Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.

I stand to be corrected but it looks pretty much the same conditions as when you and I were involved in it. An unlicensed aerodrome could have an ATZ only if it had FISO or full ATC, (North Denes was always a good example), whereas the likes of Sandown (AGCS without Aerodrome licence) couldn't..

Maybe the CAA got fed up with every man and his unlicensed airstrip wanting an ATZ and needed to clarify the rules once and for all?
At the moment my printed CAP 1616 is always by my side. (Sad I know)

I didn't recall any reference in there to ATZs and a quick check confirms this. However, it clearly is an important part of ACP so it'll be interesting how that issue gets dealt with.

Have to say I pity anyone seeking to establish a new ATZ on land using the ACP route as it's quite daunting a task. (At a small grass aerodrome for instance)
Flying_john wrote:Ah yes the Biggin 1820 metre runway that puts them in the category of having 2.0nm radius. Thats why I posed the question .

It's (was? Haven't read the new issue despite the reviews in this thread. ;) ) not quite as simple as > or < 1850m, if there's a runway that extends to less than 1.5nm from a 2.0nm ATZ, then the airfield will be treated as if it had a >1850m longest runway.

So now we can talk about Biggin withdrawing from use their short runway a year or so ago... :D