Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Cub
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1854366
While perusing the upcoming mauve AICs, I noticed that a large lump of South Wales has been hived off for the ‘protection’ of an Air Race for a number of hours.

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/aip/current/misc/AIC/EG_Circ_2021_M_032_en.pdf

I am intrigued that we have managed to accommodated air racing in this country for many decades without the need for airspace segregation and the exclusion of other GA activities. I am left wondering what has changed?
#1854371
Cub wrote:...
I am intrigued that we have managed to accommodated air racing in this country for many decades without the need for airspace segregation and the exclusion of other GA activities. I am left wondering what has changed?


I think Popham had an air race several years ago and there was just a notam nav warning for it in much the same way as there is just a nav warning for a big glider competition.

What has changed is a lot of noise by a small number of pilots about risk of mid air collision.
Or maybe drones have nav software that keeps them out of RA(T) that are not for drone use?
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1854377
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Or maybe drones have nav software that keeps them out of RA(T) that are not for drone use?

Such geo-fencing can be applied to any defined airspace dimensions - there's no technical reason for UAVs that demands a RA(T) which will affect other airspace users.

This is not driven by drones. I suspect it is driven by bureaucratic risk aversion and simplistic thinking.
#1854378
The simple answer to the question posed in the thread title is no.

Still, at least it's not the previous day too.

Rob P
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1854386
Cub has raised a similar issue between Farnborough and Lee on Solent earlier this year.

This is what happens when the objective criteria for permitting RA(T)s are not clearly defined, or the goalposts have shifted.

CAS(T) would have been much better but I can only imagine nobody wants to do the job to clear someone through.

Then again, this is a small piece of airspace compared to the huge "permanent" volumes of Class A airspace in the London FIR.
User avatar
By Tim Dawson
SkyDemon developer
#1854392
Maybe there’s someone whose job it is to create RA(T)s, and they only feel like the job is being done if they’re making lots of them?
Rob P, rogerb liked this
#1854468
As I understand it, there is indeed a new (ex RAF) person at the helm for RAT establishment within the regulator.

So far, I have detected an unwillingness on their part to push back on any application for RATs particularly from "officialdom". Hence we seem to be getting more of the sort of thing highlighted by this thread.

A new definition of "proportionate" seems to be at work.

BEX
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1854486
It is interesting to note this current NOTAM - which is not a RA(T) but simply an "Exercises Scheduled" notification.

On the face of it similar to the activities around H'west, in that it is multiple low level manoeuvring aircraft - and in this case probably a much busier piece of airspace using aircraft that may likely have restricted cockpit fields of view.

FTAOD I'm not suggesting this one should be a RA(T) as well - just pointing out the apparent inconsistency.
BEX liked this