Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1645760
ls8pilot wrote:
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.
#1645804
JeffL wrote: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.


Both the RAF BN and London Oxford ACP's were submitted days before the deadline on CAP725 proposals closed. Both submissions had numerous drafting errors (spelling mistakes, distorted figures, confused references etc) many of which were corrected after initial submission,. It was the view of many who did a detailed review that there had been an effort to get these in "under the wire".

Grant Shaps MP said The all-party group on General Aviation has received large numbers of concerns about the proposed airspace changes around London Oxford Airport and RAF Brize Norton. There is something rotten with the current process, which is why a new procedure has already been introduced. The attempt made by these two applications to get under the radar by using the previous rules is not acceptable to those of us in Parliament.

Undoubtedly the newer process is more demanding, and because the work on ACP's is typically done by external consultants, more expensive. I did go along to Kemble's initial discussion meeting with stakeholders on their ACP and we got a much better two-way dialogue, so I am hopeful the new process is an improvement.

I shall put my hood up again now :)
#1645813
The CAP1616 Airspace Change portal is about to go live, giving the public and other stakeholders a one-stop-shop to find how a sponsor is progressing.

The proposal I'm helping with is probably in the lead when it comes, to a GA aerodrome with AFISO in the VCR. We've been feverishly typing content to upload in order to be ready as soon as the CAA press the go button.

Just getting ready to submit evidence for Stage 1 has been a Herculean task and the amount of work required for all the Stages is quite frankly daunting. Good news is the small team is lead by a pair of Yorkshire-men, imbued with grit and determination. :thumleft:

Interesting times ahead!
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1645826
Both submissions had numerous drafting errors (spelling mistakes, distorted figures, confused references etc) many of which were corrected after initial submission


There was me thinking that working in the military involved precision.

That’s not to say mistakes don’t happen but they’d be destroying the wrong targets and killing the wrong people otherwise!
#1645846
James Chan wrote:
Both submissions had numerous drafting errors (spelling mistakes, distorted figures, confused references etc) many of which were corrected after initial submission


There was me thinking that working in the military involved precision.

That’s not to say mistakes don’t happen but they’d be destroying the wrong targets and killing the wrong people otherwise!


To be fair to the RAF the document came from Osprey consulting.... so ex-RAF and ex-CAA folk mainly :?
#1646016
chevvron wrote:Wonder if Lasham/ the BGA will call for a judicial review of this airspace too. :roll:


Sounds to me like two way dialogue is underway, so hopefully a "reasonable compromise" will result and make such action unnecessary.

A "reasonable compromise" of course is one which normally results in both parties being slightly unhappy with the result! :wink:
#1646075
Mike Tango wrote:Not sure I’ve seen bases of anything other than 500/1,000 before.

Given the ‘must stay 500ft above the base inside’ rule it could throw up a complication or two for IFR traffic and vectoring in the airspace.

Strange.


I'm guessing the bits with 18oo' base are to give 1500ft AGL ? Given the need to allow a buffer of some sort to a CTA above you I wonder how many people will be happy to crawl around at 1000ft AGL on the edge of the main Brize zone ?
#1646093
chevvron wrote:Wonder if Lasham/ the BGA will call for a judicial review of this airspace too. :roll:


Not likely, as whatever precedent is set by the case brought forwards will determine the path for future airspace decisions. One of the reasons Lasham is bringing forwards this case at such expense on behalf of the GA community.

I for one am pleased to see Brize Norton and Oxford looking to work with other stakeholders instead of steamrolling proposals through like Farnborough, it will almost certainly work to their favour, unlike Exeter's shambles.
#1646125
ls8pilot wrote:I'm guessing the bits with 18oo' base are to give 1500ft AGL ? Given the need to allow a buffer of some sort to a CTA above you I wonder how many people will be happy to crawl around at 1000ft AGL on the edge of the main Brize zone ?


1,800ft base, minimum IFR inside 2,300ft.

2,000ft base, minimum IFR inside 2,500ft

So for me, if terrain is the reason, make the base 2,000ft. 200ft is of some benefit to those outside and shouldn’t be an issue to those inside. If it affects a procedure, redesign it.
James Chan liked this
#1651418
Mildenhall RIVET JOINTs reportedly moving to Fairfield...

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... xt-2227208

I'm wondering if this will mean

a. Permanent Fairford ATZ ?
b. USAF ATCOs to help with transit and nearby traffic, including with Radar ?
#1651475
kanga wrote:Mildenhall RIVET JOINTs reportedly moving to Fairfield...

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... xt-2227208

I'm wondering if this will mean

a. Permanent Fairford ATZ ?
b. USAF ATCOs to help with transit and nearby traffic, including with Radar ?


This proposed USAF move from Mildenhall to Fairford was known - certainly in Gloucestershire - at least a year ago if not more. Hence our suspicions, here in Gloucestershire, around the Brize airspace proposals being more than just for Brize.

DGR
kanga, flybymike liked this