Page 3 of 4

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:47 am
by PaulB
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.)

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:48 pm
by defcribed
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?

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:21 pm
by Full Metal Jackass
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...

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:31 pm
by flybymike
Which was?

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:50 pm
by Full Metal Jackass
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.....'

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:20 pm
by CloudHound
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.

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:40 pm
by PaulB
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?

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:04 pm
by Sooty25
I've made a conscious decision..... to scrub Barton off my list of airfields to visit!

Maybe we should compile a league table of airfields and just boycott the ones that are hassle.

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:33 am
by defcribed
CloudHound wrote:Although at Shoreham on Saturday the QNH/QFE was the same.


As it will be every day, because the aerodrome elevation is 7 feet. :D

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:19 am
by eltonioni
Here is a link to Peel's other small airport in Sheffield with a lovely 1,211m stripe of tarmac.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3947355 ... =!3m1!1e34

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:47 am
by Flyin'Dutch'
Has anyone yet established what is going on at Barton i.e. what do they MOR and why?

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:16 pm
by flybymike
No input from the AFISOs on here, but I imagine they prefer to keep their heads down.

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:39 pm
by rdfb
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.

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:09 pm
by Sooty25
But, but, but, that's the norm! We don't let facts get in the way of a good story here mate! :thumright:

Re: Barton Airfield - MOR spree

PostPosted:Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:51 am
by CloudHound
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.