Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1845877
chevvron wrote:..Bletchley - Bicester section of the Cambridge to Oxford line ...


<history nerd drift :oops: >

the existence of the line was a significant factor for the choice in the '30s of Bletchley Park (serendipitously up for sale at the time) as the designated wartime evacuation site of the London-based GC&CS. Nearby Bletchley Junction not only meant good communications (people, freight, and - most importantly - trackside cables) N S E and W, but also plausible 'cover' for well-known faces eg academics seen catching trains at Cambridge and Oxford; those who recognised them at either might be expected to assume that they were going to the other. Analogously, those leaving London on the relevant Mainline might be assumed to be going further North. The 'GCHQ' designation was first used only as a wartime 'cover receiving address' for rail parcels and light freight arriving at the Junction; 'GC&CS' remained the official designator of the Department (with HQs in London) until 1946.

BP was first used, temporarily, as a contingency evacuation site during the Munich crisis of 1938.

</>

Back to aviation: On flights from Staverton to places like Old Warden, Henlow etc and beyond, I liked using Little Horwood as a useful Waypoint between Upper Heyford and Woburn, as a point to start or stop talking to Cranfield. When I got my first (hiker's, not aviation) GPS, it was one of the first WPs I entered into its database. Occasionally weather meant that I was flying (legally, of course :wink: ) not that much above 400' agl ..
Rob P, Dave W, nallen and 4 others liked this
#1846180
johnm wrote:Both military and civil DAs and TDAs are popping up all over the place.


And here’s another proposed drone TDA, in respect of which the CAA-supervised change sponsor’s “targeted engagement” has so far been blind to the existence of two nearby aerodromes clearly marked on CAA/NATS charts, and to stakeholders such as the local gliding club and a local seaplane training organisation.

https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Public ... ea?pID=265

Can someone with a sharper mind and deeper knowledge of ATC hardware hazard a guess as to the wisdom of establishing a TDA in a block of airspace which, for topographical reasons, is practically devoid of ATC/FIS radio and radar coverage?

My opinion: BLOS UAVs are here to stay; they are airspace users like any other and should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as light and recreational GA.

Surely a proactive 21st century airspace regulator like the UK CAA can devise ways for us to share airspace with BLOS UAVs reasonably safely (i.e. such that risk of collision is, at worst, comparable with other risks commonly accepted by GA participants OCAS?

The current policy of exclusion and separation by TDAs is a hopelessly blunt instrument. It’s a recipe for strife which benefits nobody as we squabble over airspace. And for the drone operators, the airspace change process must be like wading through treacle. The UK can surely do better.
townleyc liked this
#1846207
kanga wrote:
chevvron wrote:..Bletchley - Bicester section of the Cambridge to Oxford line ...


<history nerd drift :oops: >

the existence of the line was a significant factor for the choice in the '30s of Bletchley Park (serendipitously up for sale at the time) as the designated wartime evacuation site of the London-based GC&CS. Nearby Bletchley Junction not only meant good communications (people, freight, and - most importantly - trackside cables) N S E and W, but also plausible 'cover' for well-known faces eg academics seen catching trains at Cambridge and Oxford; those who recognised them at either might be expected to assume that they were going to the other. Analogously, those leaving London on the relevant Mainline might be assumed to be going further North. The 'GCHQ' designation was first used only as a wartime 'cover receiving address' for rail parcels and light freight arriving at the Junction; 'GC&CS' remained the official designator of the Department (with HQs in London) until 1946.

BP was first used, temporarily, as a contingency evacuation site during the Munich crisis of 1938.

</>

Didn't someone try to establish an air service between Oxford and Cambridge back in the '70s or '80s using Navajos?
#1846218
N-Jacko wrote:Surely a proactive 21st century airspace regulator like the UK CAA can devise ways for us to share airspace with BLOS UAVs reasonably safely (i.e. such that risk of collision is, at worst, comparable with other risks commonly accepted by GA participants OCAS?


The problem I have with BVLOS drone ops is that the drone operator is not at risk himself, only others he shares the skies with. The day that drones are approved for use in controlled airspace with CAT will be the day that they are safe for use in uncontrolled airspace. Until then they will need segregating.

Regards, SD..
AshleyFlynn23 liked this
#1846223
Since drones flying in 'GA air' (in height agl or horizontally) within or (especially) beyond LoS have to replace 'see and avoid' with 'sense and avoid', I reckon it is incumbent on the drone operator to lay all the responsibilty for both 'sense' and 'avoid' on the technology within the drone itself. I'd like to see trials involving a crewed GA type emitting any of the established EC signals (Mode A/C/S, Flarm, PA, ADSB, .. perhaps even VHF airband voice) flying towards a drone from various aspects, vertical and horizontal, on a planned course via waypoints, so turning/climbing/descending as well as S&L, and ensuring that the drone autonomously senses the emission and takes necessary avoiding action. I'm not volunteering to fly such an 'intercept', though :?

If this means that the drone airframe must be modified to include multiple sensors so as to assess (through baseline) position, track and threat status of the approaching emitter, with consequent cost and weight penalty, so be it.
Shoestring Flyer, Stampe, Rob P and 1 others liked this
#1846252
N-Jacko wrote:Surely a proactive 21st century airspace regulator like the UK CAA can devise ways for us to share airspace with BLOS UAVs reasonably safely (i.e. such that risk of collision is, at worst, comparable with other risks commonly accepted by GA participants OCAS?


That would require assessing risks and making decisions.

At the moment we have CAP 1861 which basically says that they are thinking about it.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1846260
CloudHound wrote:In Europe the word is U-Space.

It will be segregated airspace to allow UAS in various forms to operate unrestricted. Control will be by a USSP U-Space Service Provider and importantly for us access will require some form of conspicuity emitting device.


Plus a flight plan. Unsustainable IMHO, at the present level of demand for BVLOS ops, which is why we need to keep working to understand how we integrate rather than segregate.