Introduction
2. Are you responding as an individual or do you represent an organisation?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
I am responding as an individual
Radio button:
Unticked
I represent an organisation
4. What best describes your association with this airspace change proposal?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Local community stakeholder
Radio button:
Ticked
Aviation stakeholder
Radio button:
Unticked
NATMAC organisation
Airspace Design Options
5. Which airspace design option do you prefer?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Option 2 (simple) - Design 1
Radio button:
Unticked
Option 2 (simple) - Design 2
Radio button:
Unticked
Option 3 (multi-sector) - Design 1
Radio button:
Ticked
Option 3 (multi-sector) - Design 2
6. Please rank the airspace designs options in order (from 1 being the preferred to 4 being the least preferred):
Please rank these from 1 to 4
(Required)
Option 2 - Design 1
3
Option 2 - Design 2
4
Option 3 - Design 1
2
Option 3 - Design 2
1
7. Are there any other airspace design options you think the MOD should consider?
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes (please specify)
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Airspace Design
Airspace Design: Modifications of Option 3 (either design) would significantly reduce the negative impact on hang gliding and paragliding activity. See answer to 8 for further detail.
8. Whilst ensuring that essential military activity can be achieved, the MOD is keen to reduce the impact of its operations on other airspace users. Are there any design amendments or potential mitigations that could be used to achieve this?
Design amendments and mitigations
NOTAMing a Danger Area for 9 hours when its actual use by the Watchkeeper will be around 15 minutes is patently ludicrous and totally unacceptable. At
the very least, phone requests for a transit time slot and/or transit permission for electronically conspicuous aircraft need to be made available as part of
the proposal.
All of the available designs will severely and unnecessarily restrict our long-established local activity, as the amount of newly-restricted airspace is
completely disproportionate to the stated operational requirement, and this will be our position when the proposal is submitted to the CAA. That position
notwithstanding, we offer the following comments on the current Options, starting by setting out the two principal considerations here for foot-launched
unpowered aircraft, most of whom will have launched from the long-established sites at Westbury White Horse and Bratton Camp (immediately to the
east of the horse):
1. Minimising the impingement on our ability to enjoy local soaring flights;
2. Maintaining the ability to undertake cross-country flights (one-way, out-and-return and triangle) that require us at one point or another to pass from
above Edington to above Erlestoke or vice-versa, and/or to utilise airspace encompassed by the main proposed cylinder.
Additionally, as is noted in the FAQs, we have a concern about potential funnelling of aircraft at low level towards and across the front of our
long-established sites, which often have high concentrations of slow moving, unpowered aircraft.
With Option 2, neither Design is remotely acceptable to us, as even local flying on our Bratton Camp site would be significantly curtailed.
The most useful alteration that could be made to Design 3 (either version) would be to amend the vertical height and/or detail of the transit corridor, and
potentially also of the area of the main cylinder closest to it, to improve *our* ability to transit the same area, at different altitudes. Realistically, no-one
on an unpowered cross-country flight is going to be able to use the SFC to 1500ft AMSL segment underneath the current design to effect such a transit;
this is also the area of greatest concern for us in terms of funnelling aircraft across the front of our sites. Very few of our aircraft fly in that segment at all,
unless they have been attempting a cross-country flight and have "sunk out" on their way back to the hill.
The transit corridor ceiling and height should both be as low as possible. With a typical UK cloudbase on usable cross-country days of between 4000 and
6000ft AMSL, a transit corridor with its base at 1000ft AMSL and its ceiling at 2500ft AMSL would be a significant improvement that would allow pilots
leaving cloudbase to the west of the corridor to have significant confidence in being able to make it to the eastern side of the corridor without risk of
sinking into it from above. 750ft to 2000ft AMSL would be even better.
If it were possible to then combine this with a reduction in the ceiling of the main cylinder closest to the transit corridor, that would significantly reduce
the impingement on our ability to undertake local flights, as per 1. Is there even any rationale behind the main cylinder ceiling being as high as 3500ft
AMSL? Why does the Watchkeeper not gain/lose its height over D123 itself? Again, on a typical cross-country day, pilots flying "out the front" from Bratton
Camp will be significantly less hampered by a 2500ft (or even 2000ft) AMSL ceiling than a 3500ft one.
the very least, phone requests for a transit time slot and/or transit permission for electronically conspicuous aircraft need to be made available as part of
the proposal.
All of the available designs will severely and unnecessarily restrict our long-established local activity, as the amount of newly-restricted airspace is
completely disproportionate to the stated operational requirement, and this will be our position when the proposal is submitted to the CAA. That position
notwithstanding, we offer the following comments on the current Options, starting by setting out the two principal considerations here for foot-launched
unpowered aircraft, most of whom will have launched from the long-established sites at Westbury White Horse and Bratton Camp (immediately to the
east of the horse):
1. Minimising the impingement on our ability to enjoy local soaring flights;
2. Maintaining the ability to undertake cross-country flights (one-way, out-and-return and triangle) that require us at one point or another to pass from
above Edington to above Erlestoke or vice-versa, and/or to utilise airspace encompassed by the main proposed cylinder.
Additionally, as is noted in the FAQs, we have a concern about potential funnelling of aircraft at low level towards and across the front of our
long-established sites, which often have high concentrations of slow moving, unpowered aircraft.
With Option 2, neither Design is remotely acceptable to us, as even local flying on our Bratton Camp site would be significantly curtailed.
The most useful alteration that could be made to Design 3 (either version) would be to amend the vertical height and/or detail of the transit corridor, and
potentially also of the area of the main cylinder closest to it, to improve *our* ability to transit the same area, at different altitudes. Realistically, no-one
on an unpowered cross-country flight is going to be able to use the SFC to 1500ft AMSL segment underneath the current design to effect such a transit;
this is also the area of greatest concern for us in terms of funnelling aircraft across the front of our sites. Very few of our aircraft fly in that segment at all,
unless they have been attempting a cross-country flight and have "sunk out" on their way back to the hill.
The transit corridor ceiling and height should both be as low as possible. With a typical UK cloudbase on usable cross-country days of between 4000 and
6000ft AMSL, a transit corridor with its base at 1000ft AMSL and its ceiling at 2500ft AMSL would be a significant improvement that would allow pilots
leaving cloudbase to the west of the corridor to have significant confidence in being able to make it to the eastern side of the corridor without risk of
sinking into it from above. 750ft to 2000ft AMSL would be even better.
If it were possible to then combine this with a reduction in the ceiling of the main cylinder closest to the transit corridor, that would significantly reduce
the impingement on our ability to undertake local flights, as per 1. Is there even any rationale behind the main cylinder ceiling being as high as 3500ft
AMSL? Why does the Watchkeeper not gain/lose its height over D123 itself? Again, on a typical cross-country day, pilots flying "out the front" from Bratton
Camp will be significantly less hampered by a 2500ft (or even 2000ft) AMSL ceiling than a 3500ft one.