Reubens take on RAF in dogfight over Northolt

[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...tingManual.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/upload..._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]

Originally Posted by Corporal Clott

It seems that civ to mil movements are 3:1

According to the Biggin Hill 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 fees end up going towards?

[BEagle]

londonvipairport.com

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]

Lytag Arrester beds vs. EMAS

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

[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)

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by 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.

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-aviat...ff-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......