Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1710045
Maybe if airfields were required to pay per cubic km of airspace they wanted they would be a bit less enthusiastic about grabbing and holding onto it!


That could mean everyone's landing fees would go up to pay for it. No thanks!
#1710175
Should cover what most of us need/use :D


If you go onto instrument flying, you might find a bit more airspace beneficial. :D
#1710177
gasman wrote:
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.


Sorry for the thread drift, but why could they not enforce it? What the **** is the point of a Post Implementation Review if any negative conclusions are unenforceable by the 'authority' and can just be ignored? That really does render the whole procedure a pointless whitewash......
#1710208
gasman wrote:
oakworth wrote:The BGA are running an ACP to reduce the Class D at Doncaster.

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


Could be my old eyes and slow brain, but I can’t find that particular CAA recommendation. They refer a couple of times to the fact that airspace design principles (particularly in relation to SIDS and STARS in Class G) have changed since the ACP, but ultimately conclude that the ACP ‘met its stated aims and that there are no requirements for modification’.
Cub liked this
#1710240
Agreed, Doncaster produced a report detailing options to change but stated that the existing airspace best met the stated aims of the ACP. This is detailed within the PIR (the annex report was outside the scope of the PIR, which is to evaluate whether the ACP as implemented had achieved the stated aims).

So are we agreeing that the suggestion that the CAA declared themselves unable to enforce a recommended change, is incorrect.
Cub liked this
#1710333
oakworth wrote:Agreed, Doncaster produced a report detailing options to change but stated that the existing airspace best met the stated aims of the ACP. This is detailed within the PIR (the annex report was outside the scope of the PIR, which is to evaluate whether the ACP as implemented had achieved the stated aims).

So are we agreeing that the suggestion that the CAA declared themselves unable to enforce a recommended change, is incorrect.

In the past, the CAA have taken away CAS from some airfields eg Blackpool, Southend, possibly Prestwick too, so they can do something if they wish.
#1710351
If I recall rightly Blackpool’s rule 36 airspace was removed in 1990 following the ICAO airspace reclassifications when all manner of changes were made. Even Heathrow and Manchester lost their rule 21 airspace.

An awful lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the last 30 years or so, and I seem to recall previous assertions that the CAA had limited authority for either implementing or removing airspace classifications, but I have no idea whether this is correct.
#1710357
flybymike wrote:... previous assertions that the CAA had limited authority for either implementing or removing airspace classifications...

APPG Lord Kirkhope Report
Lord Kirkhope wrote:7.1 The 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).
flybymike liked this
#1710400
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.

As an aside, there’s a good point in the PIR that is worth noting for anyone thinking of responding to an ACP consultation. Can’t remember, nor be bothered to find, the exact wording, but the point was that many of the letters the CAA received (from stakeholders), were more focussed on the ACP itself than the implementation. Having read all the Kirkhope evidence, the same applies with plenty focussing on complaint about ongoing ACP’s rather than the specifics of the inquiry.

As we were all told at school, read the question. I’ve been lucky (?) enough to read some ACP consultation responses. It’s amazing how many add little or nothing to the debate and are merely used as a vehicle for the writer to vent, abuse and threaten. Hopefully CAP 1616 will bring a more positive environment which in turn will help mend some fences between us (the GA community) and the CAA
Cub, James Chan liked this