Doncaster Sheffield: A Welcome Return, but at What Cost to General Aviation?

The news that Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA) is on track to reopen should be cause for celebration. Any investment in UK aviation, especially in a region that needs better connectivity, deserves support. For those of us who live and breathe flying, the return of an operational airport, jobs, and commercial routes is positive. Yet as a general aviation pilot, I see the plans through a double lens: optimism on one side and concern on the other.

For the last 18 months, the skies around Doncaster have been unusually open. When the airport closed in 2022 and its controlled airspace was deactivated in February 2024, a large swathe of South Yorkshire reverted to Class G. For many of us in light aircraft, that meant the freedom to route directly across the area without negotiating a clearance from a pressured controller. Cross-country planning became simpler, instructional flights more efficient, and we had a break from feeling like the lowest priority in a busy Class D environment. It also offered a practical option for northerners to head south while avoiding the busy Lincolnshire and East Anglia areas with their high volume of military activity.

Now, with Doncaster Council and Mayor Ros Jones committing millions to bring the airport back to life, controlled airspace will almost certainly return. That is where the unease begins.

Controlled airspace: necessary but constraining

Nobody disputes that commercial airports need controlled airspace. IFR arrivals and departures require protection, and safety margins demand it. History around Doncaster shows, however, that implementation can come at a real cost to general aviation.

When the CTR and surrounding CTA shelves were active, transit was possible in theory but tricky in practice. Clearances could be slow, sometimes denied, or re-routed in ways that made local navigation exercises unnecessarily complex. Some CTA bases sat as low as 1,500 feet. In anything less than perfect weather, GA pilots were pushed into uncomfortable margins between cloud and terrain or forced into long detours around the zone.

Controllers were not hostile to light aircraft. The issue was workload, priorities, and system design. IFR traffic came first. In a unit like Doncaster, a two-seat trainer on a practice navex rarely received priority.

Reopening is welcome, but a revived Class D bubble will bring back constraints that many local pilots had briefly lived without.

The creeping squeeze from drones and temporary danger areas

Layered on top is a newer challenge: BVLOS drone operations.

Last year’s widely discussed Apian application for a temporary danger area near Newcastle is a case in point. The proposal sought to accommodate drone trials for medical deliveries, with general aviation effectively excluded from a large, frequently used area for the duration. Temporary danger areas like this are increasingly common. Each closure may be short-lived, but together they erode GA’s freedom to operate.

The combination of permanent controlled airspace and rolling temporary restrictions creates a patchwork of no-go areas. For a private pilot planning a straightforward VFR cross-country, the map grows more complicated each season. Unlike large commercial operators or well-funded drone projects, GA cannot simply buy more technology or hire airspace managers to handle the bureaucracy. We absorb the extra workload, take the longer detour, or scrub the flight.

A vision for coexistence

General aviation does not oppose growth. Most of us welcome the expansion of flying in all its forms, including airline passengers, freight, and innovative drone services. Aviation thrives when it grows.

Coexistence must be genuine rather than lip service.

For Doncaster, any reintroduced controlled airspace should include practical VFR corridors that enable easy and safe transit. Clearances for light aircraft should be routine, supported by staffing levels and procedures that recognise GA as a stakeholder rather than a nuisance. The Manchester Low Level Corridor shows what is possible.

For drones, transparency and proportionality should guide danger-area design. If a drone can operate safely in a smaller box, keep the restriction smaller. If coordination can replace outright exclusion, make coordination the default. When closures are necessary, regulators should consult and communicate properly with the GA community.

A shrinking sky

This is bigger than Doncaster. Across the UK, controlled airspace continues to thicken. The CAA faces pressure to accommodate new entrants, from commercial drones to advanced air mobility. Airports large and small are applying for more controlled volumes to contain new PBN procedures.

Each change may be justified on its own terms. Viewed cumulatively on a chart, the effect is clear. The open Class G sky is shrinking. With it goes some of the joy of simple, direct, seat-of-the-pants flying.

Doncaster’s reopening symbolises both sides of the story. On one hand, it proves that aviation still matters to the regions and that investment can revive an airport. On the other, it reminds us that gains for one corner of aviation can translate into tighter constraints for another.

A call for balance

As GA pilots, we do not oppose Doncaster’s return. We welcome it. We ask for balance and inclusion.

Controlled airspace should be smart rather than sprawling. Drone corridors should be flexible rather than blunt. Temporary danger areas should remain the exception rather than the creeping norm.

If general aviation becomes boxed out by an expanding lattice of restrictions, we risk losing not only freedom of the skies but the grassroots foundation of aviation itself. That foundation includes young pilots building hours, instructors passing on knowledge, and weekend flyers who keep small airfields alive.

The reopening of Doncaster Sheffield can be a success. It can also be a turning point where regulators, airports, and innovators choose coexistence over exclusion. Otherwise, the skies we once called free will feel like narrow corridors that we are permitted to use only on sufferance.

Turning Regulatory Challenges into Practical Solutions

At ConsultDCT, we take pride in supporting organisations as they navigate complex certification and regulatory requirements. Recently, we were pleased to assist a public sector client with a particularly challenging certification process.

The task was not simply about compliance — it was about finding a pathway that worked in practice as well as on paper. By combining our in-house legal knowledge with operational expertise, we ensured the client could meet their obligations while maintaining credibility and effectiveness in delivery.

Our approach was threefold:

  1. Specialist Legislative Review
    Using our in-house legal knowledge, we carried out a detailed review of the relevant legislation and certification requirements, providing clarity on the framework in which the organisation was operating.
  2. Identifying Regulatory Challenges
    From this review, we pinpointed the specific areas where regulation created operational complexity or potential barriers.
  3. Developing a Compliant Delivery Plan
    We proposed a delivery plan that was both fully compliant and operationally credible, ensuring the organisation could achieve certification without undermining its ability to operate effectively.

This project illustrates the value that ConsultDCT brings: the ability to translate complex regulation into clear, practical solutions. By bridging the gap between governance frameworks and operational realities, we help our clients succeed with confidence.

With access to government-experienced and security-cleared consultants, ConsultDCT is also well placed to support not only government bodies but also think tanks, non-departmental public organisations, and industry associations. From policy advice and regulatory review to operational impact assessments, we provide insight grounded in both legislative knowledge and practical delivery.

A race to presumption?

Following the tragic loss of Air India Flight AI171 (VT-ANB), many in the aviation community have been quick to assume the worst — that the dual engine shutdown was a result of intentional pilot action. But in the rush to post expert takes, are we neglecting due process and deeper questions?

The AAIB India preliminary report clearly states both engine fuel control switches moved to CUTOFF within one second. But it stops short of attributing intent.

The accompanying cockpit audio captures one pilot asking: “Why did you cut off?” — met with a stunned denial. This is not the voice of malice; it’s the voice of confusion.

Yet commentary across LinkedIn, Twitter, and industry channels echoes one refrain in immediate response: “The pilot did it.”

What concerns us most is the eagerness of seasoned professionals — some with safety in their titles — to publicly declare intentionality, before root cause analysis is complete. This isn’t just speculative. It’s corrosive.

EASA SIB NM-18-33 (2018) already flagged the possibility of accidental disengagement of fuel control switches due to faulty or insecure locking mechanisms on the very same aircraft type. Its non-mandatory advisory status meant this known risk didn’t lead to structural changes or enforced inspections.

The AAIB report identifies no crew incapacitation, no CVR evidence of panic or sabotage — only the fact that two switches moved. So why are so many people leaping ahead of the evidence?

This incident should not become another case study in hindsight bias and “armchair CRM.” Speculating before final reports are released erodes public trust, diminishes investigative integrity, and places undue emotional pressure on the families and colleagues of those lost.

The focus now should be:

1. Investigating whether mechanical, ergonomic, or design factors made accidental switch movement possible

2. Revisiting the sufficiency of NM-18-33, given that its very concern may have materialised

3. Supporting a fact-driven, non-punitive approach to understanding how this disaster unfolded

#airindia #dreamliner #aircrashinvestigation

Welcome to ConsultDCT

Our first week at ConsultDCT has been a steady start. It’s been great to connect with skilled contractors and explore some exciting opportunities with potential clients in the aviation and marine sectors.

From conversations about innovative navigation solutions to discussions on operational safety and compliance, it’s clear there’s a strong demand for the expertise and tailored support we’re bringing to the table.

A huge thank you to those who have supported us, and to those consultants who have reached out to connect.

We’re excited to grow our network, tackle new challenges, and deliver exceptional value and insight across the land, sea, and air industries.

Our website continues to provide us with a little bit of challenge, but our commitment to using local and small enterprises means sometimes things can go wrong. We’re glad its now here, and continue to work with the young person we’ve contracted to deliver our site! They’ve done a great job so far 😊

#ConsultDCT #Aviation #Marine #BusinessConsulting #LandSeaAir #SafetyAndGovernance #NewBeginnings