FLYER Forums

Good to see that Lasham have mounted a judicial review appeal re the Farnborough airspace kerfuffle.

https://www.lashamgliding.com./

Worth a donation I think.

One or two pages gathered for their submission, I see.

I guess Lasham have worked out it’ll cost them less money and hassle to go down the legal route, than to fit radios and transponders into their gliders and negotiate special transit clearances and special airspace reservations with ATC?
(Okay, I’m joking!)

Personally, I think is got less to do with the CAA and more to do with how we’ve managed to have so many runways owned by so many different entities in such a small area.

3000 pages? I know legal proceedings can be complicated, but this seems grossly excessive. I suspect some lawyer is taking them for a ride.

James Chan wrote:I guess Lasham have worked out it’ll cost them less money and hassle to go down the legal route, than to fit radios and transponders into their gliders and negotiate special transit clearances and special airspace reservations with ATC?
(Okay, I’m joking!)

I’m not. Much better idea, James.

James Chan wrote:I guess Lasham have worked out it’ll cost them less money and hassle to go down the legal route, than to fit radios and transponders into their gliders and negotiate special transit clearances and special airspace reservations with ATC?
(Okay, I’m joking!)

They cannot argue that such an agreement isn't possible because they did a similar thing about 12 years ago, coming to an agreement with London Terminal Control to be able to penetrate airway L9 Class A airspace near CPT, so why haven't they tried this line of action?

Not only that.
I was told when I went for an interview for a job in what was then called the CAA's 'Directorate of Airspace Policy' in 1989 that NATS and the CAA wanted to introduce controlled airspace overhead Lasham with a base of 3,500ft back in 1982 but due to pressure from the BGA and Lasham, this was raised to its present 5,500ft, so Lasham should have been aware for over 35 years that there would eventually be a need for controlled airspace expansion to cater for growing commercial traffic needs.

chevvron wrote:

James Chan wrote:I guess Lasham have worked out it’ll cost them less money and hassle to go down the legal route, than to fit radios and transponders into their gliders and negotiate special transit clearances and special airspace reservations with ATC?
(Okay, I’m joking!)

They cannot argue that such an agreement isn't possible because they did a similar thing about 12 years ago, coming to an agreement with London Terminal Control to be able to penetrate airway L9 Class A airspace near CPT, so why haven't they tried this line of action?

Not only that.
I was told when I went for an interview for a job in what was then called the CAA's 'Directorate of Airspace Policy' in 1989 that NATS and the CAA wanted to introduce controlled airspace overhead Lasham with a base of 3,500ft back in 1982 but due to pressure from the BGA and Lasham, this was raised to its present 5,500ft, so Lasham should have been aware for over 35 years that there would eventually be a need for controlled airspace expansion to cater for growing commercial traffic needs.

The L9 Class A airspace is only given once or twice a year by NATS during gliding competitions so is of little use to most of the 50,000 movements Lasham has a year.

I'm certain Lasham is aware of growing commercial traffic, but your point again is irrelevant as this ACP is in relation to another airport with GA traffic wanting more GA traffic, not 'Commercial Traffic'. Let's all not forget the definition of 'Commercial Air Transport' and 'General Aviation'.

Your attitude seems to suggest Lasham should simply make way and close it's large training organisation that makes use of the airspace as the most active airfield in the area. I like many, am glad that someone's finally standing up to the CAA legally before we have no airspace left to fly in.

neil9327 wrote:3000 pages? I know legal proceedings can be complicated, but this seems grossly excessive. I suspect some lawyer is taking them for a ride.

After 5 years of work? Ridiculous suggestion

The L9 Class A airspace is only given once or twice a year by NATS during gliding competitions so is of little use to most of the 50,000 movements Lasham has a year.

No, the Compton Box is only requested once or twice a year!

TC_LTN wrote:

The L9 Class A airspace is only given once or twice a year by NATS during gliding competitions so is of little use to most of the 50,000 movements Lasham has a year.

No, the Compton Box is only requested once or twice a year!

Hyperthetical

What would happen if we're requested for say 180 days in one go ?

Or

180 alternate days.
ie. Mon, Wed, Fri, Sun, Tues, Thurs, Sat, etc.

G-JWTP

I don’t know, what would happen because nobody asks for that frequency of activation.

G-JWTP wrote:

TC_LTN wrote:

The L9 Class A airspace is only given once or twice a year by NATS during gliding competitions so is of little use to most of the 50,000 movements Lasham has a year.

No, the Compton Box is only requested once or twice a year!

Hyperthetical

What would happen if we're requested for say 180 days in one go ?

Or

180 alternate days.
ie. Mon, Wed, Fri, Sun, Tues, Thurs, Sat, etc.

G-JWTP

I'm sure it'd be very quickly be challenged why the piece of airspace is often empty of gliders, as for at least 50% of the time, that piece of airspace wouldn't be very useful to the BGA. Even during competitions, it is only used once or twice when conditions are right for it, because after all, it'd be rather hypocritical to hog airspace not used!

TC_LTN wrote:

The L9 Class A airspace is only given once or twice a year by NATS during gliding competitions so is of little use to most of the 50,000 movements Lasham has a year.

No, the Compton Box is only requested once or twice a year!

Things have changed in recent years, it can only be requested within the timeframe specified by the ACNs (Examples are publicly available). I have no idea if there's still some small print from the past kept somewhere that says it can be 365 day use, but quite frankly, if there is it's well hidden, useless to anyone and the ACN makes no mention of it.
The BGA is fair with the activation of this airspace, and restricts to large competitions, which is probably why the ACN is specifically targeted towards Gliding Competitions. Different to the style the BGA have with Bristol Airspace for example.

Skylaunch2 wrote:The BGA is fair with the activation of this airspace, and restricts to large competitions, which is probably why the ACN is specifically targeted towards Gliding Competitions. Different to the style the BGA have with Bristol Airspace for example.

So why can't the same be done with a section of the Farnborough airspace?

chevvron wrote:

Skylaunch2 wrote:The BGA is fair with the activation of this airspace, and restricts to large competitions, which is probably why the ACN is specifically targeted towards Gliding Competitions. Different to the style the BGA have with Bristol Airspace for example.

So why can't the same be done with a section of the Farnborough airspace?

For 50-51 weeks a year Lasham is not hosting competitions so would find little use of a comparable agreement, as the Compton Box since 2016 is for competitions only. Lasham and surrounding airfields (with many thousands of movements) will need very frequent access to CAS, especially with easterly operations at Lasham that look very challenging with proximity of CAS. Any LoAs are damage limitation at best, talk of the majority of gliders being non radio is nonsense.
We are still talking about a GA airfield claiming huge areas of airspace here. This is a serious precedent that cannot go unchallenged. The safety risks have been talked about for years now and haven't changed, we saw only in the last year 4 people killed at a known choke point near High Wycombe, do we really want that over Four Marks or Basingstoke?

What is so wrong about a Judicial Review in your eyes, do you not believe the regulator should be accountable as any other body? Top marks to LGS standing their ground, at last there'll finally be a completely independent eye on the whole process to make a decision once and for all! Hurrah!