Originally Posted by
BEagle
Actually, it just indicates that it was a stupid place to put a new airport!
Couldn't agree more - the CAA should have stamped on this from the very beginning, in an area served more than adequately by three other airports (East Mids, Leeds and Humberside). Peel should never have been allowed planning permission.
In fact - let's go one stage further
The plethora of flying activities described above taking place in uncontrolled airspace has led to a number of safety-related incidents which together with the illustrations of predicted growth underline the pressing need for a revision in the airspace arrangements.
Who was there first? This smacks very much of the "bully" moving into the neighbourhood and demanding everyone bow down to them
I have also been told that they are planning an increase in training movements - including RAF - and other ways of increasing their commercial development. Although that is supposed to be 'rather hush hush for the moment'.
Have heard the same thing - their current movement totals are paltry and in no way require all the airspace they are asking for. It's time for everyone who reads this proposal to put in their opposition to DAP
Clearly the intent is to say "Look how busy we are - we really need all this Class D airspace we've asked for!"
Come and look at the radar picture someday - you won't see a lot happening there I can assure you.
Originally Posted by
Single Spey
I think that it is about time that as many GA pilots as possible started to plan flights though these Class D zones that are springing up and when refused access put in a complaint to the CAA.
Surely a better solution would be to complain about it so it is not established in the first place.
I have no major objection to the establishment of CAS where there is free and equitable access for all airspace users.
That's the major problem - too many airports think they "own" the airspace, where in fact they are merely "custodians" of it
Where the service provider is unable to accommodate traffic then they are failing in their obligations to the CAA to run airspace and should thus be reported accordingly.
Be careful, that's a dangerous line to follow to its natural end. It's necessary to remember why the airspace was introduced in the first place (known traffic environment) and as such there will be times when safety requires a judgement call that may not enable a transit. A more balanced view would be that the service provider
attempts to allow free and equal access, bearing in mind that it is better to slightly re-route a GA transit rather than having 200 tonnes of kerosene burner going around
