Doncaster Sheffield-3
I notice various Facebook groups and MP Nick with his selfie stick are celebrating that LBA ACP has been rejected. They would be best placed to actually look a bit deeper into this and they might realise that this was initially applied for in 2021 and is not the ACP request of 2022 on the back of DSA airspace closure.
Also, it has not been rejected in principle. LBA have been invited to reapply once they have satisfied the criteria outlined in the initial rejection, mainly full stakeholder consultation and design proposals.
One rejected today ACP 2021-066
Ongoing proposal tagged on to DSA airspace closure (to take a segment of DSA airspace) ACP 2022-082.
From my understanding the original proposal from 2021 concerns certain aspects of Class-G which can lead to high workload descent profiles onto RWY32 compounded by a lack of STAR procedure, and this is separate from the other proposal to take a segment of DSA CAT. The proposal is built purely to enhance safety of all airspace users, not to undermine any business case that may or may not be in the making.
Also, it has not been rejected in principle. LBA have been invited to reapply once they have satisfied the criteria outlined in the initial rejection, mainly full stakeholder consultation and design proposals.
One rejected today ACP 2021-066
Ongoing proposal tagged on to DSA airspace closure (to take a segment of DSA airspace) ACP 2022-082.
From my understanding the original proposal from 2021 concerns certain aspects of Class-G which can lead to high workload descent profiles onto RWY32 compounded by a lack of STAR procedure, and this is separate from the other proposal to take a segment of DSA CAT. The proposal is built purely to enhance safety of all airspace users, not to undermine any business case that may or may not be in the making.
Last edited by pug; 4th Jul 2023 at 22:38.
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I noticed a thread last night where Lord Chadwick calling everything fiction.
it looks more to me like a man out of his depth. It appears when he doesn't understand he just calls it boll@#$$.
I am not sure whether the airport contractor thing looks true or not but it looks genuine.
it looks more to me like a man out of his depth. It appears when he doesn't understand he just calls it boll@#$$.
I am not sure whether the airport contractor thing looks true or not but it looks genuine.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think it is a ‘feature’ of this type of bulletin board. Had a few occasions where front page indicated a new post or posts were available, only for them not to be visible when opening the thread. Not sure if it may be connected with new users and their posts requiring some sort of approval from moderators before they appear?
Think it is a ‘feature’ of this type of bulletin board. Had a few occasions where front page indicated a new post or posts were available, only for them not to be visible when opening the thread. Not sure if it may be connected with new users and their posts requiring some sort of approval from moderators before they appear?
I noticed a thread last night where Lord Chadwick calling everything fiction.
it looks more to me like a man out of his depth. It appears when he doesn't understand he just calls it boll@#$$.
I am not sure whether the airport contractor thing looks true or not but it looks genuine.
it looks more to me like a man out of his depth. It appears when he doesn't understand he just calls it boll@#$$.
I am not sure whether the airport contractor thing looks true or not but it looks genuine.
Supposedly interested parties already been approached in Middle East, South of France and U.K., although that sounds like the same ones mentioned in November last year.
Airspace Update - The CAA have uploaded their assessment of the request to call in to Secretary of State regarding the ACP to remove CTA from DSA.
https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/doc.../download/5865
This document confirms that none of the call in criteria has been met, and though the report has been sent to SofS for final decision, it looks like the CAA will be pushing ahead with closure proposals regardless - outcome to be determined but I would expect they will take on board LBA proposals to retain the northern segments.
https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/doc.../download/5865
This document confirms that none of the call in criteria has been met, and though the report has been sent to SofS for final decision, it looks like the CAA will be pushing ahead with closure proposals regardless - outcome to be determined but I would expect they will take on board LBA proposals to retain the northern segments.
Last edited by pug; 12th Jul 2023 at 12:19.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The disciples will not let that happen
The CAA has always said that it's not a difficult task to reinstate the airspace if it reopens. How true that is I have no idea.
The CAA has always said that it's not a difficult task to reinstate the airspace if it reopens. How true that is I have no idea.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Sywell must re-submit an ACP for the previously approved RNP approaches. This is due to no AFIS for a two year period I am told? Seems very heavy handed. I get new staff would need to be trained, the approaches flight checked and any new ground obstructions noted. Full ACP required though.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff is more tricky. But I dare say it won't go zero to hero but ramp up. Some people will come back, some people will have to be trained. I guess a few key positions like ATC and firefighters may be tricker than others.
"Systems and equipment are just costs"
yes but it drives up the initial costs you have to pay long before you have any income - it's a major hurdle - and then its a sunk cost right at the start . The time value of money means it's far more important than the same sum later - it really hits the NPV calculation.
yes but it drives up the initial costs you have to pay long before you have any income - it's a major hurdle - and then its a sunk cost right at the start . The time value of money means it's far more important than the same sum later - it really hits the NPV calculation.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Doncaster
Age: 50
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Systems and equipment are just costs"
yes but it drives up the initial costs you have to pay long before you have any income - it's a major hurdle - and then its a sunk cost right at the start . The time value of money means it's far more important than the same sum later - it really hits the NPV calculation.
yes but it drives up the initial costs you have to pay long before you have any income - it's a major hurdle - and then its a sunk cost right at the start . The time value of money means it's far more important than the same sum later - it really hits the NPV calculation.
I think most people on here reckon there's less than a 5% chance it will re-open TBH
Despite all the current pallaver about leases and CPO's etc I'm struggling to see what the business case is i.e. how an airport operator makes any money. Is it the Southend approach of waiting for MAN, LBA etc to fill up and then pick up the overspill??
DSA has always been seen as high risk by most airlines, I fail to see how this risk will be reduced under any new ownership model. Unless the council are offering to subsidise the venture then I can’t see what’s in it for any private sector investor unless they own the freehold outright, and then what’s to stop anyone else doing the same thing as Peel?
I think 5% chance of reopening is about right, even less for it to be a success with any longevity.
