[Rowans]

Just approved by the CAA subject to: "The Temporary Danger Area Complex is unavailable for activation if the Cloud Base is below 1500ft AMSL and the Visibility is less than 1500 meters."

https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/Public ... ea?pID=274

Interestingly the stakeholder engagement document shows that contact was attempted four times with both the LAA and BMAA but Skyports received no response.

[Stephen Slater]

Apparently they were repeatedly sending an e-mail to the wrong address. A pity they didn't look at our website, or even, pick up the phone?

It is noteworthy few other local stakeholders were even aware of this application, which still isn't shown on the CAA's ACP web portal, until we became involved in discussions on their latest ACP-099.

[Miscellaneous]

A cynic may conclude the failure to make contact with stakeholders is a deliberate act. The fact it appears to happen fairly often may just support that view.

Wouldn't be difficult to design a method of ensuring proper procedures had been followed.

[Lefty]

There does appear to be something untoward going on with respect to these drone TDA ACP’s.

Over the past week I have been delving into the detail of TDA from Oban - Glenforsa - Tobermory- Coll. In the company’s documentation they made reference to this ACP (2020-055) and were using the results of their consultation on this one as a justification for their proposal for the Oban - Tobermory- Coll TDA.

However when I tried to look up ACP 2020-055 on the CAA ACP Portal, it just wasn’t there. I tried numerous searches using the ACP number, the Sponsor’s name, the name of the ACP, but it was never found by the CAA’s search engine. Next, I did a search on Google, and the only results were from the company’s own website (Skysport).

On Sunday evening (30/1/21), I submitted my letter of objection to ACP2020-099, the Oban - Tobermory - Coll TDA. I was quite surprised that responses had to be submitted to Skysport - and not to the CAA. The CAA’s ACP portal doesn’t even have a facility to upload your objection to the CAA. It goes direct to the sponsor, and the CAA seem to work solely on what the sponsor chooses to share with them.

At the very least, it doesn’t look as if the CAA are doing a full and impartial investigation and assessment of all the factors relating to the ACP.

[CloudHound]

I found it straight away https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/PublicProposalArea?pID=274

There's a - between ACP and the year often gets forgotten.

[Lefty]

I accept that it is there now, but I don’t think it was there at the weekend.

I was searching for three / four other ACP’s
that have been submitted by Skyport Ltd, which should have shown up even if I had missed a “-“.

[Stampe]

Drone trial sponsored by U.K. space agency which is effectively now part of the CAA.Hence no independent supervision of the the already heavily biased ACP. Given that by its very name (temporary danger area) this is a dangerous drone (no airworthiness standards applied) operation to which the overflown public are subjected. Now imagine the furore that will be created should a member of the public be harmed or worse after such a rubber stamped process.M.Sc Degrees in Air Safety Management home studied at the regulator cost £23k to the public purse (you and me).regards Stampe Fly safe because they do not !

[Tim Dawson]

Is there a SI attached to this area that means powered pilots cannot fly in it?

[Stampe]

Tim I doubt it given the time scales but the new “nasty” CAA seem not to worry about that.Any opportunity to swell the GASCO coffers is not to be missed ! Regards Fly safe.

[CloudHound]

UK Space Agency is an Executive Agency of the DfT. CAA has a Space Dept.

I doubt the Twain meet. Beep.

[andytk58]

Tim I doubt it given the time scales but the new “nasty” CAA seem not to worry about that.Any opportunity to swell the GASCO coffers is not to be missed ! Regards Fly safe.

Given the location, how are they going to catch anyone flying within it.

I mean there is no radar coverage at those levels in the Glens, so if you really wanted to you could just blaze right through.....who's going to know!

Andy

[Stampe]

UK Space Agency is an Executive Agency of the DfT. CAA has a Space Dept.

I doubt the Twain meet. Beep.

From the 2019/20 CAA annual report page 12

The UK has the chance to be at the forefront of spaceflight development and, as the regulator of the UK’s airspace, the CAA is well positioned to play a role to support this. This year, the Government and CAA announced that in 2021 we should become the UK’s sole space regulator by taking on the regulatory functions that currently sit within the UK Space Agency.

It’s very important to keep up to date! Know your opponent ! QED

[Dave W]

Given that by its very name (temporary danger area) this is a dangerous drone (no airworthiness standards applied)

No commentary on the management of the ACP, but that's not a correct representation of the requirement for the TDA.

It's not there because thr particular UAV has no airwirthiness standards applied: It may, or may not, I don't know.

The TDA would be there anyway since as yet there is no means by which UAVs of any airworthiness standard can operate BVLOS in the UK outside segregated airspace of some sort.

[CloudHound]

Stampe

Drone trial sponsored by U.K. space agency which is effectively now part of the CAA.

Which is just not true. I was trying to show you that my former colleagues who now run Space at the CAA are there to Regulate.

UK Space (Part of the DfT) are there to do.

[Tim Dawson]

The TDA would be there anyway since as yet there is no means by which UAVs of any airworthiness standard can operate BVLOS in the UK outside segregated airspace of some sort.

But danger areas are not segregated airspace.