[GonzoEGLL]

I'm not sure that's true.

How can more controllers mitigate completely against unknown traffic in Class G?

[kanga]

I'm not sure that's true.

How can more controllers mitigate completely against unknown traffic in Class G?

Well, maybe: with Primary Radar, ideally including heightfinder although this may be overly ambitious, and a dedicated ATCO (team ?) staffing it 24/7 without being required also to staff military UHF frequencies, such aircraft in contact with them could be told about other Primary returns in their vicinity and of apparent potential hazard to them, even if those other returns were from aircraft not in contact and non-transponding. If such service was known always to be there and always helpful (as it always was, in my memory, until fairly recently), then there would be a powerful incentive for all transit traffic to talk to them.

Obviously, crazily ambitious, with RAF reasonably saying 'why should we supply the controllers when it's not our airspace?', and all potential civil ANSPs saying 'who's going to pay us to do it ?' and Treasury saying 'if taxpayer is ultimately funding it, then user must be seen to pay'. That's been the fiscal atmosphere in UK for all 'public services' since '80s. Of course, it's more 'efficient'

[OXF-OPS]

London Oxford Airport will be hosting two public drop-in sessions to allow interested stakeholders the opportunity to view and discuss our Airspace Change Proposal. For further info please visit our website at http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/the-airp ... ltation-2/

[Chilli Monster]

Well, maybe: with Primary Radar, ideally including heightfinder

Falls off chair laughing - ok at high level in a sparse traffic density environment. Totally useless in a high density environment below 5000 ft

I love the assumption that there is a bottomless pit of ATCO’s to fill all these posts in everybody’s ideal world, and the problem is purely finance based. Wake up and smell the coffee people - there’s actually a worldwide shortage, and the Military are struggling more than most.

[kanga]

I was consciously describing a utopian circumstance

[Ophelia Gently]

Well, maybe: with Primary Radar, ideally including heightfinder

Falls off chair laughing - ok at high level in a sparse traffic density environment. Totally useless in a high density environment below 5000 ft

I love the assumption that there is a bottomless pit of ATCO’s to fill all these posts in everybody’s ideal world, and the problem is purely finance based. Wake up and smell the coffee people - there’s actually a worldwide shortage, and the Military are struggling more than most.

Especially as vertical separation using heightfinding primary radar is/was 5000ft! (Air Defenders only these days?) Even using un-coordinated verified mode C its 3000ft isn't it now?

[chevvron]

Well, maybe: with Primary Radar, ideally including heightfinder

Falls off chair laughing - ok at high level in a sparse traffic density environment. Totally useless in a high density environment below 5000 ft

I love the assumption that there is a bottomless pit of ATCO’s to fill all these posts in everybody’s ideal world, and the problem is purely finance based. Wake up and smell the coffee people - there’s actually a worldwide shortage, and the Military are struggling more than most.

Quite a few about holding licences with ADV/ADI (Aerodrome control) ratings but never validated so would need prolonged training for a 'first' Certificate of Competence; hardly any with APS (Approach radar) which is the rating required here. An examiner from the CAA is required for 'first timers' and they're always in short supply too.
Anyone with an APS rating would get snapped up quickly.
I used a Type 82 radar during my Area Radar training and that had a built in heightfinder, but they'd all gone from ATC radar units by the mid '80s I think. Height finders are the province of 'Aerospace Battle Managers' (fighter controllers) nowadays using different radars and even then I don't think they're used much if at all.

[GonzoEGLL]

Quite a few about holding licences with ADV/ADI (Aerodrome control) ratings but never validated so would need prolonged training for a 'first' Certificate of Competence; hardly any with APS (Approach radar) which is the rating required here. An examiner from the CAA is required for 'first timers' and they're always in short supply too.

I'm not sure there are many who have ADI/ADV that aren't already ATCOs though!

[chevvron]

Quite a few about holding licences with ADV/ADI (Aerodrome control) ratings but never validated so would need prolonged training for a 'first' Certificate of Competence; hardly any with APS (Approach radar) which is the rating required here. An examiner from the CAA is required for 'first timers' and they're always in short supply too.

I'm not sure there are many who have ADI/ADV that aren't already ATCOs though!

Yes, they all seem to get jobs at Wycombe then as soon as they get that first C of C, they p1ss off.

[ls8pilot]

FYI for anyone who lives in an area affected by the proposed class D.....

I decided to write to my local MP, who is listed in Appendix A2 "Stakeholders", on the assumption that he had been consulted but maybe missed all of the implications. My request was that the proposal should go through the new, fuller/fairer, change process in place since Jan this year.

Somewhat to my surprise the MP's response was that this was the first he had heard of the change proposal and that he would look into it as soon as possible. I understand others who have written to MP's or local councillors have had similar responses.

So I think another example of Osprey Consulting being deliberately vague - it not being clear in the document whether they actually consulted the people listed in the Stakeholders appendix or not!

I've also been trying to get some actual data out of Osprey, but they seem unable or unwilling to give you traffic volumes or any calculated/modelled risk figures - one friend of mine was told to submit a freedom of information request!

Not really a transparent process I think......

[kanga]

..one friend of mine was told to submit a freedom of information request!

........

These can, if properly phrased, be a very powerful weapon. However, they can be asked only of 'public bodies' within the meaning of UK FOIA. RAF Brize Norton, the MoD, Oxfordshire County Council (Kidlington Parish Council, if there is one) etc are 'public bodies', but a private consultation organisation, and 'Oxford Aviation Services Ltd' (who, according to me latest Pooley's, run Kidlington) would not be .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... n_Act_2000

Ah, but .. Requests for information can also be asked of any organisation, public or private, whose activities are licensed/regulated or devolved by any echelon of government if those activities have an environmental impact. Almost any aviation-related activity will have such impact. These, too, if properly phrased, can be a powerful tool. One might ask about historic movement data or Avgas/JetA1 sales volumes, and about any internally held documents illustrating projections of future movements/sales. But the Environmental Information Regulations are in UK law as a consequence of our membership of the EU, and may therefore disappear when we leave ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... tions_2004

[WingsOff]

I've also been trying to get some actual data out of Osprey, but they seem unable or unwilling to give you traffic volumes ........

All traffic data in the public domain on the CAA website by month (up to December 2017) and then also historical:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis ... a-2017-12/

So, for instance, December 2017 showed:

Dec-17 OXFORD (KIDLINGTON)

Month Total 1814

Private Flights 745
Test & Training 630
Positioning 249
Business Aviation 173
Air Taxi 14
Local Movements 2
Other Flights 0
Aero Club 0
Official 0
Military 0

[GonzoEGLL]

FYI for anyone who lives in an area affected by the proposed class D.....

I decided to write to my local MP, who is listed in Appendix A2 "Stakeholders", on the assumption that he had been consulted but maybe missed all of the implications. My request was that the proposal should go through the new, fuller/fairer, change process in place since Jan this year.

Somewhat to my surprise the MP's response was that this was the first he had heard of the change proposal and that he would look into it as soon as possible. I understand others who have written to MP's or local councillors have had similar responses.

So I think another example of Osprey Consulting being deliberately vague - it not being clear in the document whether they actually consulted the people listed in the Stakeholders appendix or not!

I've also been trying to get some actual data out of Osprey, but they seem unable or unwilling to give you traffic volumes or any calculated/modelled risk figures - one friend of mine was told to submit a freedom of information request!

Not really a transparent process I think......

Though I can't say for certain in this case, in my experience with 'smaller' consultations such as this the documents would have been sent through the post (and via email) to the MP's Westminster and constituency offices. Now, whether the staff at those offices then pass on the documents to the MP, and if so, whether the MP gives it anything more than a cursory skim-read, is completely out of the control of the consultation.

[ls8pilot]

All traffic data in the public domain on the CAA website by month (up to December 2017) and then also historical:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Data-and-analysis ... a-2017-12/

Very useful thanks, looks like Oxford average around 3500 movements/month in the summer period, so roughly 100-120 / day on average of which just under half are training.

No stats for Brize Norton unfortunately. As far as I can see from published data they are around 20-30 flights/day mid week and very few flights at the weekend.

[CloudHound]

Which is why Saturdays and Sundays carry a higher risk of invasion