Runways at Booker/Wycombe

[Jan Olieslagers]

Several sources* indicate that the North/South runway can only be used as a 35 i.e. Northbound, not as a 17. Is this indeed the case? If so, why? There seems to be little build-up on the Southern side?

*including their own web page (https://www.wycombeairpark.co.uk/wycombe-air-park/airfield-data)

[chevvron]

Because the aerodrome operator says so!:E

[charliegolf]

Not Madge cuttin' up rough again is it? Or is that another place entirely?

CG

[chevvron]

No aerodrome diagram; no mention of whether it's AFIS or ATC again now. Do they still do gliding?

[Bill Macgillivray]

chevvron, they did three weeks ago!

[Fl1ingfrog]

EGTB - 520 ft AMSL c/s WYCOMBE RADIO 126.555 -

The above is within the first paragraph of the Airfield Data page of their website. The c/s 'Wycombe Radio' tells you that the service is air/ground. Complete information including the aerodrome chart can be found within the UK AIP.

[chevvron]

The above is within the first paragraph of the Airfield Data page of their website. The c/s 'Wycombe Radio' tells you that the service is air/ground. Complete information including the aerodrome chart can be found within the UK AIP.
The blurb on the website clearly states 'ATC' in 2 places and refers to ATC instructions'.
Apparently 17 is permanently withdrawn due to the 're-development' of the south east corner for yet another 'film studio' in addition to the ones being built at Bovingdon and the change of use of the main engineering hangar at Fairoaks to become a studio.

[Jan Olieslagers]

The blurb on the website clearly states 'ATC' in 2 places and refers to ATC instructions'.
Apparently 17 is permanently withdrawn due to the 're-development' of the south east corner for yet another 'film studio' in addition to the ones being built at Bovingdon and the change of use of the main engineering hangar at Fairoaks to become a studio.

Ah, thanks, finally a real answer to my original question. It remains scary, though, to see aerodromes and their operational limits dwindling, in the UK.

[Fl1ingfrog]

The blurb on the website clearly states 'ATC' in 2 places and refers to ATC instructions'

Well, it isn't so I suspect it is the missed edits that you are referring to in other parts of the website. The definitive NATS entry confirms the Data page 'A/G' with the callsign 'Wycombe Radio'.

[TheOddOne]

At least being a licenced aerodrome means that the CAA's Aerodrome Inspector will look at their AIP entry and compare it with reality on the next inspection.
For unlicenced aerodromes it can be a nightmare keeping up with all the diverse sources of information available to pilots.
We had a comment from the AAIB a couple of years ago following a write-off accident.
They said that the pilot claimed that as a part of their pre-flight briefing, they looked at one source of information that did not give adequate warnings. Since then, we've striven to make sure that the
AFE Flight Guide
Pooley's Flight Guide
Our own 2 websites (!)
Skydemon entry
Telephone briefings given on PPR (when people actually ring!)
all tell the same story. Hard work for volunteers.
TOO

[Jan Olieslagers]

Yes, it is quite a lot of work, and few aerodrome operators pay heed to the need. It is indeed much easier to set up a website, or a paper publication, than to keep the information behind it up to date. I think it exemplary that you inform the publishers of AFE and Pooleys, both publications appearing to have acquired semi-official status; and SkyDemon close behind.

However I think the AAIB comment inappropriate: if someone publishes incorrect or outdated information, that is their responsability, not yours. And the pilot who trusted to only one source of information, and an unofficial one at that, is to blame, too. Don't we have the PPR mechanism to make sure that visiting pilots have the most recent information, from the best source? Yes, I know some pilots do not like PPR - well, that also is their own responsability.

[Fl1ingfrog]

However I think the AAIB comment inappropriate: if someone publishes incorrect or outdated information ...........

The NATS website is an official document and should always be correct. The comprehensive AIP entry for a licenced aerodrome is mandatory. The administrator for the aerodrome must maintain the information up to date. Where things may change then a NOTAM should be published and remain live until the publication itself is updated. Pooleys/AFE and SkyDemon etc., in my experience, are very conscientious to ensure that their information is up to date by cross reference to the AIP and NOTAMS. The AIP data on the NATS website is always available without charge. In fact it is good airmanship in my view to print the particular AIP aerodrome page and keep it in the knee board as part of the pre joining brief. At this moment in time the Wycombe website is not fully up to date but their AIP entry is.

[Jan Olieslagers]

All that may be very true, Frog, but does it make the AAIB comment less inappropriate?

[Fl1ingfrog]

All that may be very true, Frog, but does it make the AAIB comment less inappropriate?

What is the point you are making?
​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​We had a comment from the AAIB a couple of years ago following a write-off accident. They said that the pilot claimed that as a part of their pre-flight briefing, they looked at one source of information that did not give adequate warnings.

That is my point, always refer to the official information first and then cross reference to ensure the unofficial publications are correct and up to date.

[TCAS FAN]

Hopefully this thread will bring home the message that the only official media for aerodrome information/regulations/procedures is the UK AIP, supplemented when necessary (often temporarily), by NOTAM.

If the worst happened and a pilot is being prosecuted for an alleged offence, it will only be the official “notified” media, ie AIP/NOTAM, that will be used in any evidence.

[Jan Olieslagers]

What is the point you are making?​​​​​​​ The point I am making is that the AAIB comment to the aerodrome operator was inappropriate. Didn't I state that clearly and unambiguously?? Why do you ask over and again ???

There is no indication that the aerodrome operator had not been duly publishing the required information. There are however plenty of indications that the pilot failed to consult proper sources. Thus, the AAIB were "barking up the wrong tree": they ought not to have reproached the aerodrome operator, because the fault was not with them. The fault was with the pilot, who did not consult proper sources.

Moreover, while it is certainly better to consult official sources than to consult less official sources, I still hold that the best of all is a gentle phone call. "Good morning, my name is xxx yyy, I am planning a flight to your field today, with an Xwyunder CC33, landing somewhere just before noon; would that be OK?" "Sure, come on, expect 13 in use with an overhead join and left hand circuit. Look out for the gliders, though, not all of them have radio". Or "So sorry, the runway has been badly dug up this night by wild boars, we are busy with repairs, cannot accept you today, really sorry" (the last example actually did happen on me).

[TheOddOne]

The point I was trying to make is that unlicensed aerodromes (vastly in the majority in the UK) don't have any 'official' publication for a pilot to refer to. Therefore, they rely on all the diverse unofficial sources I referred to. Agreed that AFE, Pooleys and Skydemon make great efforts to be accurate, but they can only be as good as the information supplied by the aerodrome operator and there is no cross-check on its accuracy. Web sites are notorious for being out of date. They are often set up by an enthusiastic amateur who may move on and the operator may even lose access to the site to make modifications. There are still flying school web sites referring to EASA PPL for instance and sometimes state conditions without any reference to official sources.
We certainly took the AAIB comments on board and felt them justified. We now put more effort into maintaining all the sources of information about our aerodrome as accurate as possible.
TOO