The widening gap between ATC and the LAA Airspace Team

[James Chan]

I've been going through the history of consultations submitted by the LAA Airspace Team.

I applaud them for their efforts in doing some very comprehensive research and submitting some lengthy responses as to why such airspace should be opposed.

However it seems like only nothing, or tiny chunks of their responses have actually been listened to and the CAA approves most if not all of the initial airspace proposal?

Is there a huge, huge gap between ATSUs who require controlled airspace to do their job effectively, and the LAA team who doesn't seem to accept a single cubic metre of controlled airspace, including VFR-accessible (i.e. non-Class A) controlled airspace?

What can be done better to bridge the gap? Where can we identify centre-ground? Should there be more ATC visits to enable LAA members to see what it is like behind the radar or tower? Should LAA members take a controller on a flight? Should there be better discussions on the problems each party faces? Is the CAA looking at FAS(VIG) discussions seriously enough? Under what circumstances does the LAA see each classification of airspace as acceptable or unacceptable?

I guess I hope all the effort placed into forming any future airspace response doesn't get wasted and ignored again by the people who read it.

[Chris Martyr]

Sorry James, but if I was John Brady , I would be a bit put out with this !

You may not remember 'the wonderful 1970's' when the miners were having their annual battle with Ted Heath [no win] or Harold Wilson [win].

One of the basic principles of negotiating is to ask for what you want then add on 50%. The respective airfield steering groups are doing it , and fortunately , our guardians are playing them at their own game, but they have to factor in the whole picture. IE The fact that LAA's fleet comprises of 200MPH sex machines ,right down through the spectrum ,until you reach the low, slow aeroplanes that some of us others fly.
The Cessna/Warrior guys will have very little problem with the outcome of most of this, but many others in the LAA remit , which could include NORDO's, classic vintage, transponderless open cockpit types where VHF comms are a little sporadic to say the least could be very compromised by some of these airfields with delusions of grandeur .
Personally, I'm glad that our representatives are fighting so robustly on ALL of our behalfs .

[Brian Hope]

Hi James, I think it should also be noted that there is a lot of expertise within the LAA response team. It is easy to assume that they are enthusiastic amateurs who have no real understanding of the issues facing CAT. John was a fast jet pilot in the RAF and a commercial pilot, he fully understands what is reasonable in terms of airspace grab and what is not. All too often airfields want to take the easiest and lowest cost option to meet their requirements rather than consider the needs of other airspace users.
I say well done John and his small group of helpers for the well reasoned responses they provide. I do not believe those responses should be tempered, I think CAA should start taking more notice of them and ensure that airfields and CAT properly consider the rights of all airspace users rather than only their own commercial interests.

[James Chan]

compromised by some of these airfields with delusions of grandeur .

and ensure that airfields and CAT properly consider the rights of all airspace users rather than only their own commercial interests.

Perhaps but should there be an LAA Aerodrome Team that deals with light aircraft access issues to aerodromes?

For example, many people feel excluded because of the expensive mandatory handling charges added on top of landing, navigation and parking fees. Based aero clubs may be prohibited from offering their parking spaces and other services to visitors. Prohibiting the freedom to self handle may also be illegal as per Article 8(b) of the UK Airports Groundhandling Regulations 1997.

Could it be the case that when light aircraft users believe they can co-exist with other traffic on aerodrome runways without being unreasonably excluded, that issues concerning access to airspace naturally progresses into focusing on technicalities surrounding facilitating transiting, inbound and outbound light aircraft as opposed to unreasonable exclusion to airspace?

[Chris Martyr]

James, I do understand your concern regarding the LAA Airspace team and the respective ATSU's.

But looking at the mini Heathrows and their perceived problems, I still can't get it into my head where the main confrontations lie.
Let's take Southampton as an example. An incredibly busy airfield, serving northern Europe and mainly the Channel Islands. Their area of Class D , like Bournemouth's bothers nobody. But at their peak times, they could probably do without the fun-runners and joy riders either in the circuit or outside their area , taking up their resources.
I have absolutely no problem with this as we can all make a contingency plan and get around it when necessary. But some of these other upstarts who do rather over estimate their potential footprint and don't seem bothered about the possible pinch-points that they could create, do give me a little bit of a problem.
I'm sure your comments about LAA members visiting ATSU's are very well intended, but that's not where the problem lies. You'll be surprised at how many occupants of J3's, Pitts' ,Jodels etc , are very well versed with air traffic control procedures . The problem lies with the airfield operators whose sense of perspective has become a little over-magnified.
So thank goodness that we do have representatives who are thumping the table for reasons that concern us all.
I've spent most of my working life in the aviation industry. It's 2% flying and 98% bullsh1t mate. Once you've processed that fact, it all becomes a bit clearer.