Farnborough Airspace Proposal
 

Farnborough's proposal for a chunk of airspace so that the rich and famous can arrive and depart in controlled airspace has been published here.....

TAG Farnborough - Airspace Change Proposal | Consultation

More Class D in that already cramped area is just what we needed. On the plus side it will spare some jet pilots from having to look up slightly when arriving/departing Farnborough.

It would be less annoying if one could actually use Farnborough in anything smaller than a bizjet.

One of the justifications is environmental - that it would avoid slight increases in flight time/distance whilst navigating around traffic, and therefore reduce CO2.

How about not flying small numbers of people in jets in the first place? :)

Surely, the introduction of CAS in that particular choke point would simply mean holding outside for any number of "non Farnborough" transit aircraft, which would largely offset any perceived gain for business aircraft. It's bad enough trying to get through Southampton's airspace, let alone this proposal.

I hate even thinking about the impact on the largest gliding club in the UK, between Farnborough and Southampton. As a safety improvement I would give this proposal, on a scale of 1 to 10, minus 10.

The environmental benefits kept being mentioned in the proposal but they make it clear they would actually use longer routings to avoid overflying noise sensitive areas. They make a big deal about noise over the environment which could simply be because if the locals complain that'll be their lot!

The gliding community need not worry, they will still be ALLOWED to fly on a "limited" number of days!

All of us must oppose this most draconian attempt to muscle in on UK airspace - the biggest attempted grab in decades. The potential effect on GA and gliding in the south of England is horrendous.

The LAA/BGA/BMAA et al will be coordinating an appropriate response; please monitor one, or all, of their websites and, when the time is right, but in your three penn'orth.

No-one else is going to fight this on our behalf, so it is vital we all get involved.

Well after the Norwich grab I suspect its going to happen what ever people say or campaign against.

The person that decides these things stated that he has to approve anything that increases safety and controlled airspace is safer than uncontrolled.

Farnborough Airspace Proposal
 

I can just about understand when controlled airspace replaces Class G for the protection of commercial Air Transport (CAT) movements but Farnborough doesn't have any. So if their plans are approved by the CAA this would be a ground-breaking and very unwelcome development in airspace management.
I would ask whether one class of private aircraft user (i.e wealthy Russians, Middle East potentates who like to come to London for their shopping and to escape the heat of the desert, international company CEO's, and bankers) should have more "protection" in their flashy aeroplanes than we mortals who are lower down the aeronautical food chain?
Farnborough is the birth place of British aviation and we have already been denied access to an airfield that was originally paid for and developed by the British taxpayer in the interest of it's current operator's profit. To then deny us free access to large chunks of valuable airspace would be morally indefensible yet alone illogical.

I wonder what the logical conclusion of that argument might be.

And what about the effect on the surrounding airspace...Increased traffic squeezed into choke points and "Mig Alleys"

Will that be safer because of this proposal ?

Makiing one area " safer " to the detriment of surrounding areas does not make any sense

I did wonder myself flybymike.

Marchettiman alot of those aircraft are AOC aircraft and are counted as CAT.

As far as I can see they are mainly trying to sort out the G5's etc coming in from the North. Which from personal experience can be pretty hairy on a good wx day in a crappy TP doing 160-240knts clean.

The actual SFC up area is relatively small and I think they have set it up to stop people going round the corner of the TMA not speaking to anyone. Is this a known infringement point trying to get past the TMA and the airport?

The other bits are feeding into the airways system which can also be a huge pain in the bum if you get a remain outside instruction.

It could have been a hellva lot worse to be honest.

I suspect they will get it as well. And to be honest I can see more of an argument requiring it than either Doncaster or Norwich.

If there is an argument that it will help with infringements to the TMA your pretty well stuffed.

To be honest now with this ATCOCAS pish you might as well be in class D at least the controller can let you visually separate yourself from traffic.

TMA? Shirley you are referring to the Heathrow CTR, shortly to become class D airspace also.

Aye chevron

Never really flown VFR round there apart from a couple of dodgy positioning flights due to slots.

Is there much infringements around that corner?

I should imagine that arrivals get quite close to it low enough to start bums twitching if someone is shaving the corner.

Although there boundarys as usual are almost set up to screw VFR flyers up.

Why couldn't hey make the line along the A3100 and A283 to the east and a line Weybridge Bracknell reading to the north.

Nothing groundbreaking. In the USA, airports with enough IFR movements qualify for an upgrade in their airspace.

Yes but in USA one can almost always get clearance through said airspace. Not always the case in these parts.

I used to transit the atz fairly often and generally found them helpful. But also had a radio failure over Guildford trying to get to Blackbushe... Aircraft with no transponder. Eventually sorted it but more airspace could have made doing something sensible close to dusk trickier.

I suppose the corollary should be that airports with insufficient ifr movements get a downgrade?

Farnborough have been nice to me in the past but we don't want to depend on them being reasonable for ever more.

There are other zones who are rather less helpful.

The times I have used Farnborough, they have sometimes be protective of "their" even though they didn't really own it. I have been turned but then just left to my own navigation. If they get to own the airspace, I can see VFR transits being more difficult than from Solent. This is going to cause mid-air collisions by forcing VFR traffic into ever smaller rat-runs or choke-points. Maybe someone should count the number of infant schools, puppy farms, hospitals, and the like under the choke-points and ask the question what will happen when two aircraft collide and land on a school full of children, then give that to the Daily Wail.

The document they present is factually incorrect. If you look at the figures for movements at Bournemouth, they must be counting only scheduled traffic, not the huge number of IFR movements due to private flights and training by the flying schools.

Now, if someone deliberately or otherwise gives incorrect information to gain advantage, then the application should be thrown out.

Hmmm, ceding a big chunk of the Odiham ATZ (never mind the MATZ) to Class D, and putting SIDs and STARs straight through a HIRTA that extends to 10,500 feet? I can't see the MoD or the CAA agreeing to that.

Which is exactly the same situation as in Class G airspace....

What Farnborough are trying to get is the authority to hold/delay other traffic to give preference to their own movements.

I blame it all on TCAS.
Farnborough are trying to create a 'known traffic' environment in order to avoid pilots and controllers having to fill out endless reports due to TCAS RAs. Every RA generated, all parties concerned have to fill in a report you see, whereas prior to TCAS, the controller gave traffic information or avoiding action and everybody was happy.
Although TCAS has its uses in class G, it's very annoying (and potentially dangerous) when you pass details of a non transponder aircraft to an aircraft with TCAS, then the aircraft with TCAS gets an RA from other traffic and climbs or descends straight at the non-squawker!!

Thankfully our TCAS doesn't give RA's. I look at it and decide what action to take so no reports need generating.

The annoying thing is GA pilots who have a transponder equipped aircraft but choose to use it on Mode A only, not C. Some say: "But that's what my (200 hour TT) instructor told me to do...!"

Reminds me of all the school aircraft I've flown with mode a/c and "NO ALT DATA" placards!

There are also those of us that leave the transponder off entirely.. and for good reason. Somehow we're still alive. ;)

Why would anyone deliberately fly with a serviceable transponder switched off?

MJ :confused:

I've heard this said a couple of times, but never really understood what the good reason is. What have I missed?

When not flying predominantly straight and level. Think of the poor controller trying to pass traffic information to other aircraft.

The idea some have that if they are not in receipt of a radio service and using a transponder that they will have a collision is slightly ridiculous.

Class G isn't a known traffic environment and for GA's sake let's hope it stays that way.

That's very considerate of you 500man! :ugh::(

MJ

That's not a good reason!

I have thought it through, and I'd rather know that someone is manoeuvring near me than not at all.

What kind of flying activity are you involved in that you don't want anyone to see?:suspect:

MJ

Quite so. What's it to you/us anyway? Squawking is not just for a "known traffic environment".

Let the radar jockeys do what they're paid for - they can always ignore you when they see you are manoeuvring, or outside their area of interest - but they might still want to factor your presence into their decision making - and why not?

Also, the PowerFLARM and TCAS users can be alerted to you if necessary, which is a bonus to you as well as to them as you say. Even the best lookout might not be sufficient, as quite a few people have unfortunately found out over the years.

As a civil operator then if you have a xpdr I can see no good reason not to use it to its fullest extent. Stack the decks in everybody's favour.

Couldn't agree more. Furthermore, if you're "constant changing of direction" etc. involves aerobatics, why not squawk 7004. Then at least every radar controller around will KNOW what you're doing and provide appropriate separation/traffic info to those who do choose to use a service.

Makes everyone's life easier, including yours. Better than just being called as another primary only contact that I suspect many will just chuck out another "roger" for and carry on along their merry way in your vicinity... :uhoh:

The500man,

Good grief! That is one of the most naive, if not stupid, posts I've read in my 18 years on PPRuNe, and in almost 40 years of professional aviation. You obviously have no real idea of how TCAS is used, or what it does and you show ignorance of how ATC and more knowledgeable pilots operate in Class G airspace.

TCAS is used as part of a normal lookout scan; it takes a split second to look down at the screen, which is why it's situated at the top of the instrument panel. There is also an audio warning system which alerts the crew about aircraft getting threateningly close. The equipment enables me to see transponding aircraft over ten miles away. If I see an aircraft on TCAS, I assume the pilot hasn't yet seen me (he/she/you won't have at ten miles), and will take avoiding action much earlier than is possible when constrained by the limitations of the human eye.

Judging by the lack of adherence to the rules of the air by many light aircraft pilots we see (they don't see us), I know it's an invaluable piece of equipment. It helps provide an extra level of safety to all parties involved, not just ourselves.

Obviously, if you insist on not using your transponder, in your ignorance, belligerence, or whatever, you deny yourself and your fellow occupants that extra margin of safety that is there for the taking.

I think that part of the "anti Xpdr" problem is a result of the CAA using a squawk to identify and prosecute the pilot who bust the Red Arrows RAT in 2003' whilst the other four non transponding aircraft all got away unidentified and unprosecuted. A definite shot in the foot for the CAA.
Mode S with specific aircraft ID exacerbates this problem.

They may not be able to be nice to you in the future. On 4th December this year the UK will be putting into force the Standardised European Rules of the Air (SERA). One of the provisions relates to the need for a pilot to be at least 1,000 feet vertically distant from cloud for a visual clearance through controlled airspace and with a greater flight visibilty than now. The CAA's assessment of this change is:
The CAA is about to publish details of the changes plus an education programme.

(P.S. at the same time they introduce the semicircular rule to replace the quadrantal rule below FL195.)

Does this mean that the 10k vis requirement for SVFR will be scrapped?

Does this mean that the 10k vis requirement for SVFR will be scrapped?

Current rule
Proposed change to above (NPA 2014-05) deletes text in red.

500man, now you are being foolish.

A transponder with ALT reporting help others from colliding into you as it alerts both aircraft traffic alert systems and ATC systems.

Switch it off if you so please but don't run back to us if someone rams up your rear.

:ugh: