Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Exeter ACP

Old 19th Apr 2018, 14:32
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: south of 60N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exeter ACP

I see the CAA have rejected Exeter's ACP.
Lets hope they do the same with Farnborough Brize Norton and Oxford's Airspace Change Proposal
wrecker is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 20:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fabulous news for those of us in the far South-West, for whom it would have cut the country in half.

Fair play to the CAA!!

TOO
TheOddOne is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 21:27
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Wandsworth
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fantastic news and particularly well done to the folks from the British Gliding Association, GA Alliance, LAA, Devon and Somerset Gliding Club, Dunkeswell and countless others who rose to the challenge and continue doing so in fighting for fair and reasonable airspace use for all.

Wouldn't want to have been in the meeting room in the last 24 hours between Exeter Airport and their so called "experts" Osprey Consulting.
planesandthings is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2018, 21:58
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 52N
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Excellent news, the CAA deserve our support in having been fair and equitable in considering the needs of all airspace users.
Osprey Consulting are clearly in the business of making ACP applications for as many clients as they can find and are probably touting for business actively. Where next? Biggin Hill, Newquay, Shoreham, Lydd? I wonder if the CAA charge for these applications, if not we are paying for them.
Marchettiman is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 03:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wrecker View Post
I see the CAA have rejected Exeter's ACP.
Lets hope they do the same with Farnborough Brize Norton and Oxford's Airspace Change Proposal
Woaa, careful! Have they ejected it entirely, or have they asked for it to be reviewed and reduced? Genuine question.

Itís not uncommon for organisations to ask for much more than they want, in the certain knowledge that it will be cut back.

Take housing as a classic example. Ask permission for 10,000 house when you really only want to build 1000. The objectors then this as a success when the 10,000 is reduced to 1,000!

Southend went through a similar process and their application was eventually allowed, but reduced in size.

Is Exeter similar?
3wheels is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 12:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Marchettiman View Post
Excellent news, the CAA deserve our support in having been fair and equitable in considering the needs of all airspace users.
Osprey Consulting are clearly in the business of making ACP applications for as many clients as they can find and are probably touting for business actively. Where next? Biggin Hill, Newquay, Shoreham, Lydd? I wonder if the CAA charge for these applications, if not we are paying for them.
Before you lay all the blame at Osprey's door I think you might need to consider that much of what they did will have been simply carrying out the directions of their client. The failure to properly consult key stakeholders, let alone address their legitimate concerns, doesn't look to me like a strategy that any consultant would deliberately follow.
And, no, I don't work for Osprey
NorthSouth is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 12:35
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking at Osprey consulting website they appear a large and professional outfit. Looking at their latest financials, mmmmmmmm. I sincerely hope that the Exeter deal was on a confirmed fee basis regardless of outcome. I too find the strategy used here a bit obtuse. Transparent communication is the first building block of any change process.
maxred is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2018, 22:52
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 64
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, that's management bolloxpeak. Transparent communication is NEVER part of a change process. The absolute reverse is always true.
Just look at the DFT review into the strategic importance of airfields which will lead to them all being turned into housing if they cannot support international bizjet operations.
m.Berger is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2018, 07:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 70
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think transparent communication was significant in Southend, Norwich or Doncaster getting their class D. But I sense that the wind has changed. The Farnborough decision will show if I'm right..
Andrewgr2 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2018, 13:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dorset
Age: 48
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Iím based at Exeter. Very interesting decision..

While I am very much against grabs for CAS and have been scared to death with some close calls in the corridors that they create (M3 in particular) and also last week with a glider going directly across Gloucesters glide slope while Iím descending down it in IMC, I can understand why Exeter wanted the protection. Maybe a much smaller proposal to allow CAT to ascend to the overhead airway would have been more proportionate and potentially approved.

It is down to GA to do their bit - use your transponder, speak to the airport (Exeterís ILS is clearly shown on the chart) and donít blindly bimble across.. fairweather bimblers who donít plan and cause airliner diverts will ruin things for all of us..
Pudnucker is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2018, 15:45
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pudnucker View Post
I’m based at Exeter. Very interesting decision..

While I am very much against grabs for CAS and have been scared to death with some close calls in the corridors that they create (M3 in particular) and also last week with a glider going directly across Gloucesters glide slope while I’m descending down it in IMC, I can understand why Exeter wanted the protection. Maybe a much smaller proposal to allow CAT to ascend to the overhead airway would have been more proportionate and potentially approved.

It is down to GA to do their bit - use your transponder, speak to the airport (Exeter’s ILS is clearly shown on the chart) and don’t blindly bimble across.. fairweather bimblers who don’t plan and cause airliner diverts will ruin things for all of us..
Why not call a spade a spade? It's not just the GA which has to do their bit, what about controllers stopping treating controlled airspace as their personal fiefdom, to offer transits as and when they feel fit..... After all, there would be less reluctance if CAS was available to all. The statement from TheOddOne:

'Fabulous news for those of us in the far South-West, for whom it would have cut the country in half.'

explains clearly the view that controlled airspace is being used to prevent access, not to control access.

Dilly dilly, I'm off to take my personal tour of the pit of misery....
Steve6443 is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2018, 22:32
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
last week with a glider going directly across Gloucesters glide slope while I’m descending down it in IMC, I can understand why Exeter wanted the protection
Firstly, Exeter wanted vastly more airspace than their ILS approach protection; and more airspace than any other regional airport with fewer forecast movements.

Your anecdote is interesting - assuming you were within 10 miles of the runway that puts you below 3,000ft. How low was cloudbase for you to be in IMC? Or did you mean flying IFR in Class G in VMC ?
Fitter2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.