Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
By rdfb
#1827508
From this post:

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:If people are being taken to task for leaving an ATZ for not reporting their height when leaving it ...


This never happened. As far as I'm aware, the only "people being taken to task" were ATZ entries without two-way communication with the FISO in charge of it being established first.

It's interesting how speculation and conspiracy theories on this forum have now led to people actually believing that these things have happened.

Can we put this to bed now please?
AlanC liked this
By proteus
#1827512
Was there not an issue with it being stated that a FISO could deny access to an ATZ by saying standby. (which seems to me like two way communication)?

I thought the following about required to state entering and leaving an ATZ reporting altitude was stated as a requirement. My memory is fuzzy on this but I recall it seeming odd as it was something I'd never noticed when flying about normally
By riverrock
#1827516
indeed - the point of that discussion was that reporting your height requirement when entering / leaving is as important in the law as ensuing that you have appropriate information from the air station to conduct your flight in the ATZ safely (interpreted by Barton as you need to have fully established 2 way communication with their FISO, other interpretations were available) yet one had never been MORed and wasn't common practice, while the other was being MORed and people were being made to go on infringement courses.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1827518
What prompted the 'myth' was that in 2019 tiny, inconsequential Barton raised 18% of all UK ATZ infringement MORs. Telling us that this wasn't because of omitting height from a call is something of a sidetrack. We need to know why such a disproportionate amount?

This has never been "Put to bed"

Rob P
Danny liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1827523
rdfb wrote:This never happened.

The problem remains that we don't know whether it did or it didn't.

It would certainly be good to know one way or the other, but I've never seen an unequivocal public statement from somebody who would definitively tell us. And I have been paying attention.

An unidentified person on the internet is not that.

What you've said above is just an assertion, not a supported fact, and you weaken that assertion immediately when you go on to say:

rdfb wrote:As far as I'm aware....

It does come across that in practice you don't have definitive knowledge either.

rdfb wrote:Can we put this to bed now please?

It would be great, wouldn't it?

But it does need some open communications from an authoritative source otherwise rumours can never be quashed. After all, without supportable facts it's no surprise that people think rumours might have some substance behind them.
Rob P, matthew_w100, Danny and 4 others liked this
By proteus
#1827527
I agree, like the whole CAA prosecution fiasco. Much of this could be settled by the publication of the data and information. My understanding is that this seems to have been fought by the CAA at every step.

If we knew what was going on and had some good reasoning behind it I think most people would be much happier. Did the Barton MOR raising machine improve safety? I'm not convinced.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1827541
rdfb wrote:From this post:

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:If people are being taken to task for leaving an ATZ for not reporting their height when leaving it ...


This never happened. As far as I'm aware, the only "people being taken to task" were ATZ entries without two-way communication with the FISO in charge of it being established first.



Ah, that makes it OK then...
Rob P, Danny, Kemble Pitts and 1 others liked this
By rdfb
#1827563
Dave W wrote:
rdfb wrote:This never happened.

The problem remains that we don't know whether it did or it didn't.


It's not possible to prove a negative. You don't know whether a pig has ever flown, either. It's not practical or useful to demand proof of a negative; unless we have any evidence to the contrary, the only useful way to proceed is to assume that it didn't.

Certainly, arguing that people "are being taken to task", without any evidence, as a justification for something else makes no sense.
By rdfb
#1827566
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
rdfb wrote:From this post:

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:If people are being taken to task for leaving an ATZ for not reporting their height when leaving it ...


This never happened. As far as I'm aware, the only "people being taken to task" were ATZ entries without two-way communication with the FISO in charge of it being established first.



Ah, that makes it OK then...


Strawman and off-topic. I didn't say it made it OK. All I said is that propagating a different, unsubstantiated speculation as if it is fact is wrong.
By Dominie
#1827570
Surely the reason why it cannot yet be put to bed is that it is still in the Rules of the Air, Rule 11, Para 6 which says (my bold):
(6) The commander of an aircraft flying within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome must—
....
(c) if the aircraft is fitted with means of communication by radio with the ground, communicate the aircraft’s position and height to the air traffic control unit, the flight information centre or the air/ground communications service unit at the aerodrome (as the case may be) on entering the aerodrome traffic zone and immediately prior to leaving it.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1827571
@rdfb, you say with confidence "it never happened".

How do you know?

You either have information to demonstrate that (which presumably you could share with us), or you have somehow proven a negative to yourself.
Rob P, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By rdfb
#1827583
Dave W wrote:@rdfb, you say with confidence "it never happened".

How do you know?

You either have information to demonstrate that (which presumably you could share with us), or you have somehow proven a negative to yourself.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph ... a_negative

You're asking me to prove a negative, not the other way round. I cannot do so. If you want to claim that "people have been taken to task" for not reporting altitude on entering or leaving an ATZ, then prove it. Clearly, if it's actually a problem, there should be someone who can step forward and say it's happened to them. If you can't, stop claiming that this is happening. That's all I ask.
By rdfb
#1827585
Dominie wrote:Surely the reason why it cannot yet be put to bed is that it is still in the Rules of the Air, Rule 11, Para 6 which says (my bold):
(6) The commander of an aircraft flying within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome must—
....
(c) if the aircraft is fitted with means of communication by radio with the ground, communicate the aircraft’s position and height to the air traffic control unit, the flight information centre or the air/ground communications service unit at the aerodrome (as the case may be) on entering the aerodrome traffic zone and immediately prior to leaving it.


I agree that's a problem. What I'm asking to put to bed is the myth that it's a problem in practice. I admit it's a problem in theory.

Look at the post I'm complaining about. There, it's claimed that the CAA are "holding people to task" for it. That implies a problem in practice, when actually that's entirely speculation fabricated on this forum with no evidence that it's actually happened.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14