Reubens take on RAF in dogfight over Northolt

[ORAC]

Reubens take on RAF in dogfight over Northolt (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/article1417177.ece)

BILLIONAIRE property moguls David and Simon Reuben have launched a legal challenge to halt the soaring number of civilian flights at RAF Northolt, the airport used by the Queen and prime minister. Oxford airport, owned by the brothers, together with Biggin Hill airport in Kent, want rules that apply to civilian airports imposed on Northolt, which operates to military standards.

The cap on civil aircraft flights at the airport in northwest London was lifted by 5,000 to 12,000 by the Ministry of Defence under plans to raise more money, and the airfield has become a favourite with business people who want to land close to the centre of London. Warren Buffett’s NetJets aviation business is a big operator at Northolt, where at least 70% of flights are now civilian. However, Oxford and Biggin Hill argue that the airport does not meet civil aviation standards and have won the right to a judicial review over refusal by the government and Civil Aviation Authority to consider imposing tougher standards. The case is due to be heard at the High Court in the autumn.

Forcing the CAA to send in inspectors could lead to the imposition of stringent conditions on the airport, including reclassifying and downgrading its runway so larger planes are not allowed to land, and even banning civilian flights until standards are met. The airport is bordered by the London to Oxford A40 road. Barrister John Steel QC, who is representing the claimants, said: “Oxford and Biggin Hill airports consider that the standards of safety for civil aviation use of RAF Northolt should be same as those required at all other UK civil airports.”

Northolt opened in 1915 and played a key role in the Battle of Britain, when it was home to the 303 Polish squadron. During the 2012 Olympics, it was a base for Typhoon fighter jets.

The MoD said: “RAF Northolt has an excellent safety record and complies with the Military Aviation Authority. It is the responsibility of civilian commercial aircraft operators to ensure the safety of their aircraft. As legal proceedings are ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”

The CAA did not comment.

Previous thread comment on Northolt status by HTB (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/475318-northolt-up-sale-2.html#post6981461)

[con-pilot]

Of course there is no financial incentive for the brothers to ban private aircraft from operating at Northolt.

Oxford airport, owned by the brothers, together with Biggin Hill airport in Kent, want rules that apply to civilian airports imposed on Northolt, which operates to military standards

:rolleyes:


By the way, is Northolt still closed on the weekends? It's been a few years since I've operated in London. Retired you know.

[air pig]

Very handy airfield to fly aeromedical repat flights into for hospitals in north-west and central London and the southern Home Counties. Allows for the shortest transfer times, in particular for the critically ill. Neither Heathrow or Gatwick readily allow and charge the earth for aeromed flights.

[tmmorris]

They've got a point, though. The MOD appear to regard Northolt as a cash cow but rely on exemptions from CAA safety regs to allow it to operate more cheaply than its civilian competitors. I don't think that's fair (even if the CAA regs are unnecessary).

[Marly Lite]

It's not quite true to say that Northolt has exemptions from CAA regs. It is a military airfield so CAA regs simply do not apply, a subtle but important distinction.

[tmmorris]

True, but why should CAA regs not apply to civilian CAT?

[air pig]

It would appear that the holders of the AOC take responsibility for the use of the airfield.

[sycamore]

It is surely up to the civilian Operators to `operate` to the appropriate Performance criteria applicable to their aircraft,and the airfield.
RAF aircraft do not normally operate to `Military Standards` unless specifically permitted.Those aircraft that have civilian counterparts operated to civilian performance criteria,and if one was not able to do so we would pre-position the aircraft at Brize or Heathrow.
Seems like a lot of `sour grapes`......

[Lima Juliet]

There isn't that much difference between the CAA's CAP168
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap168.pdf
and the MAA's Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding (MADS)
http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/regulation/mads.pdf

There are professional fire fighters, medical staff and air traffic controllers at RAF Northolt as well providing the same service as a civilian licenced airfield. I suspect the Reubens are about to lose a lot of money to legal bills! The MOD's policy of Income Generation (formally Wider Markets) is a Government backed initiative that sells of 'spare capacity' in Government owned assets - selling capacity at an airfield is exactly the same thing. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if it is more expensive to assure a Government Aerodrome to civilian licenced airfield in 'real money' terms.

LJ

[Marly Lite]

Leon, Agreed.

Most military "airfields" these days have more than one military purpose. Putting a cost on running them is virtually impossible. Does unit A, which is part of a separate command get counted or not counted? Unit B is a lodger unit. Unit D is under part command and is only at the airfield until new infra is in place at X in 20xx. It's comparing apples with pears, Ahem! Northolt's advantage is its geographical location.

However I have little doubt that the government will f..k up the legalities and the tiny bit of cash Northolt makes will be lost. Those operating into Northolt will have to go elsewhere and everyone loses. Sorry; cynical tendencies coming out after 3 of Hook Nortons finest.

[Dan Winterland]

And don't forget many of these business jet flights are private flights. They aren't subject to the same rules that a scheduled passenger flight would be.

[Martin the Martian]

Until it became Newquay Cornwall Airport the CAA were more than happy for commercial flights to operate out of RAF St. Mawgan with its 'lesser' military standards:hmm:.

Aren't the Reubens happy with Oxford and Biggin Hill? As somebody said, seems like sour grapes.

[HTB]

Military/Government aerodromes do not fall into the CAA's ambit; it is as stated in the UK IAIP, the remit of the aerodrome operator and the [civil] aircraft operator/AOC holder to ensure that the aerodrome is fit for use and complies with their own statutory requirement. The regulations, set by the MAA are very closely aligned to those in CAP 168, but this does not meant that they are applied universally; budget restraints in most cases dictate what work can be done to replicate civil standards (and this will usually limit severely any capital expenditure projects).

This is from MoD Defence Infrastructure Organisation

INFORMATION NOTE

Subject: Military Aviation Authority Regulatory Publications (MRP)

Number: 08/11



Background:

1. The Military Aviation Authority Regulatory Publications (MRP) is the regulatory framework for all military aerodromes.Particular to airfield infrastructure, JSP 554 titled ‘Military Aviation Aerodromes Standards and Criteria’ has been replaced with the ‘Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding’ with effect from the 1 Aug 11.

2. A major change in the ‘Manual ofAerodrome Design and Safeguarding’ is the use of the permissive verb should, this allows regulated entities the opportunity to show acceptable means of compliance otherthan that specified. All such alternative means of compliance must have the prior approval of the MAA confirmed by receipt of a RegulatoryWaiver/Exemption.

3. MAA01: Military Aviation Authority Regulatory Policy is the overarching document and is to be used alongside the‘Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding’.



So the CAA had no input to use of RAF St Mawgan; Northolt, Brize Norton, or any of the others notified int the IAIP as being available (with consent of the Staish), viz:

Boscombe Down (MoD) Mildenhall (RAF)

Brize Norton (RAF) Northolt (RAF) - Refer to AD 1.3

Kinloss (RAF) Waddington (RAF)

Leuchars(RAF) Yeovilton (RNAS)

1.12.10 The civil use of Government aerodromes is, in addition to the limitations referred to above [para 1.12.1 - 1.12.9], subject to the appropriate charges being paid at the time. Use is also subject to the availability of appropriate Air Traffic Control and crash/rescue services as laid down by Ministry of Defence regulations.

Aeronautical information inrespect of these aerodromes may be obtained from RAF AIDU at Northolt.

1.12.13UK Military Aerodromes are not subject to the specific standards in EURegulation 216/2008 as amended by EU Regulation 1108/2009 (and is now 139/2014 - the equivalent, and eventual replacement of CAP168) and may not complywith the Annex 14 Volumes 1 and 2 of the ICAO Convention. Civil Operatorsrequiring further information should contact the particular aerodrome inquestion; that unit will provide the requisite information and support.

So I think that the proposed legal case might flounder as there is no regulatory need to comply with CAA requirements...as long as there is an acceptable means of compliance in place.

Mister B

[Romaro]

I think there’sa bit of confusion here about what this is really about. The primary difference between the MASstandards and the CAA standards as applied to Northolt would be that ifstrictly applied, the licensed or declared runway distances at Northolt would benotably shorter than they are today. Northolt has effectively arrester beds in lieu of any decent RESA strips(Runway End Safety Areas). CAA rulesdictate you can’t use arrester beds instead of RESA, but you can certainly addthem at the end of a pre-existing RESA if you so wish (to stop an aircraftrunning into a building or dual carriageway etc.). Additionally, there are subtle differencesin RFF (fire and rescue capability) compliance, lighting, signage etc. which in comparison to the disparityin runway safety standards are minor.

The point hereis that an MOD funded/underwritten aerodrome has all of a sudden become 70-80%a civilian airport in terms of throughput, taking business from Farnborough,Biggin, Oxford, Luton etc. whilst not having to meet the same standards andincurring the same compliance costs. All those commercially/privately owned airports which do have to complywith civil standards are slightly miffed at the additional competition (or the safety authorities) turning a blindeye to the lack of compliance. Whatthey are after is simply a level playing field on standards. Northolt is completely unique – it’s theonly ‘military’ airport in the UK which has near on 80% civilian traffic – if it wassay 25% civil, people might not be getting so hot and bothered about it. May be the only military airport in Europe like that?

It’s not aboutthe cost, Northolt access is generally more expensive than those otherairports, albeit the costs of running the airport should dictate that it wouldbe appropriate to charge a lot more per civil landing than they do, otherwisethey arguably fall foul to further accusations of unfair competition in so much thataccess by those civil flights are still being underwritten in part by government coffers - our taxpayers money.
Civil slot capacityat Northolt was increased last April by a significant amount without any formal publicenquiry, the MOD would argue that wasn’t necessary, despite the fact that iteffects the same people living close to the Heathrow activity.

The CAA will saythat despite the runway distances being listed in the AIP today being strictlyspeaking (as per CAP168) incorrect, the operators going into Northolt should take it uponthemselves to ignore those ‘declared’ distances and work out for themselveswhat they should really be – but nobody would ever do that, all pilots acceptthe AIP published numbers as gospel and will not drill down any further – it’s an officialcivil aeronautical publication. Uniquely, Northolt is the only military airport with data in the UKAIP - therefore it is a 'special case'. Yet it doesn’t comply with thestandard civil requirements.
Were the CAAtold in a court of law to enforce CAA standards as per the CAP168 onto Northolt in order toassume the correct role as protector of civil aviation safety standards within the UK (as is their role under the Airports Act),in light of the 80% civil usage of Northolt, then it is likely that the useable (declared)runway length would be shortened and a number of aircraft with poor runwayperformance may be limited on what they can take in or out of there, or in somecases, may not be able to use it at all. If the Landing Distance Available (LDA) was down to say 1300m or so, then theimpact would be very significant – only the lightest jets or those with thebest landing performance would be happily continuing access at Northolt. Could end up being predominently King Air territory only in worse case.

So, much as itsounds like ‘sour grapes’, it has everything to do with safety standards and alevel playing field in the sector, fairness of competition. Thetrigger point for getting peer airport’s shackles up was when they arbitrarily increasedthat capacity for business aviation last year without any major consultation. Yes it’s good to make good use of governmentassets but not when artificially pretending you have a longer useable runwaythan you really have – under the same rules applied to all other civilaerodromes.
Shall be interesting to see what happens.

[Lima Juliet]

all pilots accept the AIP published numbers as gospel and will not drill down any further

Surely the Aerodrome Manual is the de facto source of information? I know that RAF Northolt has one of the first Defence Aerodrome Manuals (on the open internet) and I seem to remember seeing the arrester beds with pictures under the RESA section.

Also, I've flown into civil aerodromes with obstacles within the approach/take off surfaces and the CAA have issued an exemption (as described in their Aerodrome Manual) for them. The aerodrome still being licenced with this exemption.

LJ

PS 2013 Aerodrome Manual herehttp://www.raf.mod.uk/rafnortholt/rafcms/mediafiles/0B1AABFB_5056_A318_A8F5A50ED096A2DC.pdf look at page 3-3 (although I always thought a RESA was a Runway End Safety Area!).

[HTB]

There may be confusion in some minds, understandably as there are several related publication that could influence the provision of infrastructure and services. These include the references in my post # 13; military publications; CAP 168; EASA regulations 139/2014 (and its legislative predecessors). Add to that the ANO - CAP 393. The OP contains a link to a previous post by me relating to a CAA inspection of Northolt in 2008, at the request of the MoD to ascertain where, if any, differences to CAA licensing standards existed. There were many (I carried out that inspection and produced a lengthy report - which I will not publish here). There is a synopsis in my post via the link of some fundamental differences.

To help in understanding who is supposed to do what, here are some more snippets (full documentation via the CAA website):

Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations

CAP 393

Use of Government aerodromes

210 With the concurrence of the Secretary of Stateand subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, the CAA may notify any Government aerodrome as an aerodrome available for the take-off and landing of aircraft flying on flights for the purpose of:

(a) the commercial air transport of passengers;

(b) the public transport of passengers; or

(c) instruction in flying,

or of any classes of such aircraft.

UK IAIP (CAP 32)

AD1.1

1.12 Use of Government aerodromes

1.12.2 It is the Ministry of Defence policy to encourage the use of active Government aerodromes by United Kingdom civil aircraft on inland flights, provided this is consistent with defence requirements and local interests. Those aerodromes available to civil aircraft are listed in AD 1.3, but permission to use any government aerodrome must be obtained from the operating authority at the aerodrome concerned before take-off (in this connection filing of a flight plan does not constitute prior permission). Unless there are special circumstances, permission will not normally be given for flights outside normal working hours of the aerodrome concerned.


From Northolt’s IAIP entry: EGWU AD 2.20 LOCAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

(a) Northolt is a Government Aerodrome regulated by the Ministry of Defence. No guarantee can begiven that this airfield meets the requirements of ICAO Annex 14 Volume I andII. Operators are to satisfy themselves that they have met all the requirements of the UK Air Navigation Order 2005 and JAR-OPS (See AD 1.1.1 para 12 and AD1.4 para 1.3).

Some of the references are outdated (ANO 2005, JAR-OPS, even though extracted from the current versions of source documents). My bold (highlight seems to have failed)


Mister B

[Roland Pulfrew]

are still being underwritten in part by government coffers - our taxpayers money As the airfield has to be there regardless of whether it has 1, 10 or 1000 military and/or civil movements per day, then perhaps we should be thankful that the irreducible spare contributes to the coffers of the MOD and offsets some of the taxpayers bill!!

but not when artificially pretending you have a longer useable runwaythan you really have

And here in lies the stupidity of the recent "RESA" changes. Of course the full length of the runway is useable, it is just that some fool has decided to change "safety" regulations. As an example the changes meant that Gibraltar was no longer capable of accepting the Nimrod (before it went out of service) because they had artificially shortened their runway length to comply with the new regulations. An aircraft that operated from an RAF runway perfectly safely for 30+ years could no longer operate from that self same piece of concrete because the threshold markings had been moved further down the runway. It does beg the question: are civil pilots now so bad that they cannot land safely on a designated strip of concrete unless it is 4 miles long and with another 2 miles of run-off area at either end? :E

[HTB]

RP

The requirement for RESA may apper to you to be stupid, but it does demonstrate the different levels of acceptable risk between civil and military safety mentality.

The RESA has been a civil requirement for many years, and its current (or soon to be) form is probably the most flexible it has been.

Definition from the EASA regulation 139/2014:

‘Runway end safety area (RESA)’ means an area symmetrical about the extended runway centre line and adjacent to the end of the strip primarily intended to reducethe risk of damage to an aeroplane undershooting or overrunning the runway.

It is there for good reasons: Mangalore 22 May 2010, B738 overran runway end, 158 killed, 7 serious injuries, 1 minor injuries; one of several reports of similar severity resulting from inadequate RESA that have crossed my desk in the past four years.

Here is the EASA requirement (which pretty much accords with ICAO Annex 14 and CAP 168); note the addition for provision of an arresting system to allow flexibility in reducing the RESA length:

CS ADR-DSN.C.215 Dimensions of runway end safety areas

(a) Length of RESA

A runway end safety areashould extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least 90 mwhere:

(1) the code number is 3 or 4; and

(2) thecode number is 1 or 2 and the runway is an instrument one

If an arresting system is installed,the above length may be reduced, based on the design specifications of thesystem, subject to acceptance by the State.


(b) Notwithstanding the provisions in (a)above, the length of the runway end safety area may be reduced where an arresting system is installed, based on the design specifications of the system.

A runway end safety area should, as far as practicable, extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least:

(a) 240 m where the code number is 3 or 4; and or a reduced length when an arresting system is installed;

(b) 120 m where the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is an instrument one; or a reduced length when an arresting system is installed; and

(c) 30m where the code number is 1 or 2 and the runway is a non-instrument one

Width of RESA

The width of a runway end safety area should be at least twice that ofthe associated runway.


Your first observation is valid, though...

Mister B

[Lima Juliet]

The annual survey at MoD airfields (done by a privatised portion of the PSA before it became Defence Estates) have been using CAP168 design criteria and reporting under CAP232. So that would say to me that the MoD airfields are probably designed to the civvy standards anyway?

By the way, HTB, is the Aerodrome Manual the master documentor the AIP? I'd be grateful for your opinion.

LJ

[Cows getting bigger]

HTB, lots of 'shoulds' and not many 'shalls'. :)

[HTB]

CGB

The use of the permissive verb "should" is common to the MAA documentation and EASA's design specifications (as "soft law" allowing proportionate and appropriate application of the regulation). You are right in saying that Defence Estates, or Defence Infrastructure Organaisation, have adopted CAP 168 almost verbatim; intermingled with ICAO standards and recommended practices, (with some obvious differences where there is no direct civil equivalent), although they quote ICAO Annex 14 as the source in the AIP and the Military Aviation Aerodromes Standards and Criteria document (JSP 554 replacement). That said, it may be the case that it is not possible or feasible to attain the aforementioned regulatory requirements - local topography could be an inhibiting factor, lack of adequate funding another. There may be no perceived need to comply - as in Roland's analogy with Nimrod at Gibraltar; ain't broke, don't fix it (which would probably get a frosty reception from the man in the grey wig).

Whereas ICAO uses the prescriptive "shall" in standards, but not in recommended practices, CAP 168 uses "should", but states at the outset that "should" means "shall". EASA uses "should throughtout the aerodrome design specifications to allow flexibility for all member states.

Every aerodrome should have an Aerodrome Manual as their exposition on technical administration, operational procedures, aerodrome characteristics, visual aids, RFFS and much more, and it is the prime safety assurance document for that aerodrome. As each aerodrome is in some way different from all others, the AD Manual is a discrete document for that particular location, and as such is the master document. The IAIP contains higher level regulatory material (AD.1) derived from the ANO and CAA, but the specific aerodrome entry (AD.2) is compiled from data in the aerodrome's manual.

Hope that's been of some help.

Mister B

[A and C]

It's quite interesting to see the bun fight over the differing standards between the civil and military standards at UK airfields and the potential for a court action because of it yet if the same civil standards were applied to the flights at the destination airfields there would be a lot of empty Greek hotels and disappointed holiday makers.

This court action is about money not safety.

[Romaro]

Indeed, it's about the vast sums of money spent at the likes of Biggin, Farnborough and Oxford to meet safety standards and full compliance imposed upon them whilst roughly 40 business aviation movements a day take place at NHT simply ignoring the disparity in standards normally applicable in the civil world - because they can, as things currently stand.

The challenge is to the status quo, to say that this is not how it should be, whereby this city centre airport has turned over recent years into a predominantly 'commercial' airport in terms of dominant usage by default.

[Blue Bottle]

COURT CASE CAUSES SAFETY REVIEW OF RAF NORTHOLT | London Biggin Hill Airport (http://www.bigginhillairport.com/2015/01/court-case-causes-safety-review-of-raf-northolt/)

Could see a few changes with Charter aircraft now

[VinRouge]

Wonder if this could be extended to other civil airfields with significant civil moves?

[pr00ne]

Could be more than a trifle embarrassing seeing as by far the majority of flights into and out of Northolt are privately owned biz-jets.

Actually, with the 125's being retired in April without replacement, how on earth can the MoD justify retaining Northolt merely for 3 146's, a helicopter and few Islanders?

[Lima Juliet]

Nice article written by Curtis et al with the spin centred on their airfield businesses - this would be the same gent that has agreed to save the St George's Chapel!

The MoD is not regulated by DfT and the SofS for Defence has accepted the risk of running Military Aerodromes as much as the SofS for Transport has accepted the risk for running Civil Aerodromes. To outlaw civil aircraft landing at mil aerodromes is as daft as outlawing mil aircraft landing at civil aerodromes; and if you want to pick holes in airfield design standards there are as many differences in the CAA's CAP168 as there are in the MAA's Manual of Aerodrome Design & Safeguarding (MADS) where the military are MORE restrictive as there is in the civilian document.

Sour grapes from airfields too far away from London...:rolleyes:

LJ

[JFZ90]

Sour grapes aside, what are the real differences?

It only mentions runoff areas, but this seems an odd difference to pick on. It seems Biggin itself is rather close to the A233 at one end anyway. Pot and kettle? Is Northolt really any worse than Southampton in this respect?

Are there any real recurring cost differences that put the commercial fields at a genuine competitive disadvantage (ignoring the attractive location)?

[Roadster280]

Never mind Northolt.

Is BZZ up to civil standards? In my time there, there were plenty of civil airliners and freighters using it. Probably under military contract, but does that in itself make it a military flight in the eyes of the court?

I remember the old trooping flights from Luton on Britannia (airline, not aircraft!). RR flight code, so in theory a military flight. But I would think that even if it was a military-classified flight, the courts would make mincemeat of the case if the actual operator was a civvy airline using civvy airliners.

[kenparry]

I remember the old trooping flights from Luton on Britannia (airline, not aircraft!). RR flight code,

RR flight code? Oh really? The many that I operated all had BY flight numbers.

[ShyTorque]

Seems that Biggin Hill are rubbing their hands with glee and anticipation over this and not surprisingly. If RAF Northolt were to be outlawed for bizjet use, they would obviously hope to reap some of the benefit from increased movements.

Problem with BH is that the road links to/from London are poor. The recently advertised helicopter shuttle from BH to and from London Heliport Battersea, (a snip at £2300 plus taxes), might appeal to some. But if Battersea, a wholly private landing place, were to close, what then?

Why not open up a new heliport at London City? Is it time to revisit the long time ban on helicopters operating from there?

[air pig]

The company (the Reuban brothers) who own Biggin Hill also own London Oxford at Kidlington, therefore have most to gain, by Northolt not being able to accept civil flights.

It only mentions runoff areas, but this seems an odd difference to pick on. It seems Biggin itself is rather close to the A233 at one end anyway. Pot and kettle? Is Northolt really any worse than Southampton in this respect? Look at google maps for the run off at their other airfield at Oxford.

By this ruling they will control 66% of the biz jet traffic for the London area, Farnbrough is a little too far away. I suspect the MoD will appeal this decision.

[Roadster280]

RR flight code? Oh really? The many that I operated all had BY flight numbers.

Yes, really. From Luton to Gütersloh and Wildenrath. Overnight at Hendon, early morning flight from LTN to Germany. RAF and/or RCT movers at both ends, RR flight code. This would have been 1985ish. Not being RAF myself, I found it a little weird at Wildenrath with warry-looking Harriers on the airfield and a white whale of a BY 737 among them.

Edited to add: Thinking about it, perhaps we are both right. From the operator's perspective, just another flight, so a BY flight number, and after the return leg back to LTN, perhaps the next flight would be to Malaga full of holidaymakers rather than servicemen and families. From the passengers' perspective, boarding cards issued by JSATC, all military (or families), and RR code on them. A codeshare, if you will. As a passenger, all I know is my boarding cards definitely had RR on them. But then I was all of 17 at the time and knew very little about air travel. A couple million miles later, that's probably still true :)

[JFZ90]

One end of Oxford Kidlington (only 5000ft) is right next to a dual carriageway too.

I haven't compared the lengths and run off margins in detail, but as Northolt is 5500ft, this sounds a bit like a technicality, an excuse to kick up a fuss. Biggin Hill is nearly 6000ft.

[GeeRam]

North Weald would have been a better bet for a biz jet in terms of location, given it's accessibility to the M11/M25 - but not much chance of using it now I would have thought, too many restrictions on use there I suspect for biz jet ops.

[Army Mover]

RR flight code? Oh really? The many that I operated all had BY flight numbers.

RR was the MOD Flight Reservation System (MMARS) IATA RAF identifier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_codes-R).

[Sheep Worrier]

That press release from Biggin bears little relationship to reality: Oxford Aviation Services (t/a London Oxford Airport) & Anor v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors [2015] EWHC 24 (Admin) (23 January 2015) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/24.html)

[BEagle]

In the good old days, RAF North Weald was on the Central Line. Not that such a thing would have much appeal for rich-bitch bizjet cargoes, I guess....

But many an RAF pilot would fly to North Weald, then head off to the Smoke on the Central Line.

In his book 'Meteor EJECT!', Nick Carter describes how he was called at Chivenor one day and told to be at the Air Ministry at 11:00 the following morning: Next day I flew a Hunter up to North Weald, changed and caught the tube into London, arriving at the Air Ministry in plenty of time for a cup of coffee before being escorted along the corridors of power.....

...On the way back to Chivenor, I did a small detour and did a couple of slow rolls over my home in Maidenhead for old times' sake.

The things one could do back in 1958, in the days when we had a real Air Force!

[aw ditor]

So, if say a UK registered 737' (on a military charter) arrives and departs at/from Coningsby or Lossie those airfields will have to be compliant with the CAP?

[chopper2004]

June or July 2008, Bruce Dickinson flew Astraeus 767 or 757 into Wittering to bring home some of the troops I seem to recall.

Also around 5/6 years ago, the NetJets website had a map citing flying distances into Europe, from airports inc Northolt and
even Wattisham!

So if a local businessman to the Eye, Bury, Ipswich, Stowmarket didnt fancy a trip to Stansted , could they ask permission from the Ops peeps at Wattisham to bring in a Citation or Lear to ferry themselves abroad?

Cheers

[air pig]

BEages: Your comment:

In the good old days, RAF North Weald was on the Central Line. Not that such a thing would have much appeal for rich-bitch bizjet cargoes, I guess.

Not all civilian private business aircraft movements into Northolt, Brize Norton etc are for the group you mention above. I have, as part of a fixed wing air ambulance medical crew have landed at places like Northolt and Brize. It allows swift transfer into Central London and the southern parts of the Home Counties, in particular for the, as we term it, level 3 critical care transfers who require the shortest ground transfer time as possible. The assistance I have had from the RAF has been amazing. Remember the vast majority of fixed wing AA tasks are funded through the insurance companies, from the payment ordinary travellers have made before their holiday for their insurance.

Remember the times you have had a 1 AES or as it is now CCAST/TMW team down the back of your 'funbus', you'd have tried your best to get in anywhere the team needed nearest to their destination.

This case may have just made our jobs a little more difficult, certainly for our patients and maybe for the teams involved.

[gayford]

CAP 168, the CAA relevant document will give you all the requirements.
My guess is that the RESAs (Runway End Safety Areas) are not long enough or even non-existent. In addition, there will be lots of other minor items RFFS, Lighting, Flight Strip etc, etc.
CAA SRG can sometimes agree to "variations" but RESAS are a critical area.

[Lima Juliet]

From the RAF Northolt Defence Aerodrome Manual (DAM) I think this is what the others are carping about:

4.
RWY End Safety Area (RESA). A RESA provides an undershooting or overrunning
aircraft with a cleared and graded area. The Northolt RESA details are as follows:
a. Eastern end (RWY 07 over-run):
i. RESA length is 180m and width is twice that of the RWY. There is a light
aggregate Arrestor Bed occupying the 90m furthest from the runway. No obstacles impinge
the RESA; however, the West End road, and associated obstacles, prevent the RESA
meeting the recommended distance of 240m.
ii. For aircraft approaching RWY 25, the RESA is based upon the threshold.
The RESA in the undershoot satisfies the minimum requirement in the Manual of Aerodrome
Design and Safeguarding (MADS), ie twice the RWY width by 90m. The Arrestor Bed
referred to above sits within the RESA.
b. Western end (RWY 25 over-run):
i. For aircraft approaching RWY 07, the RESA is based upon the displaced
threshold. The RESA in the undershoot satisfies the minimum requirement in the
Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding (MADS), ie twice the RWY width by
90m long.
ii. For aircraft departing RWY 25, the RESA length is 131m and width is twice
that of the RWY. There is a light aggregate Arrestor Bed 9occupying the 41m
furthest from the runway.
5.
.
Light Aggregate (Lytag) Arrestor Beds. Lytag Arrestor Beds are installed at both ends of
the RWY to compensate for the variance from the recommended RESA distances. The RWY 07
over-run Arrestor Bed sits within the RESA and is approximately 90m in length. The RWY 25 over-
run Arrestor Bed is located within the RESA. It is approximately 90m long; and narrows to
approximately 50m wide at the furthest point due to the A40 road infringing the southern edge of
the Arrestor Bed

Taken from: http://www.londonvipairport.com/docs/OperatingManual.pdf

Seems that the RESAs don't make all the requirements although Lytag is a mitigation. What is well known is that there are plenty of civil licensed aerodromes that don't meet CAP168 either and have waivers with mitigations in the back of their Aerodrome Manuals.

As stated before - sour grapes...

LJ

[Corporal Clott]

Good old FOI probably fuelled this debate.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/337435/RAF_Northolt_Aircraft_Movements.pdf

It seems that civ to mil movements are 3:1

But if you have got the capacity then why not?

CPL Clott

[teeteringhead]

And one seems to recall that it (Northolt) was a pretty useful military airfield in 2012 for Olympics connected security operations.

Memories are short .......

[TCAS FAN]

Leon Jabachjabicz

Any adoption of CAP 232 and CAP 168 criteria has been relatively recent. MOD runways were not designed to ICAO Annex 14/CAP 168 standards, CAP 232 was not in existence when they were designed.

MOD airfields that were civilianised (for example Biggin Hill, Manston, Farnborough) revealed that part of their taxiway systems were located within the runway strip and therefore not usable if an aircraft was making an approach.

[turboshaft]

It seems that civ to mil movements are 3:1
According to the Biggin Hill (http://www.bigginhillairport.com/2015/01/court-case-causes-safety-review-of-raf-northolt) article posted by Blue Bottle, the figure is actually closer to 6:1 :
Today 85% of flights at RAF Northolt are civilian
In terms of funding the "tens of millions" required to establish "equivalent safety standards" at Northolt, whose bottom line do the existing landing & parking (http://www.londonvipairport.com/docs/CombinedParkingHandlingFees2014.pdf) fees end up going towards?

[BEagle]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that somewhere claiming to be London's Premier Business Aviation Airport, with the web address of londonvipairport.com, would meet or exceed the normal civil airport requirements?

Hardly surprising that both Biggin Hill and Kidlington are up in arms about Northolt's activity levels.....

Maybe the MoD should sell it off, move the helicopters out of Benson and bring back the 146 fleet? Plus the 109s? Or perhaps there'd be room for them without having to relocate the helicopters?

[25check]

Are the owners of Oxford so deluded that they think they will gain much extra business from this? It is a desperate attempt to get a return on a very poor business decision to spend lots of money upgrading Oxford, renaming it as a London airport and expecting execs to flock to it. Oxford's 56 miles from London is similar to or greater than airports such as Cranfield, Southend, Lydd, Southampton etc and surely they were aware of what great centres of executive aviation they are...

Incidentally, the initial press release seems to spin a very different interpretation of the judgement to what may actually have been said. In fact I found a tweet stating that the case was dismissed comprehensively!

[Romaro]

The problem at Northolt is that under UK CAA jurisdiction the Lytag 'soft' arrester beds cannot be allowed to form part of the Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) - they're a great addition, but cannot be included in the calcs. Were the MOD to replace with EMAS arrester beds, then yes, they could be included within the RESA. Accordingly, although Lytag beds are very effective in stopping an aircraft running onto the A40 (or the opposite end), the occupants of the (civil) aircraft concerned would almost certainly be seriously injured as a consequence whilst emergency vehicles can't readily drive across the beds to get as close as possible to the aircraft. Hitting the Lytag beds at 100mph is akin to hitting a brick wall - it works, it stops the aircraft going onto the road, but to the dissadvantage of anyone on board. The CAA would rather prefer the occupants of an aircraft on an overrun incident to not be seriously injured in the process.

Accordingly, the MOD may have two choices - (1) spend several million pounds replacing the Lytag beds with an EMAS solution and thereby retain the current declared distances under UK CAA 'rules' (CAP168), or (2) accept a significant reduction in the licenced length as promulgated within the UK AIP for civil operations allowing for the bare minimum requisite RESA at each end ('recommended' - 240m, minimum acceptable - 90m), BEFORE one reaches the current Lytag arrester beds. In the worse case, with other obstacle clearance considerations, the 'civilian' permitted runway length might be dictatyed by a Code 2B status which would entail a declared length of 1199m, certainly for LDA (Landing Distance Available). That, of course, would mean that it's pretty useless to most business aviation aircraft types aside from turboprops and the little jets with the best field performance only. The military can continue to do whatever they want as defined under the MAA rules, so military ops would not be effected - just civilian registered aircraft.

So, just spend the money and replace Lytag with EMAS and the problem is resolved. If they don't, then Northolt is pretty useless potentially as is and for the volume of military traffic seen today, will have a hard time justifying its existence.

Where the 146s or 125s might be replaced substituted by civilian-registered chartered aircraft for governments flights, those are not going to be able to use the airport practically if the 'civil' declared distances in the UK AIP are significantly reduced. The PM therefore might be a little upset when he's told he's got to be driven or flown by helicopter to Benson instead, same for the Royals......

[TheWizard]

Works both ways!!

Biggin Hill Airport confirms this week that the popular Festival of Flight will return in 2015 with a comprehensive commemoration on Saturday 13th June of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain in which the men, women and fighter aircraft of RAF Biggin Hill were consistently in the forefront.

Invitations are being sent to the Royal Air Force for the Red Arrows team and the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight

FESTIVAL OF FLIGHT 2015 SET FOR SATURDAY 13TH JUNE | London Biggin Hill Airport (http://www.bigginhillairport.com/2014/08/festival-of-flight-2015-set-for-saturday-13th-june/)

[25check]

It turns out that the press release was an outrageous warping of the facts of the judgement. Oxford/Biggin actually had all of their case rejected, but for some reason that wasn't mentioned in the PR!


Oxford Aviation Services (t/a London Oxford Airport) & Anor v Secretary of State for Defence & Ors [2015] EWHC 24 (Admin) (23 January 2015) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/24.html)

[GeeRam]

In the good old days, RAF North Weald was on the Central Line. Not that such a thing would have much appeal for rich-bitch bizjet cargoes, I guess....

But many an RAF pilot would fly to North Weald, then head off to the Smoke on the Central Line.

Up until the early sixties that could have been done from 4 x RAF airfields that had suitably close London Underground stations..... now only Northolt is left, with North Weald still there, but no longer a RAF base, and no longer having an Underground station nearby now either, plus RAF Hendon and Hornchurch being gone completely as airfields.

[Miles Magister]

Chopper2004,

The answer to your question is Yes, done it.

The answer to all the other comments is check the UK ANO which states that public transport must use a licensed or government aerodrome, so Northolt are legally, if not morally, correct in allowing operations.

The argument is not a new one and has been going on for many years. A team has been making submissions to the government since long before Biggin Hill became involved.

[Romaro]

25Check

It is the case that the judge concluded that the CAA could impose conditions on the use of Northolt on Civilian aviation usage, but could not interfere with the MAA'a own airfield assesment.

Certain relevent extracts below:

‘The coherent and correct position isthat the MAA retains responsibility for safety standards at all governmentaerodromes, whether or not such aerodromes accept civil flights, and that theCAA has a complementary duty under Article 210 of the ANO to publish details ofthose safety standards in the AIP with regard to government aerodromes whichaccept a considerable volume of civilian air traffic or which have otherstrategic significance (e.g. if close to Heathrow flight paths). To fulfil thatduty, the CAA maintains a dialogue with the MAA as to its compliance with therelevant international safety standards and periodically reviews notification. As part of that process, the CAA has the power to impose conditions onnotification, but any such conditions must be such that they do not trespass onthe regulatory regime which is overseen by the MAA.’

‘It is the SST/CAA, rather than theSSD/MOD, which has statutory responsibility for safety in relation to the useof RAF Northolt by civil aircraft. The statutory functions in relation to thesafety of civil aviation are imposed on the SST and CAA by the 1982 Act(sections 1(c), 1(1A), 3 and 4), the Transport Act 2000 (ss. 1 and 2) and theANO. Sections 3(b) and (c) of the 1982 Act impose functions on the CAA inrelation to all aerodromes, without excluding military or governmentaerodromes. Section 60 provides that ANOs shall regulate aerodromes, againwithout limitation to civil only aerodromes. The power to notify RAF Northoltas available for civil aircraft use rests with the CAA, with the concurrence ofthe SST, under Article 210 of the ANO. Article 210 includes the power to imposesuch conditions as the CAA thinks fit, which can be formulated by reference tosafety considerations.’

‘Article 207(3) provides that theaircraft must comply with the conditions when taking off and landing. Article210 makes clear that the purpose of the flight may form one of the conditions.So too could special pilot training, weather related restrictions such as RVRlimitations or similar operational restraints. An aircraft could not take offor land without complying with such conditions so as to fulfil Article 207(3)notwithstanding that they did not attach to the physical condition of theaircraft.’

‘These are statutory responsibilitieswhich must be discharged by the SST/CAA. They cannot be fulfilled by delegatingto the MOD/MAA the task of assessing the safety of RAF Northolt for use bycivil aircraft. What the CAA/SST may not do, when considering whether to notifyRAF Northolt with or without conditions under Article 210, is to treat thedecision whether the airport meets safety criteria and standards as one for theMOD/MAA rather than itself.’

‘The AIP expressly makes clear that theCAA can give no guarantee that RAF Northolt meets the requirements of ICAOAnnex 14. When deciding to notify RAF Northolt, the CAA/SST can properly takeinto account that the notification process can give the fullest possibleinformation to potential civil users, including information on the respects inwhich the aerodrome has features which differ from ICAO Annex 14.’

‘Notification of a government aerodrome for civil useunder Article 210 is a function which is legally distinct from the manner inwhich it is performed, namely by publication in the AIP Notification. Article210 notification is more than merely the publication of information: it is adesignation of the aerodrome as available for civil use, to which conditionsmay be attached, including safety related conditions.’

‘The only remedy now sought is adeclaration that the CAA has power to impose conditions on the notification ofgovernment aerodromes in relation to matters concerning the safety of the useby civil aircraft of such aerodromes. Oncereformulated in these terms at the hearing, this proved not to be contentious.’

So if the CAA now determined that that civilian operators should detract 'x' meters from the currently declared distances to compensate for lack of the normally required RESA compliance under CAP168, they are fully at liberty to do so. They can and arguably should now impose conditions on use as they see fit where to date they have assumed all they can do is declare what the airfield's constraints are alone and leave it up to the pilot/operator to determine if they are happy to utilise the airport in that knowledge. That's what has changed from the outcome of this court hearing. It's a big change.

[aw ditor]

Risk Assessment of flights into/out of Northolt by the aircraft Operator' via their SMS?

[Biggus]

See:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/555434-northolt-last-one-out-turn-off-lights.html

[25check]

Although it does indeed state the CAA are ultimately responsible there are several 'howevers' in the document, such as:

...That is not to say that the SST/CAA cannot rely upon information and assessments provided by the MAA/MOD in order to fulfil their statutory functions... It can rely on assessments carried out by the MOD/MAA, including any assessment of differences from ICAO SARPs....In practical terms, therefore, its role in relation to safety at the airport may be a subsidiary one.

...I reject Mr Steel's further contention that the CAA is bound to apply the criteria in CAP 168 in deciding whether or on what conditions to notify RAF Northolt...There is no statutory or other basis for holding that government aerodromes cannot be notified for civil use if they do not comply with CAP 168.

.... I can, however, say that on the evidence before me as to the dialogue between the CAA and the MOD/MAA, I am not persuaded that the CAA/SST are acting unlawfully in their approach to the review of the notification of RAF Northolt.


The press release concentrates on the paragraphs that suit them but ignores the later paragraphs as they dismiss their arguments. Unfortunately this is the information that gets publicised, ignoring the full story.

[Miles Magister]

Can any one post a link to the full text of the ruling. I would be interested to read it.

I do wonder how this will affect the lodger units there.

[sycamore]

Gee Ram, NW is a short taxi ride to Epping...on the Central line......

[Mandator]

See the link at post #52. Interesting reading.

[25check]

A link to the judgement is in post 52 above

[Romaro]

In a nutshell the UK CAA cannot tell the MOD or MAA what to do, cannot dictate that they reconfigure the runway, change the infrastructure etc. However, the CAA can and indeed are oblidged to tell civil operators what to do and impose as they see fit any additional limitations on use considering any non-compliances with 'normal' expectations were it a civil, licenced aerodrome under CAP 168 rules.

Nothing physically needs to change if the MOD don't want to change anything, but if the CAA feel compelled to do a bit more than just highlight the obstacles, safeguarded clearances, RESAs, etc. alone and let the pilots/operators decide if they're happy to live with those non-compliances, they are now at liberty to do so.

Before last week, the CAA mistakenly believed they could not impose additional conditions on use of a Government aerodrome but now it has been made clear they can. So, assuming they accept that there are some fundemental non-compliances were it assessed as a civilian aerodrome, it is quite likely that they will now impose some constraints in use for civilian operations. As to what those might be and how constraining they could be, we wait to see.

If it transpires that due to the RESA non-compliance, the CAA dictated that some consideration should be made to applying an addition reducing factor on runway length, it is an option for the MOD presumably to reconfigure the arrester beds with EMAS instead of Lytag and may get to a point where the CAA are happy not to ask civil operators to add an additional reducing factor to the runway length. The question there is whether the MOD have the funds or desire to spend that kind of money to retain the throughput of civil business aviation operations when they don't need to do that for their own use by military operations. Chances are the funds will not be made available and so the allowable runway lengths for civilian use might remain for the time being whatever the CAA deem appropriate.

[strake]

If the government can save money - well done them. However, it is not their function to make money and certainly not at the expense of private establishments which are regulated and have to pay through the nose for that regulation. In industry, it's called unfair competition and is penalised - by the government. What's good for the goose...

[25check]

The RAF's take on things is rather different:

RAF Northolt - Judicial Review Concerning Civilian Aircraft Operations (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafnortholt/newsweather/index.cfm?storyid=DC0B50CC-5056-A318-A8C67977FA9C6666)

It seems that Reubens had to pay the MOD costs, that doesn't sound like a victory!

[Wander00]

25C - that would seem pretty conclusive, unless the losers appeal, or seek leave to do so

[Magp1e]

The Judge said there would be no right for Biggin/Oxford to appeal. Case closed.

[Flying Lawyer]

Magp1e
The Judge said there would be no right for Biggin/Oxford to appeal. Case closed.

Did the Judge actually say that? :confused:

Or did he refuse permission to appeal? (SOP save in exceptional circumstances.)
A party wishing to appeal can then apply to the Court of Appeal - putting forward reasons why permission to appeal should be granted.
If the C of A also refuses permission, that is effectively 'Case Closed'.


FL

[Magp1e]

Sorry for my layman use of language. The Judge refused permission for appeal. So their case is not closed. I understand that he was not impressed with how the case was presented (changing tack) and identified that this was about commercial competition rather than safety. MoD/MAA was proven to have no case to answer and the claimants ordered to pay Northolt's costs.

However, I understand now that CoA is an option for the claimants. But their spin on the result in their publications indicates that they were happy with the outcome :confused:

So rather than 'case closed' I should have said, (probably) no more court drama between Northolt and Biggin/Oxford.

[25check]

They are probably now concentrating on the case they have brought in the European Courts where they are suing the MOD for anti competitive practices and loss of earnings. Supposedly when NHT was closed for a period they saw an increase in moves at Biggin (surprise). If they win they reckon the compensation could go into the tens of millions. Is this their real target all along?

There are many areas where the govt operate in the commercial field , such as NS&I. It seems to be acceptable as long as they do not undercut the competition (which NHT does not by a long way) so it will be interesting to see the outcome.

Maybe next they will sue Luton and London City etc for permitting business use and subsidising the operation with scheduled movements!

[Capvermell]

Just to say that one of my close relatives lives in a house that is almost exactly under the centre line of approaches to and landings from the west at London Northolt about 8 miles out from the airport.

After the initial judicial review decision at the end of January they noticed that Northolt was suddenly awfully quiet for several weeks on end and that rather than the usual up to 15 to 20 landings a day there were only 2 or 3 at most (probably the handful of genuine military and government flights not potentially affected by the court decision).

However suddenly since the beginning of last week (commencing 9th March 2015) the number of movements has gone back to normal with up to 20 or so a day both in and out (40 in total but that's only on a peak day - on many days its only 20 movements in total). Tracking those that I can when I am there using Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com) (most of the civilian planes transmit idents giving their type and height but most of the military stuff is not picked up at all on the said website) also confirms that the civilian business jets are now very much back in business.

So perhaps RAF/Government were initially cautious but the CAA has now been along and come up with conditions/criteria declaring the airport safe for civilian business jets so long as the new additional rules re revised runway thresholds etc are complied with? And perhaps some additional markings or lights on the runway may even have been added.

I have to say that in the great scheme of things £20 million really doesn't sound like a very huge investment as military spending budgets go, especially if virtually all of it can then be recouped over the next five or ten years in additional civilian aircraft landing there. Up to now the movements have only been at around 6,000 per annum but the airport now has government permission to push this up to 12,000, which it has so far come nowhere close to achieving. This would effectively mean doubling up on the current number of existing civilian movements over the last few years.

Of course if as a result of London Oxford and Biggin Hill's temper tantrum the government now decides to go for broke and extend the Northolt runway to 7800ft by realigning it east to west with the A40 in line with the proposals at Royal Aeronautical Society | Insight Blog | North by Northolt (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/1681/North-by-Northolt) (no doubt they could cite a strategic military need for one London military airport base to be long enough to handle the majority of current narrow bodied civilian jet engined aircraft that might be requisitioned for military troop carrier use in times of major war etc, etc and also say that the existing runway length doesn't fit with even peacetime use by the military due to the greater runway lengths required by all modern aircraft) then ultimately these other two airports might sincerely wish that they had let sleeping dogs lie.

Quite clearly in the not too distant future London City is also going to hit maximum capacity for runway operations (at least until such time as it builds additional taxiways to stop the runway also being used for that purpose more than half of the time) and if Northolt has then been upspecced to modern standards the airport half way to Birmingham calling itself London Oxford and the Nissan Hutted affair at Biggin Hill simply won't get a look in.

As the Airport Commission doesn't appear to see Northolt expanding as part of Heathrow the new plan could instead be to expand Northolt as a standalone business jet hub for the time being and of course one day down the road the question of whether it couldn't say provide a fourth runway for Heathrow (after the current Northern one is probably extended over the M25 and split in two to provide the third one) for domestic and short haul European flights by connecting an underground railway and baggage transfer system might then be re-examined.

As Labour actually appears to be far more pro expansion of London's airports than the current coalition (but the Conservatives ultimately will probably adopt the same position as Labour if freed from a coalition with the Lib Dems) really anything is possible over the longer term of say the next 30 or so years. So long that is as London Northolt manages to avoid the alternate possible fate of being completely closed down and then replaced by a gaggle of depressing high density housing estates.:eek: