Southend Controlled Airspace

[ChampChump]

I'll certainly pass that suggestion onto all interested locally.

Are those figures (338/319) for Southend?

[John Price]

Para 4.3

John.

[James Chan]

Having seen the response to the ACP consultation, I note:

Issue:

Justification for the proposed controlled airspace - A number of consultees and other aviation respondents challenged the whole justification for controlled airspace on the basis of the low number of CAT flights handled, comparison with other airports handling similar or greater numbers of CAT flights and the lack of reported incidents involving CAT aircraft.

EGMC Response:

The justification for controlled airspace is not based on the number of CAT aircraft operating but on “threat” and “risk” to those flights and must therefore take due regard of the nature of the overall airspace activity and the risk it poses to the operation of flights carrying fare-paying passengers. Clearly the relatively high density and nature of the uncontrolled airspace activity in the subject airspace gives cause for concern both to LSA and to the operators of CAT flights.

My question - how exactly has such threat and risk been assessed, for e.g. what evidence was there to demonstrate that there was "high density and nature of uncontrolled airspace activity in the subject airspace"? Did someone say that not that much GA flies above 3,000ft? Was the ERC score given to Airprox 2013082 fair? Have there been many more incidents?



Personally I remain unopposed to Southend needing some CAS. Just wondering how precisely they assess use of Class E or less in some of their CTAs as ineffective. I could fly over New York Class B above 10,000ft without seeking positive clearance as long as my transponder reports altitude and Southend is not even anywhere close to that.

[John Price]

Hi James,

My personal issue is not whether or not they need CAS but on the size of the thing.

If they had applied for a CTR the same size as the one that existed in the 90,s that would be more palatable.

If then their traffic increases hugely over the next 5-10 years they would then have a justification for the expansion of CAS.

Their proposal as it stands at present is just disproportionate.

John.

[ChampChump]

The Stobart steamroller has destroyed any hope I had of proportionate legislation; any minor gains elsewhere, should they arrive, are of little consequence compared with this wholly disproportionate nonsense.

[Zodiac]

We as GA pilots will never win any argument with the CAA about airspace restrictions so there is no point going on about what you think should happen. The very best you can hope for is a smaller section of controlled airspace than what is first proposed - which is probably what they wanted in the first place.

Norwich CAS is a case in point, with the exception of a couple of the controllers there they don't even want to talk to us.

There seems to have been a move to destroy GA in this country over the last few years, what with all the hot air that comes from the various organisations including the CAA, EASA and the like with all the ill conceived rule changes, the ever increasing costs of running a light aircraft, the staggering increase in the costs of kit build aircrafts and parts for servicing, I wonder sometimes what is the point.

Sorry to be such a misery but I really wonder if any of these people within these organisations have the first clue about the real world and grass roots light aircraft flying, or just don't care.

[Alan Kilbride]

We might as well give up then. Last man turn off the light in the hangar.

[Zodiac]

Not really what I meant but its supposed to be fun sport flying with the number one concern of keeping safe. Not one continuing battle to maintain the right to fly a light sport plane. Lucky for you at least you have a light in the hangar to turn off!!

[gregorp]

I throw this idea in to see what response I get. How about any airfield that wants more controlled airspace /RMZ being granted it on condition they offer unrestricted access to GA with a max landing fee of £15,say ,for under 2 tonnes and no handling fees unless handling required.
This would a) cause them to think twice about applying for it.
b) possibly increase the availabilty of reasonably priced airfields.

What do you think?

[Nigel Hitchman]

No Thanks Pete! I have no desire to land at any of these regional airfields, at many of them there is nothing there! add to that security jobsworths, just going for a cup of tea in the café could be problematic!
Just trying to get them to have an appropriately minimum sized piece of controlled airspace,particularly at low level, based on modern airliners doing straight in approaches and departures, under radar control. No taking into account old style procedural approaches, low level holds etc, then we might get somewhere and with a minimum number of airliner movements required to have the airspace, reviewed every year, if the airlines go, then the airspace goes (not like Doncaster! with hardly any airliner flights any more and airspace miles bigger than Gatwick!)

[John Price]

Hi Guys/Girls,

The Red Tape challenge Panel looked at charging for CAS. This was quickly dismissed by the DFT in its response. I think generally that this is correct for the reasons that if you are paying for something unilaterally it, in reasonable terms, becomes yours. CAT will always then be the only priority.

What I think may work is, buy way of a formula based on aircraft movement per cubic meter airspace per year.

If then airports have large amounts of movements, including GA, then there numbers remain high and no charge. If the movements then drop off the airport then pays a levy on 'non usage'. There could be different formulas tailored for CTA, CTR & Airways.

The more airspace you want, the more you will have to use it, or pay.

You could also give the sting that the charges could be logarithmic in value.

So giving examples Gatwick which is highly efficient pays nothing nor would Birmingham, Manchester etc.

Doncaster and Norwich would pay.

To avoid the levy reduce the CAS or utilise it.

My thoughts,

John.

[SteveHutt]

Hi John,

Please could I ask you to re-post your suggestion here:

http://services.lightaircraftassociatio ... =39&t=4346

Thanks,
Steve

[John Price]

Hi Steve,

Done.

John.

[SteveHutt]

Thanks John,
Steve

[SteveHutt]

Southend Class D CAS approved by CAA on 23rd Jan 2015.

Comes into effect 2nd April 2015.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2111/20150128 ... r%20v6.pdf