Northolt issues for business aviation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hinckley
Age: 61
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northolt issues for business aviation
Little worrying - seen over on the Military threads:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...-northolt.html
Looks like the CAA may now be compelled to impose certain constraints or limitations on civilian usage of RAF Northolt after recent court hearing.
Wonder what they could come up with?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...-northolt.html
Looks like the CAA may now be compelled to impose certain constraints or limitations on civilian usage of RAF Northolt after recent court hearing.
Wonder what they could come up with?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the Reuben brothers think that by restricting Northolt it will increase their business at Oxford. However if successful I imagine any benefit to Oxford airport will be so diluted by movements going to Farnborough, Biggin' & Luton etc that it'll be of negligible benefit.
Looks like the Reuben brothers think that by restricting Northolt it will increase their business at Oxford. However if successful I imagine any benefit to Oxford airport will be so diluted by movements going to Farnborough, Biggin' & Luton etc that it'll be of negligible benefit.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone out there that knows about these matters, care to comment on Northolt with a couple of 240m RESA's on each end?
What requirements would be needed to bring it up to civil spec?
What requirements would be needed to bring it up to civil spec?
From their website:
The claimants were also ordered to meet the MoD’s costs. As a result, RAF Northolt can and will continue to operate in exactly the same way as before the Review.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errm, a bit of misinformation above - the court action was on behalf of Biggin and Oxford alone, not Farnborough, Oxford owned by the Reubens and Biggin owned by the Walters. Both seeking a level playing field on standards and safety where there weren't equal standards being applied when NHT was now seeing nearly 80% civilian traffic since the cap on civil movements went from 7500 to 12000.
The judge concluded that the CAA couldn't change anything at Northolt and had no jurisdiction there, but could, if they wished, impose new conditions on use on civilian operators, as the CAA saw fit. Up until now, the CAA mistakenly believed they couldn't do so. The military continue to do whatever they want, unhindered, and civil operators may, possibly, have to comply with some new conditions of use, if the CAA think they are necessary.
That's it. We now wait to see what conditions, if any, the CAA see fit to impose, where until now there were none.
The judge concluded that the CAA couldn't change anything at Northolt and had no jurisdiction there, but could, if they wished, impose new conditions on use on civilian operators, as the CAA saw fit. Up until now, the CAA mistakenly believed they couldn't do so. The military continue to do whatever they want, unhindered, and civil operators may, possibly, have to comply with some new conditions of use, if the CAA think they are necessary.
That's it. We now wait to see what conditions, if any, the CAA see fit to impose, where until now there were none.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly this.
Biggin/Oxford ordered to pay Northolt's legal costs. Judge identified that this was a 'competition' complaint rather than a safety issue.
Can CAA impose restrictions on foreign GA? I thought they could only 'reccomend'... And ensure that the appropriate information is made available.
CAA have made precedent at a number of aerodromes where compliance was not possible.
Not an expert, just some of my thoughts...
Can CAA impose restrictions on foreign GA? I thought they could only 'reccomend'... And ensure that the appropriate information is made available.
CAA have made precedent at a number of aerodromes where compliance was not possible.
Not an expert, just some of my thoughts...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In The Ether
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just received this.....
London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports wish to clarify the following:
* The safety of all civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes is the sole responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority not the Military Aviation Authority or MOD.
* The CAA is now responsible for deciding if RAF Northolt is safe for use by civil aircraft.
* An assessment by the CAA is required and this may require civil aviation use of Northolt to be restricted, unless it is upgraded.
* This upgrade may result in taxpayers facing a bill in excess of £20 million
* It has been admitted (by MOD and CAA) that Northolt does not comply with Civil Aviation safety standards.
* The Court ruling impacts on all civilian flights using military aerodromes, including the 12,000 civilian flights a year at RAF Northolt.
In a landmark ruling last week, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Secretary of State advised that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the statutory regulator required to determine safety standards for civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes.
Previously, as part of a policy of attracting 12,000 more business jets a year to RAF Northolt in west London, Ministers had repeatedly argued that they didn’t need to meet stricter, costlier civilian safety standards – only military ones – and that the CAA had no regulatory responsibility or powers at military aerodromes.
This meant that smaller private airports reliant on business jets were being significantly undermined, as RAF Northolt became a competitor accepting civil flights without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards.
London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports, represented by John Steel QC, lodged an application for a Judicial Review, arguing that the use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft should be regulated by the CAA and subject to equivalent safety standards that would apply to civilian airports, as mandated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA).
This Judicial Review has now clarified the position – the CAA and the Secretary of State for Transport are responsible for the safety of all civilian flights using RAF Northolt and other military aerodromes in the U.K. The safety of military flights remains the exclusive responsibility of the Military Aviation Authority and MOD.
The Judgment is also likely to have a major impact on an ongoing EU competition investigation concerning State Aid, and requested by London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports. Should the Commission find that the MOD have been unfairly competing with the private sector, the compensation bill could run into many tens of millions.
* The safety of all civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes is the sole responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority not the Military Aviation Authority or MOD.
* The CAA is now responsible for deciding if RAF Northolt is safe for use by civil aircraft.
* An assessment by the CAA is required and this may require civil aviation use of Northolt to be restricted, unless it is upgraded.
* This upgrade may result in taxpayers facing a bill in excess of £20 million
* It has been admitted (by MOD and CAA) that Northolt does not comply with Civil Aviation safety standards.
* The Court ruling impacts on all civilian flights using military aerodromes, including the 12,000 civilian flights a year at RAF Northolt.
In a landmark ruling last week, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Secretary of State advised that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the statutory regulator required to determine safety standards for civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes.
Previously, as part of a policy of attracting 12,000 more business jets a year to RAF Northolt in west London, Ministers had repeatedly argued that they didn’t need to meet stricter, costlier civilian safety standards – only military ones – and that the CAA had no regulatory responsibility or powers at military aerodromes.
This meant that smaller private airports reliant on business jets were being significantly undermined, as RAF Northolt became a competitor accepting civil flights without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards.
London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports, represented by John Steel QC, lodged an application for a Judicial Review, arguing that the use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft should be regulated by the CAA and subject to equivalent safety standards that would apply to civilian airports, as mandated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA).
This Judicial Review has now clarified the position – the CAA and the Secretary of State for Transport are responsible for the safety of all civilian flights using RAF Northolt and other military aerodromes in the U.K. The safety of military flights remains the exclusive responsibility of the Military Aviation Authority and MOD.
The Judgment is also likely to have a major impact on an ongoing EU competition investigation concerning State Aid, and requested by London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports. Should the Commission find that the MOD have been unfairly competing with the private sector, the compensation bill could run into many tens of millions.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: west london
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest MOD press release that is a little different from that issued last week. After the 'clarification' released by the other airports above, I wonder if the lawyers have been onto them about the previous ones:
RAF Northolt Judicial Review
02 February 2015
News articles by date
RAF Northolt Judicial Review:
RAF Northolt was the subject of an application for judicial review challenging the decision by the Ministry of Defence to increase the self-imposed limit on commercial flights from 7,000 to 12,000 movements per annum.
The judgment, handed down on Friday 23 January 2015, dismissed the application in its entirety. See the Judgment in full at the following link - Oxford Aviation Services (t/a London Oxford Airport) & Anor v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors [2015] EWHC 24 (Admin) (23 January 2015)
RAF Northolt remains able to accept civil aviation as per its published limitations and procedures.
RAF Northolt Judicial Review
02 February 2015
News articles by date
RAF Northolt Judicial Review:
RAF Northolt was the subject of an application for judicial review challenging the decision by the Ministry of Defence to increase the self-imposed limit on commercial flights from 7,000 to 12,000 movements per annum.
The judgment, handed down on Friday 23 January 2015, dismissed the application in its entirety. See the Judgment in full at the following link - Oxford Aviation Services (t/a London Oxford Airport) & Anor v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors [2015] EWHC 24 (Admin) (23 January 2015)
RAF Northolt remains able to accept civil aviation as per its published limitations and procedures.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: cardiff
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people are still missing the point, nothing physically changes at NHT, it's still fully controlled by the MAA (MOD), will remain so, and civil aviation can access just as they have always done.
The big difference post this case is that the UK CAA can, if they wish, now impose limitations on use on the aircraft operators - not the airport. Its up to the CAA now to decide if the use of NHT by civilian operators warrants the imposition of some specific limitations on use that apply to NHT in an effort to mitigate against the additional risks that exist at that specific aerodrome.
It will be interesting to see how long the CAA now take to decide what, if anything, they may impose on civil operators using NHT. Having not realised they had that power or obligation since 1982 under UK law, until this case arose, perhaps they wont be in such a rush. On the other hand, there could be another Learjet overrun tomorrow morning, so my guess is that they might act swiftly.
The big difference post this case is that the UK CAA can, if they wish, now impose limitations on use on the aircraft operators - not the airport. Its up to the CAA now to decide if the use of NHT by civilian operators warrants the imposition of some specific limitations on use that apply to NHT in an effort to mitigate against the additional risks that exist at that specific aerodrome.
It will be interesting to see how long the CAA now take to decide what, if anything, they may impose on civil operators using NHT. Having not realised they had that power or obligation since 1982 under UK law, until this case arose, perhaps they wont be in such a rush. On the other hand, there could be another Learjet overrun tomorrow morning, so my guess is that they might act swiftly.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Northolt to be sold for housing?
The future of RAF Northolt is a hot topic that should be part of Airports Commission's review of the South East's runway capacity.
The biggest danger is that the MoD decide to close the airfield and sell the spare land for housing.
Here are more details on that possible outcome:
Will The Queen?s favourite airport survive a regulatory review? « PrivateFly Blog
Once an airport closes it is very unlikely that it will ever re-open. Do we as a nation want to loose this historic and prime London airport?
The biggest danger is that the MoD decide to close the airfield and sell the spare land for housing.
Here are more details on that possible outcome:
Will The Queen?s favourite airport survive a regulatory review? « PrivateFly Blog
Once an airport closes it is very unlikely that it will ever re-open. Do we as a nation want to loose this historic and prime London airport?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 418 Likes
on
221 Posts
Northolt is popular with customers mainly because it's located where passengers prefer to travel to and from. Oxford is a ridiculously long distance from London to have "London" as a prefix in its name and whilst Biggin Hill is closer, the supporting roads network is poor by today's standards.
If it wasn't the most convenient location, Northolt might be less popular.
I note that Biggin Hill have been advertising a helicopter shuttle to and from London Heliport. They quote a six minute transit time. It might be, measured in a straight line, but not including the time taken to taxi, take off and land.
If it wasn't the most convenient location, Northolt might be less popular.
I note that Biggin Hill have been advertising a helicopter shuttle to and from London Heliport. They quote a six minute transit time. It might be, measured in a straight line, but not including the time taken to taxi, take off and land.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 13th Feb 2015 at 09:47.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: OX18
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how much cause for concern for Netjets as they consider Northolt again for setting up a maintenance facility in the UK? It's the perfect location and never made sense when it closed other than the military wanting the hangar for other things.
Can't imagine Netjets would go to Oxford where businesses have to pay huge amounts for parking permits (and often have visitors fined for overstaying the permitted two hours, grrrr) and Biggin Hill may be close to London but the road links make it useless. Marshalls have a great facility at BHX that must be hugely cheaper than the London area, possibly making repositioning a worthwhile option.
Can't imagine Netjets would go to Oxford where businesses have to pay huge amounts for parking permits (and often have visitors fined for overstaying the permitted two hours, grrrr) and Biggin Hill may be close to London but the road links make it useless. Marshalls have a great facility at BHX that must be hugely cheaper than the London area, possibly making repositioning a worthwhile option.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PrivateFly
Once an airport closes it is very unlikely that it will ever re-open. Do we as a nation want to loose this historic and prime London airport?
Once an airport closes it is very unlikely that it will ever re-open. Do we as a nation want to loose this historic and prime London airport?
They did it with Hatfield..... And it was making more sense to keep Hatfield open than Northolt IMHO
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For many years Netjets have been paying Cranfield Airport for an option to build a service centre, this would exclude any other such facility being built. The land is owned by the University. Who knows whether or not this will ever happen as the long term plans for the airport have yet to be published.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: way out west
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't safety the real issue?
So setting the business, legal and political issues aside, just for a moment, what are the actual safety issues at NHT? The airspace around NHT feels much better serviced (safer!!) than that around OXF, for example, and my company’s safety reporting stats support this perception.
On the other hand, the PAR/SRA onto RWY 07 at NHT must be an issue? Not that there is anything inherently unsafe about Ground Controlled Approaches, especially when provided by superb RAF controllers and flown by competent modern corporate aviation pilots. But currency must surely be an issue for civvy pilots? How safe is a PAR to minima going to be if the crew only fly one or two of these approaches per annum?? I’d like to see the MAA insist on that fabled RNAV approach and, while that’s being established, the CAA meanwhile insist on some currency/training requirements for civilian use of those RWY 07 instrument approaches…
And now back to the billionaires’ bunfight!!!
On the other hand, the PAR/SRA onto RWY 07 at NHT must be an issue? Not that there is anything inherently unsafe about Ground Controlled Approaches, especially when provided by superb RAF controllers and flown by competent modern corporate aviation pilots. But currency must surely be an issue for civvy pilots? How safe is a PAR to minima going to be if the crew only fly one or two of these approaches per annum?? I’d like to see the MAA insist on that fabled RNAV approach and, while that’s being established, the CAA meanwhile insist on some currency/training requirements for civilian use of those RWY 07 instrument approaches…
And now back to the billionaires’ bunfight!!!