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.