Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1770283
Miscellaneous wrote:@PeteSpencer I appreciate the procedures are old, or should we say well established? :D Question is has anyone in recent times looked at changing them for the better?



How could shrinking the circuit to bring arriving and departing traffic directly over many habitations, whose occupants, history has shown, are very quick to reach for the quill, pen, phone, keyboard, be construed as changing things for the better?

The previous management, before Matt turned OB around were a bit more relaxed and at one point there was a NIMBY groundswell to shut it down.

The current arrangement has sorted this, and it is only the idle/ignorant visitors now that generate complaints.

At our strip not 8 miles away we have five noise sensitive areas at all four points of the compass around the strip but by careful PPR briefing,, a source of scorn for some, we haven't had a complaint for 20 years:

Before that Bill and Teds' excellent skydiving outfit operated from our strip for 2 years before they were ejected and there was a great risk of our strip going the same way.

Norfolk/Suffolk folk value their peace and Norfolk/Suffolk resident pilots acknowledge that, however illogical/inconvenient strangers find it.

Peter :wink:
terryws liked this
By Mutley
#1770285
David Wood wrote:* Why do small airfields with only an A/G radio need an ATZ? What does it actually achieve (aside from stimulating pages of comment about Rule 11) that could not be achieved by the same sort of hazard zone warning that accompanies a parachuting or gliding site?



I fly from a busy unlicensed airfield (Popham) with an A/G service and no ATZ. I've had many more dangerous near-misses (generally with "gliders"* from Lasham or with traffic transiting overhead at circuit height) in the circuit at Popham than I have had at any of my previous bases which all had ATZs. I would be much, much happier if we had an ATZ to protect me from the "it's Class G so I can do what I want" and "the altimeter shows 1,500ft so I must be above circuit height" brigades.

* I say "gliders" because most of these aircraft had an engine on board. The pilots of these aircraft were doing daft things in close proximity to a busy airfield in order to avoid the indignity of having to start their engines and motor away - which they all had to do in the end anyway ......
User avatar
By tomshep
#1770287
I have no problem with any airfield having an ATZ. It provides a known environment within which aircraft will be taking off and landing and immediately outside of which aircraft are more than usually likely to be encountered. The problem comes in illogical and inconsistent methods of operating the different ATZs with arcane and labyrinthine rules which can get responsible and careful pilots unintentionally into trouble with the law.
#1770288
David Wood wrote:* Why do small airfields with only an A/G radio need an ATZ? What does it actually achieve (aside from stimulating pages of comment about Rule 11) that could not be achieved by the same sort of hazard zone warning that accompanies a parachuting or gliding site?


I can only speak for East Anglian airfields which I know best:
I sit on the East Anglian Airspace Users' Working Group, which is attended by representatives of all airfields and most airstrips in E Anglia including Old Buck, and meets annually, hosted by RAF Marham: Representatives from the military, RAF Lakenheath/Mildenhall, Marham, Wattisham as well as the biggies of Norwich and Cambridgealso attend .
(and provides a nice excuse to fly in and gawp at the F35s)

And thereby lies the advantage of that little 2.5NM circle on the charts: It concentrates the mind of the F15 rednecks and Apache jocks into realising there is a massive interaction between CAT, GA and Mil with very little controlled airspace .

The meetings allow everyone to air their views and disseminate information re future developments.
If I had my way there would be more ATZs in E Anglia at Sculthorpe and Knettishall for starters.

The attached filmed from the wing of our arrer beside our hangar at Knettishall.:



Peter
#1770291
Mutley wrote:
David Wood wrote:* Why do small airfields with only an A/G radio need an ATZ? What does it actually achieve (aside from stimulating pages of comment about Rule 11) that could not be achieved by the same sort of hazard zone warning that accompanies a parachuting or gliding site?



I fly from a busy unlicensed airfield (Popham) with an A/G service and no ATZ. I've had many more dangerous near-misses (generally with "gliders"* from Lasham or with traffic transiting overhead at circuit height) in the circuit at Popham than I have had at any of my previous bases which all had ATZs. I would be much, much happier if we had an ATZ to protect me from the "it's Class G so I can do what I want" and "the altimeter shows 1,500ft so I must be above circuit height" brigades.

* I say "gliders" because most of these aircraft had an engine on board. The pilots of these aircraft were doing daft things in close proximity to a busy airfield in order to avoid the indignity of having to start their engines and motor away - which they all had to do in the end anyway ......

and also, because Popham is 550 ft AMSL a nice safe 2500 ft cruising altitude puts you right in the overhead join.......
By Dominie
#1770298
Highland Park wrote:Neither Snetterton race circuit nor Tacolneston Mast are part of the circuit.

I know they aren't now and they prbably weren't in 2003 when I vividly recall a PA28 who flew his base leg towards the mast and turned for a long final from there!

Anyway, @HighlandPark, you didn't respond to my quote from the AFE Flight Guide for 2020 which says "Permission must be obtained from Buckenham A/G to enter the ATZ..."
#1770315
PeteSpencer wrote:
Miscellaneous wrote:@PeteSpencer I appreciate the procedures are old, or should we say well established? :D Question is has anyone in recent times looked at changing them for the better?

How could shrinking the circuit to bring arriving and departing traffic directly over many habitations, whose occupants, history has shown, are very quick to reach for the quill, pen, phone, keyboard, be construed as changing things for the better?

Help me out here Peter, who's suggesting doing that? :?
#1770331
Dominie wrote:
Highland Park wrote:Neither Snetterton race circuit nor Tacolneston Mast are part of the circuit.

I know they aren't now and they prbably weren't in 2003 when I vividly recall a PA28 who flew his base leg towards the mast and turned for a long final from there!

Anyway, @HighlandPark, you didn't respond to my quote from the AFE Flight Guide for 2020 which says "Permission must be obtained from Buckenham A/G to enter the ATZ..."

Ask the airfield manager If you’re concerned about the details of the entry in that Flight Guide. I have no say in it. I simply volunteer there. I don’t work there.

Ian
PeteSpencer liked this
#1770810
flybymike wrote:
townleyc wrote:I enjoyed the protection of an AT=Z training at Bourn in 2007/8, which was licensed then.

Mind that didn't stop a C130 from flying right though the zone at 800 ft - 200 ft below circuit height. When I asked the instructor why they didn't maker a complaint (presumably an MOR) I was told that nothing would be done, so it was not worth it. He was ex-CAA.

But at least there was some protection for us stdents!

KE

An ATZ at an uncontrolled airfield doesn’t provide any more “protection” than simply indicating the presence of the airfield Itself on the chart.
I don’t need an ATZ to indicate to me the possibility of traffic being present in the vicinity of an airfield regardless of the presence or absence of a larger circle on the chart.
They manage just fine without ‘em in France, and many fewer elsewhere.


My point was that the ATZ didn't always protect. However once the ATZ went, and was no longer shown on the map. I saw many more aircraft overflying the field at circuit height, or below. That was the loss

KE