Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1744271
Insert usual reminder here that there are around 60 ANSPs licenced in the uk, so it’s not really fair to only say ‘CAA/NATS’ alone, let alone as if it’s one body.

Plus of course any CTRs are the responsibility of the airport in terms of airspace change, not the ANSP.
Last edited by GonzoEGLL on Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1744274
seek to ensure that the amount of controlled airspace is the minimum required to maintain a high standard of air safety


I'm not sure what this means. If it means "minimum volume" ....

Then the problem of "minimum volume" is that we'd get over complex boundaries, intensively utilised airspace leading to denial of transits, over-classification (e.g. Class A) from the intensive utilisation, and infringements. All sat next to Class G.

We need to share airspace with everyone else better, and not just to look for every corner we could ever possibly cut.
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1744275
GonzoEGLL wrote:Plus of course any CTRs are the responsibility of the airport in terms of airspace change, not the ANSP.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

The applicant applies, the Regulator decides. Holistic and efficient deployment of airspace is not the responsibility of individual applicants; how could it be?

Part of the difficulty recently around the Cotswolds appears to have been due to separate applications from Brize and Oxford. One can possibly see why each considers their own patch and applies accordingly. It is the Regulator who should be in a position to tell applicants to play together before applications enter the public domain; that doesn't seem to happen as one might wish.
G-BLEW, kanga liked this
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1744277
Dave W wrote:
GonzoEGLL wrote:Plus of course any CTRs are the responsibility of the airport in terms of airspace change, not the ANSP.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

The applicant applies, the Regulator decides. Holistic and efficient deployment of airspace is not the responsibility of individual applicants; how could it be?

Part of the difficulty recently around the Cotswolds appears to have been due to separate applications from Brize and Oxford. One can possibly see why each considers their own patch and applies accordingly. It is the Regulator who should be in a position to tell applicants to play together before applications enter the public domain; that doesn't seem to happen as one might wish.


Sorry, don’t get the ‘Lord Copper’ reference.

My point was, both here and in other threads, that NATS/CAA is often referred to as one body. They are not, quite the opposite. And often, posters use the terms ATC and NATS interchangeably.
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1744278
An extreme analogy of GA trying to find corners of airspace to cut is a bit like a model aeroplane or drone flyer who observes that the traffic pattern at your home aerodrome is rectangular and at 1000ft AGL.

They then apply to shave off the lower 500ft because it is almost never "used". And apply to make the ATZ circle rectangular because the pattern isn't circular. They then get various stepped bases and an asymmetric ATZ below the downwind part of the pattern so they can "freely" fly their drone there non-radio......

:D

I don't deny there's older airspace drawn up in the 60s and 70s that was once full of airline traffic that could be reclassified to something lower.

But I would not simply aim to kill off volumes of CAS. One day if you fly IFR, or if you're carrying your family and friends on a Cessna Caravan touring flight, then it may even come in useful - particularly with joined-up ATS.
Last edited by James Chan on Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1744279
Sorry @GonzoEGLL - obscure reference to Waugh's novel Scoop. Family thing - I used it without thinking.

Lord Copper, the newspaper magnate, has been said to be an amalgam of Lord Northcliffe and Lord Beaverbrook: a character so fearsome that his obsequious foreign editor, Mr Salter, can never openly disagree with him, answering "Definitely, Lord Copper" and "Up to a point, Lord Copper" in place of "yes" or "no".
GonzoEGLL, kanga liked this
By IMCR
#1744282
G-BLEW - that is a damn fine article that goes right to the heart of the matter.

I have to say though I am in totally despair.

What I find so troubling is with such a good article (and various discussions recently on other nonesensical posturing by the CAA) we, as a body of pilots, would far rather argue and debate the detail, justify some of the CAA's actions and generally argue amoung ourselves, but cant find it within us, to present a united face.

Sometimes it isnt the detail that matters, but whether the direction in which things are going, and whether in our heart of hearts, we want the consequences that will ensue for GA.

Personally I think we are moving towards a regime in which GA is tolerated (just), but is seen as all a bit of a nuisance.

.. .. but then I have largely given up because as I say I despair at how ununited we have become, and suspect what ever happens we have brought the consequence upon ourselves.
T67M liked this
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1744283
I think there is another actor in all this, the local community.

Low level airspace changes, for example reducing the footprint of a CTR, would be resisted by those who were inside but now just outside the proposed design, very strongly. I think this would be the strongest voice in any consultation, especially where the CAS footprint is being reduced.
By PaulB
#1744294
Why is airspace granted? Is it there to protect people who live in large houses from have pesky light aircraft overhead?
User avatar
By G-BLEW
Boss Man  Boss Man
#1744304
IMCR wrote:G-BLEW - that is a damn fine article that goes right to the heart of the matter.

I have to say though I am in totally despair.

What I find so troubling is with such a good article (and various discussions recently on other nonesensical posturing by the CAA) we, as a body of pilots, would far rather argue and debate the detail, justify some of the CAA's actions and generally argue amoung ourselves, but cant find it within us, to present a united face.


Thanks. Obviously I feel very strongly about the quality of this consultation, but I prefer to judge each CAA project individually. There are some very competent dedicated people at the CAA who work very hard for the genuine benefit of General Aviation, and I'm positive about much of their output. As I have said elsewhere, it's not black and white, but many shades of grey.

Anyway, I hope to get a reply soon, but right now I need to start working on my next column which revolves around ATZs!

Ian
kanga, Dave W, flybymike liked this
User avatar
By GonzoEGLL
#1744307
PaulB wrote:Why is airspace granted? Is it there to protect people who live in large houses from have pesky light aircraft overhead?


That’s not what I’m talking about.

We’ve seen it already, and even twelve years ago I’ve had to do lots of work on it in my day job.

You just have to look at the recent amendments to PPR (in this case planned and permanent redistribution) side of CAP1616.

Like it or not, people on the ground have a big say now in what changes with regard to what’s flying overhead, especially a lower levels. Someone who lives a mile or so inside the London CTR will take one look at Tim’s Skydemon heatmap and say ‘no chance’ to that amount of GA flying going over her/his house.

And being dismissive of them tends to make them shout more loudly.

So even if all aviation stakeholders could agree on an airspace change, but the local population are mobilised against it then I suggest it’s got a strong chance of not happening.
User avatar
By kanga
#1744308
James Chan wrote:..

We need to share airspace with everyone else better, and not just to look for every corner we could ever possibly cut.


With modern nav systems, when CAT and other IFR traffic is not now needing to go on constrained airways from waypoint to waypoint defined by fairly closely adjacent ground based beacons (Fan markers, Radio Ranges, NDBs, VORs...), it may well be the those IFR types whose operators may be wanting to 'cut corners' ..
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14