JasonC wrote:
Rule 11 really should be clarified given the ambiguity identified earlier in this thread.
Which is what I’ve asked them to do. I’ve contacted the CAA separately today because I was concerned that having cc’d to [email protected] it might not get in front of the right people, and the CAA have confirmed the right people are looking at it and will formulate a response.
JasoncC – that is the strange subtelty – an AFISO cant refuse you entry, but equally you cant enter, without the information the AFISO is required to provide!
I am not sure what an AFISO should actually say to the pilot – come to think about it.
He cant say – “you are cleared to enter the ATZ”.
He could say – “no known traffic to effect”, (although that implies if there is any traffic, he has made a judgement call that it will not effect you,
He could call all of his known traffic – but I am not sure quite how, as that could be a very long call indeed. If things arent too busy it might be – “I have three aircraft in the circuit, one departing to the west, and one transitting from the south at 1,400 feet”.
I guess he could say – “I have a number of aircraft operating in the ATZ, keep a good look out”, albeit I am not sure exactly what help that would be.
What should an AFISO say?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
What should an AFISO say?
He should say:
“G-CD good afternoon, 27 is active with a left hand circuit QNH one zero two four, report downwind.”
Forget traffic. The almost unanswerable question of what he should or shouldn’t call, plus the enormous time taken on the radio to call and acknowledge it, make it a complete non-starter.
Already at AFISO fields the factor limiting the amount of aircraft that can move at once is the amount of yabbering on the radio required for each one. Don’t let’s make it worse.
Don’t ge me wrong, I like Barton (and have been there on a number of occasions), but I do get the feeling they want the trappings of full ATC with none of the costs or encumberances (e.g. having to pay ATCO salaries, having to pay for ATCO training). The acceptable out comes are:
- Retract the “Barton interpretation” of rule 11 (as it significantly buggers up part-time A/G airfields with an ATZ).
And:
Either:
- Establish full ATC at Barton
Or:
- Establish an RMZ at Barton the size of Barton’s ATZ
Graham – do you mean in a sensible world?
It is relevant I guess that I was referencing traffic in transit, as I guess we would all agree that would work for joining traffic and is the call I hear most of the time.
I guess the point of this rather dry conversation is that for traffic in transit through the ATZ can the AFISO pass anything at all of interest to the pilot to comply with the law, and ineed should he, or has he done his job by simply establishing comms and reporting various traffic within the ATZ at various heights?
Is the intention of the legisaltion anything to do with traffic, or is it just to ensure if there are any unusual activities within the ATZ (parachuting of course comes to mind) requiring two ways comms ensures the pilot has received this information?
The problem is the legislation references information for the safe conduct of the flight which draws a very wide veil over what information might conceivably be required, and hence my question, shouuld the pilot expect to be told about other traffic in transit?
Graham wrote:
Forget traffic. The almost unanswerable question of what he should or shouldn’t call, plus the enormous time taken on the radio to call and acknowledge it, make it a complete non-starter.
I respectfully disagree. On a good day our grass strip has, concurrently, powered planes in a southern circuit, gliders in a northern circuit, RC people either north or south of the runways and parachute jumpers. On top of that a powered paraglider will drop by every now and then. It is very useful for situational awareness that there are 2 minutes till drop or that a glider is trying to make it back from a cross country flight and might be crossing the extended centerline of the powered plane runway at 100 AGL.
The fundamental factor to appreciate in all this is what while making radio calls on your way in is normally a good idea, and almost all pilots do it automatically, if somebody on the ground decides that you have not made some call(s) which he thinks you should have made, he can report you to the CAA for an “ATZ bust” and then you get the usual sequence of events “per CAP1404” i.e. a warning letter, next time within 2 years (or first time especially if it is in the winter) the ~£400 gasco “course”, and next time after gasco, within 2 years you get your license suspended. All discussed here.
Note also that at non ATC airports there is no radio recording taking place. But even if there was, a pilot being done by the CAA has no access to the tape. Only the CAA has this – unless you go to court, which is a high risk strategy. So we now have a system in the UK where smarter pilots will be recording their radio calls.
It’s an atrociously crude pilot punishment system, and they can’t even claim it is done for the usual reason (protecting airline passengers from Cessnas and Pipers crashing into their Airbuses, which as we all know happens every day already, with terrible results).
Graham wrote:
the CAA have confirmed the right people are looking at it and will formulate a response.
I’m really pleased they’ve indicated you’ll get a response. It’ll be very interesting to see what they say.
Peter wrote:
It’s an atrociously crude pilot punishment system, and they can’t even claim it is done for the usual reason (protecting airline passengers from Cessnas and Pipers crashing into their Airbuses, which as we all know happens every day already, with terrible results).
Peter, I don’t think it is any cruder than the FAA system where you don’t have the option of a GASCO course. But on ATZs, the rules should be clear.
It is now far easier to get into trouble here than in the US. And yes this is an ATZ thread.
