Olympic Airpsace Restrictions
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But hypothetically - prove that I busted that airspace. How are they going to do that without physically sitting next to me in the cockpit? In fact, turn transponder off and prove that I busted anything. Can't be done unless they visually see me do it.
When this OTT c**p was first put around there was little to worry about. The area covered was much the same but the restriction was generally from 2500 feet upwards outside of the usual zones around the major airports. It seemed entirely reasonable in that commercial (big jets) traffic volumes may well be significantly increased but the flight paths will not be lower than they are today. Given that there is no conflict today, why will there be conflict when a few people in lycra are sweating/straining/exerting for a few weeks?
I don't know what has happened since then but It's just gone mental.
Rans6....
I don't know what has happened since then but It's just gone mental.
Rans6....
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else tried to contact the CAA to clarify things? I sent an email, but obviously not had a response yet. Surprisingly, not had an automated response either, which is more the norm. I'll give it a couple more days, then send another to their inquiries line.
Good to get more clarification on this. As Rans6 says, if it was only above 2500', then it wouldn't be much of an issue. It's the whole "taking off, doing circuits, flying anywhere away from the airfield" that is going to kill things.
Surely the big schools who are affected, such as Cabair, will be up in arms?
Any cabair people here? From my understanding, this is going to hit Elstree, Denham, BlackBushe, Fairoaks etc. Ideas? How do we go around formally making our concerns known? I'm new to this, so don't know, but I'd be keen to see some form of consultation. Thoughts, anyone?
Good to get more clarification on this. As Rans6 says, if it was only above 2500', then it wouldn't be much of an issue. It's the whole "taking off, doing circuits, flying anywhere away from the airfield" that is going to kill things.
Surely the big schools who are affected, such as Cabair, will be up in arms?
Any cabair people here? From my understanding, this is going to hit Elstree, Denham, BlackBushe, Fairoaks etc. Ideas? How do we go around formally making our concerns known? I'm new to this, so don't know, but I'd be keen to see some form of consultation. Thoughts, anyone?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll be working on my black rubberised coating for the PA28 then....
Just a quick poll, what would happen if you entered this zone Squawking 1200 and bimbling along at 2000ft? would they intercept you? monitor your progress. I'm sure i can guess what the CAA would do to you.
Just a quick poll, what would happen if you entered this zone Squawking 1200 and bimbling along at 2000ft? would they intercept you? monitor your progress. I'm sure i can guess what the CAA would do to you.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Squawking 1200? They'd shoot you down then prosecute you for using an illegal transponder code. 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry, standard VFR squawk here :-) would they bill you for the Missile? sub question (that i really always wanted to know) would a sidewinder acquire your average spam can????
There are some smarties out there surely they can tell me?
There are some smarties out there surely they can tell me?
Olympics
The proposals to fly in the Restricted airspace iclude filing a VFR plan by AFPex and ''receiving a Ack and clearance number.''
A VFR plan via AFPex does not send an acceptance message, unlike an IFR plan. Where do we get the required permission after AFPex?
How can you file a plan for a glider with ETAs annd turning points up to 24 hrs before a flight?
Proposed regulations seems to be written by people of little GA aviation knowledge.
A VFR plan via AFPex does not send an acceptance message, unlike an IFR plan. Where do we get the required permission after AFPex?
How can you file a plan for a glider with ETAs annd turning points up to 24 hrs before a flight?
Proposed regulations seems to be written by people of little GA aviation knowledge.
Last edited by cessnapete; 10th Mar 2011 at 07:37. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primary radar has bad accuracy in altitude. It has many blank spots and gives returns on anything from birds to kites etc and it suffers from clutter, interference, noise etc. It's not a very accurate tool (in altitude at least) and that's precisely why they came up with secondary (SSR) radar, i.e. the transponder that answers back with vital altitude information (that, by the way, can also be rigged by feeding the SSR system the wrong info, if one was so inclined).
An official disclaimer as some here seem to think I'm cheering mavericks and endorsing law breaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not something I plan to use or will ever try unless I was forced to by extraordinary circumstances (my country gets invaded and I need to escape, or fear of death etc).
But the hypothetical argument is interesting and a valid discussion.
It would be entirely possible to take off from a private field, fly under radar, pop up in the no fly zone, set off the alarm, drop down again and land at said field without anyone ever being able to know what aircraft had done so. How do I know this, because I have some acquaintances who, shall we say, did bust R-zones in the US, got 90 day suspensions and then preferred to leave the transponder off in their subsequent flying and have after that inadvertently bust R-zones again and had suspicions brought on them but upon questioning they couldn't prove it wasn't a malfunction or that it wasn't something else giving a return or give a more precise altitude. This is in military R-zones, where according to SoCal, all the equipment is so sophisticated they know if you're circumcised or not.
My subversive nature leads me to think that's exactly what they want you to think, as it keeps people in check, but I'm not so sure that's actually the case.
When the next Hitler comes along and invades my country, my escape will be flown low, with the transponder off...
An official disclaimer as some here seem to think I'm cheering mavericks and endorsing law breaking. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not something I plan to use or will ever try unless I was forced to by extraordinary circumstances (my country gets invaded and I need to escape, or fear of death etc).
But the hypothetical argument is interesting and a valid discussion.
It would be entirely possible to take off from a private field, fly under radar, pop up in the no fly zone, set off the alarm, drop down again and land at said field without anyone ever being able to know what aircraft had done so. How do I know this, because I have some acquaintances who, shall we say, did bust R-zones in the US, got 90 day suspensions and then preferred to leave the transponder off in their subsequent flying and have after that inadvertently bust R-zones again and had suspicions brought on them but upon questioning they couldn't prove it wasn't a malfunction or that it wasn't something else giving a return or give a more precise altitude. This is in military R-zones, where according to SoCal, all the equipment is so sophisticated they know if you're circumcised or not.
My subversive nature leads me to think that's exactly what they want you to think, as it keeps people in check, but I'm not so sure that's actually the case.
When the next Hitler comes along and invades my country, my escape will be flown low, with the transponder off...
It doesn't seem to mention the RA(T)'s around Farnborough and Faiford which will be in force for at least the early part of the Olympic Restrictions. I understand there is also a proposal for CAS(T) around some airfields (including Farnborough) for the Olympic 'period' too, or do these proposed restrictions take their place?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: On the ground too often
Age: 49
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primary radar has bad accuracy in altitude. It has many blank spots and gives returns on anything from birds to kites etc and it suffers from clutter, interference, noise etc.
There's a government website in the UK where I believe you can log a petition to the government and collect signatures. I think someone should raise one to pass a motion to effectively ban any such events being organised in London in the future. The city is already huge, overcrowded, the transport infrastructure is barely coping. It is already an extremely popular destination for tourists, language students, academic students, business people, rock stars, artists and broad range of filthy rich people. London does not need to become anymore popular. It should rather be downsized.
Golf-Sierra
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primary radar has bad accuracy in altitude. It has many blank spots and gives returns on anything from birds to kites etc and it suffers from clutter, interference, noise etc. It's not a very accurate tool (in altitude at least) and that's precisely why they came up with secondary (SSR) radar, i.e. the transponder that answers back with vital altitude information (that, by the way, can also be rigged by feeding the SSR system the wrong info, if one was so inclined).
Doubtless there will be some additions between now and Olympageddon, or the whole section might just...
(performs hand gesture used by Verbal Kint when describing Keyser Söze)
...disappear.
Last edited by eharding; 10th Mar 2011 at 10:57. Reason: From dramatic effect.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole 'security' argument of this proposal is hopelessly flawed. It is typical of many so called 'security initatives' as it smacks of looking like something has been done.
Virtually prohibiting light aircraft from the huge zone achieves virtually nothing as the effects of crashing a light aircraft on a house is to break the windows and dislodge the roof tiles. Load it with explosives and it makes a white van look like a much more effective delivery tool.
And yet for this 2 month period potentially much increased scheduled traffic into Stansted, Luton and London City, Heathrow and Gatwick will all be within a couple of minutes of the venues - what represents the real security risk?
The risk assessment to justify the restrictions will never see the light of day as it would exposure the authors to complete and utter ridicule!
Virtually prohibiting light aircraft from the huge zone achieves virtually nothing as the effects of crashing a light aircraft on a house is to break the windows and dislodge the roof tiles. Load it with explosives and it makes a white van look like a much more effective delivery tool.
And yet for this 2 month period potentially much increased scheduled traffic into Stansted, Luton and London City, Heathrow and Gatwick will all be within a couple of minutes of the venues - what represents the real security risk?
The risk assessment to justify the restrictions will never see the light of day as it would exposure the authors to complete and utter ridicule!
If AQ seriously wants to perpetrate an outrage during the Olympics, bringing down a large a/c on approach over London with a missile would do considerably more damage than a Cessna loaded with a few hundred pounds of liquid explosives.
Say an instructor wants to plan a trip out of the circuit to demonstrate aircraft handling characteristics including unusual attitudes; how do you put that on a flight plan?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say an instructor wants to plan a trip out of the circuit to demonstrate aircraft handling characteristics including unusual attitudes; how do you put that on a flight plan?
I can accept that general handling will have to take place outside the zone, but there must be suitable corridors for transit established for all airfileds within the zone. Weather related diversions might be an issue in a narrow corridor though.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just had a chat with a very helpful chap at DAP regarding operations within the restricted airspace. He advised me to put forward various suggestions via airspacesafety.com with a view to getting some dispensations/exemptions issued. Apparently exemptions are already being looked at for the air show at Dunsfold and some operators who undertake several local flights a day.
If I understood him correctly DAP are acting as advisors to DfT on what is sensible regarding exemptions.
I will be having a meeting with our based operators in the next couple of weeks and putting forward a co-ordinated response from the Aerodrome in the hope that we might be able to retain some normality to our operation, especially for those aircraft without SSR.
If I understood him correctly DAP are acting as advisors to DfT on what is sensible regarding exemptions.
I will be having a meeting with our based operators in the next couple of weeks and putting forward a co-ordinated response from the Aerodrome in the hope that we might be able to retain some normality to our operation, especially for those aircraft without SSR.
Whilst 'free lanes' for places like White Waltham and Blackbushe might be feasible, it would take considerably longer for traffic from Fairoaks or Redhill to exit the Restricted Zone and the length of the 'free lane' would probably be too great for it to be acceptable to the DfT.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Age: 54
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
Here is the (surprisingly swift) reply from the CAA. Government, not CAA decision, and microlights would need a transponder, and yes, its from the surface. Oh my!
-----------
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Thanks for your e-mail.[/FONT]
The decision to put restrictions in place, their size, location and the possibility to use that airspace is a decision taken by Government (Home Office / Department for Transport). Separately the CAA and NATS (with the MoD) are tasked with putting in place the operational system – with the proviso that everything has to be agreed by Government and, in particularly, its security teams.
The Government’s proposal is that the airspace runs from ground level to the base of controlled airspace and that for microlight flight a transponder would be required.
The Government has set up an e-mail address that you can use to raise issues over the basic principle of the restrictions, their size and the impact on business. I will forward your e-mail on to the Government for them to respond, but for your reference the address is: [FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][email protected][/FONT]
The CAA and NATS has said that anyone with a suggestion or issue around the operational aspects of the airspace can contact us and we will work with them to see if a solution is possible, but these must be approved by the Government and, in particular, it’s security teams.
Any changes to the restrictions will be notified at www.airspacesafety.com/olympics where you can also sign up for automatic updates.
Regards
Jonathan Nicholson
CAA Corporate Communications
Here is the (surprisingly swift) reply from the CAA. Government, not CAA decision, and microlights would need a transponder, and yes, its from the surface. Oh my!
-----------
[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']Thanks for your e-mail.[/FONT]
The decision to put restrictions in place, their size, location and the possibility to use that airspace is a decision taken by Government (Home Office / Department for Transport). Separately the CAA and NATS (with the MoD) are tasked with putting in place the operational system – with the proviso that everything has to be agreed by Government and, in particularly, its security teams.
The Government’s proposal is that the airspace runs from ground level to the base of controlled airspace and that for microlight flight a transponder would be required.
The Government has set up an e-mail address that you can use to raise issues over the basic principle of the restrictions, their size and the impact on business. I will forward your e-mail on to the Government for them to respond, but for your reference the address is: [FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][email protected][/FONT]
The CAA and NATS has said that anyone with a suggestion or issue around the operational aspects of the airspace can contact us and we will work with them to see if a solution is possible, but these must be approved by the Government and, in particular, it’s security teams.
Any changes to the restrictions will be notified at www.airspacesafety.com/olympics where you can also sign up for automatic updates.
Regards
Jonathan Nicholson
CAA Corporate Communications