DEADLINE 19TH JUNE 2008

 

Please respond to NATS on this consultation either on-line or by post to their Freepost addresss (see below).  Note that using the on-line form will limit what you can say so post may be the best medium. To use their online response form you have to register.  There is a “send your comments” link on the NATS Website   You need to sign up, receive a password and then log in.

 

You will see that you have to select a local area from a drop down box. Select anything but when you write your narrative, say something to the effect that is not applicable to aviation stakeholders and your commetns cover the whole consultation area.

 

We recommend you tick the following boxes:

 

 

We strongly recommend you compose your comments in another document and then paste them into the box on the comments form (up to 2500 characters only) otherwise you will not have a record.  Note that you can only submit the form once and if you leave the page whilst you are composing, all your work will be lost.

 

Please draw on the following issues but using your own words:

 

You may want to start by stating the reason for your interest in this and pointing out that your comments are not restricted to the “TCN Area” that you had to select on the comments form but NATS did not give suitable options for aviation stakeholders.

 

Where NATS seeks information on routing, they present a trick question. If you choose specified routes, you will be considered ungreen. If you choose direct flight paths we are at risk of losing more low level airspace to accomodate them but they will rarely be used. The latter is probably the least bad option.

 

Specific issues where NATS seeks feedback:

* I prefer the use of direct flight paths

...I prefer the use of specified routes

 

* Where substantial class G airspace is taken for CAS, there should always be a review to attempt to return unnecessary CAS to class G.

 

* NATS have not attempted to return substantial portions of CAS to Class G even though there appears to be no compelling case for its retention.

 

* Not all the airspace around holds is necessary for protection (New areas 7 and 6).

 

* Your representatives have not been unable to follow-up detailed discussions as NATS have not returned or acknowledged emails.

 

* The extension of CAS to the North of London will remove class G airspace currently used by non-commercial flying operations and restrict users to smaller areas.

 

* Although this change simplifies airspace from the commercial user’s viewpoint, it increases complexity when viewed from the Class G user viewpoint.  This will inevitably lead to an increase in incursions which could be resolved by reducing the amount of CAS used.

 

* Returning non-essential airspace to class G, removing choke points and simplifying GA routings are all things which could have been done as part of this change.  This must be included before approval.

 

* The introduction of CDAs should raise traffic profiles between the new holds and the airports so any CAS with a base more than 500ft below this profile should be considered for return to class G. 

 

* In particular the introduction of CDA to Stansted runway 05 and the longer straight in approach should be a cause to release airspace in this difficult choke area. This is an opportunity to simplify the Bishops Stortford airspace corner, reducing incursion risk.

 

* The 2000 ft base CTA strip to the south of Stansted does not seem to be needed now that all traffic will be routed north of the airfield.  It should be released.

 

* The 2500 ft base CTA triangle to the south of Stansted does not appear to be used in the new airspace design.

 

* There appears to be no overwhelming case to retain some of the lower level CAS to the south and east of Stansted and in the Chelmsford, Colchester area.

 

* New Area 1 is not necessary as traffic can be routed to avoid it and anyway should not be below 5000 ft in that area.  Its shape is too complex and is it is only required as a contingency, it should be deleted.

 

* New area 2 does not need to extend so far north east as traffic should not be below 6900 ft at its outer boundary.

 

* Aircraft leaving the new holds at FL70 and descending on a CDA will be well above the current lower levels of CAS.  The CAS levels should be raised or the boundaries moved to compensate.

  •  

  • * This should be part of a broader review of low level airspace around the London TMA to try to return underutilised CAS to class G.

 

If you want to write with your response the address is:

TCN Consultation,
NATS,
Freepost NAT22750,
Reading,
RG1 4BR

 

Main London Controlled Airspace Expansion Page

 

What is it?


The Airspace Change


The Response

 

Remember the deadline is 19 June 2008 

Please tell all your friends about this