Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1741169
CTA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all now 'belong' to carpet baggers, but how low and high are they ?

That's assuming now I dare fly out almost anywhere without a dossier of approvals secured before taking off.
TBH. I am dumbfounded at this audacious theft being granted by our CAA and not retracted once the business was sold on - after all it once was ours too.
#1741185
This airspace grab allows a few rich folks to come and go from the UK with little visibility.

Perhaps if some enterprising spotter was able to make public the comings and goings of these people, the veil of secrecy that Farnborough offers these non -members of the public would be gone and they might decide to sling their hook and go elsewhere. This might kill the current Farnborough business model and with it the "need"for controlled airspace.

This is one airport I would like to see closed; the airport serves no wider public benefit.
#1741189
The highest end of GA actually brings in a significant value to the economy. By all means they could have a discrete terminal if they desire some privacy and security.

But don't operate the underused runway like an exclusive club where anyone who can't afford £630 per landing isn't welcome.
#1741190
mikehallam wrote:Do the above areas and heights now mean say from Midhurst VOR one can fly northe west, VFR in silence <1500 ft right over Odiham, i.e. underneath CTA's 2 & 3 ?


Dave W wrote:Odiham ATZ is H24, so no.


But could you get a class D transit at 1500 or 2000'
#1741204
Dave W wrote:Mike asked "...in silence..."


He did... yes.... I'd forgotten that bit.

(Academic question.... had it been Class E and you were VFR would the answer have been different?)
#1741227
Nice to have produced a document where all the existing levels are on the chart, and all the changes aren't. Splendid way to help prevent infringments and build good SA.
That rediculous slither between CTAs 5, 7 & 8 is an example of needless chart clutter rather than pragmatic design. Why? Because too many people bitch about airspace grabbing, and the designers are forced to trim every spare inch off the layouts.
Who has really gained by not having the edge of CTA-8 join up against CTA-9? An extra 25 square miles of a thousand foot block, and a more cluttered chart. I know the glider folk had concerns with getting over the Downs, and it is a shame that the TMZ requires Mode A+C rather than accepting Mode A+C OR ADS-B + Alt, which would have been a more energy efficient solution for gliders.
Talkdownman liked this
#1741281
chrisbl wrote:This airspace grab allows a few rich folks to come and go from the UK with little visibility.

Perhaps if some enterprising spotter was able to make public the comings and goings of these people, the veil of secrecy that Farnborough offers these non -members of the public would be gone and they might decide to sling their hook and go elsewhere. This might kill the current Farnborough business model and with it the "need"for controlled airspace.

This is one airport I would like to see closed; the airport serves no wider public benefit.

I expect that Farnborough will also need to bolt on extra restricted airspace for the Farnborough International Airshow. I can't see that little lot being adequate for such intense aerial activity.