Yes you can go over them, but not into them. Wasn’t that the point?
Gatwick was interesting to do once or twice, but I don’t make a point of stooging around at <1000ft in an SEP that glides like a brick so I don’t consider it much of an option. Likewise for Heathrow.
I think the overall point being made was that there is an awful lot to avoid/negotiate in that area already, even before one whacks in a great lump of Class D that will probably restrict crossings to a preferred routing and will be defacto closed on sunny weekends when dozens will be on frequency wanting a crossing or LARS at the same time.
It will be a new challenge, but let’s not put another cohort of pilots off by saying how difficult and impossible it all is.
I remember this happening with the Olympics. All the usual doom and gloom merchants told us how awful it was going to be, and as a result a lot of people put their aircraft to sleep for six weeks, while the rest of us discovered that we could do exactly what we wanted, when we wanted, with the benefit of the best ATSOCAS in history.
Ok, it’s not difficult or impossible, but it’s a bad decision, symptomatic of chronic incompetence at the CAA, and another (but not the final) nail in the coffin.
Total incompetence.
Simply giving in to pressure from one commercial provider.
I can think of hardly any other country where the regulator isnt entirely Government run and controlled and this and many other examples illustrate so well why we shouldnt be out fo step. The SE will end up like Italy where there is hardly any mainstream GA left in large parts of the country.
Those that say well, you can go over, or go round or whatever, are just totally out of step with the average GA pilot and have clearly missed the draconian infringement policy which simply makes matters worse.
At least the policy is simple – “go over, go round, or piss off”.
Still, it should keep GASCo in business – oh, I forgot, they are meant to be a charity promoting safety. 
The Olympic TRA in 2012 was OK. You did what was required before flying (I can’t remember) and you could fly
The problem – the final straw, if you like – we have now is the CAA zero tolerance “get them all” policy. Flying around the low-lying UK CAS areas such as the London TMA is a load of traps. It always has been but now you cannot take any risk on e.g. a transponder error. You have to be ~200ft above any ATZ and ~200ft below any CAS. A lot of the time (see the infringements thread) the two meet so overflying ATZs is no longer possible. Even if talking to a radar unit, you will still get reported if you infringe; the radio contact means nothing (CAP1404 makes this clear, by omitting to mention it).
With the Farnborough Class D, flying through there will be a case of requesting a transit and being absolutely on the ball and being very disciplined on when to implement Plan B and what Plan B is. A lot of infringements happen because a pilot requests a transit and doesn’t get it and by the time he decides it is not coming, it is too late to turn around, or he touches some other bit during the turn-around.
The relevant area is going to be a big generator of Gasco revenue
The recently granted Southend CAS is a similar thing but at least one can go around the whole thing, to the east, albeit with a fairly long water crossing. Also there is more space to the S and N of it.
let’s not put another cohort of pilots off by saying how difficult and impossible it all is.
Indeed, the CAA is doing that rather well already. They were hoping to keep it quiet though
Peter wrote:
With the Farnborough Class D, flying through there will be a case of requesting a transit and being absolutely on the ball and being very disciplined on when to implement Plan B and what Plan B is
Do people really go flying without a plan B? It was pretty much impressed on me, learning to fly around near Houston’s class B that you should always have a plan B and also leave enough room to be able to execute it. Not just a plan B, but a plan C also. Always have an out, whether it be because of weather, terrain, controlled airspace – it was impressed on me always have an out and enough time to execute it.
I think the problem with a Plan B is that it can easily become dont go anywhere near that whole block of airspace in the first palce. Patently this is discriminatory and NOT the purpose to which our airspace should be put.
The en route Plan B alternatives are all very well, but for the less experienced pilots once in side this block of airspace the margins are small, and usually there is a very little help, which may well become even less if LARS is withdrawn or restricted.
I would suggest that if a Plan B is required and you cant get the service and clearances to avoid an infringement the answer is to immediately declare a PAN. It may well be an admission of failure, but it is a lot better than an infringement, and I assume that once under a PAN at least you are safe from a GASCo course?
This rather poor diagram is all I can find online
There are two Class E TMZs so in these you will need a transponder on, plus must remain VMC. Their bases appear to be quite high.
Bear in mind that you can infringe a TMZ too but obviously they will never be able to tell unless you admit it on the radio 
Basically the route to fly past this lot (if you are to assume you won’t get a transit) will be inside the magenta polygon here
Peter wrote:
The recently granted Southend CAS is a similar thing but at least one can go around the whole thing, to the east, albeit with a fairly long water crossing. Also there is more space to the S and N of it.
And southend are extremely good at granting transits – In fact, I have never had (or heard on the radio) a transit denied. They even get student callsigns to request transits (which is great – when I did my PPL 10 years ago no one ever taught me how to do one)
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.
