TOWARDS THE end of last year, the Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company (ATNS) applied to the National Airspace Committee (NASCOM) to withdraw the designation of the socalled FAD 58 which currently serves as the General Flying Area (GFA) for Virginia Airport, Durban.
FAD 58 is located in the airspace directly above where the new La Mercy International Airport is being built. In order for the authorities to implement a CTR for the new La Mercy airport, the designation of FAD 58 must first be withdrawn.
As incomprehensible as it may sound, the authorities have either forgotten, or have chosen to ignore, the fact that the flight training schools at Virginia Airport have first claim to the use of this airspace above La Mercy. These flight training schools are not willing to give up this airspace unless they are provided with a replacement GFA which is as safe, secure and as economical to use as FAD 58.
As the Commercial Aviation Association of SA (CAASA) opposed the ATNS NASCOM application to withdraw FAD 58 and with the final date for publication of the new Durban TMA and La Mercy CTR being January 15, 2010, there were desperate attempts during the dying moments of last year to find a solution to this matter. Despite these frantic efforts, the issue had not been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction as this edition went to press a week prior to that deadline.
Although the boundaries of FAD 58 have shifted slightly over the years, the core area of this GFA has been in uninterrupted use by flight schools at Virginia Airport for the past 43 years. Due to the length of time that this GFA has been used by, and its importance to, the flight training schools at Virginia, it is arguable that these flight schools have enforceable legal rights to the use of this airspace, based on the Law of Acquisitive Prescription, the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, and other recognised legal rights and principles. In addition, the airspace of FAD 58 was utilised as a training area long before Government purchased the La Mercy land in 1973 for the future development of a new airport for Durban.
Until very recently, scant attention has been paid by the ATNS and the Airports Company of South Africa (ACSA) to the issue of relocating FAD 58 so that the new airspace design for La Mercy can be commissioned.
This is despite the fact that CAASA has repeatedly alerted these authorities to the importance and urgency of relocating FAD 58. More recently, with the January 15 airspace promulgation deadline looming, ATNS and ACSA adopted the stance that the need to open the La Mercy Airport by May 2010 overrides all other considerations. In the process there has been no sympathy or understanding shown for the legitimate business interests of the flight training schools at Virginia.
There have also been examples of where the above-mentioned authorities have indicated that the Virginia operators have no option but to accept any proposed GFA to replace FAD 58, even where the proposed relocation site is nowhere near as suitable as FAD 58. There has also been no mention made of any compensation for the Virginia flight training schools with respect to financial damages/inconvenience that they will suffer due to the loss of FAD 58.
Another deficiency has been that ATNS, ACSA or the SACAA have apparently not realised that there are major environmental ramifications associated with the relocation of FAD 58 to another area. All of the above-mentioned authorities should have been aware of the fact that when a GFA is to be relocated above an inhabited area, at the very least an environmental assessment study should be done and that proper consultations need to be undertaken with the affected parties on the ground. However, no studies or affected party consultation process have been conducted for any of the proposed relocation sites.
The SACAA and ATNS proposed two replacement GFAs for FAD 58 to cater for the differing requirements for fixed wing and helicopter training. The proposed fixed wing GFA is situated to the south of Amanzimtoti and that for helicopters is located in the Inanda area. With respect to the fixed wing GFA, the general location and area is deemed to be suitable. However, the Virginia Operators’ Committee (VOC) believes that some work still needs to be done on the entry and exit points to the GFA. The horizontal separation of entry and exit points is an essential requirement to prevent climbing and descending aircraft crossing at the same point which carries a high risk of mid -air collisions when the area is used by inexperienced pilots. The VOC has also requested that the upper altitude restriction of 3 500 feet be increased to a minimum of 4 500 feet.
Unfortunately the position with respect to the proposed helicopter GFA is not nearly so rosy. The general consensus among the VOC members is that this proposal is not at all suitable for helicopter training activities due to environmental, safety, economic and security concerns. Firstly no environmental assessment has been done or consultation process initiated with the inhabitants of the Umgeni valley. This failure could result in any designation of this area as a GFA being overturned.
Secondly, the routing to and from the Umgeni valley is unsafe due to high tension wires and the unsafe valley topography which is densely populated on the sides. The valley is also subject to lots of turbulence in gusty wind conditions. Thirdly, it will take an R22 helicopter, the predominant helicopter type used for training at Virginia, 1,1 hours to get to the proposed GFA and back. Fourthly, the prevalence of crime in this area makes it dangerous for student pilots should they have to execute a precautionary landing. For these reasons, the helicopter training schools such as Starlite which trains pilots on behalf of various international air/armed forces as well as the SA Air Force, deem the proposed GFA to be totally unsuitable as a replacement for FAD 58.
So where does this leave the process to relocate FAD 58 and designate the new La Mercy Airport airspace design? As neither of the proposals makes provision for a suitable helicopter GFA, CAASA has written to the Commissioner for Civil Aviation to advise him that as things stand, the association cannot support the withdrawal of FAD 58. However, if certain conditions could be met, the stand-off over FAD 58 could be resolved. These conditions are that Government should formally advise operators at Virginia as to whether the airport would remain or whether it will be relocated; that the deficiencies identified with respect to the proposed fixed wing GFA are rectified and that provision is made for the re-location of all the helicopter flight training schools at Virginia at State/ACSA’s cost to a new site at either the La Mercy Airport or alternatively the current Durban International Airport. CAASA is still awaiting the Commissioner’s response on the position that it has taken. Unfortunately, should the authorities be unable or unwilling to meet the above-mentioned conditions, there is a possibility that legal steps will be taken to enforce the rights of the Virginia helicopter schools to FAD 58, alternatively claim compensation for damages suffered by these helicopter schools due to the loss of FAD 58. Hopefully, this type of recourse will not be necessary. Surely, just like CAASA, no one wants to jeopardize the opening of the new La Mercy Airport with a legal battle over the use of an obscure (but important) piece of airspace called “FAD 58”.
Back to Home Page..>>>
