Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:02 am
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.