Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:21 pm #1710407
Bottom line, the PIR can lead to a change of airspace but it has to be shown that the ACP did not meet it’s stated objectives.
I don’t understand this sentence. In the context of CAS the stated objective must surely be “to control traffic in the designated area” and obviously the ACP will always meet this objective. Whether the justificationfor the original ACP (eg current or projected traffic volumes) has been met is clearly a different matter and must surely be relevant to any PIR. Is this consideration not allowed?
many of the letters the CAA received (from stakeholders), were more focussed on the ACP itself than the implementation
I don’t understand this either. The “implementation” of CAS simply means “bringing it into being” or does it mean something else? in this context. Letters would obviously be from those most affected; (stakeholders) what should they have been complaining about if not the justification for the original ACP in order to be heard?