Farnborough Airspace Proposal
There wasn't an airshow last year (2013) so you're not very observant are you?
In any case, there's a severe limitation on weekend movements meaning they average about half those on a weekday which by the way, is max 15 hours (7 am - 10 pm) not 20 due to local planning conditions and no extensions permitted.
In any case, there's a severe limitation on weekend movements meaning they average about half those on a weekday which by the way, is max 15 hours (7 am - 10 pm) not 20 due to local planning conditions and no extensions permitted.
Oooh chevvron, did you get out of the wrong side of the bed or something?
I made a stab in the dark at the 20 hour ops but now that you have kndly provided the correct duration I'll use that. Even reducing the operating period to 15 hour ops makes it 4.2 movements/hour assuming 365 days ops. Heathrow it obviously ain't so why the LHR'esque airspace ambitions at the expense of thousands of existing users of the airspace?
Damn, you are going to tell me that they are not open on Christmas Day and New Years Day now aren't you? That'll jack the movements up to 4.22/hour....
Even the proposed 50,000 movements that they have permission for (and by no means can that be guaranteed, look at Norwich for example) that puts the hourly movement rate up to a highly congested 9 per hour period......
As has been pointed out there are other bizjet orientated airfields (eg Luton) which operate in a much less restrictive fashion than TAG Farnborough are proposing.
I made a stab in the dark at the 20 hour ops but now that you have kndly provided the correct duration I'll use that. Even reducing the operating period to 15 hour ops makes it 4.2 movements/hour assuming 365 days ops. Heathrow it obviously ain't so why the LHR'esque airspace ambitions at the expense of thousands of existing users of the airspace?
Damn, you are going to tell me that they are not open on Christmas Day and New Years Day now aren't you? That'll jack the movements up to 4.22/hour....
Even the proposed 50,000 movements that they have permission for (and by no means can that be guaranteed, look at Norwich for example) that puts the hourly movement rate up to a highly congested 9 per hour period......
As has been pointed out there are other bizjet orientated airfields (eg Luton) which operate in a much less restrictive fashion than TAG Farnborough are proposing.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Object all you like about some piece of Class D airspace but until YOU can sufficiently show there willl be GREATER issues to flight safety by the establishment of such airspace, nobody will listen.
They take a large amount of airspace currently available to all, and give a small number priority there. The effect of that may be to reduce very slightly an already small collision risk for the few, but increase it substantially for the many who are pushed into the choke points.
Add to that the question of why those few should take preference over the many and these proposals should be resisted strongly.
It's no use arguing that Class D is open to all. Real traffic data shows that GA pilots route around it when it is created, pushing traffic into those choke points. It doesn't really matter why, it's what happens. But in fact there are good reasons why. For glider pilots for example, the likely restrictions on routing are a severe problem. And the new SERA rules on VFR are going to make it very difficult to fly in that airspace, since gliders will not legally be able to climb to within 1000ft of cloudbase. For other GA pilots it's much simpler to plan around it than run several plans just in case a crossing clearance isn't granted.
There are much better ways of addressing TAG's issues than granting swathes of class D.
I'd encourage everyone to object to TAG's proposals on their website. Don't answer their questions - they're designed to get the answer they want. There's a chance to put some free format stuff in section E. Say what you think.
Don't answer their questions - they're designed to get the answer they want.
There's a chance to put some free format stuff in section E. Say what you think.
There's a chance to put some free format stuff in section E. Say what you think.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to be honest the way the thing is done you need to step away from the process and attack it from within the communities and at a political level.
As shown by Norwich when they write the report up they can basically sideline all objections by saying the responses were outside the normal data collection remit. And also claim that D fixes all problems.
I suggest you also go and gather statistics from the airprox board and present it to the local communities and politicians.
Per say they will assume that controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled. So unless you attack it from the safety point of view that its going to decrease safety to a vast majority your going to be stuffed.
I suspect though that the powers that be will want this airspace because it protects that corner with Heathrow.
As shown by Norwich when they write the report up they can basically sideline all objections by saying the responses were outside the normal data collection remit. And also claim that D fixes all problems.
I suggest you also go and gather statistics from the airprox board and present it to the local communities and politicians.
Per say they will assume that controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled. So unless you attack it from the safety point of view that its going to decrease safety to a vast majority your going to be stuffed.
I suspect though that the powers that be will want this airspace because it protects that corner with Heathrow.
What they are trying to do may be a good thing except it really needs to be done somewhere else. The last thing any of us really needs, and GA in particular, is any further restrictions in the key corridor between HR and GW zones.
For those of us that fly from White Waltham, Brimpton, Siege Cross, Firs Farm, Whittles, Chiltern Park, Englefield and a surprisingly large handfull of private strips to the west of HR zone this is a key routing. It is needed for visits to Rochester, Redhill, Biggin Hill, Headcorn, Fairoaks and onto the Calais/Le Touquet lunch stop.
For those of us that fly from White Waltham, Brimpton, Siege Cross, Firs Farm, Whittles, Chiltern Park, Englefield and a surprisingly large handfull of private strips to the west of HR zone this is a key routing. It is needed for visits to Rochester, Redhill, Biggin Hill, Headcorn, Fairoaks and onto the Calais/Le Touquet lunch stop.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible loss of responses to TAG Farnborough Airspace proposals
Edited text of an e mail received "on the grapevine"
From: Patrick Naegeli
Sent: 23 April 2014 08:20
Subject: Re: Farnborough ACP
Dear all,
I met with Dan Foster (NATS Farnborough) yesterday evening at Shoreham.
Prior to the meeting, I asked Dan what the status was of ACP responses made through the website. He told me that they had identified a problem that persisted for the period between 11 and 16 April, that prevented responses being registered on the site. As a consequence, anyone that has not received a confirmatory email will need to resubmit their response.
TAG are considering extending the submission deadline to 12 May - though that has not been decided or confirmed as yet.
At this stage, we need to make sure that all contacts are aware of the situation and resend their inputs if they are in any doubt as to whether or not they were successful first time around. TAG will handle any duplicates they end up with.
Regards.
Patrick
A colleague of mine (CR) strongly suggests that responses should be copied to [email protected] as well.
Hope this is helpful
(p.s. I am only the messenger. I can tell you no more than that above
)
From: Patrick Naegeli
Sent: 23 April 2014 08:20
Subject: Re: Farnborough ACP
Dear all,
I met with Dan Foster (NATS Farnborough) yesterday evening at Shoreham.
Prior to the meeting, I asked Dan what the status was of ACP responses made through the website. He told me that they had identified a problem that persisted for the period between 11 and 16 April, that prevented responses being registered on the site. As a consequence, anyone that has not received a confirmatory email will need to resubmit their response.
TAG are considering extending the submission deadline to 12 May - though that has not been decided or confirmed as yet.
At this stage, we need to make sure that all contacts are aware of the situation and resend their inputs if they are in any doubt as to whether or not they were successful first time around. TAG will handle any duplicates they end up with.
Regards.
Patrick
A colleague of mine (CR) strongly suggests that responses should be copied to [email protected] as well.
Hope this is helpful
(p.s. I am only the messenger. I can tell you no more than that above
)
Tag seem to be going out of their way to enable everyone to have their say, and may be perfectly genuine in doing so, but watch out for a technique I have seen used succesfully before in the quest for large chunks of Class D airspace. (And wind turbine farms.)
First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.
The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.
Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Just me being cynical?
First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.
The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.
Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Just me being cynical?
Last edited by Mach Jump; 23rd Apr 2014 at 23:06. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consultation extended to 12th May:
Consultation Extension | TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal
Consultation Extension | TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal
Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Just me being cynical?
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Just me being cynical?
Any changed proposal will have to start again from scratch, and given the area affected by any extra Farnborough airspace will meet the same opposition.
If anyone attended the Shoreham meeting, they would wonder just what TAG are playing at:
Dan Foster, who represented TAG Farnborough, gave a very poor, badly constructed case, which seemed to immediately rile the audience somewhat.
Patrick Neageli's case was, in comparison, a joy to watch. The Farnborough ACP was comprehensively demolished in a very surgical, yet brutal presentation by Patrickwhich was even applauded by Dan Foster at the end.
There is no question that this ACP is very misleading, flawed and totally without business case. As Patrick, a management consultant and business man himself said, he fails to see what this poorly designed and uncompromising ACP really wants to achieve?
Patrick Neageli's case was, in comparison, a joy to watch. The Farnborough ACP was comprehensively demolished in a very surgical, yet brutal presentation by Patrickwhich was even applauded by Dan Foster at the end.
There is no question that this ACP is very misleading, flawed and totally without business case. As Patrick, a management consultant and business man himself said, he fails to see what this poorly designed and uncompromising ACP really wants to achieve?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droned past Farnborough today. Radar had four aircraft on frequency,one was a twin doing some approaches into Lasham.We were squawking,but not talking,in free airspace,so was he. We saw each other in plenty of time. I gave way in accordance with the rules. F.Radar gave him an advisory shortly afterwards.Thewatchword today was:Limited service due high traffic density.(Mostly gliders out of Lasham.) Fight this sky grab because,no matter what they say about clearances,you will never have access to this airspace again. "Unable transit due traffic."Meanwhile,millions of pounds worth of Gulfstreams sit anxiously awaiting their tax evaders and oligarchs. Get your comments in NOW,
Depends which frequency you were listening to; you don't know how many were on the other frequency do you. I've had situations (usually emergencies) where we've had to use all 3 radar frequencies at the same time.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All operated by the same controller? At the moment you can listen for a few minutes,decide whether or not to join in,and carry on.In future the default position will be"Remain outside controlled airspace" I don't suppose extra controllers will be recruited to facilitate GA transit flights?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Mach Jump you’re not being cynical just ill-informed.
Tag seem to be going out of their way to enable everyone to have their say, and may be perfectly genuine in doing so, but watch out for a technique I have seen used succesfully before in the quest for large chunks of Class D airspace. (And wind turbine farms.)
The process for establishing any CAS is documented in CAP725 if you would care to peruse it and educate yourself. It’s not a riveting read but woe betide any Operator (to use your incorrect phrase) that doesn’t comply with it, fully; but it does outline the 'technique' that you refer to.
First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.
First the Operator has to produce a basic proposal that is compliant with the numerous, equally riveting ICAO docs, Annexes, IFP design criteria, EASA publications, UK CAPs, UK CAA policy statements and UK derogations (filed differences) – containment of IFPs is a major datum setter. This results in the (usually) overly large initial design that you refer to; but it is at least compliant with aeronautical REGULATIONS; you must have heard of those, other types of REGULATION probably apply to your aeroplane too. The proposal is then exposed to the CAA at a Framework Briefing who tell you – at length – how to conduct the process including the phenomenal level of detail required and the consultation requirements.
The initial design is then usually submitted to Focus Group scrutiny. The composition of Focus Groups is detailed in the CAP725; they can’t include everyone. The 'starter for 10' design is reviewed in the light of the inputs received and those inputs that are capable of mitigation against the aforementioned aeronautical REGULATIONS are assimilated into the design. All the changes have to be documented as to why they’ve been made. This takes time as safety arguments have to be marshalled, REGULATIONS consulted again and again to ensure that the CAA doesn’t laugh when the Operator submits the final proposal with so many REGULATORY non-compliances as to lose all credibility.
The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.
The revised proposal from the Focus Group stage goes out to extensive consultation as you say. The minimum consultation period is 12 weeks – that’s a quarter of a year; if a PH is included in that period then more time has to be allowed, usually an extra week for each PH day. The manner and depth of the consultation is as ‘advised’ by the CAA and the Operator had better hue to that advice. As you rightly say the Interested Bodies (in PC speak “Stakeholders”), having been whipped up their respective lobby groups, object in their hundreds frequently saying ‘we haven’t been consulted on this!’ The CAA, btw, takes no part in the design or consultation process so there’s no point in responding there.
Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.
Not a bit of it. Having received a huge number (your words) of objections (many of which regurgitate the same thing) I imagine that it takes a bit of time to catalogue them (yes, the CAA will check when the Operator submits – they all have to be presented [even the abusive ones] and cross-referenced in true bureaucratic style) and all the salient inputs extracted and addressed. However, if the Operator receives 200 objections all saying the same thing, that becomes one item to address, not 200! That’s not doing anything underhand, it’s a statement of fact.
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Well, actually no. Inevitably, there are usually very reasonable cases made during the consultation and all objections have to be addressed and either accommodated, if all possible, or explanations detailed as to why not – usually REGULATORY non-compliance where acceptable mitigation is not available. This takes time, as agreements have to made, viable compromises have to be sought, more safety assessments conducted and arguments for non-compliance against those pesky REGULATIONS marshalled, and it all has to be documented. There is no requirement for a second round of consultation (many believe the Focus Group stage is a first round consultation but it’s usually aimed locally to wring out the initial shortcomings), unless something really major results from the consultation requiring a wholesale change, but usually a report on the consultation is issued.
Only then does the Operator submit the case to the CAA for their inspection and arbitration – another 12-week period. If the arguments are not presented convincingly, facts incorrect, or the consultation flawed or inputs not addressed sympathetically, then the case fails. The CAA is an independent arbiter on CAS applications and do not have the wool pulled over their eyes readily.
Or you can go on believing its done on the back of a fag packet and agreed in smoke-filled rooms.
Tag seem to be going out of their way to enable everyone to have their say, and may be perfectly genuine in doing so, but watch out for a technique I have seen used succesfully before in the quest for large chunks of Class D airspace. (And wind turbine farms.)
The process for establishing any CAS is documented in CAP725 if you would care to peruse it and educate yourself. It’s not a riveting read but woe betide any Operator (to use your incorrect phrase) that doesn’t comply with it, fully; but it does outline the 'technique' that you refer to.
First, the Operator publishes a proposal for the introduction of what appears to many to be an excessive ammount of Class D airspace.
First the Operator has to produce a basic proposal that is compliant with the numerous, equally riveting ICAO docs, Annexes, IFP design criteria, EASA publications, UK CAPs, UK CAA policy statements and UK derogations (filed differences) – containment of IFPs is a major datum setter. This results in the (usually) overly large initial design that you refer to; but it is at least compliant with aeronautical REGULATIONS; you must have heard of those, other types of REGULATION probably apply to your aeroplane too. The proposal is then exposed to the CAA at a Framework Briefing who tell you – at length – how to conduct the process including the phenomenal level of detail required and the consultation requirements.
The initial design is then usually submitted to Focus Group scrutiny. The composition of Focus Groups is detailed in the CAP725; they can’t include everyone. The 'starter for 10' design is reviewed in the light of the inputs received and those inputs that are capable of mitigation against the aforementioned aeronautical REGULATIONS are assimilated into the design. All the changes have to be documented as to why they’ve been made. This takes time as safety arguments have to be marshalled, REGULATIONS consulted again and again to ensure that the CAA doesn’t laugh when the Operator submits the final proposal with so many REGULATORY non-compliances as to lose all credibility.
The Operator then carries out an extensive consultation bending over backwards to ensure everyone has the opportunity to air their views by allowing an extended period for submissions, accepting submissions by all known means of communication, and advertising the invitation for submissions widely, even writing to likely objectors to encourage them to participate. This process results in a huge number of objections, and gives the impression that the Operator is a caring, considerate neighbour.
The revised proposal from the Focus Group stage goes out to extensive consultation as you say. The minimum consultation period is 12 weeks – that’s a quarter of a year; if a PH is included in that period then more time has to be allowed, usually an extra week for each PH day. The manner and depth of the consultation is as ‘advised’ by the CAA and the Operator had better hue to that advice. As you rightly say the Interested Bodies (in PC speak “Stakeholders”), having been whipped up their respective lobby groups, object in their hundreds frequently saying ‘we haven’t been consulted on this!’ The CAA, btw, takes no part in the design or consultation process so there’s no point in responding there.
Things then go quiet for a while. In the meantime, the Operator collates and condenses all the objections into around half a dozen main points. This takes some time, which allows most of the original interest to die down.
Not a bit of it. Having received a huge number (your words) of objections (many of which regurgitate the same thing) I imagine that it takes a bit of time to catalogue them (yes, the CAA will check when the Operator submits – they all have to be presented [even the abusive ones] and cross-referenced in true bureaucratic style) and all the salient inputs extracted and addressed. However, if the Operator receives 200 objections all saying the same thing, that becomes one item to address, not 200! That’s not doing anything underhand, it’s a statement of fact.
The Operator then issues 'new' proposals with small changes that it claims address the main points of the objections, and invites further comments. The period allowed for further comments is however, much shorter than the original, and advertised very little. They also require any further comments to be in a particular form, such as in writing.
The result is that very few further comments are received, and the Operator declares it's modified proposals to be a resounding sucess, having clearly addressed all the major objections to the satisfaction of the objectors.
Well, actually no. Inevitably, there are usually very reasonable cases made during the consultation and all objections have to be addressed and either accommodated, if all possible, or explanations detailed as to why not – usually REGULATORY non-compliance where acceptable mitigation is not available. This takes time, as agreements have to made, viable compromises have to be sought, more safety assessments conducted and arguments for non-compliance against those pesky REGULATIONS marshalled, and it all has to be documented. There is no requirement for a second round of consultation (many believe the Focus Group stage is a first round consultation but it’s usually aimed locally to wring out the initial shortcomings), unless something really major results from the consultation requiring a wholesale change, but usually a report on the consultation is issued.
Only then does the Operator submit the case to the CAA for their inspection and arbitration – another 12-week period. If the arguments are not presented convincingly, facts incorrect, or the consultation flawed or inputs not addressed sympathetically, then the case fails. The CAA is an independent arbiter on CAS applications and do not have the wool pulled over their eyes readily.
Or you can go on believing its done on the back of a fag packet and agreed in smoke-filled rooms.
Downwind.Maddl-Land
Thankyou for your detailed explanation of the process. I'm sure we all understand the situation better now.
You make it sound almost impossible for an 'Operator' with lots of 'clout' to influence the outcome at all.
Perhaps you will indulge me a little further and tell me what is the 'correct' phrase?
Thankyou for your detailed explanation of the process. I'm sure we all understand the situation better now.
You make it sound almost impossible for an 'Operator' with lots of 'clout' to influence the outcome at all.
...Operator (to use your incorrect phrase)...
Last edited by Mach Jump; 28th Apr 2014 at 09:06. Reason: Punctuation