Reubens take on RAF in dogfight over Northolt
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Farnborough
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: west london
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF's take on things is rather different:
RAF Northolt - Judicial Review Concerning Civilian Aircraft Operations
It seems that Reubens had to pay the MOD costs, that doesn't sound like a victory!
RAF Northolt - Judicial Review Concerning Civilian Aircraft Operations
It seems that Reubens had to pay the MOD costs, that doesn't sound like a victory!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magp1e
Did the Judge actually say that? 
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
The Judge said there would be no right for Biggin/Oxford to appeal. Case closed.
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
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the Dog and Duck
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawyer
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
So rather than 'case closed' I should have said, (probably) no more court drama between Northolt and Biggin/Oxford.
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
So rather than 'case closed' I should have said, (probably) no more court drama between Northolt and Biggin/Oxford.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: west london
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! (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 (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.
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! (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 (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.
