|
CAA discover they can't remove airspace
This is a must-read article for anyone concerned about airspace grabs by airport owners.
''......the CAA had discovered that it lacked the legal powers to enforce the airspace ‘roll back’ it had promised. In other words, the CAA can create new controlled airspace, but cannot remove or amend it if the sponsoring airport refuses to cooperate''. http://www.*****************/2018/03...ttle-airspace/ Sorry, I can't get the link to work. You can search for the article in Flight Training News. Article is headed, 'Courting a Battle Over Airspace. |
Here's a fair use excerpt of the main point...
It would take a brave person to present a counter view in front of an unashamedly partisan audience, but just such a person was Jon Round, sent by the CAA to present the regulator’s point of view. Whilst saying that he heard the audience’s frustrations, he insisted that airline passengers were contracting for ‘zero risk’ when they bought a ticket, and the needs of GA were a secondary to that consideration. On a more positive note he went on to say that the CAA want greater integration, more class E airspace and more flexible use of airspace. However, he revealed a hitherto unknown factor in the airspace equation. He recalled that in 2016 the CAA had promised that year’s BGA conference that Doncaster’s airspace would be ‘rolled back’ following a Post Implementation Review (PIR) that is part of the airspace change procedure. In the Doncaster PIR, published almost 10 years after controlled airspace was established, the CAA suggested reclassifying 10 of the 12 separate control areas (CTAs) that surround Doncaster’s Control Zone (CTR) as Class E (less restrictive than the existing Class D), and raising the base levels. However, he revealed, Doncaster ‘refused to play ball’ and the CAA had discovered that it lacked the legal powers to enforce the airspace ‘roll back’ it had promised. In other words, the CAA can create new controlled airspace, but cannot remove or amend it if the sponsoring airport refuses to cooperate. The CAA’s revelation brings back into focus the most fundamental question of controlled airspace around an airport, as first reported by FTN last year. Are CTRs and CTAs a national asset, allocated according to the needs of all airspace users or, as now appears to be the case, once allocated by the CAA do they become the private property of the airport, to do with as they see fit? |
Does either hand of the CAA know what the other is doing?
"On a more positive note he went on to say that the CAA want greater integration, more class E airspace and more flexible use of airspace." Yet in Scotland, where the only bit of British Class E is, the main area was quickly abolished after one of the closest airproxes between a glider and a BA flight! The story then was that the CAA had decided Class E was not fir for purpose! (of course, we then went on to have F changed into E+, but that is yet another story) |
The CAA should probably let the FAA know how dangerous Class E is quickly. The US is covered with it!
|
The CAA have removed CAS in the past at Blackpool and Southend.
|
and Prestwick
|
The article states that they can, but not if the airport owner declines to co-operate. Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Intergalactic Space Port may become a test case as they don't seem keen to.
|
Is this just not simply that each airpspace change needs a sponsor? If the Airport don’t want to do so, there’s nothing stopping the BGA in developing their own ACP proposal.
FASVIG have done so before. |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 10103390)
Is this just not simply that each airpspace change needs a sponsor? If the Airport don’t want to do so, there’s nothing stopping the BGA in developing their own ACP proposal.
FASVIG have done so before. |
Originally Posted by snapper1
(Post 10103352)
The article states that they can, but not if the airport owner declines to co-operate. Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Intergalactic Space Port may become a test case as they don't seem keen to.
We all start somewhere once, mauybe that’s not the place. |
Originally Posted by Hawker 800
(Post 10103680)
Far be it from me to change that, but it’s nice to know weekend warriors are kept at bay when I’m flying my jets in there.
We all start somewhere once, mauybe that’s not the place. |
to know weekend warriors are kept at bay when I’m flying my jets in there. And to think clowns like this are flying around class D in jets |
Maybe he only posts like that on this day...
. |
Far be it from me to change that, but it’s nice to know weekend warriors are kept at bay when I’m flying my jets in there. |
Aw, come on folks - he just forgot the smiley.
mike hallam. |
Having been operating in their airspace ever since they first obtained it, I must say the Doncaster controllers are very co-operative and helpful.
I wouldn't say that for all other units... |
Originally Posted by planesandthings
(Post 10103638)
That is correct, but with the workload that the BGA and the fantastic individuals all over the country supporting them are under to lead the fight against various ACPs, it becomes like a full time job, it might sounds straightforwards to put a counter ACP in but there needs to be the manpower behind it! FASVIG aside we're dealing with professional consultants who have all the time in the world to dream up ACPs! I'm informed that GA is trying to get some professionals in to take some of the load off.
http://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-indu...ield-airspace/ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 15:08. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.