Timothy wrote:
Those of us working for years in trying to get pilots to think about infringements could not be happier than with the attention they are now getting.
You could do better job by launching initiative for simplifying airspace, ensuring safe VFR routes for less probability of infringements and improve PPL training in that domain.
Emir – it is a great idea, but there is an old saying – “only fight battles you might win”. GA has been arguing this course for as long as I can recall, and its all ignored. It would be worthwhile however, and, I agree, never say never.
I reckon UK airspace will never change. Any simplified (US-style) structure would mean more CAS, and probably TMZs, i.e. WW3. The TMZs would cover most of the south of the UK. The gliding community would go crazy for a start, and they are well represented in the RAF and ex-RAF sphere, so they have influence in the right places. Also the RAF is a big user of Class G. It’s all been tried before… I’ve been to a number of conferences on this. One of the “airspace review” events (which AFAIK led to absolutely nothing) was probably 50% in uniform. OTOH the UK does this well… Look at eg France which is covered in de facto prohibited airspace.
The way ATC services are provided OCAS (ATSOCAS) has seen some small changes over the years but still we have nothing integrated. I am sure an integrated service covering a large area including the CAS within would be fiercely resisted, mainly due to ATC funding issues.
What needs to change urgently is the recently introduced policy to hit every infringer on the head with a hammer. That is completely doable. AFAICT that is largely the work of one (or a very few) people in the CAA, running their own freewheeling operation, away from any scrutiny from above. That’s why they are inviting those who are, in current fashionable terminology, “social media influencers”, for private meetings. Divide and conquer and shut them up.
Peter – I think it might. If I can find time, I shall be writing to him in detail.
It seems to be generally thought that Mr Shapps will have to stand down from the APPG in his new role, although of course his new government position might prove more valuable to GA anyway.
Yes indeed. He now “owns” the DfT which in turn “owns” the CAA.
mainly due to ATC funding issues.
Personally I don’t think funding is the issue. The money is there. It’s much more about politics (i.e. my airport and my customers vs. your airport and your problem) than anything else.
Grant Shapps is uniquely placed now to help pull the strings needed to fix the issues that have gone so wrong with the system.
Peter wrote:
I reckon UK airspace will never change. Any simplified (US-style) structure would mean more CAS, and probably TMZs, i.e. WW3. The TMZs would cover most of the south of the UK. The gliding community would go crazy for a start, and they are well represented in the RAF and ex-RAF sphere, so they have influence in the right places. Also the RAF is a big user of Class G. It’s all been tried before…
I appreciate the difficulties with having changes made in the UK. But I don’t see why “US-style” (or for that matter German/Danish/Swedish etc. style) airspace wouldn’t work. Other countries can accommodate both gliding and military traffic without lots of class G airspace. The key is to have tactical reservation of airspace.
James_Chan wrote:
Personally I don’t think funding is the issue. The money is there. It’s much more about politics (i.e. my airport and my customers vs. your airport and your problem) than anything else.Grant Shapps is uniquely placed now to help pull the strings needed to fix the issues that have gone so wrong with the system.
There are really only two sources of funding;
1. Central Government,
2. The Airspace Users.
In respect of these users,
1. Central Government are unlikely to provide any funding as their resources are stretched as it is,
2. The shareholders of the airspace users will fight tooth and nail before they agree to any additional charges being added.
Someone said add 20p to every airline ticket sold. That would work, but it would have to come out of the current levy, which for the reasons I have said there would be resistance.
Sadly, GA is just not seen as a sufficiently powerful lobbing group thanks to the A B C organisations either being too fragmented and / or totally useless.
In America AOPA do a fabulous job, with a large majoirty of pilots as members. In the UK AOPA UK has somewhere around 5% signed up (as usual it is very difficult to get at the real numbers) so no one takes them serioulsy with anything important and they achieve almost nothing for GA in the UK, and have fallen out with most of the other organisations with which they could unite.
Peter wrote:
Any simplified (US-style) structure would mean more CAS, and probably TMZs, i.e. WW3. The TMZs would cover most of the south of the UK. The gliding community would go crazy for a start, and they are well represented in the RAF and ex-RAF sphere, so they have influence in the right places.
None of the above are features of US-style simplified airspace structure, unless Class E airspace versus Class G is somehow an issue. Aircraft like gliders that have never been equipped with an engine driven electrical system are exempt from the US transponder requirement in airspace where it applies, except when that airspace is Class C or higher. Also, it does not apply in Class D or lower airspace for any aircraft, unless an additional TMZ (Veil) is in place. The ‘glider’ transponder exemption has been reviewed from time to time and I don’t think it will ever change, especially as more gliders etc are transponder and ADS-B equipped now than in the past. The number of aircraft taking advantage of the exemption is inconsequentially small. I think once rational, inclusive airspace design is in place with reasonable exemptions and real consideration for all airspace users, people tend to operate in the sprit of the system. Rational process plus limited necessity for radio use in most areas prevents “WW3”
I think the UK airspace problem is mainly a tendency towards endlessly patching, penny wise and pound foolish, versus starting again. Anybody who has worked on a 1970s UK designed car or motorcycle will know exactly what I mean. On the other hand John Bloor fixed Triumph by starting over so anything is possible 
Grant Shapps
Please note this post: on next EuroGA fly-in I’m buying drink to everybody if he does anything for GA in UK. Don’t expect anything from party soldiers. Never. They act in their own interest and interest of the party. You’ll never see such characters acting in any public interest.
