Introduction
1. Are you responding in an official capacity on behalf of an organisation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Other
Bliss Aviation
2. What is your name?
Name
(Required)
Graham Smith
4. Are you answering as:
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Resident affected by aviation
Radio button:
Unticked
Airline passenger
Radio button:
Ticked
Member of the General Aviation community
Radio button:
Unticked
Member of the commercial aviation industry
Radio button:
Unticked
Central or local government body including military
Radio button:
Unticked
Elected political representative e.g. councillor or MP
Radio button:
Unticked
National representative organisation e.g. trade association
Radio button:
Unticked
Local organisation e.g. community action group
Radio button:
Unticked
Other
5. Where do you live or where is your organisation based?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
East of England
Radio button:
Unticked
East Midlands
Radio button:
Unticked
West Midlands
Radio button:
Unticked
North East
Radio button:
Unticked
North West
Radio button:
Unticked
Northern Ireland
Radio button:
Unticked
Scotland
Radio button:
Unticked
South East
Radio button:
Ticked
South West
Radio button:
Unticked
Wales
Radio button:
Unticked
Yorkshire and the Humber
6. Is there anything else that you would like us to know in connection with your response?
General
Former commercial pilot, current instructor, Msc
7. Do you consent to your response being published?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes, with personal identifying information (name, organisation, respondent category, location, additional information – please note your email address will NOT be published if you choose this option)
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes, anonymised
Radio button:
Unticked
No
8. CAP 1887 details the proposed criteria to be used to inform whether to accept the Airspace Change Masterplan, which is being created by the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG), an impartial team in NERL. Do you have any general comments you would like to share on the proposed criteria for assessing and accepting the Airspace Change Masterplan?
Overview
Noise should not be considered unless accompanied by actual measurements and comparisons. Current jet transports are very quiet, making less noise of shorter duration than petrol powered garden tools, mopeds, emergency vehicles, tractors, delivery vans and refuse collection vehicles.
9. Are the proposed criteria detailed in CAP 1887 the right criteria to enable acceptance?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Significant modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Don’t know
Criteria
The document is largely incomprehensible and gives no indication of the airspace changes proposed.
10. Chapter 3 of CAP 1887 details the policy considerations that are relevant to the Airspace Change Masterplan. Are there examples of where further policy may be required to guide trade-off decisions?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Don't know
Policy
80. Is it thought that manufacturers and operators are using procedures that do not already minimize external noise and fuel consumption? Are aircraft SOP's within the remit of this document?
...growth which may adversely affect noise...(sense?) Add: ...require that noise impacts are measured and considered...
...not conflict with national security requirements... This is the biggest trade-off required, without which no change of consequence can happen. The phrase is a catch-all which can mean anything. Military operations are aggressively territorial, seeking as much airspace as possible regardless of it's planned use. While it is evident that military exercises require a large block of airspace, this should only be available for the duration of the exercise and released for general use when complete.
GA needs to accept trade-off's too. Is there any need for VFR flight above 10,000ft? Two exceptions would need consideration; gliding and para-dropping.
Consider the routes taken by commercial aircraft departing R06 EGPH destination EGSS and EGHH destination LEMG or EIDW. Consider the recommended VFR route St Catherines Point to LFRC.
...growth which may adversely affect noise...(sense?) Add: ...require that noise impacts are measured and considered...
...not conflict with national security requirements... This is the biggest trade-off required, without which no change of consequence can happen. The phrase is a catch-all which can mean anything. Military operations are aggressively territorial, seeking as much airspace as possible regardless of it's planned use. While it is evident that military exercises require a large block of airspace, this should only be available for the duration of the exercise and released for general use when complete.
GA needs to accept trade-off's too. Is there any need for VFR flight above 10,000ft? Two exceptions would need consideration; gliding and para-dropping.
Consider the routes taken by commercial aircraft departing R06 EGPH destination EGSS and EGHH destination LEMG or EIDW. Consider the recommended VFR route St Catherines Point to LFRC.
11. Chapter 4 of CAP 1887 details the engagement expectations for the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) to undertake. Do you have any comments on the engagement we are asking ACOG to undertake?
Engagement
The need for all parties to accept that the boundaries of controlled airspace must be simple to depict, understand and identify. Standardisation of CA in the vicinity of airports would facilitate this. I have submitted a paper on this subject to GASCO and the CAA.