Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: FASVIG airspace proposals.

  1. #1
    Senior Member 500 Club
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dorset or Mayenne
    Posts
    966

    FASVIG airspace proposals.

    Worth a read. The proposals in this document would have a very positive effect on our kind of flying.
    http://fasvig.org/reports/uk-airspace-modernisation

  2. #2
    Senior Member 100 Club
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Essex, close to the infamous Stansted Zone
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by tomshep View Post
    Worth a read. The proposals in this document would have a very positive effect on our kind of flying.
    http://fasvig.org/reports/uk-airspace-modernisation
    That's a really good paper, especially relevant to vfr flying in the crowded UK South East. The FASVIG views on reducing CAS by adopting RNAV flight path clearances would release lots of what is currently CAS around London and Stansted. The views on uncoordinated VFR route flying is especially true - in many years of flying I can only remember one occasion when one ATC unit passed my details onto the next ATC unit, and they were both military! Well done RAF Benson and RAF Brize Norton. In contrast, on several occasions I have been dropped by Farnborough North 15 miles short of my destination when on a basic service, and told to free-call my destination. Good paper and interesting appendices.

  3. #3
    Senior Member 100 Club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sarf-east UK
    Posts
    145
    Yes Alan, I like this from Appendix C:
    "However, the CAA RTF Phraseology Working Group appears resistant to change or modernisation." *

    and
    "ATSOCAS categories are not ICAO standard, not understood by many UK pilots and very rarely understood by pilots from other states" reminds me of an instructor workshop a few years ago when the CAA rep was (metaphorically) torn to pieces by a room full of microlight instructors while he tried to explain the then-new ATSOCAS.

    Joan
    * I accept that some of my postings in another thread may seem to indicate that I, too, am "resistant to change or modernisation"
    The pilot formerly posting as MadamBreakneck
    GR examiner and TST pilot.
    and now a Tai Chi instructor

  4. #4
    Diamond geezer 500 Club
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    1,201
    At the risk of going off topic a bit, I would say that being resistant to change is not always a bad thing. There can be resistance just because "we've always done it this way" (bad), and resistance because "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" (good).
    I'll leave it to the reader to decide which applies where
    Martin Watson
    Microlights in Norfolk
    Fixed Wing Instruction - Exams and GSTs - Revalidations
    07805 716407

  5. #5
    Senior Member 100 Club
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Inside Old Buck ATZ
    Posts
    145
    I might add another one:
    "We've always broke it this way and we'll always fix it this way".

    Which is just a slightly more verbose version of "yes sir, they all do that".

    With apologies for side-tracking...
    Last edited by Pete Twissell; 20th November 2017 at 16:23. Reason: off topic apology
    Pete T.

    "A closed mouth gathers no feet".

  6. #6
    Senior Member 500 Club
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dorset or Mayenne
    Posts
    966
    FASVIG get their funding from an investment board chaired by the CAA but populated by CAT representatives. It has only been funded for another three months.
    Looks very much if FASVIG will be murdered in its bed.

  7. #7
    Senior Member 500 Club
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Dorset or Mayenne
    Posts
    966
    I am glad to report that FASVIG are to be funded until the end of next year.
    While the Flyer forum is busily plunging knives into the organisation, microlighters stand to benefit from their proposals. FASVIG need to be encouraged to put these proposals before the APPG so that the politicians can be given the message.

  8. #8
    Senior Member 100 Club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sarf-east UK
    Posts
    145
    Apropos this, I've just received the following from the APPG into my inbox. I thought I'd share it.

    Dear Joan

    This is just a short and sweet update as we head towards the Summer Recess in Parliament but an important one none-the-less.

    The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Generl Aviation is concerned at the Airspace Change around Farnborough, approved by the CAA last week. Following a Management Team meeting yesterday and having taken advice from our Airspace Working Group, we have issued the following Press Release which we wanted to share with our stakeholders as soon as possible.

    PARLIAMENTARY GROUP ANNOUNCES INQUIRY INTO CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY’S AIRSPACE CHANGE PROCESS

    The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on General Aviation has announced it intends to investigate the way that airspace changes are processed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK. The Parliamentary Group’s announcement comes in the wake of a controversial decision to grant controlled zones to a further large swathe of South East airspace near Farnborough.

    The wide-ranging Inquiry by parliamentarians will study the CAA’s current powers and make recommendations on how the law might be changed to address deficiencies in the current process. In addition to making representations to ministers, MPs and Lords may also introduce legislation to change the current law.

    The all-party group will invite stakeholders to submit evidence, then hold Hearings in the House of Commons as part of their Inquiry. With the full Terms of Reference to be published in due course...<snip>


    You can read the rest at the APPG's web site here.

    Just a reminder to those died-in-the-wool microlighters amongst us who say "I'm not *@*#* GA!". These people lump us in with GA, so we can and should get involved.

    PS. I've started a seperate thread in the Airspace Restrictions forum. Maybe that'd be a better place to discuss this.
    Last edited by Joan Walsh; 17th July 2018 at 15:33. Reason: PS
    The pilot formerly posting as MadamBreakneck
    GR examiner and TST pilot.
    and now a Tai Chi instructor

  9. #9
    Senior Member 100 Club
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Poole
    Posts
    289
    Well done Joan. We should fight the Farnborough decision all the way. It is purely an airspace land grab designed to eliminate any delays for wealthy business customers flying their highly inefficient and polluting business jets in and out. They should use public transport or get on their bike.

    Farnborough say that they handle 7000 business movements annually. Sounds a lot doesn't it? But don't have any sympathy for them because that only amounts to an average of just over 19 movements per day. Less than 2 per hour in a 10 hour day. Hardly a busy place and this amount of traffic certainly doesn't warrant disrupting a large swaith of southern England airspace, and inconveniencing many more people than use Farnborough.

    What on earth were the CAA thinking of? Were there bribes involved? If not then it must be incompetence and a total disregard for GA and microlighting. They do know about microlighting, don't they?

  10. #10
    Diamond geezer 500 Club
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Borehamwood, Herts
    Posts
    1,313
    Adrian,

    Money talks! And as far as they're concerned, microlighters can walk!
    XL's forever! Well, one of them anyway. It's all I can afford, not to mention the Raven and the Mini-Max. Oh, and I almost forgot the Spectrum as well :-)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •