Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
#1844399
Hollman wrote:MAC reduction between manned aircraft might not be the real driver. Maybe it’s about making us visible to drone traffic and freeing them from the 400’ limit, amongst others. There might not be much of it about right now, but common EC would be an enabler for the touted expansion.


That might be part of it and is going to be the excuse pushed to justify it. However when all the courier deliveries get replaced by drone deliveries there will be a phase of drone flight near the delivery address where the collision risk (for the drone) is nothing to do with aircraft and EC on aircraft and drones will not help that a jot.
#1844562
TLRippon wrote:Now that radio operators can facilitate GPS derived non precision approaches with a 10 minute closure of the ATZ. Debating whether passing obvious collision risk information would seem inconsequential.


Are you sure? I am an Air Ground Radio Operator (AGRO) with a Radio Operators’ Certificate of Competence (ROCC) - this is not covered in CAP452 and looking at CAP413 it states this:

RNP instrument approach procedures (IAP) are available for use by suitably equipped aircraft and approved operators at certain aerodromes.


Looking at the phraseology for such approaches in CAP413 it uses words like “Report”, then to me the minimum would be Flight Information Service Officers (FISOs). Can you point me to where it says that AGROs can do this? It would help greatly if you could :thumleft:
#1844576
Looks to me like becoming unlicensed and downgrading from ATC to FISO saves the small airfield operator around £8,000 a year in CAA charges alone, for which the CAA removes your ATZ. Much like the charges imposed on operators to continue to use AFPEX the Government bean counters are actively degrading safety in pursuit of income.
#1844636
NigelC wrote:Looks to me like becoming unlicensed and downgrading from ATC to FISO saves the small airfield operator around £8,000 a year in CAA charges alone, for which the CAA removes your ATZ. Much like the charges imposed on operators to continue to use AFPEX the Government bean counters are actively degrading safety in pursuit of income.


Hi Nigel

Whilst I appreciate that making money in aviation is not easy, and there’s always the temptation to cut costs. It’s a universal truism that improving safety often costs money.

Any airfield that’s reasonably busy, should probably be capable of supporting the cost of an ATZ. Personally I don’t want every single sleepy little hollow in the country deciding they ‘deserve’ one because they’re free/cheap. SD could look like it had caught measles! :lol: :lol:
flybymike liked this
#1844638
A4 Pacific wrote:Hi Nigel

Whilst I appreciate that making money in aviation is not easy, and there’s always the temptation to cut costs. It’s a universal truism that improving safety often costs money.

Any airfield that’s reasonably busy, should probably be capable of supporting the cost of an ATZ.


Sounding like the revenue department of the CAA.... What do the airfields get for all the expense? And of course the inspection visits.

"Hi, we're from the CAA and we're here to help you...!"
#1844640
A4 Pacific wrote:
NigelC wrote:Looks to me like becoming unlicensed and downgrading from ATC to FISO saves the small airfield operator around £8,000 a year in CAA charges alone, for which the CAA removes your ATZ. Much like the charges imposed on operators to continue to use AFPEX the Government bean counters are actively degrading safety in pursuit of income.


Hi Nigel

Whilst I appreciate that making money in aviation is not easy, and there’s always the temptation to cut costs. It’s a universal truism that improving safety often costs money.

Any airfield that’s reasonably busy, should probably be capable of supporting the cost of an ATZ. Personally I don’t want every single sleepy little hollow in the country deciding they ‘deserve’ one because they’re free/cheap. SD could look like it had caught measles! :lol: :lol:


Maybe we need something slightly different. In the US many airfields seem to operate very well on the Unicom principle - on YouTube you can find a guy with bizjet who seems to seems to quite happily operate out of one, mixing with all sorts of traffic.

Perhaps we need a kind of "RMZ/ATZ" where you need to make a call on safetycom type frequency to enter, but dont need formal radio ? I'm sure many GA airfields could operate quite safely without ATC telling everyone what position they are in the circuit :lol:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9