Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1709686
chevvron wrote:
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.


Because I got a relayed message from Farnborough asking me to wait and I'm polite and helpful, though it has happened more than once and I'm no longer in a mood to be helpful. I don't see why Farnborough IFR traffic should have any priority over Fairoaks or Blackbushe IFR traffic either.
#1709687
AND, Sealed off tight, top & bottom & sideways by Bagshot mast.

Of course if one risks a refusal when travelling North or South, to pass through what was the freeman's passage, & then finds one has to make a mighty westward detour over Lasham !

Remember 'our' free airspace is being increasing "enclosed", just as in the 1800's our Common Land was appropriated by rich local 'Lords' in "The Enclosures Acts".
Another prime example of power abuse - with perpetual effect !
Nick liked this
#1709689
mikehallam wrote:AND, Sealed off tight, top & bottom & sideways by Bagshot mast.

Of course if one risks a refusal when travelling North or South, to pass through what was the freeman's passage, & then finds one has to make a mighty westward detour over Lasham !

...or, maybe, request a VFR clearance from Heathrow to route Brooklands-M25-Thorpe-Ascot-towards WOD. Probably more likely than a Farnborough CTR transit...
Instructor Errant liked this
#1709693
mikehallam wrote:Of course if one risks a refusal when travelling North or South, to pass through what was the freeman's passage, & then finds one has to make a mighty westward detour over Lasham !


At least then there are no gliders over Lasham to worry about! ;-)

You are right in that it closely parallels the Enclosure Acts. A space previously open to all and owned by no-one, now closed off primarily for the commercial use of a particular person/entity with the odd token crumb tossed to the rest of us.
#1709695
johnm wrote:
chevvron wrote:
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.


Because I got a relayed message from Farnborough asking me to wait and I'm polite and helpful, though it has happened more than once and I'm no longer in a mood to be helpful. I don't see why Farnborough IFR traffic should have any priority over Fairoaks or Blackbushe IFR traffic either.

I'm a bit concerned this occured.
The procedure was agreed between Fairoaks and Farnborough specifically to avoid delays to VFR departures from runway 24; I can only assume Farnborough, with their fixation they MUST provide 1,000ft vertical separation to their IFR traffic, had an inbound which was lower than normal and wished to avoid a TCAS RA.
If you feel strongly enough about this, I suggest you ask Alastair why it happened.
#1709698
defcribed wrote:
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'?

It's in an LoA specifically devised to avoid delays to Fairoaks VFR departures and as such, it's in the 'conditions of use' for aircraft operating to/from Fairoaks.
Please read my reply to johnm.
#1709712
chevvron wrote:
defcribed wrote:
chevvron wrote:


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

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

It's in an LoA specifically devised to avoid delays to Fairoaks VFR departures and as such, it's in the 'conditions of use' for aircraft operating to/from Fairoaks.
Please read my reply to johnm.


Yes, so approaching or departing Fairoaks is contingent upon accepting an altitude restriction in Class G airspace for the convenience of Farnborough's commercial traffic. Thus, Class G airspace where Farnborough has priority - as I said.
Talkdownman liked this
#1709983
FlarePath wrote:This decision may put off a few who were going to buy a house on the new "Fairoaks Council Estate" Sorry "Garden Village" how will the Class D affect all the helicopter movements on the new helipad, that as the developers say, "will keep an aviation presence at the "old airfield"? :wall:

If it ever happens, Farnborough Class D will have a base of 1,500ft south of Fairoaks thus the 'not above 1,400ft' will become the norm.
#1709989
It wasn't a really serious question... Its called sarcasm, :D when Fairoaks becomes a housing estate myself and many others including those who now work there wont give a hoot about Farnboroughs airspace south of the "historic" airfield known as Fairoaks.

I would rather have Farnboroughs Class "D" with Fairoaks than no Farnborough Class D with no Fairoaks. though...
#1709991
FlarePath wrote:It wasn't a really serious question... Its called sarcasm, :D when Fairoaks becomes a housing estate myself and many others including those who now work there wont give a hoot about Farnboroughs airspace south of the "historic" airfield known as Fairoaks.

I would rather have Farnboroughs Class "D" with Fairoaks than no Farnborough Class D with no Fairoaks. though...

We'd all like Fairoaks to remain as an airfield (Dunsfold too)
Nothing new on the 'nofairoaksnewtown' website regarding the planning application so I don't know what is happening; I thought it was supposed to be 'sorted' by the end of June.
I'm not working there at the moment so my grapevine has dried up as I'm not getting updates.