Farnborough TAG Airspace grab
 

Below is a copy of a letter I wrote to Boris. Prompted by the latest proposals of Farnborough to make better use of 'their' airspace.

I'd be interest to hear the thought of Private flyers. Also encourage you to stand up for your airspace.




-------------------------------------
Dear Sir

I am writing to regarding the future issues that are arising out of the need for more airport capacity in the South East of England.

I am prompted to write to you after reading a proposal for the future expansion of controlled airspace proposed by the operators of Farnborough Airport.
The operators of Farnborough understandibly wish to have more airspace under their control for their convenience. However this will be at the expense of every other general aviation activity. More importantly is the issue of air safety which will be severely compromised due to the funnel effect of general aviation having to pass through narrow corridors around the proposed airspace grab. This is already a chronic problem.

I would like to offer a solution which I believe be beneficial for everybody - Commercial and private aviation, local communities and land based transport in the South East. The solution is to build a new airport to the East of London as has been already proposed although perhaps nearer to London. This would be for the use of large intercontinental and cargo aircraft.

Secondly I suggest the existing Heathrow airport to remain but be scaled back. Operations at Farnborough, Manston, London City and perhaps Luton or Stansted could be combined and operate out of Heathrow. This provides immediate improved space, facilities and ground based access for these operators and their customers.

This would be advantageous to everybody for the following reasons:

1. Airspace traffic control and its flight paths will be hugely simplified.

2. A large proportion of flights will be over the North Sea instead of overland. Particularly when large aircraft are at low altitude in the approach to landing. This alone would provide a multitude of benefits.

3. Aerodromes such as Farnborough and Manston can be scaled back and provide opportunities for housing or light industry. I.e local jobs for local people.

4. General aviation does not tend to use airspace in the North Sea. Therefore it will conflict far less with airline traffic if the East London proposal went ahead. Most importantly, the current controlled airspace taken by Heathrow, London City and Farnborough can be dramatically scaled back. This would eliminate all of the current bottlenecks and funneling of general aviation resulting in; improved safety, no delays requiring holding patterns to be flown, lowered pilot workload, far less noise for those on the ground.

Currently Heathrow is a 'joke' main national airport. This is due to the abysmal ground transport links. There are no fast main line rail links so those arriving by train have to get a bus from the nearest station, e.g Woking, and then spend too much time in the worlds biggest car park i.e the M25. There is not enough space to build the road access that is so badly needed, even before any future expansion.

Moving Heathow to the East of London would eliminate weekday traffic jams of several miles length on the M25. Should an airport be built to the East of London then fast efficient rail and road networks are absolutely essential. The overall effect would be a huge benefit to everyone, the environment and the economy.

Please say you're joking.

We should be able to get all that lot up and running by the end of next week.

Dartford Crossing wouldn't be a problem?
You have just got to be taking the mick.

"This is due to the abysmal ground transport links. There are no fast main line rail links so those arriving by train"

London Underground, Heathrow Express

http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati..._Train_Map.gif

He MUST be joking then.

I have had a few thoughts about this and tried to simplify my objections.

This airspace grab really is quite huge and at low level involves grabbing a chunk of current Class G airspace and turning it in to Class D. TAG are claiming that this is for noise, ecological and Flight Safety reasons. They omit to mention that last June the MD of TAG Farnborough stated in an interview in Flight Magazine that having more control over the airspace would expedite the arrivals and departures for his clients.

It would appear that it OK for a light GA aircraft to waste time and fuel, but it is not OK for TAG's clients' fast, shiny bizjets to do so.

BD

I've read that somewhere before beerdrinker!!

Some of the objectors might have more credibility if they refrained from referring to an airspace "grab". What is it that they do not understand about the operation of class D airspace and why does its establishment involve a waste of time and fuel?

2 s

I'm afraid their fears and objections are based on what has happened elsewhere. Far more CAS than necessary is 'grabbed', and then, despite assurances to the contrary, GA is excluded. They are then required to fly around the outside, thus wasting time, and fuel, and at the same time increasing risk of collision by funnelling them through the remaining narrow gaps. Once CAS is established, it can't be shifted, and the promised periodic reviews of it's operation almost never happen. :(


MJ:ok:

b1obthebuilder, I think Boris very much wanted a Thames Estuary airport but I think it has already been ruled out on economic grounds. If you're real objection is to a third runway at Heathrow then I think you would be better off investing in some good quality ear plugs! ;)

Mach Jump, you are wrong. Southend had its controlled airspace reviewed by the CAA and disestablished, and Prestwick had its airspace reviewed and changed from class D to class E so it DOES happen.

That addresses MJ's last sentence chevvron (but - cough - Doncaster, Norwich...). Do you have an opinion on the rest of his post?

Sorry, just remind me how many decades ago this was? :rolleyes:


MJ:ok:

Not sure, but I think it was after airspace classifications came in. Prior to that it was called 'Special Rules' airspace. Blackpool lost its controlled airspace about the same time and that was about 1998ish.

Have to say I've never understood why Donny is class D. Humberside which is a stones throw from Donny just has an atz. A quick google of movements show that in 2012 Humberside had some 25,000 movements and Doncaster had 10,000. Confused? I am.

I have never had a problem with getting a Class D transit, and so have no objection to an "airspace grab". Personally I think any airfield with a published instrument approach should have some form of controlled airspace which encompasses the whole of the procedure.

I can only repeat that the objectors might have more credibility if they refrained from referring to an airspace "grab". It is a change of status after due process; also, any introduction is subject to a later review. To make a blanket statement that "GA is excluded" is nonsense; if you consider that clearance has been refused on a particular occasion for no good reason, then file a report about it and the facts can be ascertained. And if you do route around or below CAS, what is the problem? There could be as many or as few unknown aircraft near your level as in any other part of Class G airspace - and you always keep a very good look-out, do you not?

As regards the dimensions of CAS, they are the minimum necessary to contain the IFR routes and procedures; as wb9999 refers, the establishment of CAS for that purpose is actually the ICAO norm, the pilots and pax in such aircraft deserving a better deal than just hoping for the best in Class G, albeit with a TS or DS.

2 s

There has been some speculation about the amount of movements at Farnborough, but I think the following link points to about 60-70 per day at present...


http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/CHttpHand...x?id=12436&p=0


Some of the noise and air pollution graphs are a bit confusing, and maybe not linked to aircraft at all.

One can hardly compare the vast swathes of ClassG in some parts of the country with all of the choke points around Farnborough, and the more class D there is, the less Class G there is.
Somewhat patronising question, teacher ( is it not?)

It was running at something like 100-120/day weekdays and 60-70/day weekends and PH when I left.

The evidence seems fairly firm that even with the best feasible unassisted lookout, pilots don't see a high proportion of conflicting traffic. The rarity of collisions in class G airspace is therefore more down to the bigness of the sky and the sparsity of traffic in it. So if you make the sky small and the traffic dense, looking out of the window may give a very false sense of reassurance. This is particularly the case at the low levels available around Farnborough, where people aren't going to be following quadrantal or semicircular rules.

The consultation document doesn't seem to realise this, citing making GA follow more predictable routes as a positive thing. It may be of benefit to them, but it certainly isn't of benefit to GA.

2 Sheds
 

I think that just shows just how naive and ill informed you are. :ugh:


MJ:ok:

Ps. Oh, and patronising.:*

I am not patronising anyone; I thought that emphasising a good look-out was a compliment. But all the talk of choke points etc is still avoiding the fundamental point that Class D airspace is there for transiting as well as any other purpose - under VFR if required - and yes, with ATC clearance.

I would have thought that some of the contributors here were vociferous enough to make their feelings known if, heaven forbid, they were refused clearance on the odd occasion.

2 s

Trouble with the notion "all you have to do is to contact ATC for clearance " to access Class D is trying to get a transmission in edgeways when the frequency is extremely busy, which is usually the case for Farnboro W .

When Doncaster became class D the frequency became much busier (obviously).

How will Farnbourgh cope when their class D is in place?

D.O.

I must admit that being allowed through Class D is a bit of a lottery...


I have been told to orbit 3 miles from the overhead at Doncaster whilst a C152 was on 'Finals'... He turned out to be on a 12 mile Final, and when he did make it to the runway he went around at 1500ft below my altitude.


On the other side of the coin, I wanted a transit around the outside of Liverpool Class D, and they almost insisted that I transit overhead the Liver Buildings and Docks area.


Also Manchester has been particularly obliging, letting me do a photo session around Joderal Bank and then on to Matlock, even though they were busy with heavy traffic.

They have an 'approach' frequency for their important 'planes. IF they get any Class D they might not even be bothered about all those unimportant planes on LARS West any more, and shut it, and save some money...

That sounds very melodramatic, but what were the facts - IFR, VFR, Special VFR, radar in operation or not, day/night (perhaps before VFR at night)? Did you talk to the ATC Watch Supervisor later? If it really was as simplistic - and daft - as you are implying, did you file a report?

2 s

Dont forget the airfield a few miles to the west of farnborough with 60,000+ movements per year. The proposals would force skirting traffic dirctly overhead. The warning of wires up to 3000ft might give you a clue

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/20110831NIANATMACBrief.pdf

I suggest some of you read the ruling about Norwich. I really don't think you have a hope in stopping it.

Hi 2sheds, I was given a transit of the Doncaster Overhead at not below 2000ft, but at 3 miles out I was asked to orbit as there was a C152 reported to be on Finals. Not too sure if Tower had any access to radar, but the C152 was over 10 miles out, so took an age to get to the runway.
I cannot remember if I was working Approach whilst the C152 was talking to Tower.


I was quite happy doing the orbits, even had a chance to see Doncaster's long runway and other facilities, so didn't think it needed a report... No harm done, just 5 minutes added to my cross country. If I remember correctly it was a VFR day with very few clouds.

Hi phiggs

I don't doubt what you were apparently required to do, but I certainly would be interested in the further details and the reasons, some of which you might not be aware of, of course. e.g, - and I don't wish to make a meal of it here - were you on a VFR clearance (interesting that you say "not below 2000 ft", which is unusual); if given a level restriction, why also the hold; etc

2 s

I agree. I think we're fooling ourselves if we think that GA has any significant influence on proposals like this.


MJ:ok:

Normally when I cross Donny it's not above a certain height (usually the height you're at when you make the initial call).

2 sheds, I've had a few "not below" clearances in various Class D CTRs. All have been because the circuit was active with traffic and I've been passing directly over the relevant airfield.

wb9999 - sure, I don't doubt it, although one has to be very circumspect with its use for VFR flights, e.g. not below ... while overhead the ATZ. I was just observing that something apparently subtle such as that was initially decreed, but eventually for no good reason. I would love to know what was going on, but do not necessarily:rolleyes: immediately infer that ATC screwed up or was being awkward!

2 s

The irony of your remark is that all of Farnborough's traffic is GA

Norwich, whilst doing bugger all movements, at least has public transport operations.

Well I have landed there more than a few times and its always been in a CAT aircraft on an AoC.

And I thought TAG hold AoC's in UK Spain and Switzerland. So a lot of the biz jet movements will be counted as CAT.

Depends on definition of CAT I suppose. I am talking regular scheduled or charter public transport operations.

Doubtless many, if not most of the "fat cat" operations are AOC but that doesn't mean they are not still GA.

The proposal seems to be "one law for the rich, another for the poor"