[flybymike]

If it doesn’t require permission to enter it

Anyone can get caught up on the technical detail in various ways, but since I started flying almost 15 years ago, I have always been aware that if A/G or AFIS says “standby” or my request for airfield information has been ignored and no other alternative arrangements have been made, then technically no such “permission” has been granted to enter the ATZ.

I don’t think the CAA has changed its position on this, but just upped its game with following up with infringements, perhaps driven by the number of risk bearing incidents within an ATZ and wants to be seen as doing something “useful”.

No such “permission” has been granted because it has never been required, and if it had been then legislation should say so.
In my nearly 40 years of flying the CAA has very much changed its position. “Infringements” of class G airspace were unheard of until maybe 6 years or so ago and coincided with a notable staff change at the CAA.

[Rob P]

A/G or AFIS can't issue permission outside their remit. At best the threshold for the latter.

But now they can it seems.

Rob P

[James Chan]

No such “permission” has been granted because it has never been required, and if it had been then legislation should say so.

I can’t comment before my time but there’s some explanation here: https://airspacesafety.com/wp-content/u ... icZone.pdf

If this is still unclear then I guess you can get some legal advice and/or launch some sort of legal challenge (a judicial review?) or have the law updated by writing to the DfT or to your MP.

[mick w]

I have yet to see 3000ft agl winches, is this very common?

(my snip)

I have heard of "kiting", whereby after initial launch the cable is let out slowly with the glider maintaining height but pulling the cable off the winch drum, like a kite. Then 400bhp for another few thousand feet.

I'd love to see a glider pilot's perspective of this.

Tis so Rob , but if the Winch driver doesn't make sure he leaves a few coils of Cable on the Drum....there may be Dragons .

[Rob L]

Tis so Rob , but if the Winch driver doesn't make sure he leaves a few coils of Cable on the Drum....there may be Dragons .

Quite so; the weight of the cable requires an experienced winch operator (and glider pilot).

As an aside, five turns on the drum was the minimum in my experience in the lifting industry (glider winch regulations may differ).

Rob

[terryws]

I have winch launched to 3,200 feet from Spitalgae in the late 1960s.. It wasn,t uncommon

Terry

[Boxkite]

Checking if operating close to a well-known gliding site would surely be prudent?

I have no idea what goes on at RAF Syerston, why would I? So I would still have to read every AIP of every ATZ I pass in a utopian world. I treat every ATZ I pass as probably very busy and keep a sensible distance, but I wouldn't look up their AIP to find out what goes on inside.

[mick w]

Bardney village was deprived of Electricity on more than one occasion , when the Cable either broke , or was released from the Drum .
On a different note ,one or two Sheep sadly took flight , and another entered the 'D' Box as far as the Spar.

[A le Ron]

There is an important principle here. As an ATZ is class Golf airspace, it does not require a clearance; nor can an air-ground radio operator issue clearances. Consequently, in my view, the legal basis for the CAA to take action against a pilot for entering airspace without a clearance from an agency which cannot issue one, and in airspace were none is legally required, is highly questionable. It strikes me that this requires urgent legal clarification, if necessary by a class action against the Civil Aviation Authority.

[Ibra]

Maybe an off topic question, how these ATZ infringements with no Radar ATC are policed and reported in practice? what lateral/vertical accuracy involved? and how things are practically measured?

Is it something scientific and reliable like sextants, telemetry and doppler shifts…or just some people hearing some noise overhead (usually their 65deg azimuths, just like noise complainers ) and then looking at Flight Radar? or using binoculars to read under the wings?

[Rob P]

In the case of The Barton Interpretation I believe it was a FR24-type Mickey Mouse radar trial.

Rob P

[Ibra]

In the case of The Barton Interpretation I believe it was a FR24-type Mickey Mouse radar trial.

Rob P

An automated system just like CAIT with SSR? or someone watching the screens and screaming on blips or taking screenshots?

If we are at those levels of sophistication & technology, why they can’t just broadcast ATZ info on ATIS (runway, wind & number of traffic) and go home? anyone flying nearby will have enough data to safely conduct their flight through the ATZ, especially as everybody has EC these days…

Eventually, AFIS/AG could exceptionally warn about non-radio traffic in ATZ but I really don’t think that many fly these days, except few gliders flying locally? (even WW2 oldies in my club house bought handhelds for their vintages, one of the Cubs has Yaesu 750L, it does COM/VOR/LOC/ILS/GPS only missing an ADF)

[skydriller]

since I started flying almost 15 years ago, I have always been aware that if A/G or AFIS says “standby” or my request for airfield information has been ignored and no other alternative arrangements have been made, then technically no such “permission” has been granted to enter the ATZ.

Im sorry but that is not at all what I was taught or learnt. I very distinctly remember learning that ONLY a full ATC aerodrome can offer you a clearance of give you instructions. The very most an AFIS can do is clear you to taxi to/from the runway, and a AG cant clear you for anything and may as well not be there - in fact they often arent I later learned. I recall there were even questions about this in the PPL exams.

I do agree that "standby" and two way comms with ATC does not mean you get to do what you want - but we specifically are NOT talking about ATC here.

Regards, SD..

[James Chan]

Well there we go: Different flight schools have taught Rule 11 differently, which also reflects the quality of instructor training sessions. as with CAA audits, inspections and reviews of flight training. Or some pilots have not understood.

Personally I'd rather remove all ATZs and replace some of these with CAS.

[Londlostdriver]

Now, while I think that the apparent CAA’s view on flight through an ATZ may be questionable, I am sure that they would concentrate on the fact that unless the AFIS/ag operator knows that you are there, they can’t fulfill their duties to provide traffic information on you to others. Additionally, if you have a radio, the requirement to report position and height on entry and exit in the last para of Rule 11 would seem to be sufficient to indicate a breach of the Rule if you don’t comply. You don’t need to breach each part of the Rule to get yourself into trouble. On the other hand, a pilot could make a point that he/she had complied with the first bits by listening out on the relevant frequency to broadcasts to other aircraft and getting the required information that way.
One last point, I seem to recall a few legal opinions given that once an ATC unit has instructed a pilot to “stand-by” the pilot could proceed as planned because communication has been established and the controller cannot be sure that a radio failure hasn’t occurred. That’s why the instruction “remain outside controlled airspace” was introduced and placed in front of the stand-by if that was the intention. Long time ago though, things may have changed.