Is your airfields shown on UK charts?

[Jim59]

If you want a private unlicensed airfield to be considered for the charts and the AIP this survey will provide the information to CAA/NATS.

Info here-->
NATS | AIS - Home (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=view&id=840&Itemid=457.html)

Form here-->
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/vfrcharts/downloads/Unlicensed%20&%20Uncertificated%20Sites.pdf

Unlicensed Sites listed in the UK AIP




The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are conducting a survey to validate the list of various unlicensed airfields and aerial sporting activity locations published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and depicted on CAA VFR charts. The reason for this survey is to establish whether existing published sites in the AIP are still current, operating, accurately reflected in AIS products, and to identify a principal point of contact for each site.

Upon closure of this survey on 28/02/2018, the CAA will establish definitive criteria for what constitutes a ‘significant’ activity at unlicensed sites, and subsequently arrange for the revision of all future AIS products based on that criteria from March 2018 onwards.

All site owners or landowners where established aircraft and/or aerial sporting activities at unlicensed sites are requested to take part in this survey by completing the Unlicensed & Uncertificated Sites Form (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/vfrcharts/downloads/Unlicensed%20&%20Uncertificated%20Sites.pdf)

Unlicensed sites which fail to complete this survey by 28/02/2018 may result in a location that is currently published in the AIP, and depicted on CAA VFR charts, being removed from the NATS AIS database and all future AIS products, including CAA VFR charts. The CAA therefore requests that all users of unlicensed sites ensure that the site owner or land owner is aware of this survey.

[BEagle]

This should also ensure promulgation of any A/G radio frequency at those unlicensed aerodromes so equipped - and when that changes to become 8.33 kHz compliant later in the year.

[Checklist Charlie]

A similar exercise was attempted here in Australia, see:
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/603634-airservices-australia-climbs-down-red-tape-hurdle.html

Perhaps the experience here will be of some guidance and assistance in the UK.

CC

[3wheels]

This should also ensure promulgation of any A/G radio frequency at those unlicensed aerodromes so equipped - and when that changes to become 8.33 kHz compliant later in the year.

North Weald becomes 8.33 on 12 February. The new frequency will be 123.53.
Only 8.33 equipped aircraft will be accepted.
Details here ...
https://www.facebook.com/northwealdairfield/?fref=ts

[CloudHound]

At first glance this looks like a long overdue bit of house-keeping by NATS:ok:

However, UK IAIP AD 1.3-1 Index to Aerodromes and Heliports appears only to list ones with 4 letter codes and generally licensed. So the call for reconfirmation or loss of an entry in the AIP seems to affect few if any airfields.

I know the owner of our strip won't be submitting anything as I'm sure many others will. So is the another motive for this data gathering exercise?

[Jim59]

The VFR chars show airfields not in the iaip and the main driver is probably to ensure charts are up to date.

Regarding 8.33 changes I understand that there is a plan to make available better information about frequencies used by stations not in the AIP, and their new channel numbers once they have converted. This will be on the AIS web site.

[chevvron]

At first glance this looks like a long overdue bit of house-keeping by NATS:ok:

No. There was a guy doing chart editing about 15 years ago who started doing this, even 'microlight only' unlicensed strips like Holmbeck Farm were included on the charts.

[TheOddOne]

We're happy with our chart depiction. Presumably, we don't need to do anything until we change to 8.33 next September.

TOO

[airpolice]

All site owners or landowners where established aircraft and/or aerial sporting activities at unlicensed sites are requested to take part in this survey by completing the Unlicensed & Uncertificated Sites Form

Unlicensed sites which fail to complete this survey by 28/02/2018 may result in a location that is currently published in the AIP, and depicted on CAA VFR charts, being removed from the NATS AIS database and all future AIS products, including CAA VFR charts.




We're happy with our chart depiction. Presumably, we don't need to do anything until we change to 8.33 next September.

TOO


The way it looks to me, then you should take part, if your site is unlicensed.

[TheOddOne]

Better safe than sorry, wilco.

TOO

[Gault]

Thanks for flagging this up, My strip is already on the CAA charts, but as I read it they still want you to complete the form as confirmation of use.
I'll get on it

[ChickenHouse]

My home base is not licensed, not certified, not listed and after discussion with the local owners of the field and aircraft stationed - it will remain so! What is the purpose to force everybody to reveal the on intention hidden? Somebody in immediate danger will easily see the field and will be most welcome, but many other don't know of us on purpose.

[mikehallam]

Well I'm opposite to the last writer's conclusions !

I had discarded the CAA mail asking for gen., as one of the usual "doesn't affect me" type, without fully reading its intent.

Especially as my field is on the Charts for security and for reducing unwitting overflights to our detriment by GA and Military helicopters.

I was long ago advised that by also being listed in the better guides one could better ensure no-one could claim ignorance of the strict PPO rules here.
I have to say it's worked very satisfactorily.

Since I follow Pprune I luckily was alerted to the need to be recognised over again for the CAA Charts as they (presumably) have to weed out obsolete locations.

I have to add praise too. I posted my response, via e-mail, to NATS at 23.30 last night and had their acknowledgement before 9.30 today.

I believe that if someone needs a field for a landing emergency they are better off knowing the basics, rather than looking out the window & hoping !

My penn'orth,

mikehallam.

[piperboy84]

Mike Hallam has got me thinking, if registration has no other benefits than reducing the volume of transiting aircraft flying thru the circuit then it’s worth it.

[off watch]

In the event that the local NIMBYS cause problems in the future, perhaps having been registered with the CAA might be to your advantage ?

[homonculus]

I presume the protagonists all have formal planning permission for their sites, and are happy to field questions from officials about fire cover, COSH, access for emergency vehicles, personal liability insurance etc etc etc.

I would be happy to take part in a confidential survey, but I fear this exercise might have unintended consequences. I doubt many flights will reroute to avoid, especially if we get a plethora of new entries.

[mikehallam]

There are no consequences !

A 28 day or Common Rights (If used 28+days per annum for - AFIR - 10 years) private airstrip/field owner has no need to worry, no-one has any demand on what you provide.

On the other hand, say, going for formal Planning Permission to the Local Council is quite another thing and hardly to be recommended. All they can give you, even if you succeed against the NIMBYs is restrictions on operation.

Simple Common Law is a great protector for citizens' rights.

mikehallam.

[BossEyed]

What is the purpose to force everybody to reveal the on intention hidden?

Nobody is being forced to do anything.

[chevvron]

Don't know where the RAF promulgate their Low Flying Areas nowadays or if the document is available to the public, but years ago they had a section of their LF 'manual', then later in their military AIP, showing maps of each LFA and I can assure you even in those days it was very comprehensive, showing many private strips and helipads and it had 'avoid' rules too eg certain sites without ATZs, pilots were told to avoid by at least 2nm.
They took it seriously too, the guy who owned Holmbeck Farm (near Leighton Buzzard) told me had had problems with Chinooks flying directly overhead and after he contacted the editor of the RAF manual, he was pleased to see they avoided his airfield.

[airpolice]

My home base is not licensed, not certified, not listed and after discussion with the local owners of the field and aircraft stationed - it will remain so! What is the purpose to force everybody to reveal the on intention hidden? Somebody in immediate danger will easily see the field and will be most welcome, but many other don't know of us on purpose.

That's the kind of selfish attitude that gets people flying through your circuit, unaware that you exist.

[ChickenHouse]

That's the kind of selfish attitude that gets people flying through your circuit, unaware that you exist.

Its a matter of balance and trade, as it also prevents the more and more common practice to use a listed airfield as a waypoint attracting younger pilots to exactly cross over your head. We think the probability of an unintentional entering the circuit is far less then a younger pilot entering the field as waypoint in their autopilot-driven-brain-off GPS system. You attract flies if you don't cover the good stuff.