[oakworth]

I find the general view on Grant Shapps quite interesting. Personally I have little time for him, but from a GA perspective he's doing more than any Transport Secretary has for a very long time. Cloudhound is possibly closer to this than me, but my understanding is that he has recruited a large team of 'GA focussed' people within DfT and done the same within CAA. The latter are very much focussed on driving the rollout of PBN at smaller aerodromes, I'm unsure of the remit of the former. Looking at him from the 'other side' and he is universally loathed by the airport community and the CAA for his absolute obsession with support to GA over everything else. Maybe the work he is doing hasn't yet born fruit (although it's worth noting that the CAA have killed pretty much every CAP 725 ACP of size since GS got his feet under the desk) or maybe he's keen but not very good. I guess it depends what we expect of him.

[CloudHound]

Not since the 1920s with Lord Thomson and Sir William Sefton Brancker have we had such an air-minded person in the Government able and willing to do something. That includes putting his hand in his departments pocket to fund the CAA to a considerable tune to facilitate progress on a number of topics.

It's not his fault recent ACPs have failed, but he has made the CAA look to a fast track method of approval which will see more GPS approaches on the books sooner than they would have been had he not intervened.

[oldbiggincfi]

I find the general view on Grant Shapps quite interesting. Personally I have little time for him, but from a GA perspective he's doing more than any Transport Secretary has for a very long time. Cloudhound is possibly closer to this than me, but my understanding is that he has recruited a large team of 'GA focussed' people within DfT and done the same within CAA. The latter are very much focussed on driving the rollout of PBN at smaller aerodromes, I'm unsure of the remit of the former. Looking at him from the 'other side' and he is universally loathed by the airport community and the CAA for his absolute obsession with support to GA over everything else. Maybe the work he is doing hasn't yet born fruit (although it's worth noting that the CAA have killed pretty much every CAP 725 ACP of size since GS got his feet under the desk) or maybe he's keen but not very good. I guess it depends what we expect of him.

Let's be realistic.
As much as the Transport Secretary may enjoy recreational Aviation, his ministerial brief will be guided by others .
To make way for the new technologies without the encumbrance of a few old men in their flying machines .
New rules to deter maintenance of licences with appropriate frustrating personnel in place .
Better use on traditional airfields , so nowhere to park .
No one needs pilots, only operators and sky bus lanes .

[oakworth]

Ok, two examples of his work:

1. The change to the Ministerial call in rules that now enable him to call in any ACP that removes as much as a square foot of Class G;
2. Prioritisation of ACP's. Priority 1 has always been safety critical. Priority 2 is now PBN roll out to GA. Basically, if LHR and Bagby land on the same day, then Bagby gets assessed first.

It may be small beer (and I repeat, I've no time for him) but he's making change in support of Ga to the detriment of Commercial Aviation. TBH, I'm amazed someone hasn't grassed him to the Guardian.

[kanga]

Not since the 1920s with Lord Thomson and Sir William Sefton Brancker have we had such an air-minded person in the Government able and willing to do something. ..

<non-Partisan political history nerd >

That might be challenged by those who recall another: son of an Air Commodore (RNAS, RFC, RAF in WW1, DFC, Air Commodore who flew operationally on Bombers in WW2 in his 60s!); older brother killed in action in RAF WW2; last WW2 RAF pilot in the HoC ..

As Minister of Technology, and later as SoS for Industry, he promoted many aspects of aviation against impressive indifference and occasional hostility from Ministerial colleagues. He continued to speak up for the industry during his later backbench years, when he was often in the 'political wilderness' on many issues.

For those who had not made the connexion:Tony Benn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn

</>

[Bald Sparrow]

Who was it killed the TSR2?

[Rob P]

Who was it killed the TSR2?

Dennis Healey unless I'm much mistaken.

Rob P

[Flyin'Dutch']

It's not his fault recent ACPs have failed, but he has made the CAA look to a fast track method of approval which will see more GPS approaches on the books sooner than they would have been had he not intervened.

I strongly advise anyone not holding their breath in anticipation of their arrival.

They have been jam tomorrow in the UK for the last decade and a half.

I suspect the real problem here is the lack of a suitable supplier for NDBs for the missed approach.



PS @CloudHound - not a pop at you of course!

[kanga]

Who was it killed the TSR2?

Dennis Healey unless I'm much mistaken.

Rob P

Cabinet decision. Healey was Defence Secretary, Wilson PM, but it was essentially a matter of budget; Callaghan was Chancellor

[Peter Gristwood]

Healey fired the gun, but it was doomed well before the election....Mountbatten, apparently, was a key voice in the anti-TSR2-party

[CloudHound]

The white heat of technology wasn't it?

[flybymike]

It's not his fault recent ACPs have failed, but he has made the CAA look to a fast track method of approval which will see more GPS approaches on the books sooner than they would have been had he not intervened.

I think you may have confused ACPs with PBNs?

Looking at the recent ACP proposals for Brize and Oxford many would have hoped that Shapps did indeed have something to do with their failure.

[oakworth]

Not directly, as neither met the call in criteria. However, he has the CAA scared of their own shadow and even more risk averse than they normally are.

[Rob P]

Healey fired the gun, but it was doomed well before the election....Mountbatten, apparently, was a key voice in the anti-TSR2-party

There's much controversy as to whether the aircraft would actually have been any good. A legend has grown up that it was a wonderplane that would have conquered the world, but this is unsupported by the available flight test data.

As it turned out we had no need for the aircraft (or the F-111 that eventually didn't replace it).

The Labour Party decision to destroy the tooling so that development couldn't be reinstated by an incoming Conservative administration remains the most controversial part of this sad saga.

Rob P

[CloudHound]

ACP = Airspace Change Proposal
PBN = Performance Based Navigation

I hope I don’t confuse them as it’s my job to manage the former to deliver the latter.

SoS didn’t Call In either BZN or Oxford and the decision was taken by the CAA team responsible for regulating applications. They used CAP725 to do that and found both lacking.

For the projects I’m currently helping with the decision documents are very helpful being the “How not to do it manual”.