[PaulB]

Seeing as we’re not allowed things beginning with the letter B, we’ll have to talk about Leeds/Bradford’s proposal to “.... increase the volume of existing Class D Controlled Airspace, using a combination of CTRs and CTAs, to ensure the continued protection of flying operations at LBA, whilst facilitating access for other airspace users.”


All 78 pages here (less the redacted bits)


https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Accordion/Standard_Content/Commercial/Airspace/Airspace_Change/70818%20040%20xLBA%20ACP%20Proposal%20Document%20Issue%201%20(For%20Release)%20REDACTED.pdf

[rikur_]

URL that works: https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Accordion/Standard_Content/Commercial/Airspace/Airspace_Change/70818%20040%20LBA%20ACP%20Proposal%20Document%20Issue%201%20(For%20Release)%20redacted.pdf

[PaulB]

URL that works: https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/CAA/Content/Accordion/Standard_Content/Commercial/Airspace/Airspace_Change/70818%20040%20LBA%20ACP%20Proposal%20Document%20Issue%201%20(For%20Release)%20redacted.pdf

Thx. The standard link decoder clearly doesn’t like parentheses. I’ve put the original in [url] tags now so it works as well.

[James Chan]

I'm pleased they've simplified the CTA base levels.

Fig.7 on Page 24 initially looked over-complicated, but table 6.2.3 explains the base levels for each area, with paragraph 8.3 on Page 32 stating:

When considering the base of the proposed airspace only, the airspace is less complex as a number of the base levels are aligned, and the proposed airspace has only been further subdivided to be coincidental with the airspace already in place above it

[2Donkeys]

There is something vaguely comical about the way in which the document refers to the need to consider airspace interactions with neighbouring Durham Tees Valley and Doncaster Robin Hood International.

Those interactions must be mostly theoretical since, despite the size of their zones, neither really has the traffic volume to justify much more than an ATZ,

[rikur_]

I'll need to read a few times to work it all out - but not as bad as it was (at least the base doesn't bob up and down by time of day!!)

My big concern is around the south where you have high terrain, emley moor mast(s), avoiding built up areas, avoiding Burn's winch, you start threading a lot of GA through some quite narrow areas.

I fly with one of the Leeds ATCOs and there's a suggestion that it would be easier to facilitate zone transits with a bigger zone, as the the current zone doesn't give much option for tactical traffic, and current procedures require a lot of ATC intervention, therefore controller time.

I'm guessing it's unrealistic, but if there was one concession I'd want it is a LARS service ... Linton will be shut in 12 months, and threading traffic through a small gap in murky Yorkshire weather, I'd like a Traffic service please. (nb: it might be that Doncaster might be better placed to provide this than Leeds )

[rikur_]

There is something vaguely comical about the way in which the document refers to the need to consider airspace interactions with neighbouring Durham Tees Valley and Doncaster Robin Hood International.

Those interactions must be mostly theoretical since, despite the size of their zones, neither really has the traffic volume to justify much more than an ATZ,

I don't think the Doncaster interaction is theoretical. I've often wondered the opposite, whether you could combine Leeds/Doncaster control zones and better integrate the procedures, holds, etc. and need less airspace as a result. Won't happen for many reasons.

I'm fairly sure I'm in a minority, but I actually quite like the Doncaster zone ... whilst most people seem to route round it, I just take an IFR transit on the Gamston radial and enjoy a bit of peace, or watch an Easybus doing circuits. It might be unnecessarily large, but IMHO I can't complain how it's managed.

[2Donkeys]

As a 90% IFR flyer, I have no complaint against controlled airspace - in fact, I would like the bases to be lower because in many cases, advantageous routings are unavailable without pressurisation.

But in relation to the Doncaster Zone, there clearly isn't the traffic volume to justify such a chunk of airspace, no matter how well it is managed.

[xtophe]

Sad to see that once again all the enclosures are redacted. So not possible to look at the safety assessments or to see how practical the proposed LoA are.

[gasman]

“8.7 Impact on VFR GA – Powered Aircraft
The GA community view additional CAS as an area from which they are prohibited to fly. This is not the case and LBA has made a concerted effort to visit local GA establishments to provide information about the best way to request access to the airspace.”

This statement by LBA will cause raised eyebrows amongst the local GA flyers who have given up trying to get a vfr crossing of the present CAS.

[James Chan]

Well I have never been unreasonably denied access in that part of the country.

They shouldn't give up asking.

To me, I won't be taking advantage of fuel/time saving routes if I have never asked, and it wouldn't help with airspace access matters either.

It's better to have a record of airspace refusals/delays (and follow investigations where appropriate) than not.

[rikur_]

Well I have never been unreasonably denied access in that part of the country.

They shouldn't give up asking.

The reason I largely 'give up asking' is that it fundamentally affects my route well before LBA airspace - if it's 25% likely to be declined, that's enough for me to route north of the CTA instead

[G-JWTP]

“8.7 Impact on VFR GA – Powered Aircraft

This statement by LBA will cause raised eyebrows amongst the local GA flyers who have given up trying to get a vfr crossing of the present CAS.

This is the reason that you have to fill out and send in the CAS denial form, I forget what it's called offhand.

Because when LBA come up with a sweeping statement it can be proved wrong ! ' Officially'.

A mass of completed forms and the CAA will be under pressure to solve it.

Airspace management by exclusion is not allowed.

G-JWTP.

[ak7274]

My Transits stand at less than 30%.
I now reply "zone transit refused at xxhrs" then report through the CAA link.

[CloudHound]

This change has been in development for quite some time, as evidenced in the documentation. I read this latest output as the next step in the process.

The one thing I can't find are any references on the CAA website. I wouldn't expect it to be on the new 1616 portal but there is a page still open on which all the legacy ACPs under CAP725 are listed.

Must be a glitch or my lack of typing skills, but all the supporting evidence leading up to date should be there.