About You
A. Are you responding in an official capacity on behalf of an organisation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
B. What is your name?
What is your name?
(Required)
John Michael Kelly
D. Are you answering as:
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Air passenger, shipper or customer
Radio button:
Ticked
Resident affected by aviation
Radio button:
Unticked
Local organisation such as a community action group, airport consultative committee or forum
Radio button:
Unticked
General Aviation (GA), including representative organisations
Radio button:
Unticked
New or developing airspace user, such as remotely piloted aircraft system, eVTOL, space industry, including representative/related organisations
Radio button:
Unticked
Commercial aviation/aerospace industry including trade associations
Radio button:
Unticked
Consultancy
Radio button:
Unticked
Central or local government body, including military
Radio button:
Unticked
Elected political representative such as councillor or MP
Radio button:
Unticked
National or international organisation (excluding GA organisations and industry trade associations), e.g. NGO
E. 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:
Ticked
South East
Radio button:
Unticked
South West
Radio button:
Unticked
Wales
Radio button:
Unticked
Yorkshire and the Humber
Radio button:
Unticked
Outside the UK
F. Is there anything else that you would like us to know about you in connection with your response?
text box
There is unacceptable aircraft noise at the location of my house which is in Mill Hill, just south of Edenbridge. I hope the outcome of the work will give a substantial improvement to the noise caused by the eastern approach to Gatwick having a a much wider and variable routing to be fair to those with the regular suffering. Also, there is some unacceptable noise when aircraft are taking off in this direction but is is not quite as bad.
G. Do you consent to us contacting you by email about progress with this consultation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
H. 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 (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 am not totally confident that continuous aircraft noise when landings into Gatwick are from an easterly direction will be improved to the satisfaction of those suffering this noise.
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:
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.
I am not totally confident that continuous aircraft noise when landings into Gatwick are from an easterly direction will be improved.to the satisfaction of those suffering this noise.
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
Please explain your answer including the additional considerations, where relevant.
I agree as I assume the London TMA region includes flights into Gatwick from the east and that the UKADS scope addresses other areas that suffer aircraft noise.
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.
I agree as I assume the London TMA region includes flights into Gatwick from the east and that the UKADS scope addresses other areas that suffer aircraft noise.
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
Please give reasons for your answer.
I assume that London TMA region has the most difficult problems to resolve in the UK but I am not sure.
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:
Ticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer.
I don’t think that aircraft noise has been given sufficient prominence.
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:
Ticked
Agree, but subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please explain your answer, including if relevant any additional considerations.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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:
Ticked
Agree, but subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please explain your answer, including if relevant any additional considerations.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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:
Ticked
Agree, but subject to additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
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.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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:
Ticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer, including any views on the other options suggested.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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
Please give reasons for your answer.
Single point responsibility and accountability are preferable.
14. What are your views on our proposal that the CAA approves each transition plan?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Agree
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree, with additional considerations
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Radio button:
Unticked
Don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
15. What changes would you propose to amend and/or supplement CAP 1616 in order to accommodate the UKADS?
What changes would you propose to amend and/or supplement CAP 1616 in order to accommodate the UKADS?
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
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:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Insufficient detail / don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer, including any comments or suggestions about the proposed Advisory Board.
The considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority and I am unaware of why there might be conflict if interest.
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
Please give reasons for your answer, including, if relevant, what other method you propose, such as our alternative hybrid option.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority and I am unaware of the inefficient costs.
19. Which elements of expenditure on an ACP do you think should be eligible under the UK Airspace Design Support Fund?
Which elements of expenditure on an ACP do you think should be eligible under the UK Airspace Design Support Fund?
I do not know enough to answer this.
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:
Ticked
Major modifications needed
Radio button:
Unticked
Insufficient information / don’t know
Please give reasons for your answer.
The additional considerations need to include aircraft noise as a priority.
General
21. Do you have any other comments about the proposals in this consultation document or about the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment? Is there anything we have missed?
Do you have any other comments about the proposals in this consultation document or about the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment? Is there anything we have missed?
A reduction in the complexity of the existing arrangements are to be welcomed but the proposals and explanations contain too many acronyms which continue to make it complex.