[G-BLEW]

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

Did you get the dreaded "Standby"?

No, but I am waiting for the answer to a couple of questions and the results from an FOI application.

Ian

[James Chan]

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' ..

That is true. Some ideas I've always liked to have:

- Introduce Free Route Airspace in most lower airspace by replacing most Class A/C/G ATS routes with Class E "everywhere" .
- Mandate ADS-B Out (or equivalent) around busier terminal areas and some busier regional airports.
- Reclassify most parts of the Manchester and London TMAs and surrounding CTAs to Class C, and add new higher altitude VFR+IFR transit routes.
- Compact existing Class D CTR's to make them look more similar to MATZ's joining a Class C, D or E CTA over the top.
- Add noise monitoring/restrictions from the "released" airspace to alleviate concerns of the local community.
- Airspace to be reviewed regularly depending on traffic flows. They go up an airspace class where needed, and down an airspace class when no longer needed.

[T67M]

@James Chan please don't be so sensible! That sounds almost like the airspace design principles for the USA, and we know how dangerous and unprofessional they are! Rules as sensible as that could never work in the UK where we have special needs and unique laws of physics

[Paul_Sengupta]

that could never work in the UK where we have special needs and unique laws of physics

We also have far fewer airliner/GA collisions...

[James Chan]

We also have far fewer airliner/GA collisions...

That's because we also have far less movements.

The ratio of movements to collisions is probably more important.

[Paul_Sengupta]

That's because we also have far less movements.

I'm not sure we do. If you look at GA traffic density plus airliner density in the south/south-east of England compared with the traffic density and airliner density in some of the busiest regions of the US, I'd bet in terms of traffic density there wouldn't be much in it.

[James Chan]

I'm not sure we do

I'm 100% certain that the UK has far less annual movements than the entire USA. Unfortunately I don't have time to find the stats.

[Paul_Sengupta]

Density, lad, density!

Though not density altitude....

[PaulB]

I'm not sure we do

I'm 100% certain that the UK has far less annual movements than the entire USA. Unfortunately I don't have time to find the stats.

You don't need to find the stats, that is stating the obvious.... The US also has 5 x the population and 40 times the area of the UK. It's not even Apples and Pears.....

[Mike Tango]

Most importantly the USA has space available and runways, shedloads. Availability, or lack, of space and concrete is what ultimately drives everything relevant.

[Mike Tango]

p.s. @James Chan you oft say you want or should be able to fly into places like LHR as you can do similar in States.

Fine, come back when LHR has runways three and four available and isn’t operating the two it has at the moment at effectively 100%

Concrete = easy access.

[James Chan]

fly into places like LHR

Errr not quite. LHR and LGW are at 98-99% planning capacity. No other airports in the UK have this level of utilisation.

I like to talk about like for like.

Even Stansted’s off peak hours with similar runway utilisation costs shed loads more than La Guardia off peak.

And LCY’s runway sits half empty throughout the week, yet has very severe restrictions on private flights even if they turned around quickly.

It’s about reasonable concrete sharing and general priority given to whoever really needs the full length of the runway more than anything else.

[xtophe]

Less than a week to go to contribute to that consultation.

[G-BLEW]

I wrote to the CAA's CEO Richard Moriarty on this subject.

Dear Mr Moriarty

I am writing to you to ask you to consider recalling and re-issuing the current CAA Airspace Classification review 2019-2020. This is the review that resulted from a letter sent to the CAA by the Secretary of State for Transport last year.

In my opinion there are serious shortcomings that devalue the process. The maps provided are unusable, and the process outlined appears to have been designed to result in a long and presumably expensive process that will result in anything but a re-classification of any airspace.

I’m afraid I have been rather more blunt in my column on page 25 of this month’s Flyer Magazine which I have enclosed.


Yours sincerely





Ian Seager
cc Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport

This is his reply

Dear Ian
Thank you for your letter of 17 January outlining your thoughts on the CAA’s Airspace
Classification Review consultation 2019 – 2020. My apologies for not replying sooner, though
I do know that you discussed this issue with Rachel Gardner-Poole as part of her interview for
Flyer magazine.
As you are aware, at the end of October last year the Secretary of State amended the 2017 Air
Navigation Directions. These gave the CAA a new role in how airspace is classified. The
Directions, which come into force on 1 April 2020, set the timeline within which to develop,
consult-on and publish, a procedure to enable us to regularly consider reviewing the
classification of airspace, and make amendments that better reflect the needs of all airspace
users, in line with appropriate safety and security requirements. With that timeline in mind, on
receiving the new Directions, we took the decision to start the process early by conducting an
immediate review, which included engaging stakeholders in this initial consultation to
determine priority opportunities.
I appreciate that you feel the images supplied to support our consultation fail to provide
adequate information to enable an informed response, but we were keen to publish a single
and simple evidence base to assist respondents in identifying volumes of airspace for the
review. Whilst there is no perfect data set, NATS’ radar data offered the best coverage over
the UK and is factually accurate. The images are ‘snapshots’, in time, height and region and
are designed to be a starting point for further analysis and discussion. As outlined in the
consultation text, we would very much welcome respondents to the consultation to either
share with us, or recommend we review, additional evidence to support their identified
opportunity.

Further steps will need to be taken to determine opportunities for improving any volume short-
listed for further consideration. This will involve significant additional evidence gathering and

analysis in the areas of service provision, traffic, safety, access, containment, and policy, as
well as reviewing responses to this consultation to identify volumes of airspace highlighted by
respondents that can, or cannot, be safely amended. I’m sorry if our consultation gave you the
impression that the images were our only source of information. That was not our intention.
Reviewing UK airspace structures is a complex activity and, in an effort, to encourage full
engagement, we held four stakeholder events in January, from which we have received
positive feedback. These events allowed us to explain in more detail the background and
purpose of the review and how we plan to carry out the work. We were also able to provide
more information on the images supplied and how they might be used to inform responses.

Civil Aviation Authority
Head Office: Aviation House, Beehive Ring Road, Crawley, West Sussex, RH6 0YR
London Office: 11 Westferry Circus, London, E14 4HD
www.caa.co.uk
The first of these events was in the form of an open information session, followed by three
roundtable discussions with airspace users, at which attendees were invited to present any
additional evidence and engage in a focussed conversation on what they feel the review
needs to achieve and how we might work together to deliver that desired outcome.
This initial consultation is just the first step in creating a new long-term regulatory function for
the CAA to undertake a regular review of airspace classifications and amend them. The new
procedure for undertaking future reviews and making classification amendments will be
subject to public consultation later this year. We would very much welcome your response to
that consultation. You suggested in your article that the review process will be lengthy and
expensive. I sincerely hope it won’t as we aim to write a proportionate procedure, while
making sure all the essential requirements that we must meet are covered. We must develop
a rigorous evidence base about the impacts of any classification amendments, and we must
consult airspace users before we make the amendments. These tasks are necessary not just
because the policy and legal framework require them, but because it is essential that those
flying and those overflown are kept safe.
I hope this has given you some assurance. Finally, there were a few misunderstandings in
your article regarding the changes to the Air Navigation Directions and our role. If it would help
I could put you in touch with one of our policy experts who would be happy to the policy, law
and the requirements of the new Directions in more detail.
Yours sincerely
Philip Clarke
Richard Moriarty
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Approved by the Chief Executive and signed in his absence

[CloudHound]

This sprang out.

and, in an effort, to encourage full
engagement, we held four stakeholder events in January, from which we have received
positive feedback.

First I've heard about these events. Does anyone know who attended?