Worrying Application for a DropZone SW of Popham
 

A consultation document has been submitted for 2 parachute drop zones SW of Popham which will effectively close the busy NE-SW corridor between the Solent CTA and Middle Wallop ATZ (H24) in the area north of the Chilbolton radio telescope West of the junction A34/A303 and Andover.

All traffic transiting below 2000' AGL would then have to negotiate a 2nm gap south of the A34/A303 junction and the Solent CTA (SFC-2500') or a similar sized gap but with a much more complicated route between Middle Wallop ATZ, the DropZone boundary and Thruxton ATZ.

Dropzone:
SFC to FL120
Centre point: 51° 11' 08" N, 01° 25' 43" W
Size: 1.5Nm Radius

SFC to 6500ft
Centre Point 51° 11' 06" N, 01° 22' 02" W
Size: 1.5Nm Radius

The applicant - Mr Christian Ivory of London Skydive Centre states "We would like you to contact us by email to either inform us of your objections or concerns relating to this proposal, or to let us know that you have none, by Friday 27th April 2012". [email protected]

He also states "We are available to meet in person or communicate with any party, organization or individual to elaborate where appropriate at
a time and location convenient to you."

I believe this represents a serious safety concern. Although the application is initially limited the proposed growth of utilization will restrict this airspace most of the time during much of the year.

Edited to add a link to the document: http://tinyurl.com/co3hfb8

Rather closer to Chilbolton airfield than Popham, but also in the training area routinely used by Thruxton, and the area used by Middle Wallop for Apache training.

I'm sure if I tried hard I could think of a more stupid place to put a DZ, but I'd have to try hard.

If they want a DZ in that area, the place to put it would be adjacent to, or within, SPTA or Porton range.

G

Where is the consultation document?

Interesting that when I google "London Skydive Centre" nothing comes up.

This appears to be the chap however, and this his rather minimalist website for "London Tandem Skydive".

G

Would you like me to PM it to you?

I couldn't see a way of uploading the PDF here.

You can't PM pdfs, but you could load it on a webpage somewhere and post the link.

G

Ok thanks for that Mr G

Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/co3hfb8

Have forwarded the link on so please leave the PDF there for a while!

Thanks,

Amateurish I thought. No consideration of the widely used routings over Chilbolton by GA, and I can't see sticking 5,500ft into an airway being as easily dealt with as he seems to believe.

G

I agree entirely but these things can, if left unchallenged, slip under the wire and before you know it... although I completely trust that NATS and the CAA would spot the obvious and act with all good sense...

cats_five I'll leave it there until this is resolved.

I'll be interested to see what Thruxton make of this...

Nice of them to include an actual aeronautical map in the document. :ugh:

Entry into the airway structure is not necessarily a problem (Headcorn etc) but it's not straightforward. I agree that it's a dumb place considering the amount of military rotary wing flying that goes on around there. I seem to remember the CAA also have to approve a new DZ

I wonder if Popham know they will be having the aircraft operating from there?

I would be interested to know who they are planning to talk to during the drop. At w/e Boscombe is likely to be closed and GA traffic could be using either of the narrow routes from the SW, either above Boscombe's ATZ and Thruxton or via Chilbolton.

At least Old Sarum's skydivers can be listened to on Old Sarum Radio when Boscombe is closed and, even there, I have had one close encounter with their aircraft as it made a rapid descent after the drop. A rapid descent from the proposed drop zone back to Popham is likely to be quite dangerous.

What a stupid idea, in addition to all of the private power traffic in the area there are over 200 gliders operating out of Lasham, the proposed drop zones are slap bang in the middle of them routing out to the West, plus Bullington Cross, Chilbolton and Andover are favourite turn points for both Lasham gliders and ones operating from other gliding sites.
:=

The Southern edges of the proposed DZs also look quite close to Barton Ashes.

If you take the time to read the document, you will see that the Popham Airfield Manager is included in the list of distribution parties.

I have taken the time to read it:rolleyes:. Hence the question

DZ Problems
 

As i see it, the problems with an off airfield DZ is they cause another restriction to GA and are not subject to sufficient control.
This means another 'Zone' on the chart which is probably only active on an occaisional basis, but fills in, and restricts yet more airspace.
There is no good reason for this and a DZ should be made to 'fit in' with aviation not restrict it. Ad hoc non airfield DZ's are a nonsense and the CAA should realise this.I also suspect that there are few 'charges' made for this (unlike a licenced airfield) therefore little incentive to restrict asking for one.

So is the Chairman of Chilbolton Flying Club, who had seen nothing when I spoke to him this afternoon.

G

Pretty daft idea,imagine opening your chute infront of a smokey DC8 on finals to Lasham ! This area is bereft of "flight imformation" You are west of Farnbourgh , east of Boscombe ,south of Brize and north of Solent.There is lots of traffic squeezed in between controlled airspace.I quite like the idea of parachuting but i would feel a little "exposed" doing it here.
Nick

Post deleted after rather a bizarre PM.......

(In response to Monocock's now deleted post).

I think it's actually quite common to require applicants to consult, pull together a body of evidence, then present it to the authorities as part of their application.

Here's one produced by a reasonably competent organisation, and the results from it are here. Quite a marked difference between this, and the short and rather amateurish document being circulated by this one-man-band skydiving enterprise.

G

Sorry I made it look like you were talking to yourself G!!

I had a very weird PM from someone who is clearly in favour of the DZ so, I decided to back down as I'm local and just don't want any controversy aimed at me.

As a member of the SFC I'd rather know their stance before I comment.

There are bound to be people in favour, and some of them in the local aviation community, and they have every right to express their opinions. I also can't see a fundamental problem with having a DZ in that general area, or with a drop aircraft being based at EGHP.

But the specific location. No.

Inside or immediately adjacent to the SPTA or Porton DAs - which could easily be within a dozen miles, then I think there would be no real issue for anybody.

And the proposer needs to get some grown ups to help write their case once they've found somewhere sensible to put their DZ.

G

Thanks for those links Genghis clearly a world of difference between the documentation. Perhaps this sort of initial feedback (even a little advice) from those on the distribution list and others may save this company time and money in the long run.

This should not be a combative process and I have nothing against drop zones either. In my experience they can certainly have a very positive impact at the airfield they are based at. The issue is simply one of the suitability of the proposed location.

In uncontrolled airspace, VFR users operate 'see and avoid' with the exception of freefall parachutists who cannot. It appears that there are no restrictions on them to prevent starting operations wherever they can get the landowners agreement, and then applying for a NOTAM so that other users avoid them - even in an area as already congested with VFR traffic as Barton Stacey ( Odiham and Middle Wallop helicopters, Lasham and Shalbourne gliders, Popham light aircraft, plus several airstrips.)

Wile I am not in general 'dog in the manger' this does seem to me to be as inappropriate a location as I can imagine, and I will be putting in an objection.

Having looked at the map, I agree with Genghis - at face value the application seems poorly thought out and at worst incredibly selfish.

I go back to my earlier question about Hinton Skydive - it would seem that they are now prepared to share their income from skydiving at Hinton with a third party, who seems from what he has written on his website to infer that his operation is endorsed by Hinton Skydive.

Hinton Skydive have been around for many years and (if they know about the proposal) would seem to have changed business direction and ethos.

I imagine you'll tell them GEP given your regular involvement with Hinton. But it could be that he's just done a deal to send customers that far north to Hinton Skydive and take a small commission? Or it could be blind optimism, which would match the airspace application.

G

Surely there isn't that much tandem business in this area. Old Sarum, Netheravon, Redlands all within an hour's drive.

Personally, I agree it's a silly place for a para DZ. However, all airspace is shared (well, mostly. Commercial Air Transport have first pick and the rest of GA have to put up with what's left) and in reality, the parachute mob have just as much right to use the airspace as all the rest of us.

As I said, together with the BPA, the CAA & NATS have an input into the approval of DZs, so you can guarantee that unless it's safe and has been risk assessed properly, it ain't just gonna happen! Just being in the wrong place for PPRune readers does not mean it will be turned down.

I'd hate to think that there was a 'them and us' culture creeping into PPRune:E

I doubt its a "them and us" culture - rather one of sensible people looking at something that is going to make life very tough for GA pilots in the area if the proposal goes through. The first question for any business should be is there a demand for the services that are going to be offered? How can those services be better than the local competition and is it a sustainable?

Chuffer
I would agree with that if they were able to 'see and avoid' like the rest of VFR traffic. As they can't, then they have marked and NOTAMed drop zones the rest of us avoid for their, and our, safety.

It's a crass place to stick an 'avoid' area, hopefully sense will prevail..

In case it's any use, I just created a shorter URL to the document that can be easily cut and pasted.

http://tinyurl.com/bnwbfr3

G

Strange that responses are just requested to Mr Ivory. Is this a pre-application document? Or am I being optimistic that responses should go to the CAA?

If you look at the Cranfield documents I posted earlier you'll see that normal practice is for the applicant to have to do their own consultation, pull together all of the responses, then present a full and honest report to the CAA and/or NATS. So, this is normal at this stage.

What I'm less clear about is whether the CAA/NATS check the completeness and truthfulness of these reports.

G

And Mr Ivory gets to choose who his pre-consultation is with?

From the Cranfield runway 03 consultation document:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP725.PDF

says

G

There is nothing to stop a party that may be affected, but not listed in the consultation list WRITING to everyone in the consultation list expressing their concerns and the reasons behind the concerns. It may make the person on the list aware of detail that they may have missed and influence their response (or indeed prompt them to make a response) by the deadline.

It might even be worth anyone with objections trying to co-ordinate a signed petition endorsing common objections to the proposal. A copy sent to the CAA and the persons listed on the consultation list would at least bring focus on what GA pilots using the area think. This could be co-ordinated by email.

Has anybody deduced why he wants two overlapping drop zones?