[chevvron]

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 tried to file an MOR for an ATZ infringement many years ago when I was still at Farnborough.
In the tower one day, I saw something on my tower radar monitor (called ATM) heading east on the railway line. Asked LARS West if they were talking to it; no.
I could see it was an R22 and watched as it got to just north of the airfield (approx Farnborough main railway station) and it turned south , passing through runway 24 final approach just outside the airfield boundary; fortunately I had no inbounds at the time. I tracked it on the ATM until it disappeared about 5 miles north west of Shoreham heading for Shoreham then phoned Shoreham ATC to see if it was talking to them.
'Oh yes' they said, 'Mr Evans in an R22 had just called them inbound from the north west'.
I filed the form and waited; there was no feedback and it wasn't included in the monthly digest from the CAA .
I wouldn't say it was a cover up, but the form I had filed was found in a 'pending' tray about 18 months later having not been forwarded by my management.

[CloudHound]

Perhaps the answer to “has anybody left recently from the Tower?” might be informative.

[rdfb]

Miscellaneous - I think you are absolutely right. The cynic in all of us would conclude Barton wants our business, but cant tell us why they have featured so highly in MORs, and havent really provided any comfort that they will not top the list again when pilots start travelling. This seems to me just the position we are in, Barton may well wish otherwise, but on the basis of what we have (helpfully) been told, I cant see how any other conclusion is possible.

Occam's razor: they featured more highly in MORs because their ATZ is infringed more often, or they're better at spotting ATZ infringements. That is the simplest, most obvious conclusion, especially since as others have pointed out the Barton ATZ is in a relatively complicated situation wrt. nearby airspace.

I don't see how it's on them to provide an explanation above what they already have said. It's clear they're following the CAA's opinion on what comprises an ATZ infringement ("must have two way communication").

What more exactly do you want to hear?

[Miscellaneous]

@rdfb I don't intend getting involved in going round in these circles again. However……..it's sometimes what is not said that causes the raising of an eyebrow.

For example, the answer to @Rob P's question heightens (maybe incorrectly) my scepticism rather than negating it. I certainly don't see anything in that answer to reach the conclusion you proffer, rdfd. It may well be an honest misunderstanding of the question? Equally, one could be forgiven for concluding an intent to duck the actual question whilst giving the impression of answering it.

viewtopic.php?p=1827785#p1827785

As to what's still to hear.

What was the cause of the high number of MORs?
Why such a long silence when there was so much **** being thrown at the fan?

[rdfb]

As to what's still to hear.

What was the cause of the high number of MORs?

The cause of a high number of ATZ infringement MORs is obviously a high number of ATZ infringements. As to why, maybe ask the infringing pilots? While it's something I'm sure that Barton could speculate on, I don't see why it's on them to answer.

Why such a long silence when there was so much **** being thrown at the fan?

Already answered here.

The reason companies have such strict social media policies? Because people on forums tend to gather the pitchforks, call for boycotts, etc, even when they're not doing anything wrong and/or are as much a victim of poor management by the CAA as the pilots.

[NigelC]

https://airspacesafety.com/local-area-information/

Item number 7 may help but doesn't highlight the particular trap that is catching people out.
( It took a bit of finding via the SkyWise website )

Seems a bit odd that the spike of infringements in 2018 were from (a?) locally based aircraft.

[Miscellaneous]

The cause of a high number of ATZ infringement MORs is obviously a high number of ATZ infringements.

I'm afraid I need a little more than a statement that it is obvious. I don't think it unreasonable to ask for an expansion on.

As a FISO and Manager at Barton, we have never filed an MOR for any aircraft which has omitted to report entering/leaving the ATZ and/or including height. Our opinion is that this in itself would not be a reportable occurrence under the MOR scheme so would therefore not warrant such a report.

It's on them to answer if they want to encourage visitors and clarify misunderstandings.

The reason companies have such strict social media policies? Because people on forums tend to gather the pitchforks, call for boycotts, etc, even when they're not doing anything wrong and/or are as much a victim of poor management by the CAA as the pilots.

I wholeheartedly agree, it's a difficult situation. However that is not a reason for them not to be accountable and satisfy the customer base.

At the moment I cannot accept that there has never been any issue to answer and that it has taken this long to engage. As difficult as engaging is, letting the rumour mill run riot for months before addressing the questions is not conducive to quelling such rumours. It's a much bigger task now than it was by being transparent at the time. But then maybe @CloudHound has hit on something which makes providing detail difficult?

[proteus]

With what appears to be the current CAA approach to airspace busts where pilots feel as if they're running the risk of losing their licence for minor lapses of concentration. It seems to me prudent to just avoid one place which seems to be an epicentre of MOR trouble.

I don't see a gathering of pitchforks, I see reasonable concern from pilots who don't want to lose their licence based on some pretty unusual interpretations and what seems to me to be a long way from proportional or any real safety benefit. Having a FISO being able to block entry by "standby" does seem beyond their power to me.

I'm happy to engage in constructive discussion and welcome it. Just pretending there isn't a problem though is not constructive.

[skydriller]

https://airspacesafety.com/local-area-information/

Item number 7 may help but doesn't highlight the particular trap that is catching people out.
( It took a bit of finding via the SkyWise website )

Seems a bit odd that the spike of infringements in 2018 were from (a?) locally based aircraft.

Seems to me from that link that the problem wasnt transiting traffic as alluded to in the examples given by @rightofway but those flying into Barton (those based at Barton featuring highly) and the whole "standby" thing... which, as I think most agreed at the time, was a new one on most of us for a class G ATZ with a FISO that isnt supposed to be controlling traffic in the air...

...hang on a mo, isnt that where we started off...

Fun this isnt it... SD..

[flyingearly]

https://airspacesafety.com/local-area-information/

Item number 7 may help but doesn't highlight the particular trap that is catching people out.
( It took a bit of finding via the SkyWise website )

Seems a bit odd that the spike of infringements in 2018 were from (a?) locally based aircraft.

Might this be - or perhaps just coincidence - all rumours and whispers based on a mis-reading of the data?

The document above suggests that 18% of all Manchester Controlled Airspace infringements were in the vicinity of Barton aerodrome.

Is it possible that this 18% (of Manchester infringement MORs) has been misquoted as 18% of national infringement MORs, triggering this speculation erroneously?

[skydriller]

If its reported ATZ infringements, Barton was 25 out of 100...even I can work out that math as a percentage...

[rdfb]

With what appears to be the current CAA approach to airspace busts where pilots feel as if they're running the risk of losing their licence for minor lapses of concentration. It seems to me prudent to just avoid one place which seems to be an epicentre of MOR trouble.

That's your choice. But it seems evident to me, based on many threads on this forum, and official communication from the authorities concerned, that there's no reason for any pilot to fear for their licence unless they infringe on an ATZ. To avoid Barton altogether seems to me to be either a gross overreaction or, when telling others to avoid Barton, an effort to politicize the situation at Barton's expense.

The real and easiest solution is simple: establish two-way communication before you enter an ATZ.

I don't see a gathering of pitchforks, I see reasonable concern from pilots who don't want to lose their licence based on some pretty unusual interpretations and what seems to me to be a long way from proportional or any real safety benefit.

Are you referring to the need to establish two-way communication, or something else? Because what we've established is that two-way communication is required and not doing that will be treated as an ATZ infringement.

Having a FISO being able to block entry by "standby" does seem beyond their power to me.

There's no evidence to suggest that any FISO (Barton or elsewhere) has ever used "standby" as a means to prevent ATZ entry.

I'm happy to engage in constructive discussion and welcome it. Just pretending there isn't a problem though is not constructive.

Please see my previous posts in this thread. I'm not pretending there isn't a problem. I am claiming that the problem has nothing to with Barton, who are merely following the rules that the CAA have imposed, just like us pilots.

[skydriller]

There's no evidence to suggest that any FISO (Barton or elsewhere) has ever used "standby" as a means to prevent ATZ entry.

You havent read the link that @NigelC posted have you?

It clearly says that out of 25 infringements, 21 were inbound, out of 12 infringements the following year 8 were inbound, and goes on to say under
causes of barton infringements, the no1 is :

A number of pilots were unaware that if asked to “Standby” they must not enter the ATZ (even if they have previously remained on frequency in the local area) until the AFISO has passed updated Aerodrome Information.

Technically their FISO has not prevented any aeroplanes from entering the ATZ, 'cause short of some kind of SAM or Fighter Patrol, that might be a little hard to do...

But they have certainly filed infringement MORs on pilots that have entered the ATZ having been told "standby" on contact...

As I said earlier, Full Circle !!!

[Miscellaneous]

I am claiming that the problem has nothing to with Barton, who are merely following the rules that the CAA have imposed, just like us pilots.

My recollection from previous threads is that the CAA were not actively imposing rules across all aerodromes with ATZs, at all. Rather, Barton went out on a limb choosing their own interpretation and then having their interpretation confirmed by the CAA.

If in fact Barton have never filed an MOR as described why has it taken them until now to say so? As I say, if it was difficult to deal with social media rumour back then, it's a lot more difficult now. Something doesn't feel right.

Our group sold an aeroplane, the new owner being in the south. There was agreement to fly it part way for collection. When Barton was suggested the pilot taking it simply said no. That aeroplane is now hangared elsewhere due covid awaiting collection. Barton would have been a more suitable location. Sometimes it's not all about risk to licence, it's about the perceived service and attitude. Or even the fry up!

Would I have taken it to Barton had I been the one flying it south? I honestly can't say one way or the other.

[proteus]

Are you referring to the need to establish two-way communication, or something else? Because what we've established is that two-way communication is required and not doing that will be treated as an ATZ infringement.


There's no evidence to suggest that any FISO (Barton or elsewhere) has ever used "standby" as a means to prevent ATZ entry.


Please see my previous posts in this thread. I'm not pretending there isn't a problem. I am claiming that the problem has nothing to with Barton, who are merely following the rules that the CAA have imposed, just like us pilots.

I would think it would be very interesting to see it tested properly. But to me it seems that if you make a radio call, and get a response you have established two way communications. If you have been listening out already you could have got the required information.

Given that if you don't have a radio you can phone beforehand and come on in without any radio contact, there seems to be a big difference.


So you think Barton is behaving the same way as all other airports? Yet it accounts for a way over representative portion of the MOR reports.

Trust takes a long time to build but can be destroyed in an instant.

There are plenty of other strips around and I'm happy to go to those instead.