https://airspacesafety.com/updates/ Barton stuff local copy
this is a very interesting summary and sheds light on exactly what is expected of you by the AFISOs at Barton, and SOME light on the exciting information about other traffic that apparently they cant wait to pass to you, although we arent told exactly what judgement calls they are making and what information to include, and what not, assuming they arent providing the lot.
I assume the fact that you havent been given this information “in person” but have relied on the said information passed to other aircraft in the minutes before is considered inadequate because they cant then report that you are within the ATZ.
If asked to stand by – you might get away with “I am entering the ATZ at point X at X feet, for transit and I have heard your last call regarding other traffic in the ATZ” – but then that would be rude.
Just for the interest of us non-UK pilots, exactly with what air law violation is a pilot being charged in these infringement proceedings? What specifically (quote please) is the „charge“ being laid by the regulator? Not looking for a paraphrase.
chflyer wrote:
Just for the interest of us non-UK pilots, exactly with what air law violation is a pilot being charged in these infringement proceedings? What specifically (quote please) is the „charge“ being laid by the regulator? Not looking for a paraphrase.
A breach of Rule 11 of the UK Rules of the air regulations 2015.
Contravention of rule 11 of the UK AIP, see the O/P.
This constitutes an airspace infringement, hence the subject of this thread, and is a criminal inditement, although at the discretion of the CAA and with the agreement of the pilot, may be dealt with by remedial training, and caution on the pilot’s licence that a further charge will probably result in licence suspension and / or prosecution.
In the new CAA system, you get busted exactly as if you busted controlled airspace e.g. London Heathrow.
I bet a lot of UK GA airfields are looking at this right now, and deciding to either follow Barton (if they have aggressive tower staff) or go nowhere near filing MORs (if they want a good relationship with based pilots, and want people to fly there).
There have been a lot of discussions about this on the forum, but the AIP is in of itself not law. There must be an underlying legal text that the AIP is reflecting. Sure, we as pilots normally use the AIP for guidance, but there have been enough examples cited where laws have changed and the AIP never updated to reflect that.
And surely, the moment the AFISO says “stand by”, you have established two-way contact…
Mark_B wrote:
And surely, the moment the AFISO says “stand by”, you have established two-way contact…
Ha! Actually, you are correct! :)
I think technically they would have to use your callsign in the exchange. At least in the US.
There is no legal requirement for two way contact.
