About You
H. Do you consent to your response being published?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
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(name, organisation, respondent category, location, additional information - please note your email address will NOT be published if you choose this option)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:
Ticked
Yes, anonymised (no information in questions A to G will be published)
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Background to the Proposals
1. In general terms, do you agree that a single airspace design entity in the form of a UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS) provider, properly scoped, funded and implemented, would address the challenges identified and improve delivery confidence in airspace modernisation?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
Maybe
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Don't know
In general terms, do you agree that a single airspace design entity in the form of a UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS), properly scoped, funded and implemented, would address the challenges identified and improve delivery confidence in airspace modernisation?
I think the concept of a single UKADS provider is a very good one. However I think that this body needs to be independent of NATS in order that it can take a balanced view over all airspace users, including GA.
Scope and priorities
2. What are your views on our proposal that the end-state UKADS scope encompasses all ACPs in UK airspace?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don't know
Please explain your answer including the additional considerations, where relevant.
Good idea, UKADS should establish overall design principles which encompass the needs of all Airspace users - not just commercial traffic.
3. What are your views on our proposal that the short-term UKADS scope should be the London TMA region?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
4. What are your views on our proposals for the UKADS scope in the medium term?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree, subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please explain your answer including the additional considerations, where relevant.
Good idea, but the authority needs to be independent of NATS
A phased approach to delivering the UKADS
5. Do you have any views on our proposed two-phase approach?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
6. Do you have any views on the models that have been considered?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Don’t know
Our proposed initial operating model (UKADS1 within NERL)
7. Do you have any views on our proposal that NERL takes on the initial task of providing airspace design services through UKADS1?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, but subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Ticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please explain your answer, including if relevant any additional considerations.
I think this is a very bad idea, it will bias the designs towards NERL/NATS requirements to the detriment of other airspace user. One of the major problems with Airspace Design Changes using consultants (as at present) is that the consultants simply ignore design changes suggested by other users, besides the sponsor and the consultation becomes a box ticking exercise with no real compromise or balance achieved of the needs of the airspace user community - the failed Brize/Oxford ACP's were a prime example where many alternatives were suggested by knowledgeable bodies but the consultants ignored these and simply continued with an obviously flawed design.
8. Do you consider that in progressing a particular cluster of the masterplan, UKADS1 should take over ACOG’s current coordination or masterplanning role for that cluster?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, but subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Ticked
Don’t know
9. Do you agree that organisations should be able to continue sponsoring ACPs that are in scope of UKADS1 if UKADS1 is not able to prioritise them?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, but subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Ticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give a reason for your answer, and indicate whether such organisations should be required to consult UKADS1 or have the option of using some UKADS1 services.
No point in having a single body if you allow other un-coordinated changes to continue
Remit for the initial operating model (UKADS1 within NERL)
10. Do you agree with the proposals for UKADS1's remit?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer, in particular whether anything should be excluded in, or is missing from, the proposed remit.
For reasons stated earlier having UKADS1 within NERL is a very bad idea, an independent body is needed.
11. Do you agree with the approach we propose for consultation and engagement on ACPs, including who pays for these activities?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Don’t know
Transition arrangements for the initial operating model (UKADS1 within NERL)
12. What are your views on our transition proposals?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer.
UKADS1 should not be within NERL
13. What are your views on our proposal that, where appropriate, UKADS1 should merge the existing ACPs into a single ACP for the cluster or deployment?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, with additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Another approach
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
14. What are your views on our proposal that the CAA approves each transition plan?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, with additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Governance for the initial operating model (UKADS1 within NERL)
16. What are your views on our proposals for UKADS1 governance?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer, including whether the proposed arrangements would be sufficiently proportionate, transparent and robust, and how you see this working in practice.
UKADS1 governance should not be within one of the major airspace users.
17. Would these proposals give sufficient reassurance that potential conflicts of interest arising from NERL providing airspace design services through UKADS1 are mitigated?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
Partly
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Insufficient detail / don’t know
Funding UKADS and other airspace change
18. What are your views on our proposed new Airspace Design Charge to meet the efficient costs of NERL in providing an airspace design service through UKADS1 and to create a UK Airspace Design Support Fund for other eligible UK airport ACPs?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree, but with qualifications
Radio button:
Unticked
Use another method
Radio button:
Ticked
Don’t know
Our ambition and expectations for the proposed end-state operating model (UKADS2)
20. Do you have any views on our proposed concept for UKADS2?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
About right
Radio button:
Unticked
Minor modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Ticked
Insufficient information / don’t know