Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
#1740862
It would be interesting to see what happened at Lash 'em, if a presentation even happened at all.
Talkdownman liked this
#1740918
Lefty wrote:Overall, I came away with the impression that whilst this still all about improving the flow and minimising delays for Farnbrough’s IFR traffic – that they do appear to be doing everything reasonable to facilitate GA traffic transiting the CTR with the minimum of hassle.

Excellent summary, @Lefty. Very much my impression too.

Mr Turner sounded completely genuine in his insistence (repeated many times during the session) that they very much wanted to co-exist with us and expedite us through the new CAS wherever possible. He was realistic though - and didn't hide the fact that it will depend entirely on how much Farnborough traffic there is, which is their absolute priority.

Other than the more limited number of transits per hour possible for SVFR and popup IFR traffic, there were a couple of things of note for me.

Firstly, transits from the East. I will often route Ockham to the Farnborough overhead, then turn right towards White Waltham. This is slightly longer than the Bagshot Gap, but it avoids the densely built-up and wooded area at that corner of the London CTR.

For these, Mr Turner was advocating routing the Bagshot Gap (not a gap any longer), and arriving at 1900' just north of Guildford, just below the base of the new eastern CTA1 at 2000. His argument was that there was then just 3 miles of CAS to cross. Of course, this creates minimum conflict for him, so such routings will be the easiest to clear, but this is quite a lot less safe in the event of engine failure. And with 'take two', it's not 1900', it's 1800', which is worse - and for noise too, which they said played a significant part in the planning of the new CAS.

So I wasn't overly happy about that, but heyho.

The other thing was the chunks of Class E (Oakhanger to the edge of the Solent zone), and the chunk north of Goodwood. Admittedly their bases are 4500 and 5500 respectively, so won't often be an issue, but they will be TMZs, and Mode S ones at that, like the one at North Weald.

I wasn't overly happy about that either, as I was hoping to be able to delay having to get Mode S for a while. Maybe I still will.

What surprised me though, was that from his point of view, he wasn't interested in Mode S, and provided he could see a Mode C display, that would be good enough for him. It displays an admirable pragmatism, but in the current infringement climate, I wonder how long that sensible policy will last, or indeed how many pilots will risk it.

One audience member asked, somewhat carpingly I thought, that, given that on some good weather days, it's 'impossible to get a word in edgeways' on LARS West, whether they they were staffing up to cope with the demand. The answer was yes (and there's always plenty of other work apparently, when it's not so busy).

However it it did cross my mind that one of the reasons for not being able to get a word in edgeways is the often appalling standard of RT. I did wonder whether the incessant failures to readback correctly or even answer calls that blight LARS West on so many summer days might limit the number of transits that can be granted, but again, we'll have to wait and see.

One very positive note was that the policy of allowing training approaches where they don't conflict with their local traffic remains unchanged.

I hope everyone got home safely afterwards - the weather was absolutely filthy for driving.
#1740948
People will notice from the airspace chart published in the CAA document that the northern side of the Farnborough CTR encroaches on the current Blackbushe ATZ. I seem to recall that the current ATZ north of the M3 will become an LFA during notified hours of operation of Blackbushe and that flying in this LFA will be achieved without reference to Farnborough. However, for Blackbushe 'after hours' ops, a request will have to be made to Farnborough for activation of the LFA, and a call must be made on the ground to deactivate the LFA after landing.

Iceman 8)
Talkdownman liked this
#1740963
Iceman wrote:the current ATZ north of the M3 will become an LFA during notified hours of operation of Blackbushe and that flying in this LFA will be achieved without reference to Farnborough

The Blackbushe OHJ altitude will have to be lowered in the same manner as that of White Waltham where the OHJ is 300 feet below the top of the LFA. The Blackbushe OHJ will have to be lowered to (say) 1700 QNH being 300ft below the max LFA altitude of 2000ft. That is 1375 QFE which is a bit cosy with the night circuit height of 1000 ft. Maybe the night circuit height will have to drop back to 800ft. 1200 above 800 works at Waltham, so 1300 above 800 would work at Blackbushe.
#1740969
For IRR pilots flying in IMC under IFR in what is now class G in that area. Remember we don’t often encounter Class E and as we now have two new class E areas in common transit corridors, we need to obtain a clearance before entering. I know a lot of VFR pilots set GPS moving map options to ignore Class E, but for infrequent users of your IRR it is worth making sure it is giving you active alerts.
Stu B liked this
#1741048
May I suggest that this thread be split now? My OP was about a particular interaction with Farnborough by phone, but it's become more relevant to the actual changes to Farnborough CAS which are now known, and how they'll affect us.

I'd suggest starting the new thread with @Lefty's report on the talk at White Waltham the other night, or perhaps @Marvin's one just before that.
#1741145
TopCat wrote:Firstly, transits from the East. I will often route Ockham to the Farnborough overhead, then turn right towards White Waltham. This is slightly longer than the Bagshot Gap, but it avoids the densely built-up and wooded area at that corner of the London CTR.

For these, Mr Turner was advocating routing the Bagshot Gap (not a gap any longer), and arriving at 1900' just north of Guildford, just below the base of the new eastern CTA1 at 2000. His argument was that there was then just 3 miles of CAS to cross. Of course, this creates minimum conflict for him, so such routings will be the easiest to clear, but this is quite a lot less safe in the event of engine failure. And with 'take two', it's not 1900', it's 1800', which is worse - and for noise too, which they said played a significant part in the planning of the new CAS.


This procedure will in my opinion conflict with Fairoaks departures from runway 24 which will clmb to at least 1,400ft if not BOCAS until they cross the built up area just south west of Fairoaks and clear the Farnborough CTR base of 2,000ft.
NB I haven't checked with Fairoaks whose ATZ goes up to the BOCAS outside the Heathrow CTR (max 1,500ft inside) ; there may be plans for an LoA to mitigate this confliction but in any case Fairoaks traffic should be borne in mind.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12