I am not sure if I am wrong, but wasn’t there some kind of airspace harmonisation initiative by EASA (and a thread on here?) regarding the elimination of controlled aerodromes in uncontrolled airspace?
This would apply to about a dozen airfields in France, plus maybe another two dozens in the UK, but not much else.
If true, that might explain why the UK CAA reacts to favourably to applications of such aerodromes to get their own CTR.
I don’t think the CAA are as favourable as before. Farnborough was done on the old process – since the new airspace change process came out, Exeter has been refused controlled airspace and Leeds Bradford were refused an extension to their controlled airspace, in both instances because they ran roughshod over other airspace users. It’s quite possible that if Farnborough’s had been under the new process it too would have been refused.
Timothy wrote:
Timothy wrote:
Biggin Hill is going to be next to apply.
This came from Biggin just now, so maybe all is not lost:The amendment relates to our Technical design principle “REGULATED AIRSPACE – LBHA should consider the provision of Regulated Airspace to protect traffic using departure and arrival routes”. Paragraph 1.4.4
After a further review, the Airport assesses that this requirement is a potential design option, rather than a Design principle and, as such, this Design Principle will not be taken forward to the Design Options Stage.
That said, any requirement for the provision of regulated airspace to protect London Biggin Hill Airport traffic will be considered under Design Principle 1 – SAFETY. The statement to this effect is at paragraph 3.9.2 of the attached Report.
I would read that as quite a clever move on Biggin’s part – taking it out of their ‘design principles’ and making it purely a matter of safety.
They will have observed the challenges Farnborough faced in making the case that it was all about safety rather than just having a better (for them) operation, and will be keen to ensure that they are not seen as having a in-built preference for controlled airspace. They will want to present their ACP as an unbiased exercise in examining every possible option which concludes (perhaps even regretfully) that only controlled airspace will keep everyone safe.
My answer to Farnborough’s assertion that the status quo is not safe enough is that if that is their belief then they should stop flying rather than expect the world to be changed for their benefit and to everyone else’s detriment.
My house is on the main road through the village and sometimes pulling out of the drive can be a bit chaotic or I have to wait for a gap in the traffic. Perhaps I should consider having the section 200yds either side of my driveway controlled with barriers to protect traffic entering and leaving my driveway and ensure safety. Travel along the road for vehicles not visiting my house should be possible, subject to me having time to coordinate it.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the quid-pro-quo for getting CAS for your airport (in other words, reserving a public resource for your own use) required that you also provide access to your airport for light VFR GA with controlled prices (say, landing fees no more than £15/tonne inc VAT, free self handling, and no PPR requirement allowed). I wonder if Farnborough would have done it with conditions like that attached :-)
Yeap. many light aircraft pilots have over the years asked for more reasonable fees and self-handling at Farnborough and other airports.
And mostly failed.
Graham wrote:
Last Saturday I heard the Farnborough LARS West controller trying to impose level and heading restrictions on VFR aircraft in Class G airspace (who didn’t want any service) for the convenience of jet traffic inbound to Farnborough. This sort of stuff is what fosters an ‘us and them’ attitude.
Were they trying to impose or just asking?
They do that at Oxford too, particularly on departure: “remain below 2000 feet until instructed by Radar” (exact sentence used)
Charlie wrote:
They do that at Oxford too, particularly on departure: “remain below 2000 feet until instructed by Radar” (exact sentence used)
Yes but they do it because they know there is another aircraft at 2500 inbound. It isn’t always a negative to have that advice.
Yes but there’s a difference between “instructed” and “request that you… until advised”
And it’s a SOP, it’s not just when there’s inbound traffic. So similar to the Farnborough example above.
