Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1709661
This is a bad business all round. There is no safety case and it has been obvious for some time that Farnborough are simply seeking to prioritise their customer traffic in the area. I'm sure I'm not alone in being invited to hold at Fairoaks awaiting the equivalent of a release by Farnborough. I have generally been willing to co-operate and help them, but I think the only defence now is a blizzard of paper from refused transits, though whether that will do any good is open to debate. A big issue to be resolved is the overlap between the class D and Blackbushe circuit.

Definitely nothing good about this and yet another example of the shambles that is UK airspace design and ATC services.
#1709662
Dominie wrote:There really has got to be a process whereby airspace can be freed up, by changing the area, height or category. As I understand it, there isn't one at present and someone (was it Norwich?) was able to enlarge their airspace based on traffic predictions which didn't happen.


certainly sounds like Norwich! and a chunk of their traffic is offshore helicopters that didn't need CAS when they flew from North Denes and Beccles!
#1709665
johnm wrote:...I have generally been willing to co-operate and help them, but I think the only defence now is a blizzard of paper from refused transits, ............


I think that just has to be done, and a good date to have a mass "fly towards farnborough and call for a transit" event would be on the first day it becomes active.
#1709666
There really has got to be a process whereby airspace can be freed up, by changing the area, height or category. As I understand it, there isn't one at present and someone (was it Norwich?) was able to enlarge their airspace based on traffic predictions which didn't happen.


There are two mechanisms that exist today: Post Implementation Reviews https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/Download ... 4294972747
... which did release some airspace.

And also a Release of Controlled and Segregated Airspace in CAP1616: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... active.pdf (Page 26)
#1709670
If anyone wants to read the full judgment it is here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /2118.html

Roughly speaking, the judge held that the CAA's decision was within the boundaries of what the CAA was allowed to consider and decide. The barrier was high because the judge decided that airspace decisions are technical matters and therefore the CAA has "a high margin of appreciation". Put simply, the judge couldn't ask whether the CAA got it right or wrong, just whether this was within the range of permissible decisions (which was a wide range in this case).
ls8pilot, johnm, Dave W and 2 others liked this
#1709672
James Chan wrote:
There really has got to be a process whereby airspace can be freed up, by changing the area, height or category. As I understand it, there isn't one at present and someone (was it Norwich?) was able to enlarge their airspace based on traffic predictions which didn't happen.


There are two mechanisms that exist today: Post Implementation Reviews https://www.caa.co.uk/WorkArea/Download ... 4294972747
... which did release some airspace.

And also a Release of Controlled and Segregated Airspace in CAP1616: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CA ... active.pdf (Page 26)


My understanding is that in the case of Doncaster the CAA stated they had no powers to withdraw the airspace, even though the predicted traffic volumes were not reached (or anywhere near). AFAIK they suggested the BGA had to submit their own ACP to achieve the change. However my knowledge is 3rd hand so someone else may know the facts in detail.

A recommendation from Lord Kirkhope's report was:

4.5The CAA should have an independent review procedure, which must be undertaken after the implementation of an airspace change after 12 months and 3 years of a proposal being implemented. This review must look to match the criteria and reasoning given at the time of the change and look to see if this has been achieved, and if not, why not? The board must also have the power to revoke an airspace design change proposal.

The report also indicated the existing process does not work

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY POWERS.
7.1The Inquiry has identified a fundamental gap in the CAA’s airspace-related powers. At present, the CAA can rule on an application for airspace but has limited ability to directly adjust or materially change an ACP. Furthermore, it is severely limited in what it can do to force a change in previously granted airspace, for example, following a ‘Post Implementation Review’ (PIR). As a consequence, changes in UK airspace have mostly been in the direction of increasing volumes of controlled airspace, and rarely in the opposite direction, for example, following the closure of an airfield (e.g. Lyneham).
#1709677
profchrisreed wrote:If anyone wants to read the full judgment it is here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /2118.html

Roughly speaking, the judge held that the CAA's decision was within the boundaries of what the CAA was allowed to consider and decide. The barrier was high because the judge decided that airspace decisions are technical matters and therefore the CAA has "a high margin of appreciation". Put simply, the judge couldn't ask whether the CAA got it right or wrong, just whether this was within the range of permissible decisions (which was a wide range in this case).


As with any Judicial review the scope is quite narrow and has to focus on whether the CAA carried out the (old) ACP process correctly. It could not look at the issue of whether the original ACP was valid and justified.

However a lot has changed since the ACP was first submitted, we have a new Sec of Transport, new climate change objectives, the Lord Kirkhope report, the CAA Strategy on airspace has been published etc. So I have written to Grant Shapps to suggest that he should look at whether it is right to allow this implementation which goes against the published CAA Strategy for lower airpsace and the results of a report sponsored by an APPG of which he was chair.

I suggest anyone who feels the same does likewise - a simple email should suffice if we can get enough who knows. .....
chipmeisterc liked this
#1709678
johnm wrote:I'm sure I'm not alone in being invited to hold at Fairoaks awaiting the equivalent of a release by Farnborough. .

Why are you unable to accept the agreed procedure for VFR departures ie 'not above 1,400ft'?
IFR departures may be required to hold sometimes, but not VFR.
#1709683
Well, I sort of expected this outcome to be the case and would have been surprised if any party managed to prove the CAA did not follow the process correctly.

But that is not to say the law is fit for purpose today.

I still believe legislation around aerodromes and their accessibility as a network need to be considerably strengthened.

Then airspace will naturally follow.
#1709684
oakworth wrote:The BGA are running an ACP to reduce the Class D at Doncaster.


The CAA’s Post Implementation Review into Doncaster’s Class D airspace was published in 2017 (8 years late!).

The CAA acknowledged that the implementation process was correctly followed.

However the CAA recommended (but could not enforce) that the controlled airspace be reduced as it was excessive : Doncaster have refused to comply.

I wish the BGA success with their ACP.
ls8pilot liked this
#1709685
chevvron wrote:
johnm wrote:Why are you unable to accept the agreed procedure for VFR departures ie 'not above 1,400ft'?
IFR departures may be required to hold sometimes, but not VFR.


Why should he though? It's Class G airspace.

Or is it special 'Class G airspace with right of way to Farnborough traffic'?
Talkdownman liked this