[CloudHound]

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=8988
Here's a good one to kick off the week!

Not sure I recall it being consulted upon, but I'm reading some implications for small busy AGCS aerodromes seeking to establish an ATZ.

Also, still not clear about whether certain ATZs are there H24.

[Talkdownman]

"2000 foot" ??

Can't the CAA do plurals any more?

[Flying_john]

So why does Biggin Hill have a bigger ATZ than that ?

[Irv Lee]

So why does Biggin Hill have a bigger ATZ than that ?

length of runway - see other examples like Boscombe Down (2.5nm radius)

[JodelDavo]

Cloudhound

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?

[Flying_john]

length of runway - see other examples like Boscombe Dow

Ah yes the Biggin 1820 metre runway that puts them in the category of having 2.0nm radius. Thats why I posed the question .

[CloudHound]

Memory fades, and so some change bars on the doc to alert the reader to additions/subtractions would have (sorry, of) helped.

Maybe the policy came up for periodic review and there is nothing to concerned about. 'Spose it's me being cynical.

Again.

[oakworth]

CAP 724 was withdrawn, guess this replaces it under the CAP 1616 process.

[G-BLEW]

I got as far as page two before I had to start stabbing myself in the eye with a rusty knife in order to remain conscious.

Ian

[CloudHound]

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)

[Dave Phillips]

I got as far as page two before I had to start stabbing myself in the eye with a rusty knife in order to remain conscious.

Ian

Award yourself five stars for perseverance. I got to line two .......

[Lockhaven]

I almost just lost the will to live.

[Dave W]

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...

[Flying_john]

Seems a strange clause and on initial reading seems to imply that v.short runways (would cause their ends to be farther from the 2.0nm) automatically get 2.5nm.

Think we need a diagram !

[tomshep]

That is incomprehensible nonsense. I doubt if even a lawyer could make.sense of that. Biggin has no right to an ATZ of that size, as far as I can see.