Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Farnborough Airspace Proposal

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Farnborough Airspace Proposal

Old 4th Mar 2014, 06:25
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 06:50
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by flybymike
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?
Talkdownman is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 08:14
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 09:03
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 398
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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”

.
Tagron is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 09:08
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: South of England
Posts: 1,169
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
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
2 sheds is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 10:50
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 10:56
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
PaulisHome is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 11:09
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
HyFlyer is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 21:32
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
2 Sheds.

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

Last edited by Mach Jump; 4th Mar 2014 at 21:46.
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 21:38
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 21:49
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
But not the CTR.


MJ
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 22:10
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 22:16
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LF three-and-a-half degree GP...
Talkdownman is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 22:30
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
wb9999

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
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 22:39
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
wb9999 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2014, 23:10
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Mach Jump is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2014, 07:39
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The GP have always been 3.5 degrees.


The other bits of CAS are to join into the various airways that are near by.
mad_jock is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2014, 12:39
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
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.
chevvron is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2014, 14:01
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
John R81 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2014, 16:01
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,799
Received 90 Likes on 63 Posts
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.
chevvron is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.