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?