Farnborough Airspace Proposal
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: York
Age: 68
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go on then...... tell me why getting angry with Farnborough fabricating their application is wrong. Are we to believe the father and font of all knowledge from across the sea that keeping quiet works for the betterment of aviation?
soaringhigh650, you say
I think thats what the LAA etc did, but, it appears that you didn't read what they wrote.
The beef with Farnborough is that they have stated that they would not allow glider access even with transponder. When they had class "D" previously they did not control it as you would suggest. It will be like an oversized chunk of class "A" blocking traffic flow at all levels and dangerously funnelling traffic in to a small volume of class "G", quite disproportionate given that natural separation is working fine. Each of the operators happen to use different height bands in the area.
bb
So argue that airspace must be appropriately managed with access and provision for everyone and discuss the safety implications if not.
Which is why nobody listens to them.
What is your beef with Farnborough anyway?
What is your beef with Farnborough anyway?
bb
The main problem is that Farnborough are a minor player locally in terms of movements, but want to control all the local traffic (and exclude it when it doesn't suit their own needs) to cater for a relatively small number of their clients convenience. In the process that would constrict all other VFR traffic in the area to narrow corridors, creating a serious and unacceptable collision risk.
Their proposal would place 'their' airspace at ground level halfway down the runway of another local airfield, and within the visual circuit of the busiest gliding airfield in UK (possibly the world).
All this has been pointed out in great detail. Detailed constructive discussions with them on how to accommodate their needs have taken place, and then all suggestions have been ignored in their submission.
Their proposal would place 'their' airspace at ground level halfway down the runway of another local airfield, and within the visual circuit of the busiest gliding airfield in UK (possibly the world).
All this has been pointed out in great detail. Detailed constructive discussions with them on how to accommodate their needs have taken place, and then all suggestions have been ignored in their submission.
Posted in another thread. If accurate, it illustrates the attitude of Farnborough, and the problems that would be created if their proposal were to go ahead in any way.
Apparently Farnborough ATC seem to think that they already have Class D Airspace. On Saturday the temporary restrictions for the Airshow finished at 13.00 local time, so a few Lasham glider pilots headed off in their general direction.
Our CFI then got an angry phone call telling him that there gliders in 'their' airspace and would he get them to leave immediately. He asked if they were flying in their ATZ, to which the answer was No, so he pointed out out that they were flying quite legally in Class G Airspace. At this point the controller said "If that's your attitude" and slammed the phone down!
Our CFI then got an angry phone call telling him that there gliders in 'their' airspace and would he get them to leave immediately. He asked if they were flying in their ATZ, to which the answer was No, so he pointed out out that they were flying quite legally in Class G Airspace. At this point the controller said "If that's your attitude" and slammed the phone down!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From AIC M42/2014:
Note that only "a permission" is required. A clearance is NOT required. The RA(T)s are NOT CAS. They remain Class G (ie. uncontrolled) airspace, but subject only to permission to access. A 'crossing service' is offered (Note: NOT a crossing clearance).
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.
The Farnborough International Air Show will be held during the period 7-21 July 2014. The Secretary of State for Transport has introduced Restriction of Flying Regulations under Article 161 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 for this event...The Restrictions will not apply to any aircraft flying in accordance with a permission granted by the Air Traffic Control Unit at Farnborough Aerodrome. Note: Farnborough will provide, whenever possible, a RA(T) crossing service on their LARS frequency of 125.250 MHz during their published operating hours.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.
The restrictions apply during specified hours. Farnborough apparently were trying to operate the RAT procedures outside those hours.
And asking non-IFR traffic to remain clear of the area is difficult to reconcile with providing a deconfliction service.
If that is Farnborough's interpretation, it is even more vital that their proposal is rejected in its entirety.
And asking non-IFR traffic to remain clear of the area is difficult to reconcile with providing a deconfliction service.
If that is Farnborough's interpretation, it is even more vital that their proposal is rejected in its entirety.
Thread Starter
Feedback report Part A is being published on Friday 29th August
Download will be available from 0900Hrs at TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation
Download will be available from 0900Hrs at TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation
Thread Starter
Well, their next move is this..........
Farnborough have done a deal with NATS and all the CAS which was going to be changed into class D is going to be slightly smaller and will be class A.
And the Airspace Change is being taken over by NATS.
Consultancy | NATS ... -feedback/
Breathtaking arrogance contained in section 6.2.....
Farnborough have done a deal with NATS and all the CAS which was going to be changed into class D is going to be slightly smaller and will be class A.
And the Airspace Change is being taken over by NATS.
Consultancy | NATS ... -feedback/
Breathtaking arrogance contained in section 6.2.....
6.2 Anecdotal evidence from previous consultations has indicated that people who are negatively affected are more likely to respond than those who would benefit. Therefore consultation is not aimed at determining the popularity of a proposed design, nor is it a reliable proxy for determining popularity as responses are more likely to have a negative bias.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lower level airspace (approx that North of a line Winchester-Worthing) is still the responsibility of TAG, who haven't said what their next move is for that.
That will affect GA more even than the NATS airspace will, if the original "consultation" is any guide.
The lower level airspace (approx that North of a line Winchester-Worthing) is still the responsibility of TAG, who haven't said what their next move is for that.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, quite. Sorry.
"The Consultation for that piece of airspace will continue to be led by TAG." is probably what I should have written.
The point is: Don't be too distracted by the NATS shenanigans, as important as they are; there's more and potentially worse for us to come from TAG.
"The Consultation for that piece of airspace will continue to be led by TAG." is probably what I should have written.
The point is: Don't be too distracted by the NATS shenanigans, as important as they are; there's more and potentially worse for us to come from TAG.
Thread Starter
Its time to bring this up to date.
Additional Consultation has been published August 2016... document here..https://www.consultation.tagfarnboro...tion-document/
Not a lot has changed, it would appear that TAG / Farnborough are still hell bent on getting their way and ignoring all the objectors.
This tactic ( to publish a "Revised" proposal ) is possibly a way to have less objections raised , as many people will think that their points and objections will be carried through from the first document ..... apparently this is not the case so please respond and re-send your comments and objections to [email protected] by the 2nd November 2016
A reminder that there was a very reasoned and well written explanation of the problems that this airspace would cause here... http://docs.fasvig.info/ACP/20160513...ace-Report.pdf
if you have not already read it , I would urge you to do so !
Additional Consultation has been published August 2016... document here..https://www.consultation.tagfarnboro...tion-document/
Not a lot has changed, it would appear that TAG / Farnborough are still hell bent on getting their way and ignoring all the objectors.
This tactic ( to publish a "Revised" proposal ) is possibly a way to have less objections raised , as many people will think that their points and objections will be carried through from the first document ..... apparently this is not the case so please respond and re-send your comments and objections to [email protected] by the 2nd November 2016
A reminder that there was a very reasoned and well written explanation of the problems that this airspace would cause here... http://docs.fasvig.info/ACP/20160513...ace-Report.pdf
if you have not already read it , I would urge you to do so !
Just done mine - the automated response say that:
Thank you for responding to the Additional Consultation. Consultation runs from 10th August to 5th October. All responses will be analysed after closure and results published in Feedback Report C in due course. Please monitor www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com
So, looks like the deadline is earlier than previously posted...
Thank you for responding to the Additional Consultation. Consultation runs from 10th August to 5th October. All responses will be analysed after closure and results published in Feedback Report C in due course. Please monitor www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com
So, looks like the deadline is earlier than previously posted...
Thread Starter
TAG wrote:
The first public consultation meeting took place at Capron House, Midhurst on Thursday 1 September 2016. Stakeholder feedback included comment on the length of the additional consultation and the impact of the summer break on their respective meeting schedules during this period.
TAG-FARNBOROUGH-AIRPORT-ADDITIONAL-CONSULTATION
TAG Farnborough Airport has therefore decided to extend the consultation period by a further 4 weeks, this will now run until Wednesday 2 November 2016.
The first public consultation meeting took place at Capron House, Midhurst on Thursday 1 September 2016. Stakeholder feedback included comment on the length of the additional consultation and the impact of the summer break on their respective meeting schedules during this period.
TAG-FARNBOROUGH-AIRPORT-ADDITIONAL-CONSULTATION
TAG Farnborough Airport has therefore decided to extend the consultation period by a further 4 weeks, this will now run until Wednesday 2 November 2016.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consultation fatigue
On a different forum I came across a funny term (see subject above) to describe the phenomenon which TAG may be relying upon, carrying out this additional consultation. Revise the original proposal slightly, open the consultation, get fewer objections and Bob's your uncle.
I'm going to send in exactly the same reponse as last time, just so it's there.
/h88
I'm going to send in exactly the same reponse as last time, just so it's there.
/h88
From AIC M42/2014:
Note that only "a permission" is required. A clearance is NOT required. The RA(T)s are NOT CAS. They remain Class G (ie. uncontrolled) airspace, but subject only to permission to access. A 'crossing service' is offered (Note: NOT a crossing clearance).
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.
Note that only "a permission" is required. A clearance is NOT required. The RA(T)s are NOT CAS. They remain Class G (ie. uncontrolled) airspace, but subject only to permission to access. A 'crossing service' is offered (Note: NOT a crossing clearance).
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.
So we decided on the following:
1) Pilots must request permission to enter.
2) They must listen out on the notified frequency whilst operating in the RA(T)
3) They must comply with ATC instructions whilst within the RA(T) unless that instruction is innapropriate eg 'instructing' a glider to vary its altitude.
I included these 'rules' in the Airspace Change Proposal and in the AIC.
Is this no longer the case?
