Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1656443
That link and the TAG master plan from 2009 made for interesting reading on a wet afternoon.

The appeal against the refused planning that was granted by the secretary of state back then used a predicted growth to 50,000 by 2019, and yet the growth has actually been from 23,000 to 26,000 over the last 10 years.

Being directly on the flight path I'm quite happy with that prediction being wildly out though.

I still don't quite get the argument for the airspace, there is certainly not a real safety case. and why the TAG directors made a decision to state that 'all movements have to be in controlled airspace' without any real reason, and then managed to get the CAA to grant it, still baffles me.
Talkdownman, Hawkwind liked this
#1657048
Farnborough average daily flights (to November 2018) according to Eurocontrol:

82.2 movements/day for year to date vs 71.0 previous twelve months = 15.7% increase this year , of which Business Aviation was 73.9 movements a day vs. 66.1 in the previous 12 months, which was an 11.9% increase
#1657085
Freeflight wrote:Farnborough average daily flights (to November 2018) according to Eurocontrol:

82.2 movements/day for year to date vs 71.0 previous twelve months = 15.7% increase this year , of which Business Aviation was 73.9 movements a day vs. 66.1 in the previous 12 months, which was an 11.9% increase

Presumably that's an average for the 363 days per year Farnborough operates - local planning conditions prohibit any flying at all on 25 and 26 Dec.
As I mentioned, weekday movements will be higher than that and weekend/PH movements lower due once again to a local planning condition.
#1657113
This does highlight an interesting point.

Are daily movements averaged out over a year of any use?

Should airspace be designed to average traffic levels, which at a ‘peaky’ airport might actually never happen, or to the ‘rush hour’? Or 95 percentile? 90th?
#1657181
GonzoEGLL wrote:This does highlight an interesting point.

Are daily movements averaged out over a year of any use?

Should airspace be designed to average traffic levels, which at a ‘peaky’ airport might actually never happen, or to the ‘rush hour’? Or 95 percentile? 90th?

Should the Heathrow CTR be the size and shape that it is nowadays considering it was originally designed when runway 05/23 was available and the aircraft commonly in use were slow climbers like Constellations, Stratocruisers and Deux Ponts? :twisted:
#1657195
But, until Northolt is closed and a number of other instrument procedures were removed or redrawn, yes it should remain as is.
#1657434
GonzoEGLL wrote:This does highlight an interesting point.

Are daily movements averaged out over a year of any use?

Should airspace be designed to average traffic levels, which at a ‘peaky’ airport might actually never happen, or to the ‘rush hour’? Or 95 percentile? 90th?


That would be interesting.... CAS for the peaky 'rush hour', reverting to class G at other times.
A more scheduled version of when they do adhoc Notam Tempo Class D for some flights.

Does the peaky rush hour coincide with the peaky rush hours that congest the roads?
#1657449
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:This does highlight an interesting point.

Are daily movements averaged out over a year of any use?

Should airspace be designed to average traffic levels, which at a ‘peaky’ airport might actually never happen, or to the ‘rush hour’? Or 95 percentile? 90th?


That would be interesting.... CAS for the peaky 'rush hour', reverting to class G at other times.
A more scheduled version of when they do adhoc Notam Tempo Class D for some flights.

Does the peaky rush hour coincide with the peaky rush hours that congest the roads?


Interesting.....I meant to what traffic levels should airspace be permanently designed? I think taking Flexible Use of Airspace concept to CTR level hour by hour might be a step too far in terms of complexity for pilots to cope with, new ring in mind we already have many complaints about complex airspace.

Those NOTAMed CAS-T areas already cause plenty of problems
#1657462
GonzoEGLL wrote:
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:This does highlight an interesting point.

Are daily movements averaged out over a year of any use?

Should airspace be designed to average traffic levels, which at a ‘peaky’ airport might actually never happen, or to the ‘rush hour’? Or 95 percentile? 90th?


That would be interesting.... CAS for the peaky 'rush hour', reverting to class G at other times.
A more scheduled version of when they do adhoc Notam Tempo Class D for some flights.

Does the peaky rush hour coincide with the peaky rush hours that congest the roads?


Interesting.....I meant to what traffic levels should airspace be permanently designed? I think taking Flexible Use of Airspace concept to CTR level hour by hour might be a step too far in terms of complexity for pilots to cope with, new ring in mind we already have many complaints about complex airspace.

Those NOTAMed CAS-T areas already cause plenty of problems


There is a concept used frequently in Europe that Airspace is active when ATC is there, and reverts to Class G when they arent. This often goes hand in hand with the concept of the airport being A/A when the controller isnt there. What happens is that you call up on the frequency as if it was Controlled airspace. You try a couple of times and after no reply, you self announce your intentions on that frequency. Its not a difficult concept so Im sure even the dumbest of pilots would understand it. But of course in the UK the concept of an airport never closing and pilots being able to "just get on with it" is hard for those in authority to understand.

Regards, SD..
gasman, Awful Charlie, T67M liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1657471
skydriller wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:
That would be interesting.... CAS for the peaky 'rush hour', reverting to class G at other times.
A more scheduled version of when they do adhoc Notam Tempo Class D for some flights.

Does the peaky rush hour coincide with the peaky rush hours that congest the roads?


Interesting.....I meant to what traffic levels should airspace be permanently designed? I think taking Flexible Use of Airspace concept to CTR level hour by hour might be a step too far in terms of complexity for pilots to cope with, new ring in mind we already have many complaints about complex airspace.

Those NOTAMed CAS-T areas already cause plenty of problems


There is a concept used frequently in Europe that Airspace is active when ATC is there, and reverts to Class G when they arent. This often goes hand in hand with the concept of the airport being A/A when the controller isnt there. What happens is that you call up on the frequency as if it was Controlled airspace. You try a couple of times and after no reply, you self announce your intentions on that frequency. Its not a difficult concept so Im sure even the dumbest of pilots would understand it. But of course in the UK the concept of an airport never closing and pilots being able to "just get on with it" is hard for those in authority to understand.

Regards, SD..


Southampton is in the UK, last time I checked.
#1657491
skydriller wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:
That would be interesting.... CAS for the peaky 'rush hour', reverting to class G at other times.
A more scheduled version of when they do adhoc Notam Tempo Class D for some flights.

Does the peaky rush hour coincide with the peaky rush hours that congest the roads?


Interesting.....I meant to what traffic levels should airspace be permanently designed? I think taking Flexible Use of Airspace concept to CTR level hour by hour might be a step too far in terms of complexity for pilots to cope with, new ring in mind we already have many complaints about complex airspace.

Those NOTAMed CAS-T areas already cause plenty of problems


There is a concept used frequently in Europe that Airspace is active when ATC is there, and reverts to Class G when they arent. This often goes hand in hand with the concept of the airport being A/A when the controller isnt there. What happens is that you call up on the frequency as if it was Controlled airspace. You try a couple of times and after no reply, you self announce your intentions on that frequency. Its not a difficult concept so Im sure even the dumbest of pilots would understand it. But of course in the UK the concept of an airport never closing and pilots being able to "just get on with it" is hard for those in authority to understand.

Regards, SD..


Having a CTR exist during notified hours of ops as published in the AIP is significantly different to having differing airspace designs based on times of day, that might change four or five times a day.
#1657499
GonzoEGLL wrote:[
Having a CTR exist during notified hours of ops as published in the AIP is significantly different to having differing airspace designs based on times of day, that might change four or five times a day.


Im pretty sure that Toulouse has 2 different Airspace designs which are triggered on/off depending upon activity. I believe its an Hours of Operation type thing as with the more common CTR activation idea though, not randomly on/off. I would need to check for details, but then as its France, the joined up FIS makes it easy for pilots.

I am a big believer that Airspace should be Class G when ATC are not there to manage it. NO ATC, NO controlled airspace.

Regards, SD..
#1657521
I am a big believer that Airspace should be Class G when ATC are not there to manage it. NO ATC, NO controlled airspace.


Yes. I'm not aware of any civilian aerodromes who's airspace remains active after their unit has closed.

Some military ATZs remain active though.