Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1769571
Miscellaneous wrote:Oh dear! :shock: I had always assumed your complaints about Old Buckenham were tongue in cheek


Not really tongue in cheek, but predominantly accepting.

That's how it is, it makes no sense at all. We still have overhead joins forbidden, not that that's a bad thing, but they existed because there used to be a meat bombing, long since banished to Beccles or somewhere. But it's sort of normal for Norfolk (NFN) so you just live with the stupidity of it and tell people that the circuit rates as a QXC

Yes, it makes a total nonsense of having an ATZ, but the management are proud of being a CAA licenced aerodrome, long after any point in being licenced has disappeared.

Rob P
Last edited by Rob P on Fri May 15, 2020 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
#1769629
Miscellaneous wrote:
Rob P wrote:So it can devise a circuit that pops in and out of it?

Oh dear! :shock: I had always assumed your complaints about Old Buckenham were tongue in cheek, I've just had a look and see the circuit does go out, in, out in. :lol: It does at first glance appear ridiculous and makes a mockery of the ATZ. That's a lot of extra calls you will have to make to comply with Rule 11. :wink:


Old Buck has always been one of my favourite trips, but the OTT circuit on a hazy/murky day means being out of sight of the airfield occasionaly on the D/W for RW 25.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By foxmoth
#1769640
That's a lot of extra calls you will have to make to comply with Rule 11. :wink:


I presume most people do not make those calls, I suggest that everyone is encouraged to actually do so, they might then have another look at changing the circuit so it stays inside the ATZ
Even better, don't make the calls but get everyone to MOR every call they should make but dont (pilots can file an MOR as well as FISOs), the powers that be might then see how ridiculous these requirements are!
#1769658
foxmoth wrote:
That's a lot of extra calls you will have to make to comply with Rule 11. :wink:


I presume most people do not make those calls, I suggest that everyone is encouraged to actually do so, they might then have another look at changing the circuit so it stays inside the ATZ
Even better, don't make the calls but get everyone to MOR every call they should make but dont (pilots can file an MOR as well as FISOs), the powers that be might then see how ridiculous these requirements are!

It’s to avoid the noise sensitive areas (see the link below). Not sure how long it’s been that way, but I started flying there in 2006 and it was there then (as were the parachutists), so it’s something the current owner and Airfield Manager inherited.

http://www.oldbuck.com/media/145950/Fly ... y-2019.pdf

Ian
User avatar
By Rob P
#1769664
If you look at the circuit map for Buckenham you can see the issue, one or two noise sensitive spots just where an 'average' circuit would be flown.

If you widen the circuit a little to avoid these , it puts you directly over the town of Attleborough, so the circuit is widened again such that even on a slightly hazy day you can't see the airfield. Pragmatically most locals will fly straight-ins from Snetterton or The Mast where traffic permits.

You can fly a tight circuit avoiding the noise sensitive spots easily, but that's with "permission of the airfield owner" only, luckily the gallant band of A/G have a mystical and unexplained paranormal link to the owner and will grant it for "bad weather circuits" without an actual consultation. A tight circuit might be a bit challenging for students, but at least it would teach them to fly 'properly' and save them shed loads of money too.

Like I say, NFN, and as such it has its own special charm.

Rob P
#1769673
rf3flyer wrote:Looking a the circuit procedures chart for Old Buckingham, what is the reason for the circuit being NW and not SE? That would appear to allow a much smaller circuit pattern. Anyone know?


Numerous small villages including Old Buckenham itself and clusters of houses and farms= people
#1769681
PeteSpencer wrote:
rf3flyer wrote:Looking a the circuit procedures chart for Old Buckingham, what is the reason for the circuit being NW and not SE? That would appear to allow a much smaller circuit pattern. Anyone know?


Numerous small villages including Old Buckenham itself and clusters of houses and farms= people

The residents of whom (and Attleborough) are quick to complain if an aircraft overflies, as I've discovered, having been on the receiving end of complaint calls when I've been the AGCS operator.

I'm not an historian, but as 25/07 is the remains of the main, much longer runway built during the war for the B-24s stationed there, I wonder if the circuit direction has always been that way?

Also if you drift too far to the SE, there's a danger of conflicting with Tibenham - and yes, we have had aircraft calling final for 25 at Old Buck, only for them to discover that they have mistakenly lined to land at Tibenham...

Ian
Rob P liked this
#1769690
Highland Park wrote:
... and yes, we have had aircraft calling final for 25 at Old Buck, only for them to discover that they have mistakenly lined to land at Tibenham...


I have also heard inbound folk calling from "Overhead Silverstone". Not that I have any room to criticise having once miffed the RAF by calling Cranwell Approach "Cranfield Approach". I don't think they were best pleased.

Rob P
Last edited by Rob P on Fri May 15, 2020 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Highland Park liked this
#1769696
I think one must remember that many people like rules. It makes life easy, you don't have to think and if something goes wrong you followed the rules so it's not your fault. A subset of these people really enjoy enforcing the rules, nothing gives them greater pleasure than issuing an MOR, forbidding access due lack of yellow jacket etc.

Personally I follow what an Irish CFI once described to me as the sister-in-law principle. If you want to sleep with your wife's sister it is easier to be forgiven afterwards than to get permission beforehand.

Whether you are a rule lover or a rule hater seems to be difficult to change!

[NB I have, in fact, never wanted to do anything naughty with any of my sister in laws!]
mick w, JodelDavo, Dave W and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1769728
Highland Park wrote:The residents of whom (and Attleborough) are quick to complain if an aircraft overflies, as I've discovered, having been on the receiving end of complaint calls when I've been the AGCS operator.Ian

Attleborough is to the NW, I was asking, in the spirit of this thread, why not circuits to the South rather than to the North?
Highland Park wrote:Also if you drift too far to the SE, there's a danger of conflicting with Tibenham - ...

Ian

Oh well, I suppose since Old Buck was a bomber base 'bomber circuits' are to be expected. :roll:
Seriously, is that a genuine concern as opposed to a once in a very long time occurrence?

Anyway, since this seems like one of these 'it's always been this way so that's how it will always be' I'll leave it there.
User avatar
By townleyc
#1769945
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
By Dominie
#1770108
This discussion on Old Buckenham (which I haven't visited for years) made me look at the AFE guide and I notice that the circuit diagram doesn't show the circuit extending to the Tacolneston Mast, as I recall people doing in 2003!

However, on the down side, it says "Permission must be obtained from Buckenham A/G to enter the ATZ..."

"Permission from A/G"? Surely not?