Jump to content

Farnborough Airspace Grab


Recommended Posts

For those not aware and anyone who flies in the Surrey / Guildford vicinity please look at the proposed expansion of Farnborough airport controlled airspace.

The website to view and comment on the proposal is


It is easy to fill in the feedback for Part B, Proposed changes below 4,000ft in the vicinity of Farnborough Airport

Only 29 days until end of consultation

The British Gliding Club have some good information:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that the extended area for changes below 4000ft now comes right up to the M4 at Reading and therefore within a couple of miles of where I will fly at home near Pangbourne, so am concerned.

I have skimmed through the section B stuff and no doubt if I spend enough time could understand it in detail.

What would be really useful would be for someone who understands this in detail, gives their idea of how the questions should be answered, I'd do a return immediately then.

I haven't even read it enough yet to understand whether it means no flying at all in the designated area 0-4000ft.

Anyone want to distill what it means into a handful of easy to understand bullet points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Here is my response in which I précis'd the BGA Guidance and put it in my own words. It makes the point of NOT cutting and pasting, because the comments are likely to be ignored, so don't just copy mine, if you are going to respond.

I'm no expert in this area, so hope this response is OK.

Having read the consultation document and the evidence gathered by opposers in a bit more detail now , it does leave you asking

"Who the F*** do TAG think they are?" Especially when you look at the relatively small number of their movements in comparison to everyone else.


Patrick Puxley

My address




07816 ******

I am a low hours paramotor pilot aged 57 who flies from a field close to the NW boundary of the proposed Part B “Blue Area”. The proposed area covers the area to the SE in which I would fly and would significantly impact my routes in that direction.

I oppose this proposal.

I have read the consultation document and would make the following points

The questions give no opportunity to express contrary views, simply leading you to TAGs preferred conclusion. Hence the points below

The paper is grossly slanted in TAGs favour implying they are the most important and most frequent users of this space with anyone else presented as being a danger. The arguments on safety and environment are not clear, don’t seem to be supported by analysis and in the case of noise, the supporting diagrams etc are difficult to understand .

TAG’s implied contention that they are the major user of this space is not supported by the evidence I have seen that has been gathered by parties likely to affected by this change. For example last year TAG’s movements in the space ( which reduced last year) represented less than 10% of the total with only half of them carrying passengers and this doesn’t include transiting traffic. This makes TAG a minor user of the space.

On Safety the paper concentrates only on TAG’s needs and doesn’t explore the safety implications to others who are the majority users of the space. Although TAG say that the space will be available to all under certain criteria, experience shows that many pilots would route around the area creating dangerously congested areas at pinch points, I think this increases the level of risk to the majority.

On noise TAG claims that many will be less overflown. The data indicates that although lots of people are overflown by TAG, in many cases it is only very rarely. These people who were occasionally overflown may no longer be, but many people are now going to be overflown by repeated flights. The proposals will significantly increase noise for a sizeable population.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...