Another example of the terrorists having won, they have caused major disruption without a single bullet being fired or explosion set off. As others have said TWO MONTHS restrictions for an event lasting two weeks!!
Transfer the games to Tripoli and declare a "no fly zone". Two problems solved in one go !!!!! Gadaffi probably has the money to fund them. We don't, we are a bankrupt country.
Planemike
Airspace for the Olympics
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Ian Melville
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:21 pm
-
Chris Thompson
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 3:07 pm
- Location: Hampshire
- Contact:
As far as I am aware you will not only have to have transponder and a flight plan (minimum 2 hours before) but also receive an "acceptance" and an "approval number". Not quite sure how you get this as AFPeX has no way of giving it now. Not sure where this "approval number" gets sent to. If I do file a flight plan I do it from home and then set off to the airfield. Do I have to stay at home and wait for the "approval"? Small airfields will be inundated with extra work on the Flight Plan front, for example Popham ATC desk only has one slow PC (which does NOT receive email) and AFPeX is only able to be used by one "controller" (and if that person is out in the Mobile Tower on a Fly-in Sunday the PC is not available at all . . . . .). NATS will state that this is a "Staffing problem" BUT Popham has NO STAFF . . . . (and cannot afford any)!
In the real world - does anyone really think that a terrorist will take any notice of these restrictions? Scenario only - I was planning to bomb Southend in this period - Damm! - there are airspace restrictions so I will not be able to do it . . . When are security people going to realise that these guys just do not think or operate like rational people?
In the real world - does anyone really think that a terrorist will take any notice of these restrictions? Scenario only - I was planning to bomb Southend in this period - Damm! - there are airspace restrictions so I will not be able to do it . . . When are security people going to realise that these guys just do not think or operate like rational people?
014636
Chris Thompson wrote:In the real world - does anyone really think that a terrorist will take any notice of these restrictions? Scenario only - I was planning to bomb Southend in this period - Damm! - there are airspace restrictions so I will not be able to do it . . . When are security people going to realise that these guys just do not think or operate like rational people?
Yes, but it LOOKS good!!! It also enables empires to be built.
Planemike
Michael Blake
006295
006295
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Rod, no we do not donate to AOPA and I believe there are opportunities to discuss amendments to this proposal rather than go straight for the jugular with a judicial revue. It is my view, and I would expect LAA's principal negotiators on this sort of problem, that discussion and reasonable debate has to be exhausted before any thought of resorting to law.
Does AOPA honestly believe that they are going to get this proposal thrown out? Be realistic, the authorities will demand a comprehensive security strategy for the Olympics, as a member of the British public I can understand that and would expect that. As a pilot and owner of an aircraft on a strip under the restricted area I would hope that we can liaise with NATS, CAA etc to provide workable amendments such as zone entry and exit lanes that can be used without a flight plan or transponder. LAA will be entering discussion with the authorities involved in this proposal, indeed we already have. I hope AOPA takes a chill pill before stirring up a hornets' nest and hardening attitudes.
Does AOPA honestly believe that they are going to get this proposal thrown out? Be realistic, the authorities will demand a comprehensive security strategy for the Olympics, as a member of the British public I can understand that and would expect that. As a pilot and owner of an aircraft on a strip under the restricted area I would hope that we can liaise with NATS, CAA etc to provide workable amendments such as zone entry and exit lanes that can be used without a flight plan or transponder. LAA will be entering discussion with the authorities involved in this proposal, indeed we already have. I hope AOPA takes a chill pill before stirring up a hornets' nest and hardening attitudes.
-
Bill Scott
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:25 pm
Rod, I assume you're referring to the action being discussed on the Flyer forum at the moment.
I reckon that is the only chance of making a differene. If we just politely share our views we will be politely ignored in turn.
This is a golden opportunity for everybody to join forces... LAA, BMAA, BGA, AOA et al. Alternatively, fall victim to the usual divide & conquer.
However, time is very short and there's no time for prevarication.
Pehaps our esteemed leaders could respond with regard to LAA intentions.
I reckon that is the only chance of making a differene. If we just politely share our views we will be politely ignored in turn.
This is a golden opportunity for everybody to join forces... LAA, BMAA, BGA, AOA et al. Alternatively, fall victim to the usual divide & conquer.
However, time is very short and there's no time for prevarication.
Pehaps our esteemed leaders could respond with regard to LAA intentions.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Before discussing divide and conquer Bill, it is worth considering that the GA Alliance will certainly be involved in negotiation on this proposal, and which is the ONLY association of any import that is not a member of GA Alliance? You've guessed it - AOPA. There are those that prefer to go it alone I'm afraid, But LAA has shown by example that it isn't one of them.
The way that this seems to have been done is to colour in the whole of the London TMA and call it the Olympic restricted Zone. Simples. But this may just be the starting move to stir up the reaction and they do not NEED anything like it in size or complexity for safety or security. The area around the actual area of the site is not actually very big and the requirement to keep it secure is probably more to allow the IOC KNOBS to fly in and out by helicopter from the outskirts (like Silverstone at GP day) and avoid travelling with the plebs on trains etc. IF a terrorist attack was to take place then they would have to be pretty quick to identify one blip on radar from another even with the transponder numbers to identify a rogue aircraft, As they would not take the chance of a cock up by ATC leading to one of the KNOBS being upset by mistake (BLOWN UP??,) What would the sanction be blow it out of the air with a none existent RAF plane.
or would it be intercepted by the Essex Police chopper and a prosecution made. If it is security, then the area is too big to police, and more likely an attempt by someone at Kingsway to try and look good. If so that later might be reigned in with following attempts with more thought and amendments.
It would at the moment stop all GA traffic off airways from accessing the Continent and vice versa including flying visitors coming here. BAD FOR BUSINESS. after all if somebody wanted to cause havoc then false alarms are a better way. False warnings all over the place is more likely.
or would it be intercepted by the Essex Police chopper and a prosecution made. If it is security, then the area is too big to police, and more likely an attempt by someone at Kingsway to try and look good. If so that later might be reigned in with following attempts with more thought and amendments.
It would at the moment stop all GA traffic off airways from accessing the Continent and vice versa including flying visitors coming here. BAD FOR BUSINESS. after all if somebody wanted to cause havoc then false alarms are a better way. False warnings all over the place is more likely.
This raises quite an important issue.
The GA Alliance is like a quango born of a quango's quangos. They all depend on the CAA to some degree for their existence, so fights are picked with some care - otherwise known as politics. As we know, the LAA is very good at it.
Luckily, as individuals, we do have the option to join AOPA, too, for those odd occasions when you prefer some straighter talking and different politics.
LAA struts even get a mention in the CAA Press Release, apparently as Olympic Airspace Ambassadors, at:
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... l&nid=1971
Anyway, with a fully loaded USS carrier stationed in the Thames estuary for the duration, it's not just protection from the terrorists you need to be worried about...
The GA Alliance is like a quango born of a quango's quangos. They all depend on the CAA to some degree for their existence, so fights are picked with some care - otherwise known as politics. As we know, the LAA is very good at it.
Luckily, as individuals, we do have the option to join AOPA, too, for those odd occasions when you prefer some straighter talking and different politics.
LAA struts even get a mention in the CAA Press Release, apparently as Olympic Airspace Ambassadors, at:
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... l&nid=1971
Anyway, with a fully loaded USS carrier stationed in the Thames estuary for the duration, it's not just protection from the terrorists you need to be worried about...
032850
-
Bill Scott
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:25 pm
Brian, I will confess to not knowing the politics of AOPA in relation to the rest of us and neither do I have the picture regarding the GA Alliance.
Perhaps my reference to divide and conquer didn't quite come across correctly. I apologise and offer up post operative residual morphine effects (hic) as my excuse and suggest that by referring to divide and conquer I mean this... We need all of the aviation representative bodies to respond in unison for best effect. Otherwise, we are affectively divided and will be conquered.
I do believe that the judicial challenge is necessary, bearing in mind that this is only part of the threat. We have yet to see the security measures if I understand this correctly.
Also, it's not just two weeks or two months, if they can do this once they can do it again. All of this nonsense just to appear to be doing something!
Perhaps my reference to divide and conquer didn't quite come across correctly. I apologise and offer up post operative residual morphine effects (hic) as my excuse and suggest that by referring to divide and conquer I mean this... We need all of the aviation representative bodies to respond in unison for best effect. Otherwise, we are affectively divided and will be conquered.
I do believe that the judicial challenge is necessary, bearing in mind that this is only part of the threat. We have yet to see the security measures if I understand this correctly.
Also, it's not just two weeks or two months, if they can do this once they can do it again. All of this nonsense just to appear to be doing something!
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Bill, I'm not intending to have a go at you personally so sorry if that is how it came across. The GA Alliance has been in existance since October 2004 and was established for the very purpose of presenting a unified voice in the regulatory/consultation arena. The list of associations involved is:
BBAC - British Balloon and Airship Club
BGA - British Gliding Association
BHPA - British Hang Gliding and Para Gliding Association
BMAA British Microlight Aircraft Association
BPA - British Parachute Association
HCGB - Helicopter Club of Great Britain
LAA - LIght Aircraft Association
PPL/IR Europe - European Association of Instrument Rated Private Pilots
Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom
You will see that AOPA is not amongst them, which I think is a shame but you will have to ask them why they are not. I guess they like to plough their own furrow.
LAA will be trying to negotiate access to and from strips that are within the restricted area, and enabling the operation of aircraft without transponders along those entry/exit routes. As one who is affected by this proposal, I would be satisfied with such a resolution. I think to expect more is unrealistic in the security conscious/terrorist threat environment that currently prevails.
BBAC - British Balloon and Airship Club
BGA - British Gliding Association
BHPA - British Hang Gliding and Para Gliding Association
BMAA British Microlight Aircraft Association
BPA - British Parachute Association
HCGB - Helicopter Club of Great Britain
LAA - LIght Aircraft Association
PPL/IR Europe - European Association of Instrument Rated Private Pilots
Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom
You will see that AOPA is not amongst them, which I think is a shame but you will have to ask them why they are not. I guess they like to plough their own furrow.
LAA will be trying to negotiate access to and from strips that are within the restricted area, and enabling the operation of aircraft without transponders along those entry/exit routes. As one who is affected by this proposal, I would be satisfied with such a resolution. I think to expect more is unrealistic in the security conscious/terrorist threat environment that currently prevails.
Brian
If you were running a flying school from an airfield in the zone would you be happy with the LAA position stated above? Would you put your efforts behind the Light Aircraft Association, or AOPA? Now I am not saying the LAA position is wrong, for our current membership it is spot on, but if we aspire to representing light aviation it is far short of the mark. My prediction is that by threatening a JR AOPA will upset some people but will win big concessions and score a big PR win which will gain them members. We will be seen as having looked after our “narrow” interests. Perhaps it is our aim to represent light aviation which should be reviewed?
Rod1
Edited to add it appears that AOPA are now not involved in the JR!
If you were running a flying school from an airfield in the zone would you be happy with the LAA position stated above? Would you put your efforts behind the Light Aircraft Association, or AOPA? Now I am not saying the LAA position is wrong, for our current membership it is spot on, but if we aspire to representing light aviation it is far short of the mark. My prediction is that by threatening a JR AOPA will upset some people but will win big concessions and score a big PR win which will gain them members. We will be seen as having looked after our “narrow” interests. Perhaps it is our aim to represent light aviation which should be reviewed?
Rod1
Edited to add it appears that AOPA are now not involved in the JR!
021864
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Rod, the established airfields have the Airport Operators Association to look after their interests, which in many ways are commercial operations.
Strips however, are pretty much on their own so by helping them co-ordinate a response to this proposal LAA will be providing a useful service that is not available to them elsewhere. Residents at these strips include owners of all manner of aircraft, from EASA through LAA Permit to microlights, and no doubt many of the owners will not be LAA members. We are therefore, not confining our efforts solely to our members but trying to safeguard the activities of a broad spectrum of recreational LAA.
I think you have be aware of what is possible, rather than go in all guns blazing and think you are going to change the world.
John Broad, John Brady and Roger Hopkinson will be leading on this for LAA and no doubt it will become clearer in due course exactly what is achievable and what isn't. It is very early days yet and no doubt strategies will develop as more becomes known.
Strips however, are pretty much on their own so by helping them co-ordinate a response to this proposal LAA will be providing a useful service that is not available to them elsewhere. Residents at these strips include owners of all manner of aircraft, from EASA through LAA Permit to microlights, and no doubt many of the owners will not be LAA members. We are therefore, not confining our efforts solely to our members but trying to safeguard the activities of a broad spectrum of recreational LAA.
I think you have be aware of what is possible, rather than go in all guns blazing and think you are going to change the world.
John Broad, John Brady and Roger Hopkinson will be leading on this for LAA and no doubt it will become clearer in due course exactly what is achievable and what isn't. It is very early days yet and no doubt strategies will develop as more becomes known.
-
mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
Brian et al,
There's already a timescale according to this (edited) e-mail from the 'Olympics' e-mail shown in last weeek's ban pronouncement.
ASI London Olympics 2012 -
We are having a meeting on[b] 8 Apr 11 [/b]to discuss the various requests for exemptions that we have received, also the issue of radio
equipped without transponder as it seems entirely reasonable that those
aircraft could fly if in contact with ATC. However the restrictions are not a CAA decision, but the Home Office and their security advisors.
mikehallam.
P.S. FWIW in terms of knowing what may be 'done for me', the CAA responded already, the LAA nada except an auto acknowledgement to my request of a week ago. So whilst I read on this forum that within the LAA things are moving to see if a submission for 'us' along certain lines, I have had no request either for input or comment on these moves. I accept that with all the other time tasks take it's not easy, but if matters are being initially discussed on 8th April, the LAA team must surely need to present their honed argument well enough in advance for it to be placed correctly on the Agenda some time (x) before that.
mike [with an airfield inside the 2 months ban zone]
There's already a timescale according to this (edited) e-mail from the 'Olympics' e-mail shown in last weeek's ban pronouncement.
ASI London Olympics 2012 -
We are having a meeting on[b] 8 Apr 11 [/b]to discuss the various requests for exemptions that we have received, also the issue of radio
equipped without transponder as it seems entirely reasonable that those
aircraft could fly if in contact with ATC. However the restrictions are not a CAA decision, but the Home Office and their security advisors.
mikehallam.
P.S. FWIW in terms of knowing what may be 'done for me', the CAA responded already, the LAA nada except an auto acknowledgement to my request of a week ago. So whilst I read on this forum that within the LAA things are moving to see if a submission for 'us' along certain lines, I have had no request either for input or comment on these moves. I accept that with all the other time tasks take it's not easy, but if matters are being initially discussed on 8th April, the LAA team must surely need to present their honed argument well enough in advance for it to be placed correctly on the Agenda some time (x) before that.
mike [with an airfield inside the 2 months ban zone]