Is your airfields shown on UK charts?
Thread Starter
Is your airfields shown on UK charts?
If you want a private unlicensed airfield to be considered for the charts and the AIP this survey will provide the information to CAA/NATS.
Info here-->
NATS | AIS - Home
Form here-->
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/vf...ed%20Sites.pdf
Info here-->
NATS | AIS - Home
Form here-->
http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/vf...ed%20Sites.pdf
Unlicensed Sites listed in the UK AIP
The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are conducting a survey to validate the list of various unlicensed airfields and aerial sporting activity locations published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and depicted on CAA VFR charts. The reason for this survey is to establish whether existing published sites in the AIP are still current, operating, accurately reflected in AIS products, and to identify a principal point of contact for each site.
Upon closure of this survey on 28/02/2018, the CAA will establish definitive criteria for what constitutes a ‘significant’ activity at unlicensed sites, and subsequently arrange for the revision of all future AIS products based on that criteria from March 2018 onwards.
All site owners or landowners where established aircraft and/or aerial sporting activities at unlicensed sites are requested to take part in this survey by completing the Unlicensed & Uncertificated Sites Form
Unlicensed sites which fail to complete this survey by 28/02/2018 may result in a location that is currently published in the AIP, and depicted on CAA VFR charts, being removed from the NATS AIS database and all future AIS products, including CAA VFR charts. The CAA therefore requests that all users of unlicensed sites ensure that the site owner or land owner is aware of this survey.
The Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are conducting a survey to validate the list of various unlicensed airfields and aerial sporting activity locations published in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and depicted on CAA VFR charts. The reason for this survey is to establish whether existing published sites in the AIP are still current, operating, accurately reflected in AIS products, and to identify a principal point of contact for each site.
Upon closure of this survey on 28/02/2018, the CAA will establish definitive criteria for what constitutes a ‘significant’ activity at unlicensed sites, and subsequently arrange for the revision of all future AIS products based on that criteria from March 2018 onwards.
All site owners or landowners where established aircraft and/or aerial sporting activities at unlicensed sites are requested to take part in this survey by completing the Unlicensed & Uncertificated Sites Form
Unlicensed sites which fail to complete this survey by 28/02/2018 may result in a location that is currently published in the AIP, and depicted on CAA VFR charts, being removed from the NATS AIS database and all future AIS products, including CAA VFR charts. The CAA therefore requests that all users of unlicensed sites ensure that the site owner or land owner is aware of this survey.
This should also ensure promulgation of any A/G radio frequency at those unlicensed aerodromes so equipped - and when that changes to become 8.33 kHz compliant later in the year.
A similar exercise was attempted here in Australia, see:
Airservices Australia climbs down on red-tape hurdle
Perhaps the experience here will be of some guidance and assistance in the UK.
CC
Airservices Australia climbs down on red-tape hurdle
Perhaps the experience here will be of some guidance and assistance in the UK.
CC
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 8.33 equipped aircraft will be accepted.
Details here ...
https://www.facebook.com/northwealdairfield/?fref=ts
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Newick
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At first glance this looks like a long overdue bit of house-keeping by NATS
However, UK IAIP AD 1.3-1 Index to Aerodromes and Heliports appears only to list ones with 4 letter codes and generally licensed. So the call for reconfirmation or loss of an entry in the AIP seems to affect few if any airfields.
I know the owner of our strip won't be submitting anything as I'm sure many others will. So is the another motive for this data gathering exercise?
However, UK IAIP AD 1.3-1 Index to Aerodromes and Heliports appears only to list ones with 4 letter codes and generally licensed. So the call for reconfirmation or loss of an entry in the AIP seems to affect few if any airfields.
I know the owner of our strip won't be submitting anything as I'm sure many others will. So is the another motive for this data gathering exercise?
Thread Starter
The VFR chars show airfields not in the iaip and the main driver is probably to ensure charts are up to date.
Regarding 8.33 changes I understand that there is a plan to make available better information about frequencies used by stations not in the AIP, and their new channel numbers once they have converted. This will be on the AIS web site.
Regarding 8.33 changes I understand that there is a plan to make available better information about frequencies used by stations not in the AIP, and their new channel numbers once they have converted. This will be on the AIS web site.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
We're happy with our chart depiction. Presumably, we don't need to do anything until we change to 8.33 next September.
TOO
TOO
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All site owners or landowners where established aircraft and/or aerial sporting activities at unlicensed sites are requested to take part in this survey by completing the Unlicensed & Uncertificated Sites Form
Unlicensed sites which fail to complete this survey by 28/02/2018 may result in a location that is currently published in the AIP, and depicted on CAA VFR charts, being removed from the NATS AIS database and all future AIS products, including CAA VFR charts.
We're happy with our chart depiction. Presumably, we don't need to do anything until we change to 8.33 next September.
TOO
The way it looks to me, then you should take part, if your site is unlicensed.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My home base is not licensed, not certified, not listed and after discussion with the local owners of the field and aircraft stationed - it will remain so! What is the purpose to force everybody to reveal the on intention hidden? Somebody in immediate danger will easily see the field and will be most welcome, but many other don't know of us on purpose.
Well I'm opposite to the last writer's conclusions !
I had discarded the CAA mail asking for gen., as one of the usual "doesn't affect me" type, without fully reading its intent.
Especially as my field is on the Charts for security and for reducing unwitting overflights to our detriment by GA and Military helicopters.
I was long ago advised that by also being listed in the better guides one could better ensure no-one could claim ignorance of the strict PPO rules here.
I have to say it's worked very satisfactorily.
Since I follow Pprune I luckily was alerted to the need to be recognised over again for the CAA Charts as they (presumably) have to weed out obsolete locations.
I have to add praise too. I posted my response, via e-mail, to NATS at 23.30 last night and had their acknowledgement before 9.30 today.
I believe that if someone needs a field for a landing emergency they are better off knowing the basics, rather than looking out the window & hoping !
My penn'orth,
mikehallam.
I had discarded the CAA mail asking for gen., as one of the usual "doesn't affect me" type, without fully reading its intent.
Especially as my field is on the Charts for security and for reducing unwitting overflights to our detriment by GA and Military helicopters.
I was long ago advised that by also being listed in the better guides one could better ensure no-one could claim ignorance of the strict PPO rules here.
I have to say it's worked very satisfactorily.
Since I follow Pprune I luckily was alerted to the need to be recognised over again for the CAA Charts as they (presumably) have to weed out obsolete locations.
I have to add praise too. I posted my response, via e-mail, to NATS at 23.30 last night and had their acknowledgement before 9.30 today.
I believe that if someone needs a field for a landing emergency they are better off knowing the basics, rather than looking out the window & hoping !
My penn'orth,
mikehallam.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Hallam has got me thinking, if registration has no other benefits than reducing the volume of transiting aircraft flying thru the circuit then it’s worth it.
I presume the protagonists all have formal planning permission for their sites, and are happy to field questions from officials about fire cover, COSH, access for emergency vehicles, personal liability insurance etc etc etc.
I would be happy to take part in a confidential survey, but I fear this exercise might have unintended consequences. I doubt many flights will reroute to avoid, especially if we get a plethora of new entries.
I would be happy to take part in a confidential survey, but I fear this exercise might have unintended consequences. I doubt many flights will reroute to avoid, especially if we get a plethora of new entries.
There are no consequences !
A 28 day or Common Rights (If used 28+days per annum for - AFIR - 10 years) private airstrip/field owner has no need to worry, no-one has any demand on what you provide.
On the other hand, say, going for formal Planning Permission to the Local Council is quite another thing and hardly to be recommended. All they can give you, even if you succeed against the NIMBYs is restrictions on operation.
Simple Common Law is a great protector for citizens' rights.
mikehallam.
A 28 day or Common Rights (If used 28+days per annum for - AFIR - 10 years) private airstrip/field owner has no need to worry, no-one has any demand on what you provide.
On the other hand, say, going for formal Planning Permission to the Local Council is quite another thing and hardly to be recommended. All they can give you, even if you succeed against the NIMBYs is restrictions on operation.
Simple Common Law is a great protector for citizens' rights.
mikehallam.
Don't know where the RAF promulgate their Low Flying Areas nowadays or if the document is available to the public, but years ago they had a section of their LF 'manual', then later in their military AIP, showing maps of each LFA and I can assure you even in those days it was very comprehensive, showing many private strips and helipads and it had 'avoid' rules too eg certain sites without ATZs, pilots were told to avoid by at least 2nm.
They took it seriously too, the guy who owned Holmbeck Farm (near Leighton Buzzard) told me had had problems with Chinooks flying directly overhead and after he contacted the editor of the RAF manual, he was pleased to see they avoided his airfield.
They took it seriously too, the guy who owned Holmbeck Farm (near Leighton Buzzard) told me had had problems with Chinooks flying directly overhead and after he contacted the editor of the RAF manual, he was pleased to see they avoided his airfield.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My home base is not licensed, not certified, not listed and after discussion with the local owners of the field and aircraft stationed - it will remain so! What is the purpose to force everybody to reveal the on intention hidden? Somebody in immediate danger will easily see the field and will be most welcome, but many other don't know of us on purpose.