Lydd is open, except it is closed at times during the day (see notam). It turned off its ILS during the recent closure (I checked it) but it was quietly open for based pilots. Not sure this SR20 could have made Lydd as an alternate for Cumbernauld! A TB20 with full tanks could 
PPR is a different issue. Most airfields in UK or Europe are on private land; they are not the US concept of “public airport” which must accept traffic as a condition of FAA funding. So an airport can refuse a landing – in the same way I can refuse you entering my garden. But that is not what happened here. My reading is simply that the police told the A/G radio operator to refuse a landing. Not “refuse on behalf of the landowner” which is the correct phrase for any A/G or AFIS station. And indeed IF he was coming from Germany, the £1750 govt hotel quarantine is nonsense too, unless Scotland had that policy (England never did; only for red list countries).
It is likely that this pilot – like so many – did not do his homework. He should have joined EuroGA and asked how to do this But that does not change the basics.
It is actually an interesting Q whether the police anywhere have the real power to refuse an aircraft landing. IMHO they cannot have such a power because it would require everyone, and every airliner, to always have an alternate in another country, which is self evidently bollocks. But police, being police, are sure to “try stuff out”… especially if something provokes them.
Peter wrote:
My reading is simply that the police told the A/G radio operator to refuse a landing. Not “refuse on behalf of the landowner” which is the correct phrase for any A/G or AFIS station.
I understand AFIS can legally do it, but A/G cannot refuse anything, right?
arj1 wrote:
I understand AFIS can legally do it, but A/G cannot refuse anything, right?
Not my understanding, I think both can refuse “owner landing/takeoff permission” but they can’t refuse “landing/takeoff clearance” as they can’t give you one?
For landing, you can always land and go up to the tower talk & file paperwork (happended with EGTR ex-FISO while ago, we had PPR but he beleived we can’t land on arrival with 800ft ceiling and I was convinced we can, not sure who was right or wrong but I did not heard anything back from that MOR), I also heard an AG refusing an aircraft takeoff but I have no idea of the details….
Careful now with Rule11 as all FISO/AG have to do is to say “standby”, you will surely need 7700 on txp to enter/exit ATZ
Whatever happened to declaring an emergency? If I was running low on fuel I would declare one and land, period. And you can always achieve that state by flying in circles while the people on the ground try to sort it out.
An A/G station cannot issue any instruction or clearance to an aircraft, they can only pass information. Thus any question of refusing a landing or takeoff is not an aviation regulatory matter, but rather a civil matter between the two parties in respect of permission (or otherwise) to use the airfield – hence “on behalf of the landowner” type calls, etc.
An AFIS station can issue instructions to aircraft on the ground only. Thus they can refuse you a takeoff and that is an aviation matter – if you take off regardless you have failed to comply with instructions from an ATSU and the regulator could become involved. I’m not 100% sure about a landing, but believe you might be in the same position (failure to comply, regulator potentially involved) if you landed without them giving the traditional “land at your discretion” call.
Such units having no ability to instruct or issue/deny clearances to aircraft in the air was the basis of the Barton Interpretation problem. Barton’s A/G and AFISO operators were using the (apparent) requirement for every aircraft to be individually passed aerodrome information before entering the ATZ as a mechanism to control entry to their ATZ, and this behaviour conflicted fundamentally with the idea that their ‘control’ did not apply to airborne aircraft.
It is another question altogether whether any ATSU (even ATC) can legitimately pass instructions to an aircraft (and expect compliance backed up with the threat of the regulator) when those instructions have nothing to do with the safe and expeditious management of air traffic. Even in the denial of airspace entry scenario they use the form of words “I am instructed by Her Majesty’s Government to refuse you…” which makes it clear that this is not a normal ATC instruction and that they are simply passing on a message.
The funny thing is that the MOR system makes sure that nobody learns from these events. If one of the recipients of the MORs goes open with it, he will be taken off the distribution list. So the whole thing is totally pointless… It keeps everything “inside the private club”. The French REX system is better, although I am not sure they have ATC statements in there.
No, generally the French REX does not have ATC statements. In the event of an airspace incursion usually ATC and the pilot have a discussion. The result of that discussion is that the guilty party is (I will call it penalised for want of a better word) by being required to anonymously publish (the REX) the transgression in the REX. Departure and destination airports are usually listed as LFXX to LFYY.
The REX usually starts with what happened written by the pilot.
Then a paragraph on why s/he believed the transgression occurred and what s/he did after it was recognised. Eg I telephoned ATC or I returned to the club and was told to contact ATC
The next paragraph is a sort of educational piece by one of the FFA’s safety people. This reiterates a little of what happened and points out what perhaps we can all learn from the event
The final section is a conclusion of what happened and what the pilot decided to or agreed to do in future to avoid the situation occurring again. Eg better planning or a flight with an instructor.
This ends with a note for the club or other pilots. EG Post the boundaries of ABC airspace as a map in the clubhouse.
The REX of course does not only cover airspace infringements it is for anything untoward, mistake, mechanical problem that might occur.
Please note that whilst most airspace infringements are dealt with in this way an incursion, however small into “P” prohibited airspace is taken very seriously and will be dealt with immediately. Eg You would, more than likely, be instructed to wait at the airport for the arrival of the gendarmerie de l’air and expect hours of grilling. You can even be fined up to I think €15,000 and a year in prison. I have not read of anyone receiving such a fine but there are many REX describing the horrid (is the only word I can think of) experience. BTW “P” may have been ZITs in the past but since 9/11 they are certainly as permanent as the nuclear power stations and other areas that they protect
gallois wrote:
BTW “P” may have been ZITs in the past but since 9/11 they are certainly as permanent as the nuclear power stations and other areas that they protect
I have never understood in what way P/R-areas “protect” nuclear power stations and the like. The chance of someone crashing there by accident if there was no P/R-area is infinitesimal and in any case these areas have a limited extent both horizontally and vertically and e.g. a LOC accident could start outside the area with the aircraft still crashing inside it.
Criminal acts certainly won’t be deterred by a P/R-area unless there are anti-aircraft missiles around.
I recall it was to deter Green Peace France from landing helis on the roofs? when I was doing an internship in one of stations in Normandie they managed to get inside and go over the roofs, what was more worrying is they had easy acess to 2nd EPR control room but we were glad they were happy with dancing on the roof
One should not worry too much about criminal acts by GA aircrafts, the installations are well rated to take the hit with/witthout P/R-areas…
“I have never understood in what way P/R-areas “protect” nuclear power stations and the like. The chance of someone crashing there by accident if there was no P/R-area is infinitesimal and in any case these areas have a limited extent both horizontally and vertically and e.g. a LOC accident could start outside the area with the aircraft still crashing inside it.
Criminal acts certainly won’t be deterred by a P/R-area unless there are anti-aircraft missiles around."
I do not disagree with you but a lot changed after 9/11.
