Just a reminder that the meeting about Farnborough airspace at Lasham is tommorrow sun 23rd at 13.00hrs. People flying in are reminded that it is PPR as it is a gliding site so no overhead joins unless you want 1000ft of steel cable round your prop.. All of the grass on the north side is landable as we have not suffered from the wet weather as much as some local airfields

Just over 3 weeks left to submit your comments on this proposal. Get your letters / e-mails in by 2 May

Do you have a problem using your radio to enter the Class D? :ugh:

Quote: "Do you have a problem using your radio to enter the Class D?"


Is this from a knowledge of the area in question?

I suspect not. The problem is not the ability to use a radio, but the access that will be restricted due to the imposition of unneeded "Controlled airspace"

How did the meeting go?

I've filed my opposition, but not heard anything back. How they have worded the questions is impressively Machiavellian!

One of the main problems with airspace applications is that the applicant is responsible for assembling all of the replies within their report to the CAA and arguing the case for and against the airspace.

That is akin to holding a trial where there is only one barrister working for both the defence and the prosecution, who happens to be employed by the prosecution.

Why would Farnborough's management do anything other than recommend this airspace?

I attended a presentation at White Waltham by the Farnborough team, where a member of the audience pointed out that the report to non-aviation residents said something completely different to the report prepared for the pilots and the only response was some footshuffling and smirking.

Farnborough themselves said that they are processing between 3 and 6 IFR movements per hour, with an average of 2 people on board, as against 30-100 VFR GA transiting movements per hour, with an average of 2 people on board. Therefore, the brutal truth is that this proposal will result in the maximum inconvenience for the majority, in the interests of an ever shrinking minority as for the last five years, Farnborough's movements have shrunk, year on year. It will also result in some appalling VFR traffic choke-points which will make the Manchester low-level corridor look safe.

Very important to resist this proposal.

Farnborough airspace proposal
 

I have no doubt that Farnborough's submission to the CAA will be gilded with a thin veneer of balance towards the views of all airspace users as well as those of other interested consultees. But in the end it is a document intended to achieve a commercial aim and advantage for TAG aviation so I don 't think there will be any prizes given for guessing it's final conclusions; let us hope that the CAA and NATCS are able to resist the inevitable wining and dining and glitzy presentations.

I think that there is a fundemental flaw in the traffic forecasts TAG are using to bolster their case which I hope our GA representatives (AOPA, BGA etc) will not leave unnoticed.

In the original planning permission for use and development of the airfield granted in 2000 there were specific conditions which relate to the number and more importantly TYPE of aircraft movements. For instance the permission relates specifically to Business Air Transport Movements (BATM) and excludes bulk freight, scheduled passenger services, most training flights and recreational flying.

A later permission granted at appeal to increase the number of annual movements to the current planned levels relied heavily on the support of the government's Air Transport White Paper 2003 which specifically encourages the growth of Business Aviation.
I know from personal experience as a passenger in chartered jets out of Farnborough that a significant number of current movements have nothing to do with business they are purely personal transportation using a class of aircraft commonly referred to as a business jet. It is the obverse of my practice of using my private aircraft for a business trip.

Whether or not the local authority have picked up on what I see as a clear breach of the planning permission relating to use of the aerodrome I know not, but I do think it is a strong argument in questioning the data which is being used to support the proposed airspace restrictions around a wide part of the SW of London.

Maybe with this proposal Farnborough have opened a can of worms they would have preferred to have kept firmly closed.

And almost all of our airspace in the USA is controlled, so what's your problem?

Infringement of your civil liberties?

In the US and much of Europe one can flightplan on the presumption of a class D transit request being granted (from memory, in the US you only have to establish 2 way comms). In the UK, one has to pesume it will be denied or delayd "due to controller workload" and plan alternatives. As a result most VFR pilots will avoid Class D as a matter of course.

The situation is probably better now than it was a few years ago and there are notable exceptions , but this requires local knowledge.

Remember that UK airspace is controlled by a company 42% owned by the airlines. It is not a public asset for all to share.

In the USA clearance is implicit by 2-way comms. But you can also be denied access when your tail number is NOT acknowledged. The radio exchange is different but there is still a right of refusal and we do have to plan another route if we're asked to remain clear.

And the other half is owned by the government. So don't ya think that access issues to airspace should be addressed instead of resisting it?

Controlled airspace is designed to make more traffic known because it causes safety issues otherwise.

In other words it's obvious nobody's gonna listen if you object on the sole basis you just wanna keep flying around without the radio. :E

Do "ya wanna" do us all a favour. Stop pontificating about matters you know bugger all about in the UK, and we promise not to do the same about what goes on over there.

I suppose a Glider from a club that has existed for years within a few miles of the proposed area could just ask for a transit.


Or indeed even all the GA aircraft that outnumber the proposed passenger movements by a considerable factor could ask for permission to depart their own airfield from a company who proposes to create Controlled airspace just to oblige Private aircraft with 2-4 passengers.


Infringement of Civil liberties my wassername . It's a private company that is proposing this, not Government.


Oligarch's wives shopping trip to Harrods or Sheiks visiting for the nightlife which they abhor in their own country. Do you really think after looking at the proposal that there is any justification? Well do ya?

Soaringhigh; as you are so interested in everyone hearing your opinion why don't you study an aviation map of the area concerned before giving us the benefit of your 'advice'? You seem happy to jump in with both feet in this, and other threads, when you obviously have no idea of the real issues. Many people on here will have flown in Florida and appreciate the space and freedom. Contrast that to flying in a narrow, congested, corridor and you have to develop a whole lot of different skills.

A lot of knowledgable guys from the US post on here and provide welcome advice. Why don't you join them?

I don't have any problem using a radio but to the SW of London I have a problem being able to get a word in edgeways. I fly out of Redhill and if I am going west the Farnborough Radar frequencies are pretty busy at weekends.

If I have to get a class D clearance to visit White Waltham or Booker, I am pretty sure that on a nice Sunday morning that will cause congestion, delays and add risk. At least right now I don't HAVE TO contact Farnborough West. In future I won't have a choice and will maybe have to orbit for clearance.

I just got back from 2 superb weeks in Florida with clear skys, free airfields and huge areas to fly in albeit controlled but with helpful controllers and few restrictions. I crossed the overhead at Orlando and T&G'd at Sanford (and about 20 other fields as well) FOC

If we did the same as in the US where the norm is an overhead transit through the busiest airspace, or a minimal size shelf system then that would make life a lot easier. Trouble is our solution seems to be to keep us GA pilots out instead of accommodating us safely and sensibly.

If we cannot be assured that the 10 people per hour who benefit won't delay the 100 of us peasants who don't we have to find against this proposal.

Since half of the movements are positioning flights with no passengers, 10 is being extremely generous.


Twice the airspace that Gatwick needs for less than 1/1,000th of the passengers (and Gatwick's are at least CAT punters, not GA taxi limousine guests) is ludicrous.


Reducing a 15 NM VFR choke point to less than 4.5 NM is a serious safety hazard, and should lay the CAA open to a charge of corporate manslaughter if they allow this, and a fatal collision does occur.

Okay I will do you all a favor - I'll be back in 6-12 months time and we shall see who's won.

Put your feet into the other guys shoes irrespective of whether you're carrying rich people or poor people. You're working hard flying an instrument approach. Do you want to be broken off and vectored around all over the sky just because suddenly something pops up and you have no idea what the other guy is gonna do? How much of this then becomes the breaking point where action is needed?

Object all you like about some piece of Class D airspace but until YOU can sufficiently show there willl be GREATER issues to flight safety by the establishment of such airspace, nobody will listen.

Of course there will be greater flight safety. No bugger will be allowed in.:ugh:
Have you actually seen the proposal and the negative effect it is going to have on a not inconsiderable number of aviators?

Don't be ridiculous.

They've been operating perfectly safely for decades, they already offer a radar service & have a known environment in Class G. They want Class D so they can tell people to go away. This has nothing to do with safety.

Apologies if this has been suggested. Compromise. Allow them class E :)

D.O.

According to their submission TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation Farnborough handled 23,000 movements last year which is an average of 63 flights/day or 3 flights/hour based on a 20 hour operating day.

Must have counted the airshow traffic cos I didn't see anything like that when I stayed at the very nice TAG Hotel one weekend.

As the website helpfully points out, there are 22 days before the consulation closes.