Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1827853
Stampe wrote: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


If/when I need to be anywhere near Manchester, I will happy enough to use Barton. Will try to organise an interview/chat if they're willing (which I think they are).

Ian
Stampe, Ben K, Nick and 2 others liked this
By rightofway
#1827857
Stampe wrote: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


I’m very sorry you feel that way and unfortunate when we’ve been the subject of a lot of misinformation and mistruths online. However speak to any of the vast majority of our hundreds of locally based pilots and regular visitors and you’ll find we are im fact a very friendly bunch who care passionately about our airfield, and we always go the extra mile to be accommodating and welcoming. We had (when Covid allowed) a great number of visitors through last Summer who were all very pleased with their visits. I’d certainly suggest you give us a try for yourself rather than just what you read online and would be happy to discuss any concerns with you by telephone before you visit. Drop us a direct email to ops@cityairportltd.co.uk and we’ll grant you a free landing to show you our lovely northern welcome. :)
Stampe, Squadgy, Cub and 10 others liked this
By rightofway
#1827858
G-BLEW wrote:If/when I need to be anywhere near Manchester, I will happy enough to use Barton. Will try to organise an interview/chat if they're willing (which I think they are).

Ian


Definitely Ian, we are still open to have a chat and indeed would love to invite you back to us when we’re able again! :D
G-BLEW, Instructor Errant, kanga and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1827859
rightofway wrote: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.


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?


rightofway wrote: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


Credit for popping up on here now and it does look like things have calmed down, but is it me, or did that not really answer the questions raised? 18% is nigh on 1 in 5... my memory isnt great but I do recall a bit of a fuss on here at the time.

None of this changes the fact that there should not be any controlled airspace at any aerodrome unless there is a controller to control it.

Regards, SD..
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1827860
rightofway wrote:....speak to any of the vast majority of our hundreds of locally based pilots and regular visitors and you’ll find we are im fact a very friendly bunch who care passionately about our airfield, and we always go the extra mile to be accommodating and welcoming...

This is very true. I have used Barton quite a bit for family reasons over the past few years and would recommend the airfield to anybody.

I would also say again, though (as I did at the time), in the spirit of positive feedback, that Barton management did not help themselves when reasonable questions were originally being asked about why Barton had a relatively excessive number of MORs raised.

There were many questions asked and unanswered that an open response could have nipped in the bud by Barton. (Not by e.g. Flyer Forum Moderators).

They weren't, and unfortunately in my opinion the legacy of that lack of openness is still seen today.

To repeat, though: I would certainly recommend Barton as a destination and fully concur with rightofway's description of the place.

I also agree that seeing @rightofway engaging here is an excellent thing.
skydriller, G-BLEW, T67M and 3 others liked this
By rightofway
#1827861
Dave W wrote:There were many questions asked and unanswered that an open response could have nipped in the bud by Barton. (Not by e.g. Flyer Forum Moderators).

This is definitely acknowledged Dave. Like many businesses we are have been bound by Social Media/online policies which can in many cases prevent public comment, as frustrating as this can be (for ourselves also), but with a new year, new restructured team and positive forward looking outlook we’ll certainly take this on board and (when we can) try to engage more. Our individual and collective passion really does shine through when people get the opportunity to experience Barton in person and we’ll certainly try to spread that into the online world! We really can’t wait to get back open again soon. :D
G-BLEW, gasman, Dave W and 10 others liked this
By IMCR
#1827868
I am afraid I still dont follow the thrust of this thread.

Reference is made to there being far fewer MORs in 2020, than 2019. Surely this is hardly surprising?

In 2019 it seems Barton had one of the highest number, and so in some way that suggested (when this was discussed) there was something taking place at Barton, and no where else. I referenced earlier in this thread to just one of the posts at the time referring to the consequence that was reported as befalling one, or was it two, local instructors.

For me the question stands, what was it about Barton's policy then that resulted in Barton standing out, and when flying returns to normal levels, will it be different?

That said, refreshing to have the contributions of an ATCO from Barton who is prepared to express his views.

At the time I will be quite open and say I called for pilots to boycot Barton. I am very pleased this may have been unjustifed.

However, I dont understand why at this time it seems Barton wishes to correct the record, and whether Barton accepts there wasnt a good reason for such a large number of MORs, or do Barton now argue that there was good reaso,n but there has been a change in policy which will result in fewer in the future? In short, what has changed?
By IMCR
#1827878
AFISO - I stand corrected, but lets not miss the questions in the detail (as much as it isnt pedantry I agree). The trouble is sometimes we get bogged down in stupid mistakes of detail and then miss the whole point of the discussion.
Kemble Pitts liked this
By IMCR
#1827883
So with correction;

I am afraid I still dont follow the thrust of this thread.

Reference is made to there being far fewer MORs in 2020, than 2019. Surely this is hardly surprising?

In 2019 it seems Barton had one of the highest number, and so in some way that suggested (when this was discussed) there was something taking place at Barton, and no where else. I referenced earlier in this thread to just one of the posts at the time referring to the consequence that was reported as befalling one, or was it two, local instructors.

For me the question stands, what was it about Barton's policy then that resulted in Barton standing out, and when flying returns to normal levels, will it be different?

That said, refreshing to have the contributions of an AFISO from Barton who is prepared to express his views.

At the time I will be quite open and say I called for pilots to boycot Barton. I am very pleased this may have been unjustifed.

However, I dont understand why at this time it seems Barton wishes to correct the record, and whether Barton accepts there wasnt a good reason for such a large number of MORs, or do Barton now argue that there was good reaso,n but there has been a change in policy which will result in fewer in the future? In short, what has changed?
By NigelC
#1827884
Stampe wrote: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



It would probably be a lot cheaper and quicker by road as well if you include the time to wade through the Barton "Pilots Handbook" with your solicitor , why hicks field Manchester requires about 1000% more waffle than any international airport, including the big one next door, defeats me, but clearly concealed in the 41 pages is the odd nugget that many pilots missed in 2019.
flybymike, ronparry liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1827887
@right of way, can you please let us know whether (as advised in previous written CAA publications) you regard the use of the word “standby” to effectively be an “instruction” not to enter the ATZ until such time as you have issued such further wording or advice as you consider necessary to amount to what is effectively a “clearance” to enter?

If so, would you regard any entry to the ATZ under these circumstances to be a reportable infringement?

Where you are not satisfied that an entry to the ATZ has been “permitted” would you expect aircraft to orbit outside the zone until “permission” is forthcoming?
Kemble Pitts liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1827888
flybymike wrote:@right of way, can you please let us know whether (as advised in previous written CAA publications) you regard the use of the word “standby” to effectively be an “instruction” not to enter the ATZ until such time as you have issued such further wording or advice as you consider necessary to amount to what is effectively a “clearance” to enter?

If so, would you regard any entry to the ATZ under these circumstances to be a reportable infringement?

Where you are not satisfied that an entry to the ATZ has been “permitted” would you expect aircraft to orbit outside the zone until “permission” is forthcoming?


What do you expect @rightofway to say? She/he is regulated by the CAA who have published an interpretation that, completely incorrectly IMHO, prescribes most of the answers you have requested.

The only area obviously open to interpretation by the individual FISO, is whether a transgression of the published interpretation resulted in a safety event requiring the submission of an MOR. I would suggest that on the majority of occasions somebody being told to standby and then shortly after being invited to give their momentarily belated position report on entering the ATZ, is unlikely to generate a safety event. That of course, is my interpretation, but one that is probably similar to that of most FISOs unless, of course, the Regulator has or had prescribed another interpretation?
By NigelC
#1827893
Irrespective of the legal position with regard to "standby" surely "remain clear of the ATZ and standby " would achieve the desired result and save a lot of paperwork.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14