London Airspace Consultation Launched

[James Chan]

At: http://www.londonairspaceconsultation.co.uk/

In this initial phase, Gatwick, London City and Biggin Hill routes are to be affected.

Note there are new Class A grabs being proposed.

However, NATS is "open to considering a lower classification of airspace if there is justification for the additional complexity; we therefore encourage any users of this airspace to respond to the consultation with details of the type and frequency of operation that may be affected."

Or perhaps the GA pilot should say "Please don't grab away the option of flying VFR in airspace just because it's easier for you to control planes in a permanent IFR environment."

I believe it is extremely important that all Class A must be resisted and a lower classification encouraged (C or D?) which permits VFR flights. If GA representative groups succeed in making a case, then future phases of London controlled airspace should align to this classification.

Much attention has been focused on Class D "grabs" in recent years when in fact all the Class A we see over the UK are the real grabs.

[James Chan]

Just a reminder that this consultation closes 21st January so please let your views be heard before Class A keeps expanding everywhere.

[Nigel Hitchman]

James, I just looked at this, well at least the Exec summary and part B which dealt with changes below 4000ft, however I couldn't find anywhere where it showed any changes of the airspace, that's not to say it isn't going to, but I couldn't find anything. Any idea where I can find out how they are proposing to change the airspace structure. Im only interested in the bit below 4000ft. thanks

[James Chan]

Nigel, there's nothing affected below 4,000ft.

The proposed sections are on Page G34 and G35 here.

Nonetheless I don't think that should give permission for others to declare airspace banning VFR flight above some certain altitude.

I typically fly between 3,000ft and 6,000ft anyway.

[James Chan]

x

[Nigel Hitchman]

So this change makes a small triangle of airspace over the channel go from base of FL125 down to FL105 and slightly more relevant the Clacton CTA over the sea between Southend and Manston lower from FL85 to 5500ft to the west and FL65 to the east, it also actually moves the boundary between the 5500ft and FL65 bit over kent slightly to the east. Much of this airspace over the sea would also be impractical to use by GA as it is blocked by the Foulness danger area.
While I never like airspace being taken away, this would seem to have a very minor impact and I think we should save our efforts to fight much more threatening airspace changes, such as Southend's proposal.

[James Chan]

It would appear that responses from aviation stakeholders to the NATS London Airspace Consultation seems to have been ignored or discarded.

The CAA has approved the Class A extension.

A letter released by SARG states: “No aviation objections were received by NATS”
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2111/20140731 ... proved.pdf

The feedback gathering company appointed by NATS did note objections were received to Class A airspace growth in their analysis of stakeholder responses:
http://www.londonairspaceconsultation.c ... -04-14.pdf
http://www.londonairspaceconsultation.c ... -04-14.pdf

I've become rather concerned at how responses can be simply thrown away like this?