It’s so disappointing when these sort of groups refuse to answer direct questions which would be of help to know.
I’m still not convinced it would at all stand up to a proper court case, but as has been said it takes a very brave individual to go to battle with the CAA even if their record on cases that go to trial with a not guilty plea isn’t stellar.
This stuff, and the other stuff, is going to do massive damage to the UK in its reputation abroad in the area of private aviation. The word has not really got out yet (largely IMHO because most of the discussion has been on EuroGA and the other forums don’t like linking to EuroGA, because being “European” we cover all their “territory”) but eventually it will, and once bad stuff gets out it is almost impossible to reverse it should the UK CAA change its policy to something sensible. It is like this German case which will make anybody who read it think twice about flying to Germany.
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.
Semantics. But I agree. The rule is written the way it is. If they had wanted the above (information passed to the pilot specifically by the AFISO), they should have written so in the rule. But they haven‘t. „Having obtained information“ does not really imply that it must have been addressed specifically to the pilot in question. So why have they used this wording? Why not write „has been issued information“ then?
That said, I still think it is a case of bending the rule too much when pilots say that overhearing airfield information (issued to another pilot) constitutes „obtaining information“. I just would never rely on that. It‘s too debatable.
Presumably then, all non radio flights into airfields with an ATZ are now banned, even with prior PPR and information by telephone.
No doubt the CAA will be confirming this.
So the CAA say getting the information at the time over the radio but not directly addressed to you is not acceptable. but getting the information over a telephone possibly hours beforehand is.
Interesting interpretation.
A lot of blabla but nothing of any substance in there. It doesn‘t address the case of a pilot determining having obtained the required information by listening to airfield information to other aircraft.
Also, what are they smoking when they write:
In relation to discussions around the use of the response “standby” provided by the AFISO to an aircraft, this is not at any time used as control instruction, but as defined within CAP 413 Chapter 2, 2.18 Table 8, its meaning is ‘Wait and I will call you’, and is neither an approval or denial.
…when an AFISO doesn‘t have the authority to approve or deny anything to aircraft in the air?
I haven’t yet heard from any aviator a view contrary to that The Rules of the Air, in particular Rule 11, are very clearly poorly written and operationally unsuitable for their intended purpose. The effect of Rule 11 is uncertainty and a history of unreasonable summary suspension of individual pilots’ licences. It is clear from the legislation that a review of the Rules has to be conducted by The Secretary of State by 17 March 2020. The relevant clause of the legislation is as follows:
“Regulation 3 requires the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of the 2015 Rules and to publish a report by the fifth anniversary of their coming into force, setting out the conclusions of the review, and every five years thereafter. Following a review it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider whether the 2015 Rules should remain as they are or whether they should be amended or revoked. A further instrument would be needed to amend or revoke the 2015 Rules”
I hope that our representative bodies will chase this one with urgency as there is a major inconsistency between sensible aeronautical practice and the legislation.
Yes; nothing of substance. It is an aviation version of this.
The practical difficulty the CAA has is that they have been busting lots of people for ATZ infringements for c. 2 years, so they cannot possibly back-pedal.
They have to justify this, and hope it doesn’t get tested in a court, by somebody who is both rich and angry. A reasonable assumption since anybody who does it will be grounded for months.
Barton has to be in line with the CAA policy otherwise their license will not be renewed. Simple 
Representative bodies… the head of UK AOPA sits on Gasco
Peter wrote:
This stuff, and the other stuff, is going to do massive damage to the UK in its reputation abroad in the area of private aviation
Well, my point was actually the opposite. Without knowing a single thing about Rule 11 and all it’s “oddness”, without even reading the AIP, I wouldn’t run into a problem with Barton,or any other ATZ in the UK. I can’t imagine I am alone in this.
I wonder if most of this has more to do with the “GA culture” rather than the legal peculiarities of Rule 11. I mean, it’s rather clear how the CAA want things to be. That is written in the AIP. What it say is that IF you have a radio, then treat an ATZ as a RMZ. If you don’t have a radio, then give them a call up front or organize it in some way. Just don’t simply fly into an ATZ without the ATZ knowing about it.
Maybe you are seeing this the wrong way? The culture I am used to is, it’s OK to fly without radio, it’s OK to fly without transponder (in the airspaces this is allowed). But, if your aircraft is equipped, you better use it, in your own interest and in the interest of everybody else. There seems to be a thing here that the usage of radio (and transponder) is “all up to the PIC” because no law say I shall. But it really isn’t. It’s very poor airmanship not to use the equipment you have available and know how to use.
