Northolt issues for business aviation

[sellbydate]

Little worrying - seen over on the Military threads:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/540894-reubens-take-raf-dogfight-over-northolt.html

Looks like the CAA may now be compelled to impose certain constraints or limitations on civilian usage of RAF Northolt after recent court hearing.

Wonder what they could come up with?

[Richard101]

Looks like the Reuben brothers think that by restricting Northolt it will increase their business at Oxford. However if successful I imagine any benefit to Oxford airport will be so diluted by movements going to Farnborough, Biggin' & Luton etc that it'll be of negligible benefit.

[air pig]

Looks like the Reuben brothers think that by restricting Northolt it will increase their business at Oxford. However if successful I imagine any benefit to Oxford airport will be so diluted by movements going to Farnborough, Biggin' & Luton etc that it'll be of negligible benefit.

They also own Biggin Hill.

[the boy]

Anyone out there that knows about these matters, care to comment on Northolt with a couple of 240m RESA's on each end?

What requirements would be needed to bring it up to civil spec?

[Halfa Daily]

Before you believe all the spin, check out RAF Northolt's web page later this morning ;-)

[Journey Man]

From their website:

The claimants were also ordered to meet the MoD’s costs. As a result, RAF Northolt can and will continue to operate in exactly the same way as before the Review.

[Photomotion]

Erm no they don't
And this wasn't led by Oxford, it was joint with Farnborough and Biggin Hill also.

[controlx]

Errm, a bit of misinformation above - the court action was on behalf of Biggin and Oxford alone, not Farnborough, Oxford owned by the Reubens and Biggin owned by the Walters. Both seeking a level playing field on standards and safety where there weren't equal standards being applied when NHT was now seeing nearly 80% civilian traffic since the cap on civil movements went from 7500 to 12000.


The judge concluded that the CAA couldn't change anything at Northolt and had no jurisdiction there, but could, if they wished, impose new conditions on use on civilian operators, as the CAA saw fit. Up until now, the CAA mistakenly believed they couldn't do so. The military continue to do whatever they want, unhindered, and civil operators may, possibly, have to comply with some new conditions of use, if the CAA think they are necessary.


That's it. We now wait to see what conditions, if any, the CAA see fit to impose, where until now there were none.

[His dudeness]

Billionaires "seeking a level playing field" - am I the only one seeing sort of a contradiction here ?

[Magp1e]

Biggin/Oxford ordered to pay Northolt's legal costs. Judge identified that this was a 'competition' complaint rather than a safety issue.

Can CAA impose restrictions on foreign GA? I thought they could only 'reccomend'... And ensure that the appropriate information is made available.

CAA have made precedent at a number of aerodromes where compliance was not possible.

Not an expert, just some of my thoughts...

[Tequilaboy]

London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports wish to clarify the following:

* The safety of all civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes is the sole responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority not the Military Aviation Authority or MOD.
* The CAA is now responsible for deciding if RAF Northolt is safe for use by civil aircraft.
* An assessment by the CAA is required and this may require civil aviation use of Northolt to be restricted, unless it is upgraded.
* This upgrade may result in taxpayers facing a bill in excess of £20 million
* It has been admitted (by MOD and CAA) that Northolt does not comply with Civil Aviation safety standards.
* The Court ruling impacts on all civilian flights using military aerodromes, including the 12,000 civilian flights a year at RAF Northolt.

In a landmark ruling last week, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Secretary of State advised that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the statutory regulator required to determine safety standards for civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes.

Previously, as part of a policy of attracting 12,000 more business jets a year to RAF Northolt in west London, Ministers had repeatedly argued that they didn’t need to meet stricter, costlier civilian safety standards – only military ones – and that the CAA had no regulatory responsibility or powers at military aerodromes.

This meant that smaller private airports reliant on business jets were being significantly undermined, as RAF Northolt became a competitor accepting civil flights without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards.

London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports, represented by John Steel QC, lodged an application for a Judicial Review, arguing that the use of military aerodromes by civil aircraft should be regulated by the CAA and subject to equivalent safety standards that would apply to civilian airports, as mandated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA).

This Judicial Review has now clarified the position – the CAA and the Secretary of State for Transport are responsible for the safety of all civilian flights using RAF Northolt and other military aerodromes in the U.K. The safety of military flights remains the exclusive responsibility of the Military Aviation Authority and MOD.

The Judgment is also likely to have a major impact on an ongoing EU competition investigation concerning State Aid, and requested by London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports. Should the Commission find that the MOD have been unfairly competing with the private sector, the compensation bill could run into many tens of millions.

[NuName]

Quote: Can CAA impose restrictions on foreign GA?

Yes they can whilst that foreign GA is operating in British airspace.

[25check]

The latest MOD press release that is a little different from that issued last week. After the 'clarification' released by the other airports above, I wonder if the lawyers have been onto them about the previous ones:

RAF Northolt Judicial Review (http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafnortholt/newsweather/index.cfm?storyid=E33BB804-5056-A318-A81E3A93FA61AF54)

02 February 2015

News articles by date

RAF Northolt Judicial Review:

RAF Northolt was the subject of an application for judicial review challenging the decision by the Ministry of Defence to increase the self-imposed limit on commercial flights from 7,000 to 12,000 movements per annum.

The judgment, handed down on Friday 23 January 2015, dismissed the application in its entirety. See the Judgment in full at the following link - 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)

RAF Northolt remains able to accept civil aviation as per its published limitations and procedures.

[controlx]

I think people are still missing the point, nothing physically changes at NHT, it's still fully controlled by the MAA (MOD), will remain so, and civil aviation can access just as they have always done.

The big difference post this case is that the UK CAA can, if they wish, now impose limitations on use on the aircraft operators - not the airport. Its up to the CAA now to decide if the use of NHT by civilian operators warrants the imposition of some specific limitations on use that apply to NHT in an effort to mitigate against the additional risks that exist at that specific aerodrome.

It will be interesting to see how long the CAA now take to decide what, if anything, they may impose on civil operators using NHT. Having not realised they had that power or obligation since 1982 under UK law, until this case arose, perhaps they wont be in such a rush. On the other hand, there could be another Learjet overrun tomorrow morning, so my guess is that they might act swiftly.

[PrivateFly]

The future of RAF Northolt is a hot topic that should be part of Airports Commission's review of the South East's runway capacity.

The biggest danger is that the MoD decide to close the airfield and sell the spare land for housing.

Here are more details on that possible outcome:

Will The Queen?s favourite airport survive a regulatory review? « PrivateFly Blog (http://blog.privatefly.com/will-the-queens-favourite-airport-survive-a-regulatory-review)

Once an airport closes it is very unlikely that it will ever re-open. Do we as a nation want to loose this historic and prime London airport?

[ShyTorque]

Northolt is popular with customers mainly because it's located where passengers prefer to travel to and from. Oxford is a ridiculously long distance from London to have "London" as a prefix in its name and whilst Biggin Hill is closer, the supporting roads network is poor by today's standards.

If it wasn't the most convenient location, Northolt might be less popular.

I note that Biggin Hill have been advertising a helicopter shuttle to and from London Heliport. They quote a six minute transit time. It might be, measured in a straight line, but not including the time taken to taxi, take off and land.

[Brizeguy]

I wonder how much cause for concern for Netjets as they consider Northolt again for setting up a maintenance facility in the UK? It's the perfect location and never made sense when it closed other than the military wanting the hangar for other things.
Can't imagine Netjets would go to Oxford where businesses have to pay huge amounts for parking permits (and often have visitors fined for overstaying the permitted two hours, grrrr) and Biggin Hill may be close to London but the road links make it useless. Marshalls have a great facility at BHX that must be hugely cheaper than the London area, possibly making repositioning a worthwhile option.

[CL300]

PrivateFly
Once an airport closes it is very unlikely that it will ever re-open. Do we as a nation want to loose this historic and prime London airport?


They did it with Hatfield..... And it was making more sense to keep Hatfield open than Northolt IMHO

[gordon field]

For many years Netjets have been paying Cranfield Airport for an option to build a service centre, this would exclude any other such facility being built. The land is owned by the University. Who knows whether or not this will ever happen as the long term plans for the airport have yet to be published.

[theWings]

So setting the business, legal and political issues aside, just for a moment, what are the actual safety issues at NHT? The airspace around NHT feels much better serviced (safer!!) than that around OXF, for example, and my company’s safety reporting stats support this perception.

On the other hand, the PAR/SRA onto RWY 07 at NHT must be an issue? Not that there is anything inherently unsafe about Ground Controlled Approaches, especially when provided by superb RAF controllers and flown by competent modern corporate aviation pilots. But currency must surely be an issue for civvy pilots? How safe is a PAR to minima going to be if the crew only fly one or two of these approaches per annum?? I’d like to see the MAA insist on that fabled RNAV approach and, while that’s being established, the CAA meanwhile insist on some currency/training requirements for civilian use of those RWY 07 instrument approaches…

And now back to the billionaires’ bunfight!!! :}

[Phil Brockwell]

I'd like to pop my tuppence in as I'm not sure that this is a question of our interpretation of safety (that's the CAA's job, and the rules should be common for all businesses.)

AS a charter operator we get a huge amount of enquiries that ask for "any London airport", to this end I think if NHT was not an option the traffic would migrate to other London airports with Biggin getting a fair share (not so convinced that OXF's LDA makes it a particularly likely alternative for the AOC Ops, and of course it is almost in the Midlands). I think FAB and LCY may do well out of BQH and OXF's expenditure.

On the other hand, there is a question of what is right and correct. If the CAA allowed just one AOC holder to use unfactored landing and take-off distances then the rest of us would be up in arms - especially if that one operator was government funded by our taxes and publicised as non-profit making. I think it is totally appropriate that BQH and OXF have raised the question of fairness. It's simply a surprise to me that FAB and other Londonesque airports haven't put their hands in their pockets.

PB

[ShyTorque]

How safe PAR approaches?

Compared to what? An instrument approach in uncontrolled airspace, for example at airfields such as at Oxford and Biggin Hill?

[Deep and fast]

PAR approaches only require you to be able to fly a plane and have a working pair of ears. You are told of the deviation and the correction needed in heading and your position relative to the slope, what the hell else do you need?
Oh I guess a coupled approach should be mandatory now. Jeez really I do wonder :}
I did these during my PPL and even a speechless one with simulated gyro failure. My instructor was a funny guy.

D and F

[ShyTorque]

I once overheard an (obviously ATPL qualified) airline pilot decline the offer of a PAR approach when the ILS went U/S. He said that the aircraft wasn't PAR equipped and he diverted to another country! :rolleyes:

[cambioso]

I wonder if that might be our friend SOP Monkey.
Excellent Professional, no-risk, minimum chaos decision that!!

Luxury........We used to dreeeeeeeeem of PAR approaches!!

Jez

[tommoutrie]

just dial in a hookey GPS RNAV approach into Northolt and listen to the bloke say On Speed, On Glide, On Centreline all the way down.

[tommoutrie]

or do a visual approach and buzz me mums house

[CL300]

tommoutrie : just dial in a hookey GPS RNAV approach into Northolt and listen to the bloke say On Speed, On Glide, On Centreline all the way down.

with a beautiful path...

:ok: :)

[Above The Clouds]

How safe PAR approaches?


Well so long as you can fly, it is best ever approach made, no nav equipment required.

Used to fly in to Northolt on regular civil flights and a PAR was a most welcome event especially with that calming female voice, your on GP on GS :ooh:

Over the years a most memorable PAR approach was during an emergency with no options left flying in to Sonderstrom Fiord during the time when the USAF operated the airfield, single engine jet, all sorts of failures in progress, weather down to minimums :rolleyes: and a very nice female controller talked me down to touch down in white out conditions, had a few beers that night :)

[ShyTorque]

Well, I'm actually already convinced about the value of the PAR approach. I was responding to a previous post.

I flew my first PAR in the 1970s (RAF jet training) and seeing that the aircraft I flew afterwards had no ADF or ILS, until the end of the second decade of my military service, we routinely flew them and had to fly a certain number every month for currency.

[Private jet]

I did a PAR into Northolt once and another time into Norwich I think. Very relaxed, no probs at all. If a pilot can't fly a PAR without regular practice then they really can't fly an aircraft!

[BuzzB]

Our fleet manager once did a PAR into Northolt and f?!ked it up right royally.:}

[Romaro]

Looks like the noise about Northolt's non compliance with civilian minima and regulations has hit the headlines all over again:


Queen's airfield is not safe for planes, secret MoD files show - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11924573/Queens-airfield-is-not-safe-for-planes-secret-MoD-files-show.html)


and a piece today about possible airline use - but only with significant changes (but nothing the airlines operate will happily use a 1199m LDA runway!):


BTNews: The Business Travel News (http://www.btnews.co.uk/article/9484)


and just seen this site where the Mott McDonald report on the airport's non-compliances can be downloaded after a Freedom of Information request unearthed it from the bowels of the MOD - the above mentioned 'secret MOD files'.


www.wikinortholt.com (http://www.wikinortholt.com)


Clearly, with over 90% civil use, but non-compliance with civil standards, something's going to change. Don't think business aviation will continue to be a user if the runway goes down to say Code 2B standards, just King Airs and the odd M2 or Mustang perhaps!

[controlx]

Even though they've now got Lytag arrestor beds at each end, they're not supposed to be included in any runway end safety areas (RESA) which means the true landing distance available is notably less than what is published in civil terms. It was in 1996 that the Learjet coming off the end forced them to put in the beds:

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/File:LJ25_RE_Norholt_UK_1996.jpg[/IMG]

Add to that the number of obstacles penetrating the approach surfaces and the runway really has to be shortened in terms of declared distances for civil use.

[Jwscud]

Not to mention the MoD are too tight to put in a proper EMAS which might make all the difference in terms of safety!

I understand that the Typhoons operating in and out of there during the Olympics were operating on exceptionally tight margins too.

[controlx]

Yes EMAS beds would be much better, but hideously expensive. Trouble is they still can't be part of the proper RESA, they're just an additional safety measure.

MOD looked at that some time ago, but decided extortionate cost overruled enhanced safety in that instance.

They should put EMAS in and shorten the declared distances (LDA in particular) to get sensible RESAs and reduce the obstacle issues, but that will inevitably reduce the size/weight of business aircraft that can get in, at least only those with exceptional field performance, specifically landing performance.

The day may come when it's only turboprops and the lightest of jets able to get in.

I see there's a lot of banter still about the use by the likes of Flybe instead of business aviation to save London from a third LHR runway and those slots be reserved for regional connectivity to/from London. Thing is, they would only be able to use old Dash-8s or even Dash-7s. It would be a bit like Plymouth operations of old.

[fairflyer]

Just been reading bits of that Mott MacDonald report from 2012 where they concisely state that the non-compliance issues are sufficient to state that Northolt could not be licensed in its current form and that the runway is unsuitable for any commercial operations, even if it remained under Government control.

I actually think it’s a disgrace that the MOD consciously deemed it necessary to hide this report from any other third parties, including the CAA. ‘Best keep this one quiet for now and just stick with the status quo and not rock the boat’ is no doubt the course they took.

So, what happens now? The lack of adequate runway end safety areas and the considerable number of significant obstacles infringing the obstacle limitation surfaces must mean the CAA will have to revise their AIP entry with new declared lengths, even though the MOD will probably stick to their current figures. Not sure if you could have two sets of declared lengths though, one for the military and another for the civilian users? Very much doubt that is possible, or safe.

If the landing distance on RWY 25 went down to the recommended 1,354m from the current 1,684m, that’s pretty significant. Notice that the report also saw that the runway friction levels were below the maintenance planning level, so not only is the ‘real’ available landing distance dramatically shorter, the runway surface friction characteristics when wet are also poor. If you undershoot on RWY25 or come off the other end, those Lytag beds are far from ideal – evidence is that they don’t always retard aircraft at all speeds, aircraft can skip across them, they soak up fuel and pose an increased risk of fire. The fire tenders can’t access them either.

When you’ve got to land in the same direction as Heathrow’s runways you’re going to have tailwind conditions on a regular basis and with the shortened runway that’s just not acceptable. Add to that the need for PAR approaches on RWY07 and the turn onto final approach at 4 miles and it’s all too tight.
With over 300 obstacles infringing the OLS, according to the Mott MacDonald report, some very significant and immovable, none apparently lit, why does the AIP entry only identify a handful of those?

It all stinks. Add to this RFFS inadequacies, military ATC procedures, low PCN bearing strengths of runway and taxiways, inadequate runway markings and lighting and proximity to Heathrow and overall misleading AIP data, how on earth have they got away with the status quo with over 90% civil aviation usage?

[latedownwind]

Moderator- I wonder if this thread is now in the correct section?
Maybe more appropriate in the 'Airport/Airlines' section given that regional carriers like Flybe and others are purporting to be ''interested in NHT'' from an air transport perspective .

[Romaro]

Looks like the CAA can't be bothered to impose any additional limitations on operators using NHT:


The Battle of London - London Biggin Hill Airport versus London Northolt Airport - CJI Main Site (http://corporatejetinvestor.com/articles/biggin-hill-airport-vs-london-northolt-airport-099/)


There's clearly a whole bunch of non-compliances and infringements there and yet it's deemed to be O.K. to use the airfield with the current MAA (military) numbers without any adjustment or factoring for equivalent civil compliance were it to be a licensed airport. And yet it's fundamentally a civil airport - 95% civilian use.


Business aviation operators don't want to lose access were the runway usable or declared lengths reduced to what they should be for civil use, whilst the CAA have no ability to tell the MOD what to do at the airport and don't deem it unsafe enough to impose any constraints on civil use.


I would suggest that if a considered opinion of a specialist airport safety outfit such as Mott MacDonald says as a minimum, some 300m plus should be taken off the LDA (landing distance) for 'safe' use, then somebody somewhere is turning a blind eye to the whole matter - all too difficult with no precedent in the UK in terms of how to deal with the issue. That makes one hell of a difference to a larger, heavier business jet on a wet runway with known poor friction characteristics.

[CL300]

This is really a piss contest.. If NHT is not safe, then Bizet shall stop flying all at once to Africa, China, South America, Russia, etc.... and even some airfields in USofA ...

Have a break, have a KitKat... As long as there is no scheduled movement and "public" traffic in and out a MILITARY base, they can rule whatever they like. Operators have just have to make the numbers to work.

All too much politics and bureaucrats behind this, just let the planes to take off and land like they are doing it for what ? how long NHT and the 125 ? Cannot remember, late 80's I landed there ( I was based in Hatfield, another massacre from aviation idiots), so please, let our airports open, and let these firms to study a sixth runway in LHR...Or to stick with ICAO phraseology... How about that ?

[boxmover]

Most of this is about rich airport owners wanting to become richer airport owners.

[air pig]

Romaro:

Suggest you look at the length of Oxford, if they had to reduce runway length then they would not have a runway in any meaningful sense.

[fairflyer]

Think they should stop mucking around and either:

A) turn it into a proper commercial use airport which the airlines can then use - i.e. realign the runway with Heathrow's and in the process lengthen it for regional jet compatibility, consequentially forget the third runway at Heathrow, get in the regional operators to improve national connectivity with London, link new passenger terminal with Hillingdon tube station - job done.

or

B) close it entirely and develop the site for desperately needed housing (and build the third runway at Heathrow)

Living with the status quo is simply daft with a mere handful of military movements a week, if that, whilst all the other valuable slots are only available to private aviation - no benefit at all to the general public, nor of any benefit to London and 'UK PLC' in general.

Why didn't the Davies Commission dwell a little more on option (A) above? Politics and self interest on the part of the MOD? Far less costly than a third LHR runway, even if you added a 6 mile underground tube link to Heathrow for connectivity.

As it remains, it has dubious compliance with civil aerodrome standards whilst being used by 95% private aviation. Only time before something clips one of the hundreds of unlit obstacles in the way, or comes off the end of the runway because they think they can go in much heavier than they should actually be.

[Winniebago]

@fairflyer

Like the idea of realigning NHT runway and lengthening instead of third Heathrow runway. Probably would cost a quarter or even much less of the £18.6 billion currently estimated for the third LHR runway. A 6 mile tube link between Heathrow and Northolt would be about £1.5 billion perhaps and that would take mere minutes to transit between the two. Add road infrastructure off A40, links to Hillingdon Tube Station, terminal, runway, everything else and that's going to be a couple more billion, tops.

Absolutely crazy not to give that serious thought? Why hasn't it been at the forefront of any of the viable, practical alternatives?

[Winniebago]

Interesting articles in the papers today where Flybe have now reiterated their desire to run about five domestic routes into Northolt grabbing some 20 slots a day. That would still leave some capacity for private aviation I guess, maybe up to half of what's there today. We have about a week or so for the government's direction on extra capacity for London and the southeast. Perhaps a surprise might be pulled out of a hat and as an interim solution, this actually gains some traction. Who knows. Someone's got to sort an awful lot of infrastructure on the ground first. Some runs to Newcastle into NHT would be great!

[Red Four]

Looks like the CAA response is out (nicely avoiding them having to do anything major): http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2015007.pdf

[air pig]

So it goes back to the operator and their risk assessment of using Northolt. A very handy airport for aeromedical aircraft being close to central London. The problems of Biggin Hill and Oxford are that they are too far away in the terms of road transfer time for critically ill patients, so when Northolt is open it is brilliant.

[CL300]

This is at LAST a sensible and thorough answer, gone the activists, morons of all species, looking at their belly button while theorizing at an improbable outcome. Well done CAA.

I wish all CAA do exactly the same : highlight the rules and regulations in force, and stick to it.

A bit like FAA two days ago, that had to reinforce ( again) the fact that a pilot in standby is not a pilot in Rest....

Amen.

[Ascoteer]

Except it's a military airfield with a lot more there than just a runway.

In this case we should probably close Biggin and use that for housing instead.

[Winniebago]

Have a funny feeling that the delay on any decision regarding the third runway at Heathrow doesn't just revolve around forthcoming mayoral elections but the more than obvious interests Messrs Johnston and Goldsmith have in the future usage of Northolt - it's very much 'on their patch'. Watch this one evolve.