Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
By Ender
#1697161
Barton AFIS seem to be raising a seriously high amount of MORs recently and I wanted to gauge peoples opinion on this.

For example last year Barton accounted for about 18% of all infringement reports in the UK, the average is about 1.4 infringements per airfield a year. Barton raised 23.

I know of a couple of professional pilots who have had their license suspended due to what I would class as 'box ticking' by Barton AFIS. These pilots pay their bills and have children to look after and when Barton raise what they think in an MOR the CAA dont even discuss anything with the accused pilot they initially SUSPEND their license. This means professional pilots are out of work immediately, imagine defaulting on your mortgage because of a pen pusher ticking a box on what they consider to be a mandatory report.

These pilots are powerless from the start unless they a member of a large union with access to legal apparatus required to get their license back.

The Principal Airspace Regulator at the CAA takes a black and white view on this which to be honest doesn't help, the system is not working if you lose your income & lively hood before you have chance to defend yourself.

I was at a meeting where it was mentioned that another airfield in the south had matched the amount of MORs that Barton had raised in a period, the management of Barton immediately replied and said oh we need to start raising more MORs then.

Rule 11 keeps getting quoted. Can anyone point me in the direction of this?

Albiet a not very well thought out Rant just a mind dump, rant over.

Initial post edited due to comments I made which are in appropriate for a good discussion.
Last edited by Ender on Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
#1697162
I am sure there is more to it.

Will be interesting to see what the more is.

Why are these MORs raised?

Rule 11:

11.—(1) This rule applies in relation to such aerodromes described in Column 1 of Table 1 as are notified for the purposes of this rule and at such times as are specified in Column 2 of the Table.
Table 1
Table Column 1
Column 2
(a) A Government aerodrome.
At such times as are notified.
(b) An aerodrome having an air traffic control unit or flight information service centre.
During the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit or the flight information service centre.

(c) A national licensed aerodrome or an EASA certificated aerodrome having an air/ground communications service unit with aircraft.

During the notified hours of watch of the air/ground communications service unit.
6
(2) An aircraft must not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome unless the commander of the aircraft has complied with paragraphs (3), (4) or (5), as appropriate.
(3) If the aerodrome has an air traffic control unit the commander must obtain the permission of that unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(4) If the aerodrome provides a flight information service the commander must obtain information from the flight information centre to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(5) If there is no flight information centre at the aerodrome the commander must obtain information from the air/ground communication service to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
(6) The commander of an aircraft flying within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome must—
(a) cause a continuous watch to be maintained on the appropriate radio frequency notified for communications at the aerodrome; or
(b) if this is not possible, cause a watch to be kept for such instructions as may be issued by visual means; and
(c) if the aircraft is fitted with means of communication by radio with the ground, communicate the aircraft’s position and height to the air traffic control unit, the flight information centre or the air/ground communications service unit at the aerodrome (as the case may be) on entering the aerodrome traffic zone and immediately prior to leaving it.
Ender liked this
By ANDSAM
#1697736
Barton has a non practical inconsistent approach to procedures and chooses when to dish out MOR”s and such, having spoken to other pilots it is actually making people nervous, I fear a safety issue as one could be that wrapped up and preoccupied occupied walking through the mine field that their primary flying skill and monitoring are suffering if that makes sense
By johnm
#1697737
ANDSAM wrote:Barton has a non practical inconsistent approach to procedures and chooses when to dish out MOR”s and such, having spoken to other pilots it is actually making people nervous, I fear a safety issue as one could be that wrapped up and preoccupied occupied walking through the mine field that their primary flying skill and monitoring are suffering if that makes sense


I think I feel a MOR about the abuse of the MOR system coming on.... :roll: :twisted:
VictoryRoll, derekf, Lockhaven and 1 others liked this
By ANDSAM
#1697819
Fully appreciate airspace ( control zone) infringement is non arguable and education is required however the MOR’s I am referring to are mainly ground or ATZ minor issues, bring back Air ground and a more general feel, it’s an airfield not an airport. Visitors have declined Ga Wise.
User avatar
By Dave W
#1697853
communicate the aircraft’s position and height ... on entering the aerodrome traffic zone and immediately prior to leaving it.


Every day is a school day.

I don't think I have ever been taught to or communicated my height on leaving an ATZ, and I typically make contact with the ATS well before entering with my details - I don't generally repeat them as I cross the ATZ boundary.

Although I've never been admonished, it looks like I should be doing that. However, listening to the radio I'm in a significant majority in not doing these things.
Nick liked this
User avatar
By carlmeek
#1697856
I agree. I generally believe that more radio calls are better than less, so if in any doubt will regularly report my location. height seems mostly pointless though - if you're entering from the south to join downwind it's relatively obvious you are at circuit height or about to be.
By Ender
#1697890
ANDSAM wrote:Fully appreciate airspace ( control zone) infringement is non arguable and education is required however the MOR’s I am referring to are mainly ground or ATZ minor issues, bring back Air ground and a more general feel, it’s an airfield not an airport. Visitors have declined Ga Wise.


I agree.

I do think that raising an MOR which suspends a professionals license without the Barton team considering it is very very poor form.

Lets say you leave Barton ATZ and remain on frequency. Do a lesson within 5nm of the zone and return never leaving the frequency 30 or 40 minutes later.

You make a call before entering the zone but your terminology is not correct, you say just entering from the west at xx ft.

From the description of rule 11 above is this a violation? and why?
User avatar
By flybymike
#1697900
Remember that permission is not required to enter an AFISO ATZ, and I don’t think it would be unreasonable to think that remaining on frequency and announcing intentions, and listening out, would amount to:
“obtaining information from the person providing the flight information service to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone”
PaulB, Bobcro liked this