Jacko – your post 678
Whilst an AFISO or AGCS Operator can’t clear you into an ATZ, and therefore also can’t deny you permission to enter, you certainly need to do more than
Just monitor the appropriate channel and call your position and height on entering and leaving the zone.
RoA 2015 Rule 11 also says
(4) If the aerodrome provides a flight information service the commander must obtain information from the flight information centre to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(5) If there is no flight information centre at the aerodrome the commander must obtain information from the air/ground communication service to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone
So for ‘Information’ and ‘Radio’ you have to contact them and
obtain information .. to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
before you enter the ATZ. No doubt there’s a whole thread’s worth of discourse on what exactly ‘obtain information’ means but it’s clear this is an active thing, not a passive thing. If you fly into an ATZ without talking to them (assuming the airfield’s open at the time) you will be invited to attend the AIAC no matter what the safety implications, or lack of. Ask me how I know.
Blackbushe Radio is indeed A/G. However, almost all the time it’s Blackbushe Information.
Apologies for the thread drift – just trying to offer help.
Yes, you need to establish 2-way communication and get info for AFIS/AG (or clearance from ATC) before getting into the ATZ on it’s notified hours
If you don’t get that 2-way comm legally you can’t get in, though what are the chances of someone complaining if no one is on frequency?
See BGA guidance,
https://members.gliding.co.uk/library/pilot-briefing-airspace/atz-procedures/
2-way comm in glider: “ATZ anyone flying today”, “yes, we have…”, “got it, I am flying north and will keep good lookout with high chance of landing”
You need permission to enter an ATZ, or that will be an airspace bust just like busting Class D – but a FISO or A/G operator cant give you instructions or permissions in the air.
Is it just me, or is this just a bit daft? Welcome to the wonderful world of UK aviation!!
You don’t need permission in an ATZ with AFIS or A/G, you just need to ‘obtain information’ (essentially then, 2 way radio contact as all 2 way radio contact with AFIS or A/G will get some kind of information, even if it’s trivial). There is nothing about requiring permission in the regs for AFIS or A/G.
Can anyone thus explain how come the Barton “infringer” mentioned here got busted by the CAA, for a criminal offence? Barton is AFIS.
Most likely he didn’t call them up on the radio, but in the difficult circumstances it seems an aggressive move, really scraping out the bottom of the barrel. I wonder if he p1ssed off somebody big? I saw his radar track; he was close to the edge of the ATZ, from memory something like this
Incidentally, does anyone know how long ago was the order sent out to MOR ATZ busts? I am not for a moment suggesting they are a good idea (I have a number of times had to “get out” of some circuit or even break off an IAP, when some completely random traffic flew straight through there) but it is a great way of inflating the infringement numbers. As I have written before, it is really obvious that infringements cannot possibly be increasing against the backdrop of a general decline in GA activity, and instead the reporting system is being continually polished to inflate the numbers, so the numbers can be used to beat pilots around the head with. Of course everybody “in the system” buys into this process (when speaking officially) even if they privately wonder… in the same way as there is nothing better for an ISO9000 quality manager than widespread noncompliance 
I find it very odd, that subject to the course attendees agreement, why would you not describe your experience?
Surely if this is about learning, there is no better way to learn with 20 odd delegates, for each to set out their circumstance. It has got to cover a pretty good mix – or at least one would hope so.
You just keep on getting the feeling that the whole process is not exactly “open”.
Isnt it a bit like AN
Peter wrote:
how come the Barton “infringer” mentioned here got busted by the CAA, for a criminal offence?
He broke a rule of the Rules of the Air Regulations which have authority under the Air Navigation Order.
You underline “criminal offence”, my understanding is that in UK law there is only civil offences and criminal offences. So breaking any rules in any law ( act, statutory instruments, …) is going to fall in one of the two categories. It is well established that any ANO breach falls in the criminal category. The CAA is trying to change that.
I haven’t looked enough to see if the Barton infriger was sent to court or dealt with the IGC process.
If it is the latter (letter, online test, “Gasco” course) , the CAA has effectively de-criminalised the ANO breach by keeping it out of court.
I find this interesting. I had a rotary pass straight though the climb out of an A/G aerdrome as I was departing, the rotary being of “official” status. We both filed a MOR, and that was the end of the matter.
the CAA has effectively de-criminalised the ANO breach by keeping it out of court.
Far from me being a legal expert but AIUI
IOW, simply because something doesn’t go to a court doesn’t mean it wasn’t a criminal offence. In non-aviation life you can look at fixed price speeding tickets, for example.
Hence I wonder re
The CAA is trying to change that.
what they are actually changing. We certainly don’t have a Just Culture approach, for private pilots.
* the unfortunate side effect of this delegation is that transparency of the process disappears – as evidenced by their refusal to release details, applied for by various people under the FOIA
Peter wrote:
any ANO breach is a breach of the Civil Aviation Act and is thus a criminal offence
So we agree.
So what point were you trying to make in #688 by emphasing that busting an ATZ is a criminal offence?
