Northumbria UK TDA closes airstrips
 

I don’t normally link to rival forum sites but this deserves the widest audience and a strong response

Not against UAV development but integration not segregation should be the way forward
https://flyer.co.uk/severe-and-negat...da-goes-ahead/

This is a topic that isn't going away, and I think these NHS trials will be used as a Trojan horse to prove the way for commercial operations - here's a link to a map of projects that this one company are promoting.

Of particular interest to us in the north is the proposal for the intra-Trust delivery of nuclear medicines for North Cumbria integrated care NHS Foundation Trust which could well abutt the Northumbria plan potentially creating a coast to coast TDA - a modern Hadrians wall!

Apian - drone projects

Scroll down for the link-up area. https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Pub...alArea?pID=456
(Potentially affected area).

I've often wondered what my mum did with my cowboy outfit.

That's a seperate trial which has now completed - although no results have been published. The proposal above is far more extensive, blocking the VFR route up the coast underneath the NCL CTA, and depending on the weather, the route south around the west of the NCL CTA and the route west up the Tyne Valley south of Spadeadam

I'm very familiar with the 'not above 1500 feet' route up past Newcastle.. Just pointing out the extension up to Berwick. Also affecting airfields such as Eshott. Let us hope that the CAA doesn't slide into the Virtue Signalling trap. Thus avoiding the 'CAA bans Mercy Drone flights' headlines.

This seems to be a mjaor grab of airspace for little purpose except commercial profit. NHS deliveries in this area are readily done by road. Whiule the Western Isles trial could be justified for accessabilty reasons,this has none of that.

Alos I note that the earlier claim that drones would be operating below normal air traffic altitudes are now disappearing. Additionally the claim that adding more conspicuity devices would make air avoidance by drones easier also seems to have been forgotten. Once again, people are lying to us.

As an occasional [ast user of that low level corridor (in a vintage machine), I shall object, naturally. Considerably increased risk to no purpose. Why not keep the drones very low over the water ? - or push them above the ~1,000ft typically used by the folk going through the low level corridor.
Fairly dreadful restrictions for those airfields to the West of Newcastle too.

I have posted before about these trials which are easy to masquerade as life saving NHS work. In fact I can think of very very few clinical reasons for such drones. Correction, I can think of absolutely none on the mainland. We simply do not need many urgent interhospital transfers of small items - we move teams of doctors and patients themselves. I worry the so called trial seems to be about whether you can put some item in a drone from A to B which isnt difficult but fails to demonstrate or even investigate any benefit.

I find it interesting that the company was set up by trainee doctors, not always the brightest sparks outside medicine itself, and that they intend to transport radioactive sources. What happens if the cargo gets lost or gets into the hands of a child? Oh, and the need for 'medical documentation' is farcical as we are all paperless. It makes me suspect this is a vanity project and of course the local administrators will love claiming to have their own drone (at no cost) whilst patients queue around the block

My take is this is an unnecessary diversion from the failings of the NHS, wont help patients and should be opposed even BEFORE considering the harm to GA

Radgirl sums it up nicely,
If you are bored enough to find the time to wade through the typical Green inferred waffle in the 24 page submission ,you might find yourself wondering how many so called extra taxi deliveries would equal the cost of acquisition, operator training and maintenance of what would no doubt be very expensive kit.
This seems to me to be yet another project that would fail a reality check whilst pandering to the section of society that thinks that it has all the answers to
the failings of the modern world. If you want to use drones usefully ,take them to the parts of the world where transport is a REAL challenge.

As I stated earlier, I suspect that the NHS is a soft target (what NHS "Director of Innovation" wouldn't want something for nothing and also a sexy drone trial on their CV?) and that this a foot in the door for future commercial operations. Is it just a coincidence that it's in an area with a relatively small GA community - but get the concept proved and where next?

If you do want to object, previous experience on the smaller scale trial on the Northumberland coast suggested that challenging the purpose of the trial got short shrift, so concentrating on the impact on the aviation community may have more effect

I put a response into the submission last week and got this response back from Apian:

The proposed "skygrab" is, in my view, disproportionate and the absence of a DACS / DAAIS is completely incogruent with effective and safe aviation activites in the North East.

Copied from the Northern Aviators Facebook group:

That is hilarious.

I haven't found the map, but wonder if this will affect/stop north - south VFR traffic on the east side of the UK, with low cloud?

In a word 'Yes'!- it blocks the 'Hexham gap' to the west of the NCL CTA and the coastal route to the east of the NCL CTA. The same company are also proposing a TDA covering northern Cumbria, which could block a west coast routing

Apprently im too new to post either links or images (sigh), but if you go to

airspacechange.caa.co.uk/documents/download/5891

you can find the picture on page 14.

I totally agree, the CAA are not equipped to judge whether the purpose of the hospitals plan is valid or it is not. Their purpose is solely one of aviation safety and, nowadays, any impact on the local environment including bird sanctuary's and other protected areas. Conflicts with existing airfields including farm strip operators and other stakeholders must be resolved before any operating agreement and/or airspace restrictions are approved. I would suspect that the RAF will have a lot to say with regard to the plans. So it is up to Apian together with all stakeholders to come together to find the way forward that works for everyone. In my experience agreements can always be reached. Letters of Agreement will then be drawn up and signed by all parties. the L of A/s will be a very important part of Apian's application. Everyone concerned should join AOPA in my view, they have considerable experience in all of this, and they will provide guidance and even represent.

Unable to quote because the original is not available.
What precisely is a 'microgliding' club?
This after they have said 'as previous air traffic controllers we have knowledge....'
Obviously they do NOT have knowledge.

I think it's meant to be Hang Gliding and Paragliding

https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Pub...alArea?pID=546

The point is, 'microgliding' is not an accepted aviation term yet here is a so-called professional 'inventing' a previously unheard of term for inclusion in a legal document.

Who cares, the applicant must consider and agree a reasonable resolve with all those affected (stakeholders) whatever they or anyone else may name it.