Farnborough Airspace Proposal
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farnborough airspace
Can anyone possibly explain to me why a private airfield where a similar (or lower) number of GA movements to other local GA airfields, carrying one or two passengers, should need more airspace than Gatwick?
Incidentally, a 737 operating into Lasham for maintenance recently was refused clearance through 'Farnborough Airspace' (i.e. Class G, although covered by Farnborough LARS) until they had confirmation that Lasham runway was clear. Who do they think they are?
Incidentally, a 737 operating into Lasham for maintenance recently was refused clearance through 'Farnborough Airspace' (i.e. Class G, although covered by Farnborough LARS) until they had confirmation that Lasham runway was clear. Who do they think they are?
Don't forget Lasham are operating without any sort of iap at the moment until the 'new' radar is approved by CAA, so they would ask Farnborough to hold traffic off until the runway is clear of gliders.
Fitter 2
I think the problem is caused by NATs not wanting IFR FAB arr traffic to be handled in the LTMA. All intermediate app manoeuvring is planned out of the LTMA hence the huge expanse of new CAS airspace required.
I would have thought that IFR departures out of FAB could be held on the ground until climb clearance direct into the LTMA was obtained, thus not requiring any new manoeuvring area.
I would have thought that IFR departures out of FAB could be held on the ground until climb clearance direct into the LTMA was obtained, thus not requiring any new manoeuvring area.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
Lasham are operating without any sort of iap at the moment until the 'new' radar is approved by CAA, so they would ask Farnborough to hold traffic off until the runway is clear of gliders.
Farnborough will not permit inbound aircraft to leave PEPIS
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically it is an SOP which is merely part of a LARS 'agreement'.
From the UK IAIP:
so it's part of the radar service 'deal'. Certainly Farnborough may not insist that the aircraft remains in the hold, but in Farnborough's defence it's probably more convenient for all parties if it wasn't just wandering around willy-nilly whilst waiting for a vacant runway. It's all about how they 'package' it really, and, more to the point, how the deconfliction service is 'delivered'.
From the UK IAIP:
After leaving the Airways System pilots will normally be provided with a radar service outside controlled airspace by Farnborough ATC
To interpret 'Provide a radar service' as 'control and require compliance as if in controlled airspace' takes a stretch of the imagination.
I ask again, why should a private company catering for a relatively small number of GA aircraft be handed a larger slice of airspace than Gatwick need to the exclusion of many more other airspace users?
I ask again, why should a private company catering for a relatively small number of GA aircraft be handed a larger slice of airspace than Gatwick need to the exclusion of many more other airspace users?
Mad Jock:
The service is not controlling, it is issuing information. Very different.
I see no-one is interested in answering my question.
'A Deconfliction Service is a surveillance based ATS where, in addition to the provisions of a Basic Service, the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned deconfliction minima against all observed aircraft in Class F/G airspace, or for positioning and/or sequencing. However, the avoidance of other traffic is ultimately the pilot responsibility.'
I see no-one is interested in answering my question.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your choosing to ignore the
Like or not the current pish services in class G are set up so the ATCO's can ignore you and give you nothing useful if they so wish but if they can get you to accept a contract with them you are just as controlled as if your in Class A.
And it doesn't matter what class of airspace your in the pilot is always responsible for avoiding other traffic and the ground.
Which gives us the silly situation that the number of airproxes involving aircraft taking a service is increasing and the number for aircraft who aren't speaking to anyone is decreasing.
Apart from the highly rare occurrence of you getting a de-confliction service.
or for positioning and/or sequencing
And it doesn't matter what class of airspace your in the pilot is always responsible for avoiding other traffic and the ground.
Which gives us the silly situation that the number of airproxes involving aircraft taking a service is increasing and the number for aircraft who aren't speaking to anyone is decreasing.
Apart from the highly rare occurrence of you getting a de-confliction service.
Hi MJ
I did not ignore anything. The definition of the service is clear
If you are saying that the service provider can refuse to provide this information unless the aircraft in receipt of the service accepts that it may be 'refused entry' into a section of Class G airspace, then so be it. This makes it even more important that the airspace in question remains Class G, and other GA aircraft are no forced into a further squeezed choke point with the attendant increase in collision risk.
(by the way, the abbreviation for 'you are' is 'you're'.)
I did not ignore anything. The definition of the service is clear
the controller provides specific surveillance derived traffic information and issues headings and/or levels aimed at achieving planned deconfliction minima
(by the way, the abbreviation for 'you are' is 'you're'.)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(by the way, the abbreviation for 'you are' is 'you're'.)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the way this ATCOCAS pish is all set up so they can control in class G.
And you won't have a clue what the company's SOP's say about that run, it may very well be that its stipulated that they have to follow the instructions to satisfy the safety case. And there is a standing agreement that they stay where ever they are told to until the runway is declared glider free and a runway inspection done.
Its not just the ATS which is involved here.
And you won't have a clue what the company's SOP's say about that run, it may very well be that its stipulated that they have to follow the instructions to satisfy the safety case. And there is a standing agreement that they stay where ever they are told to until the runway is declared glider free and a runway inspection done.
Its not just the ATS which is involved here.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 52N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farnborough Airspace
Let’s look at the situation in the London area which I think puts Farnborough’s grandiose claims for airspace protection into perspective.
There are 11 airports which offer executive jet facilities in the London area, they are: Northolt, Luton, Stansted, Southend, Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Cranfield, Farnborough, Oxford, Lydd and Manston.
The first three are all within Class A (currently) and D airspace and Southend may soon be. Oxford and Cranfield certainly have more IFR movements than the rest but operate successfully in Class G as do the others. What is so special about Farnborough?
If we look at the map of airspace from Ground Level to the base of the London TMA around the London CTR there are blocks of Class A and D at Gatwick, Stansted, Brize Norton and Southampton which necessarily funnel VFR traffic into the area of Class G around the London CTR and increase the density of traffic there beyond what is normally found in the rest of the UK. This traffic density is also a function of the large number of smaller GA airfields that exist with a 60nm radius of the City and comprises local training and pleasure traffic as well as all the transit traffic that is squeezed into it by the layout of the existing CTR’s. If Farnborough deserves class D protection then so may Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Cranfield, and Oxford and where does that leave us, with a ring of controlled airspace around London that squeezes all the smaller GA aircraft into even more densely populated airspace than ever before?
Let’s also look at the real reason behind TAG Aviation’s proposals. I suggest they are simply to gain a competitive advantage over their competitor airfields around London. If Mr Russian Oligarch’s wife is really concerned about flying into an airfield protected by controlled airspace when she comes to London to do her shopping then she can elect to use Northolt, Luton, Stansted and maybe soon, Southend. I don’t think that her protection or convenience is any more important than my own, or that of many aviation companies in the area, when going about our business using or transiting an area which then becomes even more congested than it already is.
I think it is also time for Farnborough’s operator to realise they chose to establish and grow their business from an airfield they knew was in a congested piece of free airspace near London. To then demand protection with controlled airspace, however large or small, is the same mindset as those who buy houses near established airfields and then complain about the noise.
I hope the GA community and our representative organisations will fight these proposals like never before and not succumb to the archetypal form of compromise we British seem so fond of.
There are 11 airports which offer executive jet facilities in the London area, they are: Northolt, Luton, Stansted, Southend, Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Cranfield, Farnborough, Oxford, Lydd and Manston.
The first three are all within Class A (currently) and D airspace and Southend may soon be. Oxford and Cranfield certainly have more IFR movements than the rest but operate successfully in Class G as do the others. What is so special about Farnborough?
If we look at the map of airspace from Ground Level to the base of the London TMA around the London CTR there are blocks of Class A and D at Gatwick, Stansted, Brize Norton and Southampton which necessarily funnel VFR traffic into the area of Class G around the London CTR and increase the density of traffic there beyond what is normally found in the rest of the UK. This traffic density is also a function of the large number of smaller GA airfields that exist with a 60nm radius of the City and comprises local training and pleasure traffic as well as all the transit traffic that is squeezed into it by the layout of the existing CTR’s. If Farnborough deserves class D protection then so may Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Cranfield, and Oxford and where does that leave us, with a ring of controlled airspace around London that squeezes all the smaller GA aircraft into even more densely populated airspace than ever before?
Let’s also look at the real reason behind TAG Aviation’s proposals. I suggest they are simply to gain a competitive advantage over their competitor airfields around London. If Mr Russian Oligarch’s wife is really concerned about flying into an airfield protected by controlled airspace when she comes to London to do her shopping then she can elect to use Northolt, Luton, Stansted and maybe soon, Southend. I don’t think that her protection or convenience is any more important than my own, or that of many aviation companies in the area, when going about our business using or transiting an area which then becomes even more congested than it already is.
I think it is also time for Farnborough’s operator to realise they chose to establish and grow their business from an airfield they knew was in a congested piece of free airspace near London. To then demand protection with controlled airspace, however large or small, is the same mindset as those who buy houses near established airfields and then complain about the noise.
I hope the GA community and our representative organisations will fight these proposals like never before and not succumb to the archetypal form of compromise we British seem so fond of.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Farnborough Airspace
Farnborough expects 50,000 movements per year by 2019. Not sure if that's a limit.
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport currently handles over 160,000 movements per year, with executive jets all the time, cargo stuff, police and other helicopters, flight training, general private flying with a lot of Cirruses, twins, etc. Much more than we have in UK skies! Several smaller GA fields close by. Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International a few miles way, and Miami International around 25 miles away.
Look at a Miami sectional to see how they set out their airspace. Makes Farnborough's grandiose proposals a sick joke.
One decent radar controller for the area, working with Heathrow could deal with Farnborough in his sleep.
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport currently handles over 160,000 movements per year, with executive jets all the time, cargo stuff, police and other helicopters, flight training, general private flying with a lot of Cirruses, twins, etc. Much more than we have in UK skies! Several smaller GA fields close by. Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International a few miles way, and Miami International around 25 miles away.
Look at a Miami sectional to see how they set out their airspace. Makes Farnborough's grandiose proposals a sick joke.
One decent radar controller for the area, working with Heathrow could deal with Farnborough in his sleep.