You make it sound almost impossible for an 'Operator' with lots of 'clout' to influence the outcome at all.

...Operator (to use your incorrect phrase)...

Perhaps you will indulge me a little further and tell me what is the 'correct' phrase?

[mad_jock]

it maybe won't get passed the swear word check.

[Mach Jump]

it maybe won't get passed the swear word check.

Tut tut tut, MJ. := What are you thinking?

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

MJ - happy to oblige. The official phrase is 'Change Sponsor' (CAP725 again) as it can be an ANSP, Airport license holder, organisation or other third party. Presumably, a nebulous moniker was selected so that it could be used as a 'non-specific catchall'.

[mad_jock]

Well the first letter is the same as the one I was thinking of.

[Quietplease]

Just a couple of days left to get your response in. Make sure the devious, greedy airspace grabbers give you an email response. Only takes a few minutes for a short written response if you can't face the loaded questions.

[Weeeee]

Seen a surprising amount of very low biz jet traffic over south west Farnham recently - really low and slow - more so than in years subjectively. Wondered if this is a not so subtle tactic to justify need for airspace, or perhaps I should start making myself a tin foil hat. Maybe someone actually knows ...

[chevvron]

Could have been to/from Dunsfold rather than Farnborough.

[Fitter2]

Seen a surprising amount of very low biz jet traffic over south west Farnham recently - really low and slow - more so than in years subjectively. Wondered if this is a not so subtle tactic to justify need for airspace, or perhaps I should start making myself a tin foil hat. Maybe someone actually knows ...


If they are operating in Class G (if outside the ATZ) then they must consider it safe, therefore they don't need any more airspace.


If inside the ATZ, then they are using existing airspace, so don't need any more.


Q.E.D.

[Midlifec]

I would agree with the increase in low level Farnborough traffic to the South West, out in our garden near Kingsley yesterday watching a variety of biz jet traffic sliding by between 1500 and 2500 ft, there has certainly been a marked increase in lower level traffic in the last few months- not a particularly smart move as one of the local strip based planes (An RV?) quite often pops up for a bit of local aerobatics. Yesterday afternoon there was the further increased chance of an incident when a Pitts was playing overhead for 10 to 15 mins in what looked like a pre arranged private display- Farnborough seem to be trying to manufacture stats at the risk of creating an incident, some might consider that more than a tad irresponsible.

[soaringhigh650]

There's no good reason for so many airplanes of that size to be flying so low.

[chevvron]

I think you'll find it's the present noise abatement procedure which causes this. If you want to complain to ATC Farnborough (not TAG) I can pm you a contact.
I'm not sure but I think the noise abatement procedure is notified in the AIP. When I was there, we usually cleared departures from 24 straight up to 3,400 with a 'best roc' through 3,000, but now I think the procedure involves an initial clearance to only 2,400 and many pilots might not check in with approach until they level off rather than call just after takeoff and get a continuous climb.

[Weeeee]

Speed and height I've seen recently make it look like they're in the circuit, but the location is actually outside controlled and roughly Rowledge / Wrecclesham - that height and location I'm surprised they haven't found a Chinook coming the other way.

It's not been a noise problem, just surprising.

From a personal perspective I'm not that bothered about the traffic / noise as intrusive at current levels and I'm broadly supportive of Farnborough as a local business, but they do seem to be taking the p**s with this new airspace grab.

[Talkdownman]

I fly as close as possible to the edge of the Farnborough ATZ displaying their Frequency Monitoring Code yet I don't get a peep out of them, so clearly they can manage without the proposed airspace.

[207592]

I'm late to the debate, but the CAA website has a link to official statistics on movements, see UK Airport Statistics: 2013 - annual | Aviation Intelligence | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=80&pagetype=88&sglid=3&fld=2013Annual)


I've analysed Table 03 2 because I'm interested in the actual use of Doncaster Sheffield airspace. Farnborough seem not to be required to submit data routinely to the CAA!


Out of interest, in 2013 Doncaster averaged 13 movement per day, Norwich 67, and Humberside 34. Prompts questions?

[Fitter2]

Farnborough is not included because it is not an airport - it has no scheduled air traffic (movements defined as Commercial Air Transport), and has no planning permission for such activity.


Which makes their ACP even more ludicrous.

[chevvron]

Before I left Farnborough, a normal weekday saw about 120 IFR fixed wing movements, plus VFR and helicopters. Weekends and PHs are 'artificially' lower due to planning restrictions.

[PA28181]

120 IFR fixed wing movements, plus VFR

I'd like to know how many VFR arrivals out of that number quoted?

[Midlifec]

Fundamentally and despite any argument to the contrary this proposal by TAG has nothing to do with safety- it's all about maximising their asset value, nothing more and nothing less, they are a minority user of the airspace surrounding Farnborough and really ought to accept it- trying to influence matters by careful manipulation of statistics is disingenuous to say the least. The recent low level biz jet traffic south and west of the airfield of which I have observed an apparent marked increase, seems, on the whole to be arriving- not departing so the departure procedures would seem unrelated. I cannot see any simple reason for Farnborough traffic to be routed as has been the case recently, other than to somehow enhance their statistics in support of their application for airspace for which there is clearly no operational need. Based on the safety of other airspace users there is and can be no case for granting the requested areas.

[gasax]

Cannot resist. You're right soaring, in your neck of the woods it works fine. In France, Belgium and Denmark in my experience it works fine.

But here the frequent response is "standby, remain clear of controlled airspace'. And if you're patient and they're not too busy after telling them your life story and promising not to get in the way you'll get a transit. It is not always like that, but there are areas which are pretty notorious for this sort of response. Some are genuinely busy, many are not.

[soaringhigh650]

So argue that airspace must be appropriately managed with access and provision for everyone and discuss the safety implications if not.

Don't go on a rant that Farnborough is fabricating nonsense in order to preserve your own "sport and recreation" which demands unrestricted non-radio access to Class G, or you will, just like the LAA and GAA, be ignored.

[PA28181]

Over here In the land of the free........

That is the problem, it's not over here.....

Not only are we seperated by a common language. But also by totally different ways of achieving the same thing.

[ak7274]

Go on then...... tell me why getting angry with Farnborough fabricating their application is wrong. Are we to believe the father and font of all knowledge from across the sea that keeping quiet works for the betterment of aviation?

[bad bear]

soaringhigh650, you say

So argue that airspace must be appropriately managed with access and provision for everyone and discuss the safety implications if not.

I think thats what the LAA etc did, but, it appears that you didn't read what they wrote.

Which is why nobody listens to them.

What is your beef with Farnborough anyway?


The beef with Farnborough is that they have stated that they would not allow glider access even with transponder. When they had class "D" previously they did not control it as you would suggest. It will be like an oversized chunk of class "A" blocking traffic flow at all levels and dangerously funnelling traffic in to a small volume of class "G", quite disproportionate given that natural separation is working fine. Each of the operators happen to use different height bands in the area.

bb

[Fitter2]

The main problem is that Farnborough are a minor player locally in terms of movements, but want to control all the local traffic (and exclude it when it doesn't suit their own needs) to cater for a relatively small number of their clients convenience. In the process that would constrict all other VFR traffic in the area to narrow corridors, creating a serious and unacceptable collision risk.


Their proposal would place 'their' airspace at ground level halfway down the runway of another local airfield, and within the visual circuit of the busiest gliding airfield in UK (possibly the world).


All this has been pointed out in great detail. Detailed constructive discussions with them on how to accommodate their needs have taken place, and then all suggestions have been ignored in their submission.

[Fitter2]

Posted in another thread. If accurate, it illustrates the attitude of Farnborough, and the problems that would be created if their proposal were to go ahead in any way.


Apparently Farnborough ATC seem to think that they already have Class D Airspace. On Saturday the temporary restrictions for the Airshow finished at 13.00 local time, so a few Lasham glider pilots headed off in their general direction.
Our CFI then got an angry phone call telling him that there gliders in 'their' airspace and would he get them to leave immediately. He asked if they were flying in their ATZ, to which the answer was No, so he pointed out out that they were flying quite legally in Class G Airspace. At this point the controller said "If that's your attitude" and slammed the phone down!

[Talkdownman]

From AIC M42/2014:

The Farnborough International Air Show will be held during the period 7-21 July 2014. The Secretary of State for Transport has introduced Restriction of Flying Regulations under Article 161 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 for this event...The Restrictions will not apply to any aircraft flying in accordance with a permission granted by the Air Traffic Control Unit at Farnborough Aerodrome. Note: Farnborough will provide, whenever possible, a RA(T) crossing service on their LARS frequency of 125.250 MHz during their published operating hours.

Note that only "a permission" is required. A clearance is NOT required. The RA(T)s are NOT CAS. They remain Class G (ie. uncontrolled) airspace, but subject only to permission to access. A 'crossing service' is offered (Note: NOT a crossing clearance).

Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.

[Fitter2]

The restrictions apply during specified hours. Farnborough apparently were trying to operate the RAT procedures outside those hours.


And asking non-IFR traffic to remain clear of the area is difficult to reconcile with providing a deconfliction service.


If that is Farnborough's interpretation, it is even more vital that their proposal is rejected in its entirety.

[Blink182]

Feedback report Part A is being published on Friday 29th August

Download will be available from 0900Hrs at TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation (http://www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com/)

[astir 8]

Looks like the approval ratings hit a maximum of 2%! Wonder what TAG's next move will be.

Presumably reduce the CAS area to what they really wanted?

[Blink182]

Well, their next move is this..........

Farnborough have done a deal with NATS and all the CAS which was going to be changed into class D is going to be slightly smaller and will be class A.

And the Airspace Change is being taken over by NATS.

Consultancy | NATS (http://www.nats.aero/environment/consul) ... -feedback/


Breathtaking arrogance contained in section 6.2.....

6.2 Anecdotal evidence from previous consultations has indicated that people who are negatively affected are more likely to respond than those who would benefit. Therefore consultation is not aimed at determining the popularity of a proposed design, nor is it a reliable proxy for determining popularity as responses are more likely to have a negative bias.

[DaveW]

... all the CAS which was going to be changed into class D is going to be slightly smaller and will be class A.

That's not correct. Only part of the original airspace change is covered by the (dodgy) NATS response.

The lower level airspace (approx that North of a line Winchester-Worthing) is still the responsibility of TAG, who haven't said what their next move is for that.

That will affect GA more even than the NATS airspace will, if the original "consultation" is any guide.

[Fitter2]

The lower level airspace (approx that North of a line Winchester-Worthing) is still the responsibility of TAG, who haven't said what their next move is for that.


Not yet it isn't, and the monumental political and judicial sh!tstorm that will arise if NATS attempt to impose it in the same way will make the current Ukraine situation look like a ladies tea party.

[DaveW]

Yes, quite. Sorry.

"The Consultation for that piece of airspace will continue to be led by TAG." is probably what I should have written.

The point is: Don't be too distracted by the NATS shenanigans, as important as they are; there's more and potentially worse for us to come from TAG.

[Fitter2]

It's OK Dave, I read what you said but I knew what you meant! :E

[Blink182]

Its time to bring this up to date.

Additional Consultation has been published August 2016... document here..https://www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com/consultation-document/


Not a lot has changed, it would appear that TAG / Farnborough are still hell bent on getting their way and ignoring all the objectors.
This tactic ( to publish a "Revised" proposal ) is possibly a way to have less objections raised , as many people will think that their points and objections will be carried through from the first document ..... apparently this is not the case so please respond and re-send your comments and objections to [email protected] by the 2nd November 2016

A reminder that there was a very reasoned and well written explanation of the problems that this airspace would cause here... http://docs.fasvig.info/ACP/20160513-FASVIG-Farnborough-Airspace-Report.pdf
if you have not already read it , I would urge you to do so !

[Sam Rutherford]

Just done mine - the automated response say that:


Thank you for responding to the Additional Consultation. Consultation runs from 10th August to 5th October. All responses will be analysed after closure and results published in Feedback Report C in due course. Please monitor www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com




So, looks like the deadline is earlier than previously posted...

[Blink182]

TAG wrote:
The first public consultation meeting took place at Capron House, Midhurst on Thursday 1 September 2016. Stakeholder feedback included comment on the length of the additional consultation and the impact of the summer break on their respective meeting schedules during this period.

TAG-FARNBOROUGH-AIRPORT-ADDITIONAL-CONSULTATION

TAG Farnborough Airport has therefore decided to extend the consultation period by a further 4 weeks, this will now run until Wednesday 2 November 2016.

[John R81]

Emailed my contribution

[Mike Flynn]

TAG just trying to keep the plebs out in favour of VIP's?
Has anyone alerted the media?

[hegemon88]

On a different forum I came across a funny term (see subject above) to describe the phenomenon which TAG may be relying upon, carrying out this additional consultation. Revise the original proposal slightly, open the consultation, get fewer objections and Bob's your uncle.

I'm going to send in exactly the same reponse as last time, just so it's there.


/h88

[chevvron]

From AIC M42/2014:



Note that only "a permission" is required. A clearance is NOT required. The RA(T)s are NOT CAS. They remain Class G (ie. uncontrolled) airspace, but subject only to permission to access. A 'crossing service' is offered (Note: NOT a crossing clearance).

Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.
Before writing the ACP for the Airshow RA(T) several years ago, we asked the CAA if it would be like Class D airspace. They replied that as long as we told them what 'rules' we wished to manage the airspace, it was entirely up to us.
So we decided on the following:
1) Pilots must request permission to enter.
2) They must listen out on the notified frequency whilst operating in the RA(T)
3) They must comply with ATC instructions whilst within the RA(T) unless that instruction is innapropriate eg 'instructing' a glider to vary its altitude.
I included these 'rules' in the Airspace Change Proposal and in the AIC.
Is this no longer the case?

[b1obthebuilder]

Fundamentally and despite any argument to the contrary this proposal by TAG has nothing to do with safety- it's all about maximising their asset value, nothing more and nothing less, they are a minority user of the airspace surrounding Farnborough and really ought to accept it- trying to influence matters by careful manipulation of statistics is disingenuous to say the least. The recent low level biz jet traffic south and west of the airfield of which I have observed an apparent marked increase, seems, on the whole to be arriving- not departing so the departure procedures would seem unrelated. I cannot see any simple reason for Farnborough traffic to be routed as has been the case recently, other than to somehow enhance their statistics in support of their application for airspace for which there is clearly no operational need. Based on the safety of other airspace users there is and can be no case for granting the requested areas.

In the teeth of determined opposition (of which all has been thoroughly ignored), TAG Farnborough continues to press for it's own monumental air grab. (Just google it.)

.... it's all about maximising their asset value, nothing more and nothing less......

Russian oligarchs do not like to be kept waiting.

On a different forum I came across a funny term (see subject above) to describe the phenomenon which TAG may be relying upon, carrying out this additional consultation. Revise the original proposal slightly, open the consultation, get fewer objections and Bob's your uncle.

I'm going to send in exactly the same response as last time, just so it's there.

/h88

Yep, exactly what happened, several times. All responses thoroughly ignored, several times.

Before I left Farnborough, a normal weekday saw about 120 IFR fixed wing movements, plus VFR and helicopters. Weekends and PHs are 'artificially' lower due to planning restrictions.

120 movements on a weekday (Monday to Friday)? I don't think so. I have worked on the airfield perimeter for the last 3 years. Maybe 3 take-offs per hour, so cannot be many more landings due to parking limitations. Maybe these movements are outside normal working hours!

[chevvron]

120 movements on a weekday (Monday to Friday)? I don't think so. I have worked on the airfield perimeter for the last 3 years. Maybe 3 take-offs per hour, so cannot be many more landings due to parking limitations. Maybe these movements are outside normal working hours!

Depends what times you are at work. Busiest periods when I worked in ATC there were 7 am - 8.30 am and 5 pm - 8pm with constant 'steady' traffic in between.
In the 'in between' period I often sit in the tower at Fairoaks nowadays watching a continuous stream of Fanborough arrivals; Farnborough inform us of all inbound traffic on runway 24 and we limit the altitude of our departures to avoid conflicting with the Farnborough traffic.
I would often arrive at Farnborough at 6.45 am and aircraft would be sitting there with APUs running ready to get away asap after we opened and there would be inbounds holding close by when the radar came on line.

[b1obthebuilder]

Depends what times you are at work. Busiest periods when I worked in ATC there were 7 am - 8.30 am and 5 pm - 8pm with constant 'steady' traffic in between.
In the 'in between' period I often sit in the tower at Fairoaks nowadays watching a continuous stream of Fanborough arrivals; Farnborough inform us of all inbound traffic on runway 24 and we limit the altitude of our departures to avoid conflicting with the Farnborough traffic.
I would often arrive at Farnborough at 6.45 am and aircraft would be sitting there with APUs running ready to get away asap after we opened and there would be inbounds holding close by when the radar came on line.



Thanks for the info.


If TAG were to be taxed for all of the airspace they want to grab, solely for their customers convenience, would they change their plans?

[chevvron]

Thanks for the info.


If TAG were to be taxed for all of the airspace they want to grab, solely for their customers convenience, would they change their plans?

If someone brings in taxation for controlled airspace it would have to be for all not just odd bits. Would Heathrow be taxed? Would Biggin? or Exeter?

[Fitter2]

Or those blighted aerial deserts, Robin Hood and Norwich...

[Blink182]

Latest........

https://i.imgur.com/oONtZAX.jpg

[chevvron]

In 1981/2, the CAA and NATS (not Farnborough) wanted to put controlled airspace over Lasham with a base of 3,500ft.
Lasham objected and so for years, Southampton arrivals were forced to fly through small portions of what we now call Class G airspace until the Southampton CTAs could be re-designed.
Lasham and the BGA have always moaned and bitched about controlled airspace around them and any compromise suggested has been met with replies like 'well can we have (this bit) as well' or 'couldn't you move that boundary back by a couple of miles as it prevents us from tracking direct to various competition turning points'.
Whatever you do, whatever concessions you make, Lasham will always want more.

[KelvinD]

Recently, I was a bit bored and I opened up Planefinder to see what was about my area (Basingstoke). There had been a break in the weather and on that day it was basically sunny with broken cloud.
I was amazed to see approximately 40 gliders, plus a couple of tugs, in the air both to the north and south of where I live, approx 5 miles north of Lasham. My first thought was "how will Flybe cope with that?" on their flights into Southampton as many of their arrivals pass my house between Basingstoke and Lasham. It also occurred to me that not only would this be "awkward" for Flybe, the RAF fly helicopters more or less along the line of the M3 motorway to and from Odiham, probably at around 1,000 ft and of course there is also Popham in the vicinity.

[planesandthings]

Recently, I was a bit bored and I opened up Planefinder to see what was about my area (Basingstoke). There had been a break in the weather and on that day it was basically sunny with broken cloud.
I was amazed to see approximately 40 gliders, plus a couple of tugs, in the air both to the north and south of where I live, approx 5 miles north of Lasham. My first thought was "how will Flybe cope with that?" on their flights into Southampton as many of their arrivals pass my house between Basingstoke and Lasham. It also occurred to me that not only would this be "awkward" for Flybe, the RAF fly helicopters more or less along the line of the M3 motorway to and from Odiham, probably at around 1,000 ft and of course there is also Popham in the vicinity.

Lets get some actual facts into this debate instead of misinformation.
​​​​​​
Flybe/Southampton Traffic? They're in controlled airspace from the TMA to the Solent CTA/CTR so they are irrelevant to this discussion as Gliders at Lasham do not fly in controlled airspace.

Odiham have comprehensive LOAs with Lasham and the working relationship is very good, Odiham use Online Glider Network for situational awareness and very rarely are Chinooks in similar areas to Gliders, their standard operating height in the Lasham area is 500-1000ft, well clear of any gliders unless the Chinooks are in the Lasham Circuit

Popham traffic has just as much right to be there as Lasham traffic, on fly in days the whole local area can be full of microlights, the opposite is true with Gliding Competitions.
​​​​​​
Those are the facts, not that this has much relevance as the issue here is Farnborough not Lasham's relationships with other airfields (which by the way are generally in support of Lasham's cause)

Above all, you should never be suprised with the density of traffic from Lasham, I hear their figures are well in excess of 50,000 movements a year putting them in the top 20 of all airfields in the UK, unsuprisingly therefore they are very much a big player in the south's airspace infrastructure and won't go down quietly.

​​

​​​​​

​​​

​​​

​​​​​

[KelvinD]

planesandthings: Get off your high horse. Just for a minute.
I was merely relating what I have seen frequently. This particular day saw an unusually high number of gliders. The area in which they were flying included the same patch of earth that the occasional Flybe aircraft fly through on their way to Southampton. I know this to be true as I often see them between my house and Lasham. Similarly, the corridor along which helicopters move to and from Odiham are between my house and Lasham. Again, I know this as I frequently see them (except for the odd occasion when they come over my house!)
My post was merely an observation, prompted by earlier posts and was in no way aiming to have a dig at Lasham gliding.

[planesandthings]

planesandthings: Get off your high horse. Just for a minute.
I was merely relating what I have seen frequently. This particular day saw an unusually high number of gliders. The area in which they were flying included the same patch of earth that the occasional Flybe aircraft fly through on their way to Southampton. I know this to be true as I often see them between my house and Lasham. Similarly, the corridor along which helicopters move to and from Odiham are between my house and Lasham. Again, I know this as I frequently see them (except for the odd occasion when they come over my house!)
My post was merely an observation, prompted by earlier posts and was in no way aiming to have a dig at Lasham gliding.

​​​​​And as a local resident to Lasham too for over 20 years and someone who flies in this airspace very frequently for a living I am simply pointing out to you the score with the working relationships I've had with the stakeholders you brought up. Your wording was not clear and implied that Flybe would have to consider Lasham's activities which to the untrained eye is plausible but in reality with the complexities of the airspace structure of the UK is perfectly normal as above 5500ft at Basingstoke is controlled by Swanwick for London/Solent outbounds and inbounds, an area totally off limits to the majority of light aircraft and all gliders. Hopefully that clears what you have been observing up :-)
​​​​

[treadigraph]

Flybe aircraft into Southampton are at about 10-12000' as they pass Lasham. There appeared to be a competition at Lasham on Saturday with a task involving turns at Lyneham and the Yeovil area. Looking at the gaggle, most were leaving Lasham somewhere between 3-4000'.