Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1671899
Biggin has no right to an ATZ of that size, as far as I can see.


You're right. It's too small. It needs a Class D CTR to protect its arriving and departing traffic.

We can't still all be having to go around and fly the procedure again, when unknowns suddenly pop up and you have no idea what they'd do next.
Ben K liked this
#1671908
JodelDavo wrote: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?

It's all in the wording.
Previously it said any licensed airfield with a means of 2 -way communication with aircraft [meaning ATC, AFIS or AGCS] could have an ATZ and any unlicensed airfield with ATC or AFIS could have one, so there's really no difference there.
Hence in the case of Sandown, whilst it was licensed with AGCS, it could have an ATZ, now they would have to present a 'robust' case to the CAA to have one.
Last edited by chevvron on Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1671909
tomshep wrote: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.


You're correct; now that Biggin Management have withdrawn runway 11/29 from use, it is no longer entitled to a 2.5nm ATZ and the ATZ should be reduced to 2nm whereas Dunsfold (1880m) which was entitled to a 2.5nm ATZ when ATC (initially unlicensed but becoming licensed in the mid '80s) was provided and is entitled to nothing now.
Last edited by chevvron on Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flying_john liked this
#1671918
Iceman wrote:What I have never quite understood is why airports within CTRs still have an ATZ, e.g., Heathrow.

Iceman 8)

Why does Heathrow have an 'enhanced' Class D CTR; why not just a 2.5nm ATZ surrounded by Class E?
After all, the ends of all 4 runways MUST be less than 1.5nm from the ATZ boundary. :twisted: (Oooh I are awful aren't I?)

Acksherly it's to do with airspace classification; although it doesn't say so in the policy statement, an ATZ adopts the same airpsace classification as the surrounding airspace, hence the ATZ at Heathrow is also 'enhanced' Class 'D'.
Bit of an anomoly at Fairoaks though where part of the ATZ is Class 'D' and part is Class 'G'.
Last edited by chevvron on Tue Feb 05, 2019 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1671920
chevvron wrote:... whereas Dunsfold (1880m) which was entitled to a 2.5nm ATZ when ATC (initially unlicensed but becoming licensed in the mid '80s) was provided and is entitled to nothing now.


Don't understand this comment. Dunsfold doesn't have an ATZ now - and hasn't for ages.
#1671925
Dave W wrote:
chevvron wrote:... whereas Dunsfold (1880m) which was entitled to a 2.5nm ATZ when ATC (initially unlicensed but becoming licensed in the mid '80s) was provided and is entitled to nothing now.


Don't understand this comment. Dunsfold doesn't have an ATZ now - and hasn't for ages.

It used to have one until BAe moved out (late 1999?); I was just illustrating how an airfield which used to have an ATZ when it had ATC is now not entitled to one even when it had a 2.5 nm one previously.
#1671936
It's all in the wording. Previously it said any licensed airfield with a means of 2 -way communication with aircraft [meaning ATC, AFIS or AGCS] could have an ATZ and any unlicensed airfield with ATC or AFIS could have one, so there's really no difference there.
Hence in the case of Sandown, whilst it was licensed with AGCS, it could have an ATZ, now they would have to present a 'robust' case to the CAA to have one.


Errrr, thats exactly what I said (or meant. You're right it is in the wording). Sandown hasn't been licensed for at least 7 years now, so no chance of an ATZ NOW. They had one when they were licensed as did Clacton, who lost it when they went unlicensed..

As far as I'm concerned, its business as usual. :thumleft:
#1671939
And yet doesn't Sandown now have more movements than when it was licenced?


That may be so, but as it stands under current rules, they won't get an ATZ.. The whole UK "who gets CAS/ATZ" system is flawed and always has been.

Barking mad I know, but France and a whole host of other countries seem to exist quite happily and safely without ATZs...
#1671942
From a private pilots point of view, I think a ATZ can removed and replaced with RMZ or CTR.
#1671948
One should be able to create some special exemptions/local procedures to deal with that.