Olympic restrictions 2012

[hands_on123]

Agreed, it's complete nonsense, all in the name of "security". That catch-all word which ever-increasingly intrudes on our rights and costs US a fortune.

[ChippyChop]

I have to agree with CRAZYBROADSWORD about the thinking of the authorities. I too had to complete the ridiculus GAR form for Cheltenham, what an embarrassment for successful business types taking their clients into the races having to get passport numbers and addresses when the rif raf just drive in and could take a much larger bomb than we could manange to carry with max pax and only enough fuel to get there!!

The crazies will always find a way to do their damage and they won't follow the rules of engagement. Putting blanket bans on only stops the law abiding. As best I can see it at the moment the UK public transport helicopter sector is on its knees in the UK. If this summer doesn't improve a lot of people are going to lose their jobs and what was once a fantastic business will be ruined by excessive costs brought about mainly by over regulation.

Perhaps we'll all be able to sell our engines to drive generators, 'cos most likely the authorities will now decide nuclear energy is too dangerous in the UK due to the threat of a Tsunami!! My thoughts are with those poor souls in Japan.

[John R81]

On the GA site there is reference to a fighting fund for legal action.

[Heliport]

NATS Consultation - London Olympics Airspace proposal

NATS opened an 8-week consultation on the Olympics Temporary Controlled Airspace Proposal today. It will close on Thursday 26th May 2011.
Any interested party may respond.

The proposal is to implement temporary airspace restrictions from 0800 (local) Monday 16th July (the week before the Games open) until 2000 (local) Wednesday 15th August 2012 (three days after they close).
Details:
Proposal to establish Temporary Controlled Airspace for the London Olympics

The consultation will primarily be managed via email. The consultation document contains instructions in the paragraph "How do I respond?", and an email response template is provided.

Response Template
Reply to [email protected] deleting text as applicable, and supplying the grounds for your response in free text at the end.

Re: London 2012 Olympics Temporary Controlled Airspace Consultation

I am responding on behalf of [name of organisation]
or
I am responding personally as a member of the public

We agree / do not agree that any personal details contained within this response may be sent to the CAA as part of the Airspace Change Proposal.

I/we object to the Olympics Airspace proposal
I/we have no objection to the Olympics Airspace proposal

The grounds for my/our response are:


(Insert supporting text)

NB: More than one airspace consultation may be in progress at any time. You should respond separately to each consultation or your response may not be included in the feedback report.

[JimBall]

Latest text changes

The Olympics Airspace website has had some crucial changes made. Make sure your emails have been sent or are sent to"olympics" not "olympic"....the email address first issued earlier this month didn't have the "s" and the emails have not got through.

Text now states:

"The decision to put restrictions in place, their size, location and the possibility to use that airspace is a decision taken by Government. The Government has set up an e-mail address that you can use to raise issues over the basic principle of the restrictions, their size and the impact on business: [email protected]
Separately, the CAA and NATS will work on the operational aspects of the airspace and suggestions or requests for exemptions can be e-mailed to: [email protected]
But please bear in mind that these must be approved by the Government and, in particular, it's security teams."

[nigelh]

The last 2 forms i had to fill in requiring passport etc i just put N/A and flew in . I agree about the future for small PT operators ..they are being throttled by stupid beaurocracy and rules that do not work . A real shame and all goes toward helping the lease operators who are not bound by the same rules ....( dont worry we are not starting that one again !! )

[sarboy w****r]

Potential Alterations to Prohibited Zone

OK, so if we're agreed that the proposed restrictions, as written, mean that central London will be shut to helicopters for 2 months, and that this is stupid and unnecessary, what restrictions would people accept? At present, Battersea, the powerstation and Vanguard are all going to be unavailable for the entire duration of the ban, simply because we enter Special VFR, not IFR as stated, and because only Heathrow, City and Biggin are listed as acceptable origins/destinations. I can't see the owners of Battersea in particular being happy at losing 2 months revenue because no helicopters are allowed into the zone.

I think it is highly unlikely that asking for the status quo will be acceptable and that some form of restrictions are going to be necessary to placate the Olympics security empire.

What would work within the Prohibited Zone? Should we go down the route of removing the reference to IFR? Should the proposal simply say that all movements should be under the auspices of an AOC? Should the helilanes be closed but travel to/from Battersea allowed via Brent/due south?

Some of these will exclude private flights, others will exclude singles from flying - what are your thoughts as to what might work?

SBW

[DennisK]

Security

We all know the plan as presently published will not and cannot stop a determined bomber. But rather than offering criticism, herewith something constructive.

The authorities need to position armed security guys at every GA airport in the country, (OK it may need at least 1,000 - probably many more) and no aircraft gets airborne with out individual security clearance. All off-airfield based aircraft to be positioned to an airfield for the period. Then we can forget all about restricted and prohibited zones or the useless Flight Plans. Having said that, nothing ... absolutely nothing is going to stop said villain abducting a pilot's family member, sticking a gun in his ribs as he speaks to his loved one and then launches off to some obscure landing site to collect his weapon of choice. An MD 500 will happily lift a 1,000 pound GP bomb, or an R22 used to pick up a tea-cupful of Ricin.

Secure flying to you all out there. Dennis Kenyon.

[pitot212]

Good point Den,

What you mean is, sort of "work with them (security) rather than against them" 'cause if something does go wrong and it's by helicopter then the whole industry could suffer forever after!

This is from someone who has worked most of his career over London! So I agree with you Den

[ShyTorque]

Should the proposal simply say that all movements should be under the auspices of an AOC?

What about private owners, why should they be disadvantaged? Some very regular users of Battersea are thus. Including aircraft used by government ministers and Royal family, btw.

[toptobottom]

Dennis

All off-airfield based aircraft to be positioned to an airfield for the period.

I admire your pragmatism and I have no doubt that there must be a better way to satisfy the Governments's requirements without the current preposterous proposals! However, since the police force has difficulty resourcing local football matches, I don't think it would be possible to man every GA airfield in the country; neither will owners want their precious babies taken out of their humidity controlled hangars and dumped in a field, probably miles away, for two months...

Howsabout this though? In the same way that we're all given unique identifiers for interweb banking, why couldn't we each apply for a similar unique 'Olympics code' ahead of the games. There's plenty of time to vet the individual applicants and then we simply announce ourselves to a dedicated 'Olympics' frequency on lifting? That would provide a much higher level of security than the FP idea, but with a lot less hassle and a lot more spontaneity

[FSXPilot]

Our local special branch officer has asked us to ensure we remove the T/R blades from all of the aircraft we look after in the weeks running up to the start of the ban.
His thinking was that if that happens anything else that is helicopter shaped must either be police or military or a target. Got to love the nutters!

[zorab64]

I would strongly suggest that, as there are meetings planned to discuss the proposed restrictions in detail, any discussion about "good ideas" for getting round them be aired in those meetings alone - and that, genuinely interested, parties get themselves invited.

I will be making my professional representations to my boss (who will be attending), without discussing them on a public www forum. I also have the express intention of keeping our operation, as well as me & my family, safe from potential exploitation, the like of which has already been (foolishly, IMHO) expressed already.

The UK authorities have a duty to protect the public from the lunatic minority and have started by suggesting a tight lid be slammed on the pot. There will need to be some vent-holes, of course, but there are methods & I have confidence that they will be explored to the full - and the hope that they will prove satisfactory to the majority!

[DennisK]

Security

Zorab,

Yes okay, but you only need one loose 'vent hole' in the pot to take out too many innocents. And don't foolishly assume for one moment you own the thinking rights and the bad guys haven't considered the odd family abduction possibility. Ask Ian Evans!

As to security numbers, if it makes the Olympics safe, I don't care if half the police force are seconded for UK airport security. Especially if it gives speeding motorists a break.

Dennis Kenyon.

PS. Can we persuade any 'decision makers' to follow prune for a bit.

[FairWeatherFlyer]

Especially if it gives speeding motorists a break.

I presume this is an intentionally ironic reference to the risk/reward of road public transport and the commonly accepted sacrifice of a thankfully ever-decreasing (in part due to legislative change) two and a half thousand (UK) people a year to achieve effective travel?

Anyway, back to the topic. There must be some way to get a better balance for commercial rotary operations here. If this was my industry I would get together with some other operators and work on ideas and proposals which could be presented with consensus and a single voice.

In terms of proposals, perhaps a charitable element or something involves local people/schools/budding atheletes might help.

As a consumer/spectator it would be great to do local aerial tours of the olympic areas. Even if that was restricted to before/after the games, i think that would be popular, fun, and perhaps help balance any loss of revenue during the games. If some overly simplistic green agenda needs to be addressed, some inexpensive carbon offsetting wipes that one away.

[homonculus]

We can carry on talking till the Olympics are over, but if the industry is to avoid shut down we need to agree an alternative and put it up.

Topto bottom is quite right. I visit military bases every year, and have to provide my name, address and passport number for vetting in advance. They also want my registration and radio contact inbound. If this is OK to fly into an operational base in the middle of a war, why wont it suffice for the Olympics!!!!???

We have over a year for this to be done for anyone not already vetted, and the successful vettee could then be given a security number. On first contact you provide registration and security number - having to provide a combination no doubt makes the spooks even more happy, if no more safe.

No doubt the 'temporary' measures may be as temporary as income tax, but that is another matter

[helicopter-redeye]

Northern France is closer to the Olympics site than a lot of the UK (especially Yorkshire).

What is the French government going to do to present a bad guys flight starting in a French field or airfield?

Or Belgium? (or even Denmark and Holland)

Some light aircraft (non heli) can carry hours of fuel and fly a radius of action starting in Italy to get to the target, so how is this threat going to be combatted?

Anyway, as already noted, the bad guys wont be asking permission to fly in.

Or as George Orwell put it in a different context "...the bomber will always get through'.

So are the RAF going to take out a low flying target over Central London en route to its target with a air to air missle and cause collateral damage on the streets below? They won't do it in North Africa so why over London?

Another, better, strategy of prevention is needed rather than airspace closures. The eye in the sky from the UK professional flying population will add more to security than keeping on the ground.

IMHO.

h-r

[JimBall]

URGENT!

Important meetings are taking place THIS WEEK, involving the CAA, Home Office and the BHA. Decisions will be taken after these meetings based on evidence provided.

It is vitally important that everyone who may be affected files in the next few days. The fear is that the HO will move to put these restrictions into a Statutory Instrument very soon - and then there's no chance.

Airfield cafes, clubs, engineering, training schools, AOC holders : from Duxford to Dunsfold, Wycombe to Southend. You are all going to be badly affected.

The website now has 2 email addresses as Points of Contact - one goes to the CAA and the other the DfT. People should file with both if relevant.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Make no bones - tell everyone that this is a very real threat. Here's the link to the written answer delivered to Parliament by Minister of State for Transport on March 7.

Olympic Airspace

[chrisp666]

Hmmm...

That's an awful lot politer than the email I sent! I expect they will more likely listen to yours....won't they?

[IFly]

Possible?

Why not cascade the responsibility for security to the local level? That is, to the airfield operators. As they are the ones usually handling radio comms and flight plan messages, they could establish a procedure based on their personal knowledge of the aircraft / aircraft owners / aircraft operators.

As some of the airspace is already in a TMZ, on a daily (or even hourly) basis, a unique squark code could be provided by higher authority to the airfields, who would only pass this on with the knowledge that they were accepting security responsibility in so doing. In addition, if necessary, this could be restricted to Mode S equipped aircraft, thereby enabling unique identification.