Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Oxford / Brize Class D Consultation

Looks like Oxford and Brize have today opened their public consultation on new/expanded Class D, lots to read and think about in there…

http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/business-aviation-3-4-5/public-consultation/

https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbrizenorton/rafcms/mediafiles/8259A688_E36F_447D_7382737670965DA4.pdf

Now retired from forums best wishes

Interesting… probably the biggest thing is the increase of the top of the CAS from 3500ft to 6000ft.

As with all the other CAS proposals, so much depends on whether you get transits. Normally, in the UK, one does, but if the controller is busy he simply won’t get back to you while you are approaching the area at [whatever speed you are going at] so at some point you have to rapidly execute a Plan B and dive down somewhere, often entering IMC. I have had this at Solent (EGHI) many times, and ducking down to 1900ft (the usual Plan B) puts you into the “guided missile testing tunnel” with half the missiles flying with transponders turned off

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The Oxford proposal is just nuts. No rational justification for it at all.

At least other recent introductions of Class D (Southend and Norwich) had the justification that they handle CAT. Oxford doesn’t and has about half the movements of Gloucester (so why shouldn’t Gloucester have some Class D too?). What makes it worse is that it’s close to Luton and will make another GA choke point – perhaps about 15nm between the CTRs

The essence of the proposal is that Oxford wants better protection for its arriving and departing aircraft, particulalry those flying IFR, and is quite happy to see their reduced risk become a higher risk to local GA, which will have less Class G to operate in as a consequence.

Oxford will make all the usual noises about access to the airspace, VFR transits will be given etc. But the fact will remain that GA will have to plan to fly around it (as one can never be sure that a transit request will be granted).

TJ
Cambridge EGSC

An infringement minefield.

Egnm, United Kingdom

I am based outside of the UK but happen to know this area by virtue of yearly visits. My personal impression is that Brize is always very accommodating, while Oxford tends to be bossy even without an airspace of its own. On the other hand, while Brize gets a lot more traffic in terms of tonnage, Oxford may be having a lot more blips on the radar on a busy day, with quite a few pilots having, ahem, less than perfect situational awareness. At present, Brize offers a very clear and detailed guide to CTR transit; incorporating the future Oxford bit into it shouldn’t really present a problem to a reasonably clueful pilot. For comparison, the Prague air hub (3 contiguous CTRs – LKPR, LKVO and LKKB) has the bottom slice of the TMA starting as low as 1100-1200’ AGL, with five airfields directly under it and within 2 NM from the CTR boundary. There is also another CTR (LKCV+LKPD) about 15 NM to the east. Doesn’t really seem to be a big problem when the pilots are indoctrinated early in their training. One important thing, however, is the proactive approach of PRAGUE INFORMATION, which does its best to advise pilots to change course to avoid CTR incursion while they are still 30-60 seconds outside. I wonder if Brize and Oxford would be able to do the same – both have LARS coverage.

LKBU (near Prague), Czech Republic

I understand this consulation won’t change anything to their plans. CAS until 6000ft looks very exaggerated !

As a matter of fact, we in France learn for most aispace changes when the new IGN charts are issued.

LFOU, France

Some of the proposed airspace grabs, for instance CTR 2 – Surface to FL105 seem rather extreme.

I’m also amused at how they put a listening squawk in place in September 2017, state that sufficient time has not elapsed to determine if this is effective or not but have already concluded that it won’t be because they’re proposing more Class D.

EGTT, The London FIR

The BGA’s response so far is “As anticipated, Oxford and Brize Norton have published their airspace change proposals. There is little doubt that these two disproportionate airspace change proposals pose a very significant threat to the viability of gliding in and through the area, and will significantly increase risk for the majority of airspace users operating outside of the proposed airspace.”

Andreas IOM

As we know, the UK is once again making itself the laughing stock of aviation in Europe here, with totally unmanagable and uncoordinated airspace designs without any higher level strategy or vision. Anyway, this video is worth watching (all the way, although it‘s a bit slow in the middle):



Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

To be fair, in terms of more or less unreadable airspace, the UK has some way to go to catch up with e.g. this

which functions only because French ATC just clear everybody through. Well, through the CAS, not necessarily through the strictly enforced military bits.

The real difference between the UK and much other airspace around Europe is not in the unreadability of the depicted structure, it is in the crappy and unpredictable ATC services. The latest July MOR listing (which is not published to the great unwashed; somebody should do an FOIA application on that…) has loads of Farnborough CAS infringements, and that is CAS for an airport which according to one of their own reports carries on average 1.8 passengers per movement. Brize has a lot more traffic, at times.

And I am delighted that the Flyer organisation has finally grown a pair of balls, after many months of killing discussions of the new crazy UK CAA infringements policy and eventually Mr Seager banning me from there for repeatedly drawing attention to it However I am no more than following in the footsteps of the great and famous since Timothy was banned from there before me

However, nothing in the UK is going to change all the time it remains a rite of passage for each GA “organisation” to not work with every other one, starting with an AOPA which is dysfunctional even by the standards of generally dysfunctional European AOPAs, right through all the piston, gliding, ultralight bodies, and all the way to PPL/IR which – last time I was a member – was aligned with European Air Sports!

So as the old saying goes we get what we deserve…

As I show above, other countries manage just fine with impenetrable airspace, so ultimately this whole business comes down to (a) ATC services and (b) infringement enforcement policy. Digging around the airspace diagrams (I haven’t watched the video but have seen the actual proposal) is barking up the wrong tree. The UK will never fix (a). It will take much effort to change (b) but a lot of work is being done behind the scenes.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
47 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top