Use this forum to flag up examples of red tape and gold plate
User avatar
By PaulB
#1700027
flybymike wrote:I suggest that virtually no one would state their height immediately before leaving an ATZ.

At a busy fly in sometimes you can’t even say good bye....


The other part of this is "saying hello" as we arrive.

I guess the majority (all?) of us would be in two way comms with a ground station before we entered the ATZ, and if on a local would also call up before re-entering the ATZ on re-join?

(I know some peeps are non-radio but the rule 11 stuff excludes them.)
User avatar
By defcribed
#1705823
Can anyone provide any evidence that a FISO service at an airfield like Barton is in any way 'better' than just having A/G radio?

Seems to me that it just means much more radio chit-chat and thus decreases capacity. Plenty of times at FISO fields I've been at the hold and ready to slot into a nice big gap but cannot because the FISO is busy talking (largely unnecessarily) to someone else.

What's wrong with just having A/G radio (which may or may not be answered) or Tower?

What does the intermediate service actually add?
Stampe liked this
#1705830
flybymike wrote:What’s been said on here so far would seem to be enough to deter many pilots from visiting.


Bonn Hangelar Airport (EDKB) got a similar reputation because they had a pedant who would record the aircraft position in the circuit. If you didn't follow the circuit to within 150 metres, if you exceeded this tolerance from the prescribed circuit, you were taken to court.....

..... until somebody realised that there was a perfectly legitimate excuse which could be used to avoid sanctions...
#1705834
Birds.... there is a significant colony of large birds nesting in the area. The excuse for not sticking exactly to the circuit was:

'Sorry, for reasons of safety I had to avoid a bird hence extended the xxxx leg.....'
flybymike liked this
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1706885
I’ve made a conscious decision to follow rule 11. I now state “leaving your ATZ at xxxx feet”.

However, if passed the QNH those feet will be an altitude not a height. Although at Shoreham on Saturday the QNH/QFE was the same.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1706888
rule 11 specifically mentions height (and not altitude).... presumably, unless the ground is dead flat, you height will be different at all points around the circumference of the ATZ boundary and you'll not know what it is anyway. Is the use of height an error?

Anyway, I thought we were all SERA now?
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1706976
Has anyone yet established what is going on at Barton i.e. what do they MOR and why?
By rdfb
#1707055
There seems to be a huge amount of speculation in this thread. Reviewing it now, the only reported facts I can see are:

"last year Barton accounted for about 18% of all infringement reports in the UK"

and

"the average is about 1.4 infringements per airfield a year. Barton raised 23." (even though that could be misleading as it doesn't adjust for aircraft movements).

Then we have "I know of..." (not primary evidence, not even secondary evidence eg. "my friend", but entirely hearsay).

Subsequent to that absolutely everything else, including a discussion of failure to report altitude resulting in MORs, is entirely speculation.

Do the facts presented here really justify some people's reactions?

To be clear, I'm not dismissing that the questions is asked; only that people seem to be drawing conclusions even in the absence of any answer.
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1707107
Just like Bristol in the Transit Refusal thread, the noise about Barton indicates an issue. Also, posters are sometimes closer to facts than they can reveal.

I’ve no problem with a unit having a particular policy so long as it is made clear to all users. Redhill ATC apply requirements for certain calls on the radio in the circuit for instance.
Stampe liked this