[James Chan]

Only marginally. And FL245+ was Class B before. Not A.

Many lower airways remain Class A for no good reason, with IFR GA pistons and turbines increasingly preferring more direct routes over using them nowadays.

[chevvron]

Only marginally. And FL245+ was Class B before. Not A.

Many lower airways remain Class A for no good reason, with IFR GA pistons and turbines increasingly preferring more direct routes over using them nowadays.

Class B airspace has never been promulgated in the UK due to the CAA consistently refusing to embrace the concept of controlled VFR flight.
I do agree there is a 'case' for some en-route sections of low useage Class A airways away from TMAs to become Class C or maybe even D below a certain level.

[Pete L]

Prestwick - Belfast is Class D, isn't it?

[Rob L]

<snip>This, and alongside with the development of the European high speed rail network and budget airline operators, is why I think GA has never flourished in the same way the USA has.</snip>

You might be along the right lines, but not entirely correct.

Post-war, the Europeans (apart from we in the UK) chose to go rail.
Back then (1950's onwards), the UK tried to emulate the USA fastidious building of "freeways".
We could have built a rail network then, just after the war, but we didn't. Perhaps our perceived history with ancient rail infrastructure and our overcrowded nation prevented that).

Let's not go into the USA/UK GA airport scenario; that's been done to death before.

The budget airline scenario is where Europe has usurped the USA (despite several attempts including SouthWest Airlines and others).

Rob

[Dave W]

Vince! How've you been?



(Sorry, everyone - old forum joke)

[James Chan]

Class B airspace has never been promulgated in the UK due to the CAA consistently refusing to embrace the concept of controlled VFR flight.

chevvron, if you really ever were an ATCO once upon a time, I wonder how you continue to post on forums with so much mis-information, such as this.

[chevvron]

chevvron, if you really ever were an ATCO once upon a time, I wonder how you continue to post on forums with so much mis-information, such as this.

Having waited a couple of days for you to amend your posting, I have to say I find your remarks extremely rude and offensive.

[r_w_walker]

I saw an article recently about a new organisation hoping to help save airfields.

GAIN - the General Aviation Infrastructure Network - is being set up as the national Community Interest Company (CIC)

http://gainetwork.org.uk/

I have a basic subscription to the organisation i.e. Much less than the £1000 Bronze membership.

They should be amending their membership details on the web site to include the basic option but if you wish to help contact them.

I hope they are successful but they will need a lot more support if they are to succeed.

[chevvron]

Are they linked with the Airfields Environment Federation? (Don't hear about them much nowadays - do they still exist?)

[flybymike]

Or the GAAC?

[kanga]

hmm.. if there is now to be permanent, professional, well-informed/-researched and well-targeted (which, unfortunately, also means expensive) lobbying on behalf of all of GA in UK, great .. AOPA in US has shown what can be achieved. But I shall be reluctant to contribute my money (or, if it comes to that, time) until I have heard authoritatively that this is the result of an agreed collaborative initiative by all the UK GA organisations (AOPA, LAA, BMAA, BGA, BRA, BHPA, GAAC ..). Meanwhile, I shall continue to support both AOPA and LAA individually.

There is clear danger of confusion, duplication, waste and rivalry if a brand-new organisation is created alongside but not in full coordination and agreement with existing ones. US contacts in the relevant antecedent organisations bewail the creation of the DOHS with a supposedly coordinating role, which has ended up as another competing power centre.

I hope I am wrong to be sceptical, of course.