UAV zone extension in South West Wales

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Sun May 31, 2009 10:03 pm

Hello Welshman,

The LAA is on the case and you will soon be able to read all about it in our splendid magazine. Actually for our sort of flying the proposal as not a big deal as most of it is above FL100. Gliders will be denied some wave areas some of the time and hang a paragliders may lose some interesting terrain in West Wales but again only for some of the time.

The LAA has a team with local and specialist knowledge dealing with the consultation. I expect they would be very pleased to have WELSHMAN join them in their work. You can contact them at [email protected] to offer your expertise.

I will put some info on the website once the mag hits the streets.

John

MikeGodsell · Post by **MikeGodsell** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:07 pm

Hello John
Thanks for the info on Aberporth. Some non-flying friends of mine have been concerned for some time about this development. I have passed this information on to them. The development of systems to enable UAVs to avoid midairs at lower levels may well benefit GA, but one wonders what might those UAVs be used for.
Regards.
MG

Bill Scott · Post by **Bill Scott** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:40 pm

Ron,
Your attitude is not helpful
The black Omega is on way

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:37 pm

I think Ron has it spot on reference the influence certain other pastimes have. Nothing wrong with what they do, I think he was just alluding to the fact that some of them do mix with friends in high places. The "Light Aviation" brigade just gets walked all over by among others: Planning Authorities, Wind Farms Developers, EU (EASA), etc, etc.

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:35 pm

Dear Bob,

Of course you write complete nonsense and this being a forum it is your perogative so to do.

For other readers I would like cover Bob's post with my view that the West Wales UAV area is not really an issue for light aviation, most of the area being above FL100, all parts of it being activated only in sections within small vertical bands and then only when UAVs are being tested. And there will always be a crossing service and block clearances for hang gliders etc with no radio. There are not many UAVs that need the area anyway. It is more of an issue for gliding from Talgarth above FL100.

Where was Bob during the consultation you may ask - I went to the meetings at Aberporth and in London and talked to the GA community but there was little interest. Only a handful of people turned up at a meeting I set up with the Welsh Assembly Government who are the sponsors of this. It was embarassing. You don't really care do you, you just want to sit there in front of your screen and whinge away. Easier than doing something useful.

As to Your accusation that the LAA is "walked all over", might I cite the very recent rejection by Mark Swan, Director Airspace Policy of a TMZ over the Clyde Windfarm development following extensive work by the LAA (ie me) and the BHPA. Then there is the EASA light aircraft pilot's licence and medical declaration which would be no more but for the work of your representatives and the support and leadership of Sally Evans, Chief Medical Officer at the CAA. Both these individuals were hosted by your Board at Shuttleworth today along with a range of important people from government, the CAA and other aviation related bodies (and HRH our patron). We build relationships wherever we can and this pays dividends in the way we can work on your behalf.

I won't bore you with the list of objections to planning applications we have filed to local authorities, almost all of which have been successful. A couple of note would be the wind turbine in the middle of the Manchester low level route and a windfarm in the Luton Stansted gap that would have closed Graveley airfield.

Perhaps Bob can give us a detailed list of the specific issues with references where the "LAA was walked all over".

I must go now as it has been a busy day networking on your behalf and I have some papers to write about airspace strategy tomorrow and then 2 days of interviewing at LAA HQ again on your behalf.

Standing by for the list please Bob

John

G.Dawes · Post by **G.Dawes** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:47 pm

I have just read the reply to the posting that was mentioning the restrictions and the jumping down his throat was a bit harsh, I understood the Light Aviation referred to just that, the phrase does include all LIGHT AVIATION not the self assumed name of the LAA Magazine there are others in the world, No mention was made of the LAA per se.

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:23 pm

G. Dawes, thank you for your post.

John, I was merely making the point that aviation is not "flavour of the month" compared to other pastimes, & we do not always get a fair press. The post was about the different attitudes to different pastimes that Ron made was making, nothing more.

I was not objecting to the Wales UAV area, I did not mention the LAA, I was referring to Light Aviation not the LAA or do you think they are one & the same? I know the valuable work our association does re planning & a multitude of other things.

I say again, I was referring to Light Aviation not the LAA, you could have considered this rather than jump to the conclusion that I had omitted typing in "Association".

We have been members for several years since the PFA days, but this year we will think hard before we subscribe again. This kind of arrogant response is uncalled for. Read the post again.

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:51 pm

Hi Bob; "arrogant" here again - you do indeed refer to "The "Light Aviation" brigade" and I count the LAA as part of that together with perhaps the BGA, BHPA, BMAA, BPA, BBAC, HCGB, PPL IR and the Royal Aero Club which sweeps up aeromodellers too. Collectively that is the General Aviation Alliance through which these groups work on most regulatory stuff. I know as I write quite a lot of it. Add to the list AOPA which also active on these fronts

So if you are not slanging off the LAA which of them is it then? Or is it all of them? Don't be shy speak up now...... And I am still waiting for the list of items where one, more or all of these groups was walked all over. Just a few items to start us off please.

But meanwhile would you like me and the others to say awfully sorry old chap please don't leave as the very idea that you might unsubscribe will make us accept this sort of thing and work extra hard for Light Aviation? Parting with your money is always your choice - doing the business with what we are given is our problem.

I used to do this work for Light Aviation at my own cost in the belief that it was the right thing to do. But a few years ago a contributor posted here to the effect that we were "walking that swanky walk down the corridors of power at members expense". I started claiming expenses from then on. Did you know that even with OAP discount it costs the best part of a member subscription every time one of us goes to a meeting in London. Go to one in Brussels and it could easily cost 10 to 20 member subscriptions so we have to have a care about what we get involved in. But there is not much we are not involved in remotely. As it happened I went to Aberporth to meet the WAG people about the UAV danger area (about 5 member subscriptions there) but the LAA and the BHPA dealt with the Clyde windfarm TMZ without leaving home. Free to Light Aviation members but just personal cost for those involved.

Anyway if we (that is Light Aviation) has been walked all over, I would like to know the circumstances and if you provide that I will give you a considered response.

John

Bill McCarthy · Post by **Bill McCarthy** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:23 am

Bob, forgive me for thinking that you may be back pedaling a bit but when you write "Light Aviation" in that manner rather than just light aviation, or GA, that to me reads as a reference to our association I'm afraid.

Bob F · Post by **Bob F** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:57 pm

Bill, not back pedalling. I was referring to pastime activity, using the term General Aviation includes business. I was not having a swipe at our side of things, just making the point that our hobby, compared to some, seems to be perceived in a negative manner & therefore does not always get a fair hearing. If it appeared I was criticising those who work on our behalf, I was not.

John Brady · Post by **John Brady** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:24 pm

Thanks Bob,

having added a bit of controversy to the forum which people often say is too boring lets kiss and make up. Returning to the original thread title of West Wales, details are available here by the way, I think we have a lot more to worry about.

How about a class D CTR with airway connectivity for Southend with Easyjet operating 70 flights per week. That would really chop off a chunk of great flying territory. Southend thinks that once it has secured it temporary airspace for the Olympics, keeping it will be a doddle. We are working with the BGA on that.
John

Gaznav · Post by **Gaznav** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:28 pm

As a GA pilot I really cannot get too bothered about this. Most of the airspace is above FL100 - so unless you're carrying oxygen then this probably won't worry you! For the SFC-FL125 airspace you can get a Danger Area Crossing Service (DACS) from Aberporth; in fact, they would probably be only too glad to accomodate us as it proves that manned and unmanned can work together safely.

As someone that is watching the British aircraft industry go down the toilet due to "backwards leaning" and over-complicted regulation compared to many other countries developing Unmanned Systems, I am very worried. We probably have already "missed the boat" of gaining a lead that we could have had in the unmanned aircraft sphere - Wallis and Whittle are probably turning in their graves! This airspace and innitiative from the WAG goes some way to UK PLC playing catch up.

So I am very much aboard the "outrage bus" but from what I interpret from Bob's post I am at the opposite end!

All the best