The Airspace Change Process (CAP 725) contains 3 elements which would benefit from review if the FAS vision is to be delivered to VFR users:

 

  1. Typical ACP consultations seeking to establish regulated airspace are based on traffic growth but the majority use data which is quite different from that published in CAA statistics making it impossible for consultees to establish the need for change or support it. Growth projections are rarely supported by evidence and are nearly always grossly optimistic.
  2. CAP 725 requires a sponsor to set out the impact of the proposal on other airspace users in the Operational Report as part of Stage 4. This includes a statement on the operational impact on other airspace users but this report is not released in the public domain.  The other airspace users never know the basis of the airspace decision as it relates to their operation.  During Stage 7, the Operational Review, they do not know what impact has been accepted in the proposal so have no means to understand what the airspace should provide and how they should expect to utilise it.  Moreover, if in the future they propose to challenge the airspace they have no visibility of the baseline impact on their operations that was accepted in the original decision.
  3. There is no means to provide an evidence base of VFR utilisation that could be used to strengthen the Post Implementation Review process. A mechanism is needed to understand what level of access was achieved and what level of avoidance occurred.

 

FASVIG would work with the CAA to review the CAP 725 process with a view to making those elements more relevant to the VFR community, standardising data formats acceptable in submissions and making the process transparent throughout.  FASVIG would develop a means to record levels of access to regulated airspace.