Arne wrote:
In Sweden or in the Regs?
In the regs. By ICAO. I ask because I am not aware that these airspace types had an ICAO definition.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Where?In Sweden or in the Regs?
Dimme wrote:
TIZ/TIA exist Sweden too and are very well defined by ICAO.
They are? Where?
Very well said.
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.
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.
Duty of care is not a strict liability.
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.
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.
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.
