Tut tut tut, MJ. := What are you thinking?

MJ - happy to oblige. The official phrase is 'Change Sponsor' (CAP725 again) as it can be an ANSP, Airport license holder, organisation or other third party. Presumably, a nebulous moniker was selected so that it could be used as a 'non-specific catchall'.

Well the first letter is the same as the one I was thinking of.

Just a couple of days left to get your response in. Make sure the devious, greedy airspace grabbers give you an email response. Only takes a few minutes for a short written response if you can't face the loaded questions.

TAG tactics?
 

Seen a surprising amount of very low biz jet traffic over south west Farnham recently - really low and slow - more so than in years subjectively. Wondered if this is a not so subtle tactic to justify need for airspace, or perhaps I should start making myself a tin foil hat. Maybe someone actually knows ...

Could have been to/from Dunsfold rather than Farnborough.

If they are operating in Class G (if outside the ATZ) then they must consider it safe, therefore they don't need any more airspace.


If inside the ATZ, then they are using existing airspace, so don't need any more.


Q.E.D.

I would agree with the increase in low level Farnborough traffic to the South West, out in our garden near Kingsley yesterday watching a variety of biz jet traffic sliding by between 1500 and 2500 ft, there has certainly been a marked increase in lower level traffic in the last few months- not a particularly smart move as one of the local strip based planes (An RV?) quite often pops up for a bit of local aerobatics. Yesterday afternoon there was the further increased chance of an incident when a Pitts was playing overhead for 10 to 15 mins in what looked like a pre arranged private display- Farnborough seem to be trying to manufacture stats at the risk of creating an incident, some might consider that more than a tad irresponsible.

There's no good reason for so many airplanes of that size to be flying so low.

I think you'll find it's the present noise abatement procedure which causes this. If you want to complain to ATC Farnborough (not TAG) I can pm you a contact.
I'm not sure but I think the noise abatement procedure is notified in the AIP. When I was there, we usually cleared departures from 24 straight up to 3,400 with a 'best roc' through 3,000, but now I think the procedure involves an initial clearance to only 2,400 and many pilots might not check in with approach until they level off rather than call just after takeoff and get a continuous climb.

Speed and height I've seen recently make it look like they're in the circuit, but the location is actually outside controlled and roughly Rowledge / Wrecclesham - that height and location I'm surprised they haven't found a Chinook coming the other way.

It's not been a noise problem, just surprising.

From a personal perspective I'm not that bothered about the traffic / noise as intrusive at current levels and I'm broadly supportive of Farnborough as a local business, but they do seem to be taking the p**s with this new airspace grab.

I fly as close as possible to the edge of the Farnborough ATZ displaying their Frequency Monitoring Code yet I don't get a peep out of them, so clearly they can manage without the proposed airspace.

Caa statistics for aircraft movements 2013
 

I'm late to the debate, but the CAA website has a link to official statistics on movements, see UK Airport Statistics: 2013 - annual | Aviation Intelligence | About the CAA


I've analysed Table 03 2 because I'm interested in the actual use of Doncaster Sheffield airspace. Farnborough seem not to be required to submit data routinely to the CAA!


Out of interest, in 2013 Doncaster averaged 13 movement per day, Norwich 67, and Humberside 34. Prompts questions?

Farnborough is not included because it is not an airport - it has no scheduled air traffic (movements defined as Commercial Air Transport), and has no planning permission for such activity.


Which makes their ACP even more ludicrous.

Before I left Farnborough, a normal weekday saw about 120 IFR fixed wing movements, plus VFR and helicopters. Weekends and PHs are 'artificially' lower due to planning restrictions.

I'd like to know how many VFR arrivals out of that number quoted?

Fundamentally and despite any argument to the contrary this proposal by TAG has nothing to do with safety- it's all about maximising their asset value, nothing more and nothing less, they are a minority user of the airspace surrounding Farnborough and really ought to accept it- trying to influence matters by careful manipulation of statistics is disingenuous to say the least. The recent low level biz jet traffic south and west of the airfield of which I have observed an apparent marked increase, seems, on the whole to be arriving- not departing so the departure procedures would seem unrelated. I cannot see any simple reason for Farnborough traffic to be routed as has been the case recently, other than to somehow enhance their statistics in support of their application for airspace for which there is clearly no operational need. Based on the safety of other airspace users there is and can be no case for granting the requested areas.

Cannot resist. You're right soaring, in your neck of the woods it works fine. In France, Belgium and Denmark in my experience it works fine.

But here the frequent response is "standby, remain clear of controlled airspace'. And if you're patient and they're not too busy after telling them your life story and promising not to get in the way you'll get a transit. It is not always like that, but there are areas which are pretty notorious for this sort of response. Some are genuinely busy, many are not.

So argue that airspace must be appropriately managed with access and provision for everyone and discuss the safety implications if not.

Don't go on a rant that Farnborough is fabricating nonsense in order to preserve your own "sport and recreation" which demands unrestricted non-radio access to Class G, or you will, just like the LAA and GAA, be ignored.

In the land of the free........

That is the problem, it's not over here.....

Not only are we seperated by a common language. But also by totally different ways of achieving the same thing.

Go on then...... tell me why getting angry with Farnborough fabricating their application is wrong. Are we to believe the father and font of all knowledge from across the sea that keeping quiet works for the betterment of aviation?

soaringhigh650, you say

I think thats what the LAA etc did, but, it appears that you didn't read what they wrote.

The beef with Farnborough is that they have stated that they would not allow glider access even with transponder. When they had class "D" previously they did not control it as you would suggest. It will be like an oversized chunk of class "A" blocking traffic flow at all levels and dangerously funnelling traffic in to a small volume of class "G", quite disproportionate given that natural separation is working fine. Each of the operators happen to use different height bands in the area.

bb

The main problem is that Farnborough are a minor player locally in terms of movements, but want to control all the local traffic (and exclude it when it doesn't suit their own needs) to cater for a relatively small number of their clients convenience. In the process that would constrict all other VFR traffic in the area to narrow corridors, creating a serious and unacceptable collision risk.


Their proposal would place 'their' airspace at ground level halfway down the runway of another local airfield, and within the visual circuit of the busiest gliding airfield in UK (possibly the world).


All this has been pointed out in great detail. Detailed constructive discussions with them on how to accommodate their needs have taken place, and then all suggestions have been ignored in their submission.

Posted in another thread. If accurate, it illustrates the attitude of Farnborough, and the problems that would be created if their proposal were to go ahead in any way.

From AIC M42/2014:

Note that only "a permission" is required. A clearance is NOT required. The RA(T)s are NOT CAS. They remain Class G (ie. uncontrolled) airspace, but subject only to permission to access. A 'crossing service' is offered (Note: NOT a crossing clearance).

Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has been specifying tracks, levels to fly, flight rules to which to adhere, and the requirement to display an SSR code.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough ATS has used the term 'clearance'.
Within RA(T) Number 1 Nats Farnborough has been applying altitude restrictions to VFR flights in order to provide deconfliction from IFR traffic.
Nats Farnborough has therefore been managing a Class G RA(T) incorrectly as if it was Class C airspace.

The restrictions apply during specified hours. Farnborough apparently were trying to operate the RAT procedures outside those hours.


And asking non-IFR traffic to remain clear of the area is difficult to reconcile with providing a deconfliction service.


If that is Farnborough's interpretation, it is even more vital that their proposal is rejected in its entirety.

Feedback report Part A is being published on Friday 29th August

Download will be available from 0900Hrs at TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation

Looks like the approval ratings hit a maximum of 2%! Wonder what TAG's next move will be.

Presumably reduce the CAS area to what they really wanted?

Well, their next move is this..........

Farnborough have done a deal with NATS and all the CAS which was going to be changed into class D is going to be slightly smaller and will be class A.

And the Airspace Change is being taken over by NATS.

Consultancy | NATS ... -feedback/


Breathtaking arrogance contained in section 6.2.....

That's not correct. Only part of the original airspace change is covered by the (dodgy) NATS response.

The lower level airspace (approx that North of a line Winchester-Worthing) is still the responsibility of TAG, who haven't said what their next move is for that.

That will affect GA more even than the NATS airspace will, if the original "consultation" is any guide.

Not yet it isn't, and the monumental political and judicial sh!tstorm that will arise if NATS attempt to impose it in the same way will make the current Ukraine situation look like a ladies tea party.

Yes, quite. Sorry.

"The Consultation for that piece of airspace will continue to be led by TAG." is probably what I should have written.

The point is: Don't be too distracted by the NATS shenanigans, as important as they are; there's more and potentially worse for us to come from TAG.

It's OK Dave, I read what you said but I knew what you meant! :E

Its time to bring this up to date.

Additional Consultation has been published August 2016... document here..https://www.consultation.tagfarnboro...tion-document/


Not a lot has changed, it would appear that TAG / Farnborough are still hell bent on getting their way and ignoring all the objectors.
This tactic ( to publish a "Revised" proposal ) is possibly a way to have less objections raised , as many people will think that their points and objections will be carried through from the first document ..... apparently this is not the case so please respond and re-send your comments and objections to [email protected] by the 2nd November 2016

A reminder that there was a very reasoned and well written explanation of the problems that this airspace would cause here... http://docs.fasvig.info/ACP/20160513...ace-Report.pdf
if you have not already read it , I would urge you to do so !

Just done mine - the automated response say that:


Thank you for responding to the Additional Consultation. Consultation runs from 10th August to 5th October. All responses will be analysed after closure and results published in Feedback Report C in due course. Please monitor www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com




So, looks like the deadline is earlier than previously posted...

TAG wrote:
The first public consultation meeting took place at Capron House, Midhurst on Thursday 1 September 2016. Stakeholder feedback included comment on the length of the additional consultation and the impact of the summer break on their respective meeting schedules during this period.

TAG-FARNBOROUGH-AIRPORT-ADDITIONAL-CONSULTATION

TAG Farnborough Airport has therefore decided to extend the consultation period by a further 4 weeks, this will now run until Wednesday 2 November 2016.

Emailed my contribution

TAG just trying to keep the plebs out in favour of VIP's?
Has anyone alerted the media?

Consultation fatigue
 

On a different forum I came across a funny term (see subject above) to describe the phenomenon which TAG may be relying upon, carrying out this additional consultation. Revise the original proposal slightly, open the consultation, get fewer objections and Bob's your uncle.

I'm going to send in exactly the same reponse as last time, just so it's there.


/h88

Before writing the ACP for the Airshow RA(T) several years ago, we asked the CAA if it would be like Class D airspace. They replied that as long as we told them what 'rules' we wished to manage the airspace, it was entirely up to us.
So we decided on the following:
1) Pilots must request permission to enter.
2) They must listen out on the notified frequency whilst operating in the RA(T)
3) They must comply with ATC instructions whilst within the RA(T) unless that instruction is innapropriate eg 'instructing' a glider to vary its altitude.
I included these 'rules' in the Airspace Change Proposal and in the AIC.
Is this no longer the case?