Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Expansion of UK controlled airspace

From here

I don’t know all the details but I believe the proposed Farnborough airspace would essentially kill Lasham as it would be too low to easily launch gliders: it’s self preservation on their part. I think they also had a campaign for donations specific to this issue. TAG will have deeper pockets though…

On a very quick read one solution for Lasham would be to fit Mode C transponders.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

But that’s not much good if the decision makers are not in the local community.

Exactly, hence people are growing more and more against EU with it’s top heavy, anti democratic bureaucracy. It’s just a matter of time before the whole charade:

  1. disintegrate, or
  2. reaches a point of no return (into a police state)

but off topic of course.

Timothy wrote:

If, as in the Farnborough situation

I don’t know anything about this Farnborough case, and I certainly don’t understand why the CAA is on the other side of the table.

Anyway, Farnborough Scharnborough, here is a list of the 30 airfields that will require Class D before Part ATS comes into force:

Barra
Barrow
Benbecula
Biggin Hill
Blackpool
Cambridge
Campbeltown
Carlisle
Cranfield
Dundee
Exeter
Farnborough
Gloucestershire
Hawarden
Humberside
Inverness
Islay
Kirkwall
Lands End
Londonderry
Lydd
Newquay
Oxford
Scatsta
Scilly Isles
Stornoway
Tiree
Warton
Wick
Yeovil

EGKB Biggin Hill

I don’t understand that Timothy could you expand?

Last Edited by Bathman at 25 Nov 13:14

If Tim is me,

  1. Part ATS states that ATC may only be provided inside controlled airspace; so it cannot be provided at any of those Class G airfields.
  2. UK law only permits IAPs where there is ATC
  3. The only class of controlled airspace that exists in the UK which can be used as a CTR is Class D, so if we keep ATC we must have Class D.

Ergo all airfields with IAPs must have Class D.

It’s one of these:

You have to remove one of the apexes for it to work.

  1. We are not going to have a vote in EASA after March 29, so we won’t be able to change Part ATS. No-one else will be interested to vote for us because we are the only state both not to permit AIPs without ATC and not to have controlled airspace around our IAPs.
  2. The ATC unions will presumably resist the loss of maybe 300 ATC jobs, with their reduction to FISO status, and the airlines and commercial operators will lobby against airports losing IAPs (and probably ATC).

That only leaves the option of 30 new Class D zones.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Gosh I never new that when does part ATS come into force?

Two tranches, 2020 and 2025.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Bathman wrote:

I don’t understand that Timothy could you expand?

I still don’t get it, not a hint … but maybe that’s just me

Timothy wrote:

No-one else will be interested to vote for us because we are the only state both not to permit AIPs without ATC and not to have controlled airspace around our IAPs.

I don’t think you are. Switzerland requires ATC for IAP’s as well as class D. So does Germany if I am not totally mistaken. And Austria and some others. Actually, I can’t think of any country in Europe other than France where there is IFR in class G and approaches without ATC.

LSZH, Switzerland

It’s debatable if most of those airfields are profitable. In fact I would say a few of them are on life support instigating Class D would probably finish them.

Last Edited by Bathman at 25 Nov 16:46
99 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top