Worrying Application for a DropZone SW of Popham

[dyslexnick]

Pretty daft idea,imagine opening your chute infront of a smokey DC8 on finals to Lasham ! This area is bereft of "flight imformation" You are west of Farnbourgh , east of Boscombe ,south of Brize and north of Solent.There is lots of traffic squeezed in between controlled airspace.I quite like the idea of parachuting but i would feel a little "exposed" doing it here.
Nick

[Monocock]

Post deleted after rather a bizarre PM.......

[Genghis the Engineer]

(In response to Monocock's now deleted post).

I think it's actually quite common to require applicants to consult, pull together a body of evidence, then present it to the authorities as part of their application.

Here's one produced by a reasonably competent organisation, and the results from it are here. Quite a marked difference between this, and the short and rather amateurish document being circulated by this one-man-band skydiving enterprise.

G

[Monocock]

Sorry I made it look like you were talking to yourself G!!

I had a very weird PM from someone who is clearly in favour of the DZ so, I decided to back down as I'm local and just don't want any controversy aimed at me.

As a member of the SFC I'd rather know their stance before I comment.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There are bound to be people in favour, and some of them in the local aviation community, and they have every right to express their opinions. I also can't see a fundamental problem with having a DZ in that general area, or with a drop aircraft being based at EGHP.

But the specific location. No.

Inside or immediately adjacent to the SPTA or Porton DAs - which could easily be within a dozen miles, then I think there would be no real issue for anybody.

And the proposer needs to get some grown ups to help write their case once they've found somewhere sensible to put their DZ.

G

[Nibbler]

Thanks for those links Genghis clearly a world of difference between the documentation. Perhaps this sort of initial feedback (even a little advice) from those on the distribution list and others may save this company time and money in the long run.

This should not be a combative process and I have nothing against drop zones either. In my experience they can certainly have a very positive impact at the airfield they are based at. The issue is simply one of the suitability of the proposed location.

[Fitter2]

In uncontrolled airspace, VFR users operate 'see and avoid' with the exception of freefall parachutists who cannot. It appears that there are no restrictions on them to prevent starting operations wherever they can get the landowners agreement, and then applying for a NOTAM so that other users avoid them - even in an area as already congested with VFR traffic as Barton Stacey ( Odiham and Middle Wallop helicopters, Lasham and Shalbourne gliders, Popham light aircraft, plus several airstrips.)

Wile I am not in general 'dog in the manger' this does seem to me to be as inappropriate a location as I can imagine, and I will be putting in an objection.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Having looked at the map, I agree with Genghis - at face value the application seems poorly thought out and at worst incredibly selfish.

I go back to my earlier question about Hinton Skydive - it would seem that they are now prepared to share their income from skydiving at Hinton with a third party, who seems from what he has written on his website to infer that his operation is endorsed by Hinton Skydive.

Hinton Skydive have been around for many years and (if they know about the proposal) would seem to have changed business direction and ethos.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I imagine you'll tell them GEP given your regular involvement with Hinton. But it could be that he's just done a deal to send customers that far north to Hinton Skydive and take a small commission? Or it could be blind optimism, which would match the airspace application.

G

[CookPassBabtridge]

Surely there isn't that much tandem business in this area. Old Sarum, Netheravon, Redlands all within an hour's drive.

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

Personally, I agree it's a silly place for a para DZ. However, all airspace is shared (well, mostly. Commercial Air Transport have first pick and the rest of GA have to put up with what's left) and in reality, the parachute mob have just as much right to use the airspace as all the rest of us.

As I said, together with the BPA, the CAA & NATS have an input into the approval of DZs, so you can guarantee that unless it's safe and has been risk assessed properly, it ain't just gonna happen! Just being in the wrong place for PPRune readers does not mean it will be turned down.

I'd hate to think that there was a 'them and us' culture creeping into PPRune

[goldeneaglepilot]

I doubt its a "them and us" culture - rather one of sensible people looking at something that is going to make life very tough for GA pilots in the area if the proposal goes through. The first question for any business should be is there a demand for the services that are going to be offered? How can those services be better than the local competition and is it a sustainable?

[Fitter2]

Chuffer

the parachute mob have just as much right to use the airspace as all the rest of us.

I would agree with that if they were able to 'see and avoid' like the rest of VFR traffic. As they can't, then they have marked and NOTAMed drop zones the rest of us avoid for their, and our, safety.

It's a crass place to stick an 'avoid' area, hopefully sense will prevail..

[Genghis the Engineer]

In case it's any use, I just created a shorter URL to the document that can be easily cut and pasted.

http://tinyurl.com/bnwbfr3

G

[cats_five]

Strange that responses are just requested to Mr Ivory. Is this a pre-application document? Or am I being optimistic that responses should go to the CAA?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by cats_five

Strange that responses are just requested to Mr Ivory. Is this a pre-application document? Or am I being optimistic that responses should go to the CAA?

If you look at the Cranfield documents I posted earlier you'll see that normal practice is for the applicant to have to do their own consultation, pull together all of the responses, then present a full and honest report to the CAA and/or NATS. So, this is normal at this stage.

What I'm less clear about is whether the CAA/NATS check the completeness and truthfulness of these reports.

G

[cats_five]

And Mr Ivory gets to choose who his pre-consultation is with?

[Genghis the Engineer]

From the Cranfield runway 03 consultation document:

1.9 CAA Oversight
1.9.1 The CAA DAP maintains oversight of the conduct of the consultation being carried out by Cranfield Airport to ensure that we adhere to the process laid down in CAP 725. If you have any complaints about Cranfield Airport’s adherence to the consultation process these should be referred to:
Head of Business Management
Directorate of Airspace Policy
CAA House
45 - 59 Kingsway
London WC2B 6TE
e-mail: [email protected]
It is emphasised that DAP will not comment to consultees on the proposal itself.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP725.PDF

says

Change Sponsor should seek
endorsement from DAP that
consultation material and method are
satisfactory.

G

[goldeneaglepilot]

There is nothing to stop a party that may be affected, but not listed in the consultation list WRITING to everyone in the consultation list expressing their concerns and the reasons behind the concerns. It may make the person on the list aware of detail that they may have missed and influence their response (or indeed prompt them to make a response) by the deadline.

It might even be worth anyone with objections trying to co-ordinate a signed petition endorsing common objections to the proposal. A copy sent to the CAA and the persons listed on the consultation list would at least bring focus on what GA pilots using the area think. This could be co-ordinated by email.

[Jim59]

Has anybody deduced why he wants two overlapping drop zones?