Got me there 
I‘ll blame it on autocorrect.
That plus the other thread on the CAA approach to trivial airspace violations is enough to make continent pilots strike the UK off their lists of destinations.
I hate to say this, having repeatedly posted that people should fly to the UK, and having had great threads here on it – example – but I agree with you!
IFR is still OK, if you watch out the Class G bits (because they are flown VFR OCAS even if you are on a Eurocontrol flight plan). But VFR, I have almost given up on. Certainly the low level stuff under the TMAs.
However, this is an ATZ thread, and the vast majority of UK ATZs are not doing this nonsense. You however do have to be very careful about busting any ATZs enroute.
If the potential consequences of our collective inability to interpret the unclear, conflicting and poorly drafted regulations about ATZ’s were not so serious (i.e. unchallengeable licence suspension) I would treat this whole subject as a laughable quirk of air law that could only ever be settled after a lengthy and expensive trial in the Courts and maybe then the Court of Appeal.
But then I found this “myth busting” article by the Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA: https://members.gliding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/04/1430311879_20121129AerodromeTrafficZones.pdf local copy which seems to be an early attempt at dealing with the question. Ok it refers to an earlier version of the Rules of the Air but I presume that for Rule 45 now read Rule 11.
What the article does make clear is that it is sufficient to establish and maintain two-way communication with ATC, the AFIS or A/G provider (unless the CAA have issued an update to the article which I can’t find).So Barton, by answering “Standby” to a call, have satisfied that requirement presuming a pilot continues to listen out on the frequency and transmit his position and height when entering the ATZ.
I wonder what the CAA have done with all the MOR’s raised by Barton? Hopefully put them in the bin.
That PDF is from Dec 2012. The author is one Dave Drake who according to google was in the CAA during that time.
presuming a pilot continues to listen out on the frequency and transmit his position and height when entering the ATZ.
I’ve never heard anyone transmit position and height when entering an ATZ
flybymike wrote:
I’ve never heard anyone transmit position and height when entering an ATZ
Nor have I in 50+ years of continuous flying; so everyone is contravening Rule 11 (see you all at Gasco).
When I learned to fly we didn’t have radios in the aircraft and as there was no direct dial telephone system calls for PPR and airfield information were virtually impossible. So it was SOP to turn up overhead, look at the signals square and in the unlikely event that there was anyone in the Tower keep looking for a flashing light, or in extremis a red Verey flare.
That was at EGHO which in those days was surrounded by very active military airfields (Boscombe Down, Chilbolton, Andover, Middle Wallop, Greenham Common) with lots of high performance test flying. Nobody came to grief; why is it so complicated in these days with GPS, Mode S and ADSB?
Marchettiman wrote:
why is it so complicated in these days
middle management
I have had a reply from the CAA.
They make it clear that they support Barton’s position and their interpretation of Rule 11.
They don’t make any actual logical argument against the points I made, rather they just state that in their view you cannot have obtained information to allow the flight to be conducted safely in the ATZ unless it is passed to you specifically by the AFISO. Also that if you are told to standby you cannot enter because you have not received information.
Finally, they invited me to tell them where people are operating contrary to this edict.
And did they comment on AG radio ATZs?
Or even non-radio traffic?
they invited me to tell them where people are operating contrary to this edict.
