Brize and Oxford ACP

[C Rule]

Below is the content of a email sent to all Members at Lasham
Lasham have confirmed that they would be very happy to see members of the LAA community at the meeting.
If you are in driving distance why not consider coming?

Dear Member,

The person who is leading the main team fighting against the Brize/Oxford airspace grab, Steve Noujaim, has agreed to come to Lasham on Saturday 17th March to explain to you what is happening, how he believes the issue can be resolved, and to enable you to generate your responses to the Consultation which is underway and closes on 5th April.

This matter is yet another of the threats to the airspace in which we all fly. If you want to keep our freedom of the skies for the wide membership that makes up gliding, you need to come along to this talk.

It will take place at 4 pm in the Brown Elephant.

The links to the Consultation Documents are:

- Brize - <https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbrizenorton/r ... 965DA4.pdf>

- Oxford - <http://www.oxfordairport.co.uk/wp-conte ... ssue_1.pdf>


Look forward to seeing you there.


Very Many Thanks

Gavin

GE Spink
General Manager
Lasham Gliding Society
<http://www.lashamgliding.com/>

Tel: 01256 384900

[C Rule]

Below is the content of an email sent to the gliding community by the BGA.
Although much of the content is gliding specific it does read across into the wider flying community.
Please take a moment to read it.

This email contains some very important information. Please take a moment to read it and then share it with gliding friends and colleagues.

RAF Brize Norton and Oxford Airport are consulting on a number of proposed airspace changes which will introduce massive areas of class D airspace. If taken forward and approved by the CAA, these unnecessary airspace restrictions will;

Significantly increase risk to the majority who operate outside the proposed controlled airspace due to new and exacerbated choke points

Significantly limit cross-country flying across south central England

Negatively impact the operations at a number of nearby clubs to the point where it’s possible that some will be fatally damaged

Negatively impact all clubs whose members fly cross-country

In other words, It’s a potential disaster for gliding.

We are working to produce a robust response to the consultation. The response team is led by Steve Noujaim of BGGC. Meanwhile, we have written to club chairmen explaining the situation. We have asked club chairmen to submit a response for their club and to contact the club’s MP seeking support.

Even though a BGA and GA Alliance response will represent the views of thousands of pilots, the airspace change proposers will count that as a single response and then advise the CAA that there was a low level of opposition to their proposals.

WE NOW NEED AS MANY PILOTS AS POSSIBLE TO RESPOND! The closing date for consultation responses is 5th April 2018.

Please carefully read the detail published at this link that will help you in making email responses to both consultations https://members.gliding.co.uk/represent ... rton-acps/

Please don’t turn away. You CAN make a difference, but only if you respond by the 5th April!

Please accept our apologies if you have received this email more than once.

Thanks for your help.

John Williams

Chairman, BGA Airspace Committee

Pete Stratten

Chief Executive Officer

British Gliding Association

8 Merus Court

Meridian Business Park

Leicester

LE19 1RJ

[C Rule]

I thought i would bring this back to the top.
With just a few days to go please don't miss out on a chance to have your say about Brize Norton and Oxford attempt to grab a block of airspace which along with Farnborough's up coming grab with change the face of light aviation in the south of England. to say nothing about the significant hazard increase with some very narrow choke points.

[JimCrawford]

Time is running out.
If you don't understand the serious of the situation read;

https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/u ... proposals/

https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/p ... or-pilots/

and respond before the 5th.

Jim

[C Rule]

Press release from APPG on GA

The APPG led by Grant Shapps MP has responed to the RAF Brize Norton and Oxford airspace changes consultation

ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP BRANDS BRIZE AND OXFORD AIRSPACE PROPOSALS ‘UNSAFE’

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on General Aviation has voiced significant concerns about the potential dangers of proposed airspace changes around London Oxford Airport and RAF Brize Norton, branding the proposed changes ‘dangerous’.

In separate submissions to the two consultations, the 148 parliamentary members of the all-party group said that there is "widespread concern that the changes will damage the interests of the majority of those involved in general aviation," and that the rationale behind the proposed introduction of large scale Class D controlled airspace does not appear to take into account the resulting significant reduction in safety outside of the newly proposed controlled airspace.

The parliamentary group has been contacted by colleagues in Parliament, members of the public and a wide variety of airspace users. All share similar concerns about the impact on general aviation, including increased dangers in the region’s remaining uncontrolled lower airspace.

Investigating in order to submit the APPG’s formal response to the two consultations, experts on the all-party Airspace Working Group have identified alternative airspace designs in both cases. These would address the operational needs of both RAF Brize Norton and London Oxford Airport, without vastly expanding the existing area of controlled airspace.

In addition to responding to the two consultations by the 5th April 2018 deadline, the Airspace Working Group has said that it will conduct an inquiry into the UK’s lower airspace, which will involve a Call for Evidence from industry bodies such as the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), NATS Holdings and the Department for Transport. A report to ministers will be produced after Hearings in due course.

Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, said: "The all-party group on General Aviation has received large numbers of concerns about the proposed airspace changes around London Oxford Airport and RAF Brize Norton. There is something rotten with the current process, which is why a new procedure has already been introduced. The attempt made by these two applications to get under the radar by using the previous rules is not acceptable to those of us in Parliament.

"That’s why the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation is taking an active interest in these airspace change proposals, and why we’ve made submissions to both consultations. In particular, it’s important to realise that in trying to address safety concerns near these airfields, the measures would dramatically harm safety in the constricted areas just outside. Fortunately our Airspace experts have identified a way to provide safe entry and exit routes to both RAF Brize Norton and London Oxford Airport without grabbing massive chunks of currently uncontrolled airspace from other users."

Pete Stratten, Sector Chair of the Airspace Working Group, said: "We are concerned that the proposals made in these two consultations will significantly increase the risk to the majority who operate outside the proposed airspace. Inward looking airspace changes made in isolation do little to establish airspace that reasonably meets the needs of all stakeholders. Without a lower airspace strategy, and one which ensures that everyone's needs are considered, we will get airspace that is unsafe, unfit for purpose and damaging to UK aviation as a whole."

ENDS

[Ian Melville]

All we can do is wait now and see what happens.
Fingers crossed.

[RichardMaxted]

I have been thinking why I have such a strong reaction to the recent spate of airspace proposals; particularly our own local grab at Leeds.

The trouble is with the term “Open”. It’s the wrong name for class G airspace. It should be called Common Airspace, as in Common Land. Open implies empty, unused, not owned. Common tells every developer precisely who the owner is; every individual who has ever used it, wants to use it now, and those who might use it at some point in the future. Once I started thinking of Class G as “Common Land” several analogies suddenly made my feelings clearer.

There is a small industrial estate on the outskirts of Oxford. It is served by some roads and is surrounded by Common Land. People wanting to ride horses, walk the dog, graze a goat or two, or just fly a kite can wander about never having to enter the estate – unless they want to call in for a coffee.
Then this estate decides to open a larger shopping centre and warehouses. Now it needs a wider road, more carparks, roundabouts and a link with the local A road. Suddenly all those visits to the Common Land will involve crossings at footbridges, underpasses, zebra crossings. Only one will be suitable for horses. The increase in heavy lorries, the increased traffic from the 1,00 new workers, mean wider faster roads that will need barriers to separate all this traffic from the children that used to wander freely.

In effect the developer, in seeking to maximise profit, can only do this safely by restricting the rights of the whole community to their Common Land. One might argue that for this reason if no other it is clear that the proposed estate cannot be built, at that location, safely. The only way to build a safe estate being to restrict Common Rights. If such a thing were proposed I would be surprised to see much less than a full planning enquiry, and possibly decision made by the Secretary of State.

Yet somehow the analogy between controlled Airspace increase is lost because the regulators look at how to mitigate the risks of the development rather than the effect of the development in increasing risk. It is the equivalent of telling the villagers after the estate is built that the Common Land is now too dangerous to use.

[Ian Melville]

The trouble is with the term “Open”. It’s the wrong name for class G airspace. It should be called Common Airspace, as in Common Land. Open implies empty, unused, not owned. Common tells every developer precisely who the owner is; every individual who has ever used it, wants to use it now, and those who might use it at some point in the future. Once I started thinking of Class G as “Common Land” several analogies suddenly made my feelings clearer.

Interesting thought Richard. The APPG made a comment that the allocation of controlled airspace was
“Allocating a scarce national resource to benefit one organisation to the cost of others that also need to generate income is anti-competitive.”

The concept is not without its own issues, but how do we go about a Common Airspace campaign?

[RichardMaxted]

I am not sure. Normally one does this sort of thing by mass trespass but I am not sure that's really an appropriate thing with aeroplanes

I wonder if we need to work on the Parliamentarians and get them to see things in this way and then remind the regulator that it has a role ( like all planning authorities ) in protecting Common Land. How about a "Best of Common Airspace" feature in the press ? A series of articles written about our best bits of Common airspace ( for scenery / access / training etc). Perhaps ( heaven forbid ) we need to get other Common airspace users involved who normally don't feature in campaigns. Drone users, para gliders, radio controlled modellers, kite flyers. How about a mass kite fly under threatened airspace. Don't underestimate the sentimental power of "Go Fly a Kite" in the press.

Whilst it is still common airspace we could legally "mass trespass" with a fly through the pinch point to show how few aircraft can fly in it line abreast. It might make the news ?

As I say - I'm not sure...

[RichardMaxted]

Actually perhaps the first step is if all of us and our organisations refused to use the term Open or Class G airspace anymore, in any meeting or publication we insisted on using Common Airspace. If our press only ever referred to it as Common Airspace. If the various organisations changed all their documentation to refer to Common Airspace. In effect a subtle but probably frustrating for the CAA act that could seriously gum up the works. A form of civil disobedience perhaps.

Think about how many groups have successfully changed the word used to describe something simply by the power of its use.