Govt reconsidered Olympics Security Airspace Restrictions

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

FlyOnTrack
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:47 pm
Contact:

Govt reconsidered Olympics Security Airspace Restrictions

Post by FlyOnTrack » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:47 am

New proposal - see http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... l&nid=2014 - link also on hot news on FlyOnTrack if you are trying to find it later.
GASCo's FlyOnTrack - Reducing Airspace Infringements
http://www.flyontrack.co.uk
011111

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Tue Jul 19, 2011 1:26 pm

This is a tremendous move forward from the original proposal, particularly the cut back of the restricted zone from 16 August to 12 September. It is at least workable now, and probably as good a result as we could have hoped for.
Well done to all the GA bodies that were involved in negotiating this improvement, and to CAA, DfT and NATS who supported our requests for a more considered approach.

User avatar
John Dean
Moderator
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Kent

Post by John Dean » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:19 pm

My first thoughts on these changes are that whilst the reduction in the period the restrictions are in force is to be welcomed, I see little further to be cheerful about. All the previous restrictions for filing flight plans are still in force with no guarantee that even if you do file one you will get permission to carry out the flight. Do they really need two hours notice before the flight? Also, flights in the restricted zone in non-transponder aircraft are prohibited.

There is still the stupid restriction for gliders who have to file a flight plan for a cross country flight and name and stick to the stated turning points. How the devil do you do that in a glider!!

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:27 pm

Have to say that's a rather negative view John. the time for the restriction zone has been halved for 95% of operators, and there is an undertaking to provide significant additional manning for AFPEx and a bunch of MOD controllers (hopefully with additional frequencies though that has not been stated) to facilitate as many movements as possible.
In an ideal world we would not have such an imposition enforced on us, but we do not live in a perfect world. In the circumstances I maintain that this is a far more workable arrangement than we had previously.

User avatar
John Dean
Moderator
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Kent

Post by John Dean » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:55 pm

Sorry if you think it's a negative view but the revised arrangements give no help to the non-transponder equipped aircraft based in the Restricted Zone, to say nothing of those aircraft not only without a transponder but also without a radio. They will be grounded for the period of the restriction.

Have the "Spooks" won?

Nigel Hitchman
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
Location: Hinton in the hedges

Post by Nigel Hitchman » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:11 pm

I think this is a big step forward. The restricted airspace for the paralympics 16 Aug - 12 Sept would now seem to be a sensible size and mostly contained within the existing LHR class A and London City zone, although there is an extension around the City zone, looking like it is all within the M25. Ok this still affects Damyns hall, maybe Stapleford and a couple of strips, but very few others.
Agree the restriction for the rest of the time for the actually Olympics and a week before couple days after is still way too big and will cause lots of problems, but effectivly we and those fighting on our behalf have halved the problem.

Lets keep fighting for a reduction in the Olympic restricted zone and also for any other zones that are going to crop up. I see Weymouth is still restricted for the 2 month period, but a fairly small bit of airspace and not affecting that many fliers I wouldnt think. Lets hope there arent going to be restricted zones around every football match! That will be the next thing to fight, especially if they are bigger than the size of an ATZ!

Simon Clifton
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Post by Simon Clifton » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:58 pm

The cynic in me says that the unreasonable original proposal was deliberately over the top, so that LAA et al can claim 'victory' in negotiating a less onerous outcome.

So the authorities get what they really wanted all along, LAA claims some credit, and flyers generally accept the compromise.

Have we been managed? Tell me it is not just me!

Simon C
~~~~~~

User avatar
Nigel Bailey
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:36 am
Location: Suffolk

Post by Nigel Bailey » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:13 pm

It’s not just you Simon. A couple of friends and I were chatting after flying a few weeks ago and brought the subject up in debate. Someone said that they wouldn’t be at all surprised if the authorities suddenly compromised with the aviation groups by reducing the restriction, thus getting a general thumbs up from most people that would have certainly thumbed it down if they had come out with the final (and wanted) plan in the first place.
After seeing the authorities do exactly as we mooted at our debate and considering how overblown the original plan was, I’m inclined to agree with you when you suggest that we’re being managed and I would add, controlled.

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:31 pm

That could well be true, but I see little choice other than to go through the usual 'democratic' motions and end up with a compromise solution. I do understand your cynicism but there is of course the argument that says that if we lived in any of a great many other countries around the world we wouldn't even get the chance to openly question what the government dictates.

User avatar
Nigel Bailey
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:36 am
Location: Suffolk

Post by Nigel Bailey » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:54 pm

You’re probably quite right there Brian and I suppose we can feel somewhat relieved that we are not one of those countries. But I’m sure that some people more cynical than Simon and I would have it that we are well on the way there!

Bill Scott
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:25 pm

Post by Bill Scott » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:16 am

I agree with Simon. It is called 'managing outcomes'
Now watching for the Black Omega to aririve 8)



Sent from my knackered laptop

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:21 pm

We are where we are and whether you want to play the cynic or whether you accept we have been successful in negotiating a better deal is up to you. What is important though is that we look at what we have and try to work out where the pitfalls might be; we can then seek clarification early enough from those who will be operating the system and maybe encourage tweaks that will make for better workability.
So, for instance, what is the timeframe from filing your flightplan to receiving a go/no go reply - if you hear nothing after an hour should you re-file? Do you need to file for a complete flight if you intend leaving the zone at the nearest point and then proceeding to a UK destination, in other words do you only need to file for the sector of the flight that takes you clear of the zone? What happens if you want to divert from your flight planned route due to weather, will commonsense prevail? If you're returning to the zone and running late, are there specific slot times you must meet before your entry approval 'expires'? How do you get your approval if filing from the continent?
I realise that many of these issues are probably planned to be explained at a later stage, but it would not do any harm to put forward some scenarios that might occur to ensure that we cover as many bases as possible. It would also be a good idea if once the authorities have a fully planned operational system, we had a 'trial run' to see how the system copes. It's probable that most pilots have never filed a flightplan, let alone done it on AFPEx, so how will the system cope with the inevitable large number of misfiled plans?
There is a lot of education and preparation that needs to be put into this if it is going to work, so rather than be clever and talk about our Orwellian regulators and civil liberties, let's take some positive steps to ensure that we get the most workable system we can.

iancallier
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:27 pm
Location: hampshire

Post by iancallier » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:18 pm

I have to say ALL those who negotiated are hero s & have done well. but the UK still think terrorists are arriving by air/ single male - i get double or triple checked every time i go thro gatwick.
Wake up-out there most the recent suicide bombers have been of the female flavour and operating as a team on the ground!
BUT our authorities got the headline by attacking light aviation in this case-yet again.
I THANK the folk who made the effort to respond to this twaddle

Bill Scott
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 6:25 pm

Post by Bill Scott » Sat Jul 23, 2011 10:02 pm

Twaddle it most certainly is, butI really do think that the (larger) restricted area is going to generate its own problems as it relies on invisible lines in the sky. Surely it could have been made so much simpler by using recognisable surface features?
Maybe the eastern boundary could have been M25/Dartford Crossing, thus leaving a practical north-south route to the east of London.
No doubt there are other equally logical tweaks that could make this workable for us and the lucky people who have been lumbered with trying to make this fiasco work.
It reminds me of the amusing after dinner talk by the ex ATC chap 'What goes up may come down' except they're actualy serious :roll:

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:21 am

Hi Bill, I think the North South route is one of the major problems. I suspect the M25/Dartford crossing was considered too close in, and that is why the edge is much farther out to the east. Of course there wouldn't be a problem if the Shoeburyness Ranges were to remain inactive throughout the period, but apparently that is not the case, thus shutting down the N/S access unless you route miles out to sea. This of course is another one of those issues that we need to riase, can we reasonably expect Southend to allow access through its Olympic airspace, and will the MoD greatly restrict use of the ranges. If not then heading north from the SE of England is virtually impossible without a restricted zone clearance, taking up valuable access slots for those who actually need them to operate within, or get out of the zone.

Post Reply