Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 14
By proteus
#1827894
I welcome and appreciate rightofway engaging.

I will admit I still do not understand how an AFISO can deny entry to airspace with a standby.

It would also be great to know why Barton accounted for such a massive amount of MORs, Clearly there was something very different being done compared to everywhere else.

As is often said, trust takes a long time to gain and no time to lose.

I do hope you can turn it round (or the CAA takes just culture more seriously) I'll be keeping an eye on the statistics when flying gets back to more of a normal.
Stu B, Stampe liked this
By rdfb
#1827898
I'd like to add a voice to defend Barton in their current stance here (and thanks from me also to rightofway for engaging).

I think the rule is badly written, "infringements" are unjustly enforced, and this needs fixing. I also think it's really wrong that MORs are used to inform and initiate infringement action. This is, in my opinion, contrary to the EASA (now UK) regs and to Just Culture. But all of this lies at the feet of the CAA, not Barton.

The CAA have made it clear that their infringement policy is "by rule", and gives no leeway for common sense. Again, I think this is wrong, and needs fixing. But until then, pilots' hands are tied too - for example with respect to "take two" versus the ICAO classification of airspace on a boundary.

In the same way, Barton's hands are also tied. Remember that the M in MOR stands for Mandatory. Barton is a licenced airfield and ANSP and presumably faces action for failing to file a Mandatory Occurrence Report just as much as pilots face action for finding themselves on the wrong side of them.

So I don't think it's fair to be angry at Barton for this. The rule is clearly badly written. The CAA are responsible for that, not Barton. It's well established here that the CAA's handling of alleged infringement is unacceptable (no need to go into that here; there are plenty of other threads explaining why). The CAA are responsible for that, not Barton.

Blaming Barton is like blaming pilots for bunching up down a choke point. Both are being held to rules that turn out to be harmful. The CAA are responsible for that, not Barton.

Why did Barton end up with all the flak for this, rather than other airfields? I can only speculate. Perhaps it's because there aren't actually that many FISO ATZs. Perhaps they care about ATZ safety more, notice more genuinely dangerous infringements, and their only route to making it better is to do proper reporting. Perhaps something about the area means that there are more ATZ infringements (eg. because the ATZ bumps up against CAS both horizontally and vertically, or the proximity of the LLR FMC area means late frequency changes). Maybe it's something to do with having led with the ADS-B trial (which, I might add, is there to improve safety). How is any of this to be addressed if occurrences aren't accurately logged? This is all speculation, but if any of these were the cause, I don't think Barton deserve the flak they've been getting on this forum.

It's also really not difficult to do as we've been asked. If, having found out about the CAA's position on this, you are unable to comply with the letter of the rule, then you have a big problem.

If you can comply but think it's stupid and don't think it should be necessary, then I'm with you, but take that out on the organisation responsible. Reminder: that's the CAA, not Barton.

And if you fear being prevented from entering an ATZ due to just receiving "standby", then fear not, because that's mere speculation and there's not a single report of that actually happening.
Cub liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
#1827901
Cub wrote:
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?


With respect, your second paragraph completely contradicts what you say in the first paragraph. Either there is leeway in what should be reported or there isnt. I think we all agree about what should happen, and this should be across the board with all controllers wrt infringements, though we know that is no longer the case now compared with even 5 years ago...

NigelC wrote: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.


I absolutely hate that this is pretty much always the first response from any CAS controller on flying to the UK, usually Solent for me. But these are ATC controllers, not AFIS, which remmber, are not supposed to be controlling aircraft in the air... and voila, the conundrum ... as I said earlier :
skydriller wrote: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.
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By NDB_hold
#1827902
Not sure if this is, or is not, relevant, but I’m sure I read somewhere that

'G-ABCD, stand by' means you have two way radio communications
'Station calling, stand by' means you don’t.

That still leaves the question of 'information' but if you are monitoring the frequency and someone else has been given the runway in use, QFE etc. then you might reasonably say you have the information required for a safe flight. If in addition, you get the first response above, then...
flybymike liked this
By johnm
#1827906
That subtle distinction is an interesting one and I suspect has not been tested. However the exchange of call sign and the gathering of information from other dialogue would certainly create a situation where there is known traffic with relevant information in my book.
flybymike liked this
By IMCR
#1827912
Thank you for the candid reply. I wish this had been made clear in the first place rather than the impression I felt that was given that Barton, now under new management, would feature less in future MORs.

The fact remains it would seem Barton are zealous enforcers of the CAAs interpretation of the rules, and this has not changed, albeit blame the CAA not Barton.

I am not arguing either way whether they should or shouldn't be observing the logical consequence of this discussion, and the conclusion that pilots should take great care when visiting Barton to comply strictly with a rule interpretation that would seem to be less enforced elsewhere, but it should be made clear Barton visitors will need to ensure strict compliance if only to ensure an online visit to the delightful safety enforcers at GASCO is avoided.
Stampe liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
#1827956
johnm wrote:That subtle distinction is an interesting one and I suspect has not been tested. However the exchange of call sign and the gathering of information from other dialogue would certainly create a situation where there is known traffic with relevant information in my book.

Historically, that has indeed always been the case.
By Dominie
#1827972
rdfb wrote:I think the rule is badly written, "infringements" are unjustly enforced, and this needs fixing. I also think it's really wrong that MORs are used to inform and initiate infringement action. This is, in my opinion, contrary to the EASA (now UK) regs and to Just Culture. But all of this lies at the feet of the CAA, not Barton.

I made that point last year on the "Barton" thread, to a general lack of response, so I'm glad someone actually agrees with me!

This whole issue is caused by the CAA going outside of what the regulations allow. The point of that regulation is to encourage reporting of incidents, whereas by initiating legal action from MORs, the CAA is actively discouraging MORs (yes, I know the M is Mandatory).
flybymike, Stampe liked this
By Big Dex
#1828161
Just to add my experience.... I'm based at Barton with my Europa, and have been for around 5 years and several hundred movements in and out.

I can't say with any certainty that I've always had 2-way communication prior to entering the ATZ if the frequency is busy. I don't recall ever stating my altitude when leaving the ATZ. I've never been MOR'd to my knowledge, and the tower have always been friendly, pleasant, efficient and pragmatic without exception.

Aside from the limitations on out-of-hours movements, I really can't fault Barton, their facilities or their staff. Even the OOH thing isn't a major thing, as this can be arranged with a prior phone call and a small fee to cover their overtime cost.

Anyone avoiding Barton out of fear of bureaucracy or license loss is doing themselves a disservice IMHO. Simply avoid busting Manchester airspace and generally behave in a sensible manner, and you'll find a friendly and hospitable GA airfield a short taxi ride from the greatest city in the country as your reward.
kanga, MachFlyer liked this
By flyingearly
#1828166
Sir Morley Steven wrote:“Let’s put this to bed”
Well that worked.


To be fair though, there hasn't been an answer to the question, just lots of speculation and rhetoric.

Why did Barton account for 18% of all MORs nationally last year (or whenever it was)?

Forget all the blame game, it would be good to have a definitive answer to this question before any dissection occurs thereafter - I don't think it has been actually confirmed that the reason for this was because of the 2-way comms issue, just implied?
Dave W liked this
User avatar
By Cub
#1828173
flyingearly wrote:
Why did Barton account for 18% of all MORs nationally last year (or whenever it was)?



Now that would be quite an achievement! I assume that some sub-set of the MOR database is missing from that statement?
Hawkwind liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1828199
Cub wrote: I assume that some sub-set of the MOR database is missing from that statement?


I had always assumed it was 18% of all ATZ infringements.

Rob P
By flyingearly
#1828205
Rob P wrote:
Cub wrote: I assume that some sub-set of the MOR database is missing from that statement?


I had always assumed it was 18% of all ATZ infringements.

Rob P


You're absolutely right; my bad. It is 18% of all ATZ infringement MOR, not 18% of all MOR. Still, the point still stands that unless the specific reasons are confirmed, we're all discussing hearsay.
By IMCR
#1828207
flyingearly wrote:
Sir Morley Steven wrote:“Let’s put this to bed”
Well that worked.


To be fair though, there hasn't been an answer to the question, just lots of speculation and rhetoric.

Why did Barton account for 18% of all MORs nationally last year (or whenever it was)?

Forget all the blame game, it would be good to have a definitive answer to this question before any dissection occurs thereafter - I don't think it has been actually confirmed that the reason for this was because of the 2-way comms issue, just implied?


Indeed it would.

and the more so, in what way their policy has changed, as suggested.

If the policy hasnt changed (then who ever's door you lay the blame at) then when traffic levels return, logically Barton will lead the table again.

I very much appreciate Barton's engagement but there is a danger this is no more than a publicity stunt, unless some specific answer to these questions can be provided?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 14