Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1658448
I mean, if we are all conspicuous and identified where is the need for controlled airspace?


You'll still need it in busier areas - yes, busier than the visual circuit or instrument procedure will allow. Otherwise it'll be complete chaos if we all tried to all negotiate with each other to land onto a runway. Factor in different aircraft performance, mixed IFR and VFR operations, wake turbulence, changing weather, changing runway, someone shouts for help, etc.

You get the picture..

Someone's still going to need to sort us all out and keep the airspace and runway usage optimised.
Last edited by James Chan on Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1658684
rf3flyer wrote:Well, since it's a consultation I trust we will all make our opinions known to the CAA. I also trust that whatever GA organisation we belong to AOPA, BGA, LAA, BMAA, will be pressed to lobby for the benefit of their membership...
.


And, of course, that everyone involved in or caring about GA in any or all aspects will or will have already joined at least one of these organisations. They need our subscriptions to fund effective lobbying including responses to these consultations, and member numbers to mention to MPs. After all, most of those involved in GA in UK are UK citizens of voting age .. :)
joe-fbs liked this
#1658702
Dave Phillips wrote:You know, about 115 years ago a couple of bicycle builders defied gravity with a powered aircraft. The world marvelled at their technological achievement. Hmmm.

And at the time, they probably had their nay-sayers, but nothing to match the downright negativity one encounters on this forum, usually from the same bunch of ‘dementors’.

It’s depressing; one wonders why some people bother to get up in the morning. :roll:
PaulB, G-BLEW, Dave Phillips and 2 others liked this
#1658747
:lol:
GrahamB wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:You know, about 115 years ago a couple of bicycle builders defied gravity with a powered aircraft. The world marvelled at their technological achievement. Hmmm.

And at the time, they probably had their nay-sayers, but nothing to match the downright negativity one encounters on this forum, usually from the same bunch of ‘dementors’.

It’s depressing; one wonders why some people bother to get up in the morning. :roll:


:lol: :lol:
#1658806
There is one reason for mandating EC and one reason alone, to suggest it is to reduce mid-air collisions or to allow for better utilisation of airspace is disingenuous at best. Those who want to operate unmanned aerial vehicles of all kinds have more money than we do so they will get what they want and we will be mandated to take steps to allow that to happen.