LeSving wrote:
I wouldn’t run into a problem with Barton,or any other ATZ in the UK.
Thats a pretty bold statement.
The point about this particular place (Barton in the UK) is that they have been busting pilots, who then get disciplinary action from the CAA, based on the aerodrome’s interpretation of an infringement. Common sense has unfortunately gone out of the window.
LeSving wrote:
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.
I think this is rather simplistic.
The problem is exactly what information should and shouldnt be passed, and that there is adoption of the same procedure throughout our green land.
Its like saying the rules of the road will be interpreted one way in Manchester, and another in Bristol.
The reality is many pilots will spend most of their time flying around the south of England for example. Once in a while they decide a trip to Barton would be a pleasant way to spend a Sunday. Unfortunately they then find it was a lot less pleasant than they had hoped, when the letter turns up from the CAA, much to their costernation because they had just gone about their business as they would down South.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
The reality is many pilots will spend most of their time flying around the south of England for example. Once in a while they decide a trip to Barton would be a pleasant way to spend a Sunday. Unfortunately they then find it was a lot less pleasant than they had hoped, when the letter turns up from the CAA, much to their costernation because they had just gone about their business as they would down South.
So it is a problem for UK pilots, no one else. It’s like people used to driving a car in the south of England where no one bust you for driving on red light. Then you drive “off the grid” somewhere and think it’s unheard of that you get busted for the same thing. It’s a bit like that IMO 
I am not used to these ad hoc “zones”. I think it is weird to have zones that are practiced differently based on the whim of the person in charge of the “zone”. In this thread it seems to me that Barton is the only one going by the rule, while all the others don’t care. In that case, the others should get rid of their “zones”, because it serves no purpose, they have no practical use for it. Barton is not the odd case, all the others are. They are literally setting up traffic lights, because it looks cool or whatever, but don’t care if people drive on red light, or stop to eat lunch on green light.
The point about this particular place (Barton in the UK) is that they have been busting pilots,
But if they didn’t and pilots infringed and caused a mid air, then it would be pilots busting the aerodrome.
There is no win here, is there?
There have already been Cat A and Cat B airproxes in ATZs caused by infringements.
There are “always” airproxes in Class G. That’s life…
Nobody is liable.
AFIS and A/G has not responsibility to control ATZ traffic, so the airport cannot be liable for a collision within such an ATZ.
Basically, all ATZs in the UK are now RMZs, and from the POV of getting busted all of them must be considered as controlled airspace.
My guess is that in UK law, FISOs and others aren’t exempt from the duty of care requirement.
So they need to be seen as being able to pass appropriate / timely traffic information to assist pilots in preventing collisions.
ATZs have been RMZs with exemptions in place for certain non-radio aircraft for as long as I have been flying.
Duty of care is not a strict liability.
Peter wrote:
Duty of care is not a strict liability.
Nor are they free from being accused of negligence. They must do what they can to avoid accident. If they condone illegal activity (ignoring for a moment whether it is illegal) they are at risk of being sued for negligence.
I don’t buy that, because one could trivially extend that argument to a Basic Service, offered by some man holding a handheld radio (roughly, half of UK airfields?), being expected to prevent a collision.
Getting accused doesn’t mean you will get done. Lots of people accuse lots of other people of this and that, but there is no liability. Class G is Class G, the “man on the radio” has no radar, the laptop running FR24 doesn’t officially exist, and according to the omnipotent PPL training system, your Mk1 Eyeball will always save you
ignoring for a moment whether it is illegal
Exactly 
It isn’t, the way the regs are actually written.
This discussion goes in circles, all over UK social media, and follows the standard pattern whereby CAA and NATS staff (posting heavily on the UK sites under nicknames) pick on the concept on a pilot entering an ATZ without making calls and just barging his way in. This is obviously very conveniently emotive – like saying all infringements are serious and potentially deadly. No sh*t Sherlock!
But very few pilots do that. Most use the radio normally. This leaves the residual issue of how to reconcile genuine non-radio traffic with this new interpretation (which appears to outlaw NR traffic).
The real issue is that ATZ “events” are now treated by the head busts honcho at the CAA in the same category as busting the Heathrow CTR. The same process: warning letter, Gasco (in the winter months, you usually get Gasco the 1st time), and then license suspension per cap1404. For as many decades as anybody can remember, this draconian system wasn’t there. We lived in a more tolerant society.
Occassionally we would swear at some dick flying through the IAP platform of a Class G airport, but he would be outside the ATZ anyway, and PPL training does not mention IAPs, let alone avoiding them.
Policy should also be evidence-based, and I see no evidence that ATZ boundary related events are significant in mid-airs.
Very well said.
