[KingJames]

Part of that problem is that Biggin has no SIDs, just notified departure routes, so the full procedure has to be passed with distances, altitudes &c leading to rather convoluted clearances.

at least partially soluble by a separate 'Ground/Clearance Delivery' frequency, as is common in USA ? But that would mean payments to OfCom ( ), and employment of another person. Does someone delivering and checking accurate readback of an Airways Clearance have to be a full ATCO ?

Biggin was running Tower for ground and departure and approach for the obvious with handover to Tower for ATZ, is this still the case?

[reubeno]

Also by your posts you have either been fooled by propaganda or you are part of the management.
Which one is it ?

Well certainly not part of the management (a fact)! Fooled, I hope not, just looking for solutions.

[GonzoEGLL]

Controlled Airspace.

....and a politically toxic consultation in terms of the surrounding communities who will see lines on a map for the first time, which will lead to a strong anti-airport campaign, and massive increase in noise complaints even though nothing yet has actually changed.

[KingJames]

What is all this fact quote stuff about? Has there been a strop somewhere in this thread?

[Hawkwind]

Controlled Airspace.

Not necessarily anymore... See Note 2 of Para 5.3 of this: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20140117ContainmentPolicyFinal.pdf

(As you can imagine, a newer version of CAP 778 is still awaited.)

[kanga]

...
Biggin was running Tower for ground and departure and approach for the obvious with handover to Tower for ATZ, is this still the case?

As does Staverton, which works pretty well, although with an occasional delay on Tower as clearances are delivered and read back with occasional correction needed. However, Staverton has a much smaller proportion of departures to Airways join than Biggin probably has and clearly aspires to have.

But bottom line is presumably: the Tower and Approach frequency congestion at Biggin is causing delays and aggravation to 'light' GA, including training, whether resident visiting transient or passing. This is not the business it now seeks to retain, attract nor assist. It is under no statutory, regulatory, nor strategic (national nor local) obligation to mitigate these delays and aggravation to these users. Accountants (properly?) pay no heed to merely 'moral' obligations. Why, therefore, should Biggin management spend a penny on any such mitigation? It's the way the mighty free market is supposed to work.

[Pilot Pete]

Would there be such an objection to controlled airspace if it was just limited to protection of the arrival and departure track?
Surely an Airfield that has been operating for years in without class D that then wishes to upgrade, has already clearly demonstrated that dozens of square miles of class D isn't necessary. The defined route in and out is the defined route in and out. Absolutely fine if you want a different route.......it'll be just in uncontrolled airspace like it was last week, and all the weeks before that.

I would automatically be routing to miss the ILS approach as I always have and only get close having spoken to atc. But if routing past with no need to speak to them a few miles clear of the sensible small class D, whats the issue?

The only other sensible (clearly stupid and unreasonable suggestion) is to make everything in the south east, all class D with no gaps, all radar controlled and fully coordinated

[chevvron]

Would there be such an objection to controlled airspace if it was just limited to protection of the arrival and departure track?
Surely an Airfield that has been operating for years in without class D that then wishes to upgrade, has already clearly demonstrated that dozens of square miles of class D isn't necessary. The defined route in and out is the defined route in and out. Absolutely fine if you want a different route.......it'll be just in uncontrolled airspace like it was last week, and all the weeks before that.

I would automatically be routing to miss the ILS approach as I always have and only get close having spoken to atc. But if routing past with no need to speak to them a few miles clear of the sensible small class D, whats the issue?

The only other sensible (clearly stupid and unreasonable suggestion) is to make everything in the south east, all class D with no gaps, all radar controlled and fully coordinated

You're obviously nor aware that all IFR departures have to do a very tight left turn out climbing to alt 2,400 ft so any transits to the north east of Biggin will conflict with them in addition to ILS traffic.

[T67M]

The only other sensible (clearly stupid and unreasonable suggestion) is to make everything in the south east, all class D with no gaps, all radar controlled and fully coordinated

This would be a very sensible option in my opinion with a few caveats:

• It must be done in such a way that gliders, balloons, and vintage (no electrical system) aircraft still have access
• It must be done in such a way that local bimbles, aerobatic sorties etc are as acceptable and expected as A-to-B flights
• It must be funded in such a way that it doesn't price the lighter end of GA out of the airspace
• Class E might be more sensible than Class D
• If Class D, the rules should be akin to the USA Class D rules where two-way radio contact is all that is required for VFR flights to gain access, not an explicit clearance
• VFR pilots must be allowed to visually separate themselves from IFR traffic based upon traffic info passed by ATC without being vectored (unless vectors are requested), and with appropriate TCAS operating procedures being developed to allow TA-only mode to be used by the IFR traffic

[welkyboy]

IFR traffic never does a tight left hand turn after take off on either 03 or21, its a right turn off 21 at 1 DME to 2400FT then on track to DET (which takes you back overhead supposedly keeping you within the ATZ, off 03 a right turn dct to DET 2400ft.

[chevvron]

Biggin was running Tower for ground and departure and approach for the obvious with handover to Tower for ATZ, is this still the case?

Sounds to me from what King James and Josh say the tower freq gets overloaded with the amount of RTF loading described so either they need to add a GMC position to reduce workload, or maybe just run ADV/ADI on one frequency and GMC on the other, dispensing with APP altogether, after all, the arrivals are vectored for the ILS by Thames and IFR departures are also worked by Thames; it's not as if the APP controller has to 'control' a stack and procedural instrument approaches.

[Bill McCarthy]

Never mind, I was thumbing my way through my 1976 "Pooley Air Touring Flight Guide" and it said under London Gatwick that "The use of the airport for training purposes is subject to PPO." .........and further on for Rochester the landing fee was £1.08.
I wonder how many airfields in the guide still exist.

[Flintstone]

£1.08..........I wonder how many airfields in the guide still exist.

One way to find out would be to pootle across to the airfield (at a speed dictated by the flag-man walking ahead of one’s vehicle), have one’s manservant swing the air screw and waft around the countryside. Stopping somewhere suitable for luncheon of course.

[tomshep]

Hardly. Were that to be the case, the landing fee would have been one pound, one and sixpence ha'penny (or, more likely, a guinea for the landing and sixpence for the propeller swinger.)

[CloudHound]

6d - blimey, where do I apply?