More Controlled Airspace on the Way
  • User avatar
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 1156
    Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:56 pm
    Location: Rathfarnham, Dublin

    More Controlled Airspace on the Way

    by mark » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:43 am

    Hi all,

    The IAA has published their airspace change proposal for regional airports around the country as part of the Airspace Review announced earlier this year. The change will increase the size of control zones at the regional airports from a 10nm diameter circle to a 20nm x 20 nm square control zone. The control areas (aka the stubs) will now be increased in size from the existing 10nm x 10nm dimensions to 10nm x 20nm.

    Of the 33 submissions and 276 comments made, 0 were accepted and only 4 were partially accepted.

    The Review of Irish Airspace (including the Airspace Change Proposal) can be viewed here.

    And the IAA's response to comments can be viewed here.

    Personally, I'm shocked at the way in which all of the comments have been disregarded but I would be interested in hearing others opinion on this.

  • User avatar
    Verified User
    Verified User
    Posts: 597
    Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:28 pm
    Location: Co Limerick

    Re: More Controlled Airspace on the Way

    by hum » Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:47 pm

    Hugely disappointing, appears to have almost completely ignored the 'consultation' process and responses.

    Regional zones transformed from circles to squares, thereby increasing their footprint from 314.2 sq nm to 400 sq nm.

    Completely ignored multiple pleas to reduce size and shape of Shannon & Cork zones.

    The 'gap' that was already narrow between Knock and Sligo has closed up.

  • ois
    Verified User
    Verified User
    Posts: 6
    Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:51 pm
    Location: Shannon, Clare

    Re: More Controlled Airspace on the Way

    by ois » Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:36 pm

    What a disappointing read. I think the major thing that sticks out is the Sligo/Connaught zones. It was pointed out to the IAA ANSP that the gap between the two needed to be widened as it's narrow and has/could lead to airprox incidents between aircraft trying to avoid controlled airspace. They've now tightened the gap. How any sane person could design, review and publish that design is beyond me...

    The major extension of CAS in the EINN/EICK/EIKY area is ridiculous and will be a hindrance to GA activity.

    Comments are invited until the 12th of August, is it worth submitting comments if they clearly don't read them?!
  • OnTheNumbers
    Verified User
    Verified User
    Posts: 437
    Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:09 pm
    Location: Dublin

    Re: More Controlled Airspace on the Way

    by OnTheNumbers » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:06 pm

    It is incredibly disappointing and proposal and seems to have taken no account of GA stakeholders input.

    During the consultative process much was made of the priniciple of "not wanting to control airspace that doesn't need to be controlled" - it seems designers' definition of what needs to be controlled is at odds with GA stakeholders perception.

    Is this really the best we can do in terms of re-imagining airspace design?
    @clearofcloud on Twitter, Instagram
  • Technerdian
    Unverified User
    Unverified User
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 10:43 am

    Re: More Controlled Airspace on the Way

    by Technerdian » Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:09 pm

    Hi All,

    Having ignored our "submissions" we are now asked for "consultation" on the design. This is of course a box ticking effort by the IAA so they can claim there was a "consultation period" in compliance with regulations. However, if we don't make any comment during this consultation period, they will use that as justification to charge ahead and be able to show the Minister and others that "there was no input during the consultation period".

    I will submit comments during the consultation, which will largely be a reiteration of my earlier ones. Two of those were supposedly "partially accepted" with no indication of which part and what effect resulted from accepting those parts! I expect others will similarly repeat their submissions. However, I think a coordinated response from multiple people and the various organizations: GASCI, ILAS, NMAI etc. will demonstrate that the GA community as a whole is opposed to this expansion of controlled airspace. At the very least it will provide something substantial to send to TDs demonstrating this is an issue for the whole GA community.

    If we don't push back against this expansion of airspace we will spend the next several years moaning about how ridiculous Irish airspace is and how ATC for GA is a joke compared to mainland Europe, and how the IAA got away with showing utter disrespect for the GA community, and so on. If we don't take action now, then we deserve any restrictions that result any such complaining will be pointless.

    I'm willing to help, but I'm new to aviation and I don't know who's who!

    To start a conversation:
    • Is a coordinated submission from multiple organizations a good way to go? (This does NOT preclude people making their own in addition).
    • How do we get these organizations and others together to create coordinated submissions (or perhaps a combined submission)?
    • Can we get agreement in the community on a submission that many would support?
    I'd love to see an open letter and consultation response go into the IAA with several hundred signatures!

    How about a general meeting - maybe outdoors (COVID-safe) at one of the larger airfields?
    At the very least a Zoom (where people can talk, rather than the Teams effort where IAA controls the conversation)?

    Is there any appetite to push back?


    Gareth O'Brien - PPL
  • Peter Gorman
    Unverified User
    Unverified User
    Posts: 1
    Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2021 2:33 pm

    Re: More Controlled Airspace on the Way

    by Peter Gorman » Tue Jul 20, 2021 7:11 pm

    After all the honeyed words about consulting users, and reducing unnecessary CAS, for regionals all we get is rectangles where there were circles, and bigger stubs. So 20 nm CTRs of 314 nm^2 become 400 nm^2, and each CTA stub roughly doubled from 100 to 200 nm^2. So for say EIWF alone that would be 280 nm^2 extra CAS. Someone might like to calculate how many cubic miles of extra CAS is coming down the track.

    The great majority of comments were dismissed with "noted".

    My own complaint that the AIP provisions for filing flight plans are inconsistent with SERA was "noted" and passed on to someone in the IAA. There it will presumably be binned as implementation as easier GA access to CAS might involve resources i.e. money.

    Does anyone know how one can make a complaint (to EASA?) about failure to implement a rule in SERA?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests