Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:25 am
#1798758
Rob P wrote:Did I single out the FISO themselves? I would suspect the credit should be given further up the hierarchy too.
From the lack of any other reports (I have seen, I may have missed them) Barton are alone in not taking the French route of simply ignoring rules that are of no benefit.
Maybe "jobsworths" would be more suitable?
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the Barton Interpretation was linked to the quasi "radar" trial?
Rob P
You need to look at other individual’s roles in directing Barton and other ATZ operators to deal with ‘infringement’ of that increasingly over regulated volume of airspace, by submitting MOR reports, indicating a debatable safety situation.
Unfortunately many other operators of ATZs are being influenced to raise an MOR in relation to an apparent incursion of an ATZ, perhaps in support of a particular interpretation of Rule 11?
If an aerodrome authority are directed to take a course of action by an individual regulator, then the consequences cannot be wholly blamed on the aerodrome.
The surveillance trials are a red herring in this case. The original problem at Barton and the prescribed method of addressing it manifested itself long before the surveillance trial and the safety benefits of deploying this source of traffic information to correctly trained non-ATCOs at several trial aerodromes has now been proven multiple times and I understand will be formally incorporated as a capability within both the appropriate FISO and equipment CAPs shortly.
The guys and girls at Barton are really great people and completely committed to delivering a safe and welcoming environment for GA.
Cub