Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
By IMCR
#1827592
Ender wrote:"Barton AFIS seem to be raising a seriously high amount of MORs recently and I wanted to gauge peoples opinion on this.

For example last year Barton accounted for about 18% of all infringement reports in the UK, the average is about 1.4 infringements per airfield a year. Barton raised 23.

I know of a couple of professional pilots who have had their license suspended due to what I would class as 'box ticking' by Barton AFIS. These pilots pay their bills and have children to look after and when Barton raise what they think in an MOR the CAA dont even discuss anything with the accused pilot they initially SUSPEND their license. This means professional pilots are out of work immediately, imagine defaulting on your mortgage because of a pen pusher ticking a box on what they consider to be a mandatory report.

These pilots are powerless from the start unless they a member of a large union with access to legal apparatus required to get their license back.

The Principal Airspace Regulator at the CAA takes a black and white view on this which to be honest doesn't help, the system is not working if you lose your income & lively hood before you have chance to defend yourself.

I was at a meeting where it was mentioned that another airfield in the south had matched the amount of MORs that Barton had raised in a period, the management of Barton immediately replied and said oh we need to start raising more MORs then.

Rule 11 keeps getting quoted. Can anyone point me in the direction of this?

Albiet a not very well thought out Rant just a mind dump, rant over.

Initial post edited due to comments I made which are in appropriate for a good discussion."


Ender posted this in 2019, and gives the clear impression he knows what he is talking about. There are other accounts.

Clearly there is some history rewriting here.

I love the comment, "we cant deliver the infringment course on line". Strange how they do seem to now be able to do so.

If you are going to rewrite history you do need to be pretty sure there arent people around with a good memory. :lol:
Last edited by IMCR on Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rob P, Stampe liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1827601
IMCR wrote:Rule 11 keeps getting quoted. Can anyone point me in the direction of this?


'Rules of the Air' here. Rule 11 has been quoted many times in discussions on this subject.

Flight within aerodrome traffic zones
11.—(1) This rule applies in relation to such aerodromes described in Column 1 of Table 1 as
are notified for the purposes of this rule and at such times as are specified in Column 2 of the
Table.

<Go to the link to see the table>

(2) An aircraft must not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome
unless the commander of the aircraft has complied with paragraphs (3), (4) or (5), as appropriate.
(3) If the aerodrome has an air traffic control unit the commander must obtain the permission of
that unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(4) If the aerodrome provides a flight information service the commander must obtain
information from the flight information centre to enable the flight to be conducted safely within
the aerodrome traffic zone.
(5) If there is no flight information centre at the aerodrome the commander must obtain
information from the air/ground communication service to enable the flight to be conducted safely
within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(6) The commander of an aircraft flying within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome
must—
(a) cause a continuous watch to be maintained on the appropriate radio frequency notified for
communications at the aerodrome; or
(b) if this is not possible, cause a watch to be kept for such instructions as may be issued by
visual means; and
(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.
IMCR liked this
By IMCR
#1827602
DaveW a useful clarrification for all, but to be clear this was part of the quote, not a question I was asking. Sorry if I didnt made the quote clearer - now rectified to the best of my ability.
PeteSpencer liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1827688
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.


The irony is that a non radio ATZ entry arranged using out of date information obtained by telephone prior to take off, cannot obtain up to date information nor report height (NB not altitude) and yet is perfectly legal.

I say again, uncontrolled ATZs serve no purpose and should be scrapped.
Danny, Stampe, Kemble Pitts and 2 others liked this
By rdfb
#1827695
IMCR wrote:Clearly there is some history rewriting here.


If you're referring to me, I think you misunderstand.

It's clearly established that MORs have been raised in relation to ATZ "infringements", defined by the CAA as aircraft entering an ATZ without having established two-way communication with the FISO first. An official statement was made at the time (I forget if that was by Barton or by the CAA). That statement made it clear that the issue was of pilots not establishing two-way communication first, and that they wanted/expected pilots to be doing that. It was a surprise to many pilots at the time that this was a problem. I'm not trying to claim otherwise.

Following that, there was (rightfully) a close examination of the rule cited also required pilots to report position and height* on entering or leaving the ATZ, and forumites (rightfully) asked if that was also an issue and if pilots' licences would be threatened if the failed to do this too, as they are for entry into an ATZ without establishing two-way communication first**. However, this part was speculation. Nobody actually had any reason to believe this had actually happened.

Now look at the post I linked to at the start of this thread. According to that, the CAA are "being taken to task for leaving an ATZ for not reporting their height when leaving". My point is that this grew out of speculation from a close examination of a rule for which the CAA started interpreting a different section literally.

Yes: I can't prove that this never happened, so maybe I was wrong to use those words. But please take this into context. My point is that this "height rule infringement action" is now being treated as if it is the truth, when there is no evidence to think that it happened, and there's no reason to think that it happened outside speculation that arose from the CAA enforcing a different part of the rule. It isn't important to my point to prove that it never happened. It is important to my point that treating it as if it happened to justify other arguments is fallacious because there is no basis on which to think that it happened.

I'm not trying to claim it's a myth that the CAA accept MORs and infringement action for pilots entering a FISO-operated ATZ without being in two-way communication with the FISO first. That part is well established.

I am claiming that it's a myth that the CAA take action against pilots for not reporting their height when entering an ATZ. I can't prove it has never happened, but the burden of proof is not on me; it's on whoever wishes to claim that it did happen. If someone comes forward to say that they have faced action due to this, or has seen MORs related to this, or an authority says they will or have done this, then it will no longer be a myth. But unless and until that happens, it's a myth.

I think it's harmful to propagate this myth because then we start looking like conspiracy theory crackpots, and that detracts from the valid parts of this debate. I'd like to see the rule fixed, and I don't think this kind of misinterpretation is helping.

There was also speculation that a FISO could effectively deny entry to an ATZ by refusing to enter into two-way communication by just saying "standby" all the time, but I don't think that's relevant to my point.

In summary:

  1. Not a myth: you can expect infringement action to be taken against you if you enter a FISO-operated ATZ without first establishing two-way communication. It is established that this happens in practice.
  2. Myth: entering or leaving an ATZ and not mentioning your height will result in infringement action. The law does technically require this, but there is no evidence that this particular technicality is enforced in practice.

Perhaps I should have titled this thread "ATZ MOR myth", not "ATZ MOR myths".

* Height, not level, which shows how badly the rule is written.

** I have no idea how this is supposed to work for an A/G operated ATZ when A/G is not answering, which is another problem with a literal interpretation of the rule which I also accept and acknowledge.
AlanC, WhoWhenWhy?, 2Donkeys liked this
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1827700
rdfb wrote:I am claiming that it's a myth that the CAA take action against pilots for not reporting their height when entering an ATZ. I can't prove it has never happened, but the burden of proof is not on me; it's on whoever wishes to claim that it did happen. If someone comes forward to say that they have faced action due to this, or has seen MORs related to this, or an authority says they will or have done this, then it will no longer be a myth. But unless and until that happens, it's a myth.


This may have resulted from a statement I got (and published) from the CAA,. The statement made it clear that failure to report position and altitude when entering or leaving an ATZ (even after having established two-way comms) would be considered a breach of rule 11.

The CAA also said, in a written statement, that if it were not possible to make that call (maybe because another call was in progress), the pilot should orbit outside the ATZ until the call could be made. It also stated that were it not possible to make the leaving call, the pilot should continue and make the call whenever possible.

Furthermore, the CAA insisted that it would be reinforcing this point by rolling out educational material and comms with instructors, examiners and FISOs (none of which has yet happened).

The intransigent stance apart, I have not heard of widespread action/prosecution for breaches of this part of rule 11.

Ian
Stampe, lobstaboy, flybymike and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1827749
G-BLEW wrote:This may have resulted from a statement I got (and published) from the CAA,. The statement made it clear that failure to report position and altitude when entering or leaving an ATZ (even after having established two-way comms) would be considered a breach of rule 11.

Did they really say “Altitude” Ian?
WhoWhenWhy? liked this
By rightofway
#1827776
rdfb wrote:
IMCR wrote:Myth: entering or leaving an ATZ and not mentioning your height will result in infringement action. The law does technically require this, but there is no evidence that this particular technicality is enforced in practice.


Definitely a Myth :) - 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.
AlanC, G-BLEW, Squadgy and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1827780
rightofway wrote:Definitely a Myth :) - 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.


Well that's bruddy good of you isn't it, when you're the self righteous zealots who seemed to have kept the 'daft MOR' printing trade in business!!

Great that you've put your head above the parapet, so all credit to you for that. However, is Barton AFIS going to stop being so silly?
Last edited by Kemble Pitts on Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1827782
rightofway wrote:Definitely a Myth :) - 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.


So it would be of interest to know how you managed to rack up 18% of UK infringement MORs in one year? Are aviators around Manchester particularly rule averse?

Rob P
By rightofway
#1827785
Rob P wrote:So it would be of interest to know how you managed to rack up 18% of UK infringement MORs in one year? Are aviators around Manchester particularly rule averse?


We certainly had an increased number of infringements for a period but that has now declined hugely. As an ANSP we are required to report as mandated by the scheme and indeed we clarified this with the CAA.

Within the past year we’ve had 4 infringements which involved a helicopter entering the ATZ and approaching the runway threshold before communication was established. Another helicopter entered and was 400ft directly over the airfield before comms established, one transit aircraft which didn’t report until already past through the overhead, and one that joined the circuit without any calls. All reportable infringements by the CAA definition and lessons learned as to the causes. We certainly do all we can to help prevent any infringements as much as possible to ensure a safe ATZ environment. :)
Rob P, T67M, AlanC and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1827790
flybymike wrote:
G-BLEW wrote:This may have resulted from a statement I got (and published) from the CAA,. The statement made it clear that failure to report position and altitude when entering or leaving an ATZ (even after having established two-way comms) would be considered a breach of rule 11.

Did they really say “Altitude” Ian?


They probably said height.

Ian
flybymike liked this
By Stampe
#1827850
A long lost friend who lives under the circuit at Barton has invited me fly up for a weekend this summer.I cannot say that the reputation of the airfield and the contents of this thread make it an attractive flying destination.What a strange way to run a business!Best take the car I think....safer both for me and my licence!Simple threat and error management.
Fly safe Stampe
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14