Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Farnborough Controlled Airspace Proposal

The consultation to establish class D airspace at Farnborough has been launched: here

Sections B and E are most interesting for us. There doesn’t seem to be any concrete data on the volumes of GA traffic that would be affected – surely Farnborough LARS could generate this from their records? I don’t see a number anywhere on the maximum number of VFR transits that could be handled (it must be some finite number), and there is also no mention of low level (ie off-system) IFR traffic (admittedly the volumes are low).

There is also no specific discussion of GA traffic departing/arriving Biggin to the west. This change would affect just over half the flights I do, and would create a significant hazard if transits were denied due to workload on busy days: Traffic forced through the tiny gap between the new airspace and Gatwick would be horrific (there is simply no way I would use this route), and the numbers of aircraft orbiting around WOD or OCK waiting for a transit could very quickly mount up.


[link not yet open but parts are

Last Edited by Peter at 31 Jan 18:42

As far as I understood, this won’t come. They can wish for it but that’s about it. Even truckloads of documents (like the two you linked to) can’t change this.

If it did come (together with Southend, which will indeed come AFAIU), then the southeast of England would become a big mess for light GA (it already is, but it still “works” somehow).

The propsed structure is too messy and complicated. I know I know…, it’s made so complicated to allow as much uncontrolled airspace as possible, but look at it. With airspace structures like this, it is no onder they have countless busts in southern UK. Someone flying at 150 knots through these areas will simply not be able to “elaborate” and visualize all the information and the maze of TMA sectors, CTR sectors and CTA sectors quickly enough.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 31 Jan 23:00
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

I dont fly OCTA through there but it will destroy GA flying in the south in my opinion.

EGTK Oxford

I cant get the two links to work. Maybe they have sussed that people are reading the documents. I cant see the proposal, but it would be a PITA for me as I often fly a route south of the WOD NDB just to the west of Farnborough and skimming between the military zones. I did it today, and although I speak to Farnborough and take their requests to go higher or lower to accommodate any jet traffic, I certainly don’t want to get approval to enter a zone, or have to ask someone else for a MATZ penetration of their zone.

Yes they have killed the URLs.

Fortunately I did download one of them and it is here.

If somebody can email me the other one I will put it up also.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This doesn’t look good

If I read it correctly, the mandatory radio zone, crosshatched here

means having to squeeze through where circled red by me, at below 1500ft (which in practice means at 1400ft), and anyway on any nice weekend day you cannot get a radio call in with Farnborough, so people flying at the more usual 2400ft will end up orbiting to the east of that area while waiting to get the call in.

Last Edited by Peter at 17 Apr 15:10
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

When is radio contact considered to be established in european-type RMZs?
When the pilot makes the initial call? When the controller reads back the call sign? Or only when the pilot has stated his postion and altitude and the controller has acknowledged?

I sure hope this doens’t come like above. Closing the gap between Farnborough/Blackbushe ATZs and the London CTR is a big blow.

And those glider and ultralight pilots would also be severely penalized…

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

But that only applies for non-radio aircraft – right? Those with radio can cross the RMZ zone up to 2500 ft, which I grant you is still a squeeze. I’d agree that for radio equipped aircraft it is a gamble as its a small gap, and as you say, getting a traffic service while crossing that area is gonna be hard on a sunny / weekend day.

Are they saying you actually have to make radio contact to go through the RMZ though?. I must admit I am not clear as I have been fortunate not to have to transit one yet. Similary a TMZ only requires you have a transponder with Mode C or above and it is switched on – i.e. you dont need to actually talk to anyone in that zone and have an assigned squawk. Therefore I assumed it meant you need to have a radio, it needs to be switched on, and you need to be listening on the appropriate frequency, though perhaps I am wrong about that.

For me personally, being based North of London, whenever I head South, I take one of the 2 wide berths either side, and this just means I have to go a bit wider, or a bit lower.

Sure, most of us habe radios and thus an RMZ sounds like a very decent solution. However, we also need to think of those without radios (basic ultralights etc.) and those who need the altitude (gliders). As GA, we need to think of us (few) as a whole, not fight for our freedom within our very own “sector” of GA only. That is partly what got us to where we are today.

That area which Peter pointed out has a spot elevation of 856 feet, if I see that correctly…

Re the RMZ rules, I am really not sure, that’s why I ask. But I would guess it doesn’t mean one just has to tune the relevant frequency and monitor it, does it?

Last Edited by boscomantico at 17 Apr 15:41
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

When is radio contact considered to be established in european-type RMZs?
When the pilot makes the initial call? When the controller reads back the call sign? Or only when the pilot has stated his postion and altitude and the controller has acknowledged?

From here:

To gain entry to a RMZ a pilot must establish two-way communication with air traffic control before entering the RMZ and then remain on frequency while in the zone unless instructed otherwise.

The initial call should take the form of the name of the ATC unit being called, aircraft call sign, type of aircraft, position, level and the intentions of the flight.

If a pilot is unable to establish two-way radio communication then they should remain clear of the RMZ; except when taking off from a site within the RMZ where communications before getting airborne is not possible. In this case the pilot should comply with any locally agreed procedures and establish two-way communication as soon as possible. It may be possible for the pilot to negotiate access prior to the flight taking place if radio contact cannot be established for any reason.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic
128 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top