Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:18 pm
#1645760
ls8pilot wrote:
I agree with this, but don't forget that this is essentially a fault with, and complaint about, the legacy ACP process under CAP725. We're now in the broad sunlight uplands of CAP 1616 w.e.f. 1st January. As you probably know, this process is meant to be more transparent, to overcome some of the faults of old process; and (I'm guessing here) relate better to the to the implications of the Air Navigation Guidance 2017 published exactly a year ago, with its Altitude Based Priorities, with bands up to 4000 ft; 4000 to 7000ft; and above 7000ft. FWIW, those priorities in future are basically:
• in the airspace from the ground to below 4,000 feet the government’s environmental priority is to limit and, where possible, reduce the total adverse effects on people; [so noise factor most important]
• in the airspace at or above 4,000 feet to below 7,000 feet, the environmental priority should continue to be minimising the impact of aviation noise in a manner consistent with the government’s overall policy on aviation noise, unless the CAA is satisfied that the evidence presented by the sponsor demonstrates this would disproportionately increase CO2 emissions;
• in the airspace at or above 7,000 feet, the CAA should prioritise the reduction of aircraft CO2 emissions and the minimising of noise is no longer the priority;
Anyway, back to CAP 1616 and I would again guess that it hasn't yet been running long enough for stakeholders-at-large to road-test it, and see if it's a significant improvement on the old process. Sorry if I've said this before but the list of current ACPs in the new system are here: https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Airspace/Airspace-change/Permanent-airspace-change-proposals-under-CAP1616/
The DfT/CAA (I think it was) encourged but didn't require last year that change sponsors move across to the new process if their ACP was being currently prepared. I'm speculating again that some were rushed through the old process partly because the data and documentation needed to support an application under the new process 1616 may be more onerous than previously required under 725, with more 'general public' consultations required because of the noise banding implications? But that's just my guess, would be interested in related veiws on this if there are any more anoraks out there.
I fully understand the need for changes and the difficulty of balancing conflicting needs, but what concerns me is the lack of a decision making process that is open, fair and involves all parties. As far as I understand it we may not even see the revised proposals before they are submitted to the CAA.....
I agree with this, but don't forget that this is essentially a fault with, and complaint about, the legacy ACP process under CAP725. We're now in the broad sunlight uplands of CAP 1616 w.e.f. 1st January. As you probably know, this process is meant to be more transparent, to overcome some of the faults of old process; and (I'm guessing here) relate better to the to the implications of the Air Navigation Guidance 2017 published exactly a year ago, with its Altitude Based Priorities, with bands up to 4000 ft; 4000 to 7000ft; and above 7000ft. FWIW, those priorities in future are basically:
• in the airspace from the ground to below 4,000 feet the government’s environmental priority is to limit and, where possible, reduce the total adverse effects on people; [so noise factor most important]
• in the airspace at or above 4,000 feet to below 7,000 feet, the environmental priority should continue to be minimising the impact of aviation noise in a manner consistent with the government’s overall policy on aviation noise, unless the CAA is satisfied that the evidence presented by the sponsor demonstrates this would disproportionately increase CO2 emissions;
• in the airspace at or above 7,000 feet, the CAA should prioritise the reduction of aircraft CO2 emissions and the minimising of noise is no longer the priority;
Anyway, back to CAP 1616 and I would again guess that it hasn't yet been running long enough for stakeholders-at-large to road-test it, and see if it's a significant improvement on the old process. Sorry if I've said this before but the list of current ACPs in the new system are here: https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Airspace/Airspace-change/Permanent-airspace-change-proposals-under-CAP1616/
The DfT/CAA (I think it was) encourged but didn't require last year that change sponsors move across to the new process if their ACP was being currently prepared. I'm speculating again that some were rushed through the old process partly because the data and documentation needed to support an application under the new process 1616 may be more onerous than previously required under 725, with more 'general public' consultations required because of the noise banding implications? But that's just my guess, would be interested in related veiws on this if there are any more anoraks out there.