US Air Force applies to fly drones from RAF Fairford
Discussion
US Air Force applies to fly unmanned aerial drones from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-07-27/us-air-force-a...
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-07-27/us-air-force-a...
Seems a daft decision to request to fly them from Fairford, given its location. Can't see CAA/NATS agreeing to that tbh.
But........given that Lakenheath is packed and busy, and Mildenhall is so close to Lakenheath and same problem, there's no where else, with USAF having pulled out of all other bases and them being sold off.
Given their location on the coast and close to the north sea military areas, the logical place would have been to have based them at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but its 30 years too late for that.
Even Alconbury would have been better than Fairford, but again, despite a small retained USAF presence still (I think?) most of the base, including most of the runway has been sold off.
Yet again, we are seeing the short-sightness of closing and selling off base after base in the past 20+ years, as pointed out many times. If a few had been retained on care & maintenance, at least re-activation could have been possible.
But........given that Lakenheath is packed and busy, and Mildenhall is so close to Lakenheath and same problem, there's no where else, with USAF having pulled out of all other bases and them being sold off.
Given their location on the coast and close to the north sea military areas, the logical place would have been to have based them at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but its 30 years too late for that.
Even Alconbury would have been better than Fairford, but again, despite a small retained USAF presence still (I think?) most of the base, including most of the runway has been sold off.
Yet again, we are seeing the short-sightness of closing and selling off base after base in the past 20+ years, as pointed out many times. If a few had been retained on care & maintenance, at least re-activation could have been possible.
aeropilot said:
Seems a daft decision to request to fly them from Fairford, given its location. Can't see CAA/NATS agreeing to that tbh.
But........given that Lakenheath is packed and busy, and Mildenhall is so close to Lakenheath and same problem, there's no where else, with USAF having pulled out of all other bases and them being sold off.
Given their location on the coast and close to the north sea military areas, the logical place would have been to have based them at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but its 30 years too late for that.
Even Alconbury would have been better than Fairford, but again, despite a small retained USAF presence still (I think?) most of the base, including most of the runway has been sold off.
Yet again, we are seeing the short-sightness of closing and selling off base after base in the past 20+ years, as pointed out many times. If a few had been retained on care & maintenance, at least re-activation could have been possible.
I am not sure they are asking premission to fly the drones from there, I think they are requesting clear air space at certain times over the area.But........given that Lakenheath is packed and busy, and Mildenhall is so close to Lakenheath and same problem, there's no where else, with USAF having pulled out of all other bases and them being sold off.
Given their location on the coast and close to the north sea military areas, the logical place would have been to have based them at Bentwaters/Woodbridge, but its 30 years too late for that.
Even Alconbury would have been better than Fairford, but again, despite a small retained USAF presence still (I think?) most of the base, including most of the runway has been sold off.
Yet again, we are seeing the short-sightness of closing and selling off base after base in the past 20+ years, as pointed out many times. If a few had been retained on care & maintenance, at least re-activation could have been possible.
Without details on whats wanted it's not really worth talking about. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if at least one type of drone isn't being operated out of the UK due to the war in Ukraine already - Fairford is now fairly busy with U-2 movements both operationally and on transfer to and from the US.
I do remember last I heard about it, the plan is to operate from Fairford so that will require transit space into the UK as well as room to get above the airways on ops. Presumably this can be timed to have strict operating time limits (if Fairford is able to operate 24/7) when air traffic is low.
I do remember last I heard about it, the plan is to operate from Fairford so that will require transit space into the UK as well as room to get above the airways on ops. Presumably this can be timed to have strict operating time limits (if Fairford is able to operate 24/7) when air traffic is low.
There have been proposals on the table for at least a year:
ACP-2021-078 Enabling Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations from RAF Fairford
The airspace proposals in that document don't seem outrageous (compared to some of the commercially motivated airspace grabs we've seen in the past few years). In summary, it looks like the RPAS stays in a slightly enlarged version of the Fairford Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) until at FL070 and then progresses to the upper airspace through a staged set of airspace sections at intermediate levels, and operations would be restricted to sunset +1 to sunrise -1 hour.
ACP-2021-078 Enabling Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations from RAF Fairford
The airspace proposals in that document don't seem outrageous (compared to some of the commercially motivated airspace grabs we've seen in the past few years). In summary, it looks like the RPAS stays in a slightly enlarged version of the Fairford Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) until at FL070 and then progresses to the upper airspace through a staged set of airspace sections at intermediate levels, and operations would be restricted to sunset +1 to sunrise -1 hour.
eharding said:
There have been proposals on the table for at least a year:
ACP-2021-078 Enabling Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations from RAF Fairford
The airspace proposals in that document don't seem outrageous (compared to some of the commercially motivated airspace grabs we've seen in the past few years). In summary, it looks like the RPAS stays in a slightly enlarged version of the Fairford Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) until at FL070 and then progresses to the upper airspace through a staged set of airspace sections at intermediate levels, and operations would be restricted to sunset +1 to sunrise -1 hour.
Out of curiosity can you explain what you said in bracketsACP-2021-078 Enabling Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations from RAF Fairford
The airspace proposals in that document don't seem outrageous (compared to some of the commercially motivated airspace grabs we've seen in the past few years). In summary, it looks like the RPAS stays in a slightly enlarged version of the Fairford Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) until at FL070 and then progresses to the upper airspace through a staged set of airspace sections at intermediate levels, and operations would be restricted to sunset +1 to sunrise -1 hour.
Oliver Hardy said:
eharding said:
There have been proposals on the table for at least a year:
ACP-2021-078 Enabling Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations from RAF Fairford
The airspace proposals in that document don't seem outrageous (compared to some of the commercially motivated airspace grabs we've seen in the past few years). In summary, it looks like the RPAS stays in a slightly enlarged version of the Fairford Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) until at FL070 and then progresses to the upper airspace through a staged set of airspace sections at intermediate levels, and operations would be restricted to sunset +1 to sunrise -1 hour.
Out of curiosity can you explain what you said in bracketsACP-2021-078 Enabling Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operations from RAF Fairford
The airspace proposals in that document don't seem outrageous (compared to some of the commercially motivated airspace grabs we've seen in the past few years). In summary, it looks like the RPAS stays in a slightly enlarged version of the Fairford Military Air Traffic Zone (MATZ) until at FL070 and then progresses to the upper airspace through a staged set of airspace sections at intermediate levels, and operations would be restricted to sunset +1 to sunrise -1 hour.
Many commercial airports see Class G airspace as an easy grab to increase the asset value of their airport/airspace and make it more valuable or attractive to future buyers. All while sticking two fingers up at the aviation that already takes place within that Class G.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff