Departing Without Clearance
Thread Starter
Departing Without Clearance
What are the legalities with this. Last Wednesday morning our aircraft was at another airfield having had some maintenance carried out the previous day. Pilot phones ATC to book out. "No, you can't go until we clear the runways/taxiways of snow". "But I'm a helicopter. I don't need runways or taxiways". "No, you can only take depart from the H or the runway. You can only start up on the apron, not outside the hangar". "But...". "NO"
It was 4 o'clock before they could leave! Could they have just gone? The airfield obviously didn't have any other traffic.
Oh, I forgot to say, the only reason they were there on Wednesday morning was because ATC shutup shop early on Tuesday leaving the aircraft stranded there because they won't let us depart without ATC/fire cover.
The aircraft was non-operational for 24 hours because of all this.
It was 4 o'clock before they could leave! Could they have just gone? The airfield obviously didn't have any other traffic.
Oh, I forgot to say, the only reason they were there on Wednesday morning was because ATC shutup shop early on Tuesday leaving the aircraft stranded there because they won't let us depart without ATC/fire cover.
The aircraft was non-operational for 24 hours because of all this.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my AD helicopters (not mil) must depart from the runways. This is not ATC's decision, but the AD management's.
If the AD management(responisbility delegated to the fire brigade) decides to close the RWY/TWY for snow clearance, we must comply. No matter how stupid it may seem. If they lack personnel at the rescue services they may have to downgrade the rescue service category. That normally means no startup nor taxi.
I, as an ATCO, would definately ask the supervisor if he could check if the helicopter could depart from the apron. If the rescue cat was adequate I think we would have been given the "go" from the fire brigade/snow clearance personnel.
If the AD management(responisbility delegated to the fire brigade) decides to close the RWY/TWY for snow clearance, we must comply. No matter how stupid it may seem. If they lack personnel at the rescue services they may have to downgrade the rescue service category. That normally means no startup nor taxi.
I, as an ATCO, would definately ask the supervisor if he could check if the helicopter could depart from the apron. If the rescue cat was adequate I think we would have been given the "go" from the fire brigade/snow clearance personnel.
A totally ridiculous situation and an ATCO using zero initiative! Surely a phone call or two from him/her to the appropriate people could have resolved this. Police operational necessity etc. I'm surprised your pilot didn't deploy this argument. If he did and it still got nowhere, someone should "have a word" with this ATCO and his bosses!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Crapaud land
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Atcham Tower
I think you assume too much here. How do you know the ATCO didn't check, or was told no exceptions. The days are long gone where initiative was an asset in ATC. We are actively discouraged from going outside the rules now. The problem is when it goes wrong, if you have broken the rules, you will be hung out to dry.
A totally ridiculous situation and an ATCO using zero initiative! Surely a phone call or two from him/her to the appropriate people could have resolved this. Police operational necessity etc. I'm surprised your pilot didn't deploy this argument. If he did and it still got nowhere, someone should "have a word" with this ATCO and his bosses!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I back the ATCO 100%. He can only follow local instructions and had he simply agreed and let the helicopter take-off and there had been an accident who do you think would have swung? He gave reasons to the pilot and any further discussion should have been with the airport authority.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No, you can't go until we clear the runways/taxiways of snow".
Without knowing the full story I would wager that that phrase says it all, i.e the snow clearing was being carried out by the fire service, as it is at many UK regional airports.
To accomodate the departure would almost certainly require minimal fire cover, which cannot be done while the firemen are in the snow clearing vehicles (it doesn't matter if you say you don't need fire cover - it's a requirement of the insurers at nearly every regional airport).
The aerodrome authority probably decided that the priority should lie with clearing the runway in one go to allow deicing fluid etc to take effect sooner, thereby having the runway available for everyone as soon as possible.
To stop the snow clearing for one departure would have, in my experience, taken around 15 minutes from start to finish and would not have been operationally viable from the airports viewpoint.
Interesting!
So what about this?:- Licenced airfield shut due ice/snow clearance in operation. Fireman injured on runway during ice clearance. Air ambulance arrives, (negative clearance; ATC shut), lands by runway, shuts down, picks up casualty and departs.
So what about this?:- Licenced airfield shut due ice/snow clearance in operation. Fireman injured on runway during ice clearance. Air ambulance arrives, (negative clearance; ATC shut), lands by runway, shuts down, picks up casualty and departs.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was there a licensed / surveyed FATO area etc available from the point at which you would have liked to depart?
Having a rule that helicopters can only depart from the runway or from the "H" is probably because those departure points have been surveyed for obstacles etc.
Asking to depart from the apron at a licensed aerodrome in your case would be no different to a Cessna 172 saying that "this long straight taxiway will do for our take-off"...........should something go wrong.
------
The Air Ambulance is not required to use any aerodrome at all and does not require fire cover in such a case because one seldom finds such services in in farmers field at the side of the Motorway 20 miles from habitation. However, I would expect that the Ops Manual would specify when operations with no fire cover could be conducted.
Having a rule that helicopters can only depart from the runway or from the "H" is probably because those departure points have been surveyed for obstacles etc.
Asking to depart from the apron at a licensed aerodrome in your case would be no different to a Cessna 172 saying that "this long straight taxiway will do for our take-off"...........should something go wrong.
------
The Air Ambulance is not required to use any aerodrome at all and does not require fire cover in such a case because one seldom finds such services in in farmers field at the side of the Motorway 20 miles from habitation. However, I would expect that the Ops Manual would specify when operations with no fire cover could be conducted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mighty, you asked about the legalities - I'm not sure whether you mean the legality of what the airport did, or of you departing without a clearance...or maybe both.
Here are a few thoughts which might be relevant.
First, by using the airport no doubt you will have in some way and read the terms and conditions set out by the airport operator. It is highly probable that within the terms and conditions there is a requirement that you comply with instructions issued by a representative of the company - or maybe more specifically, by ATC. If this is the case, if you depart in contravention to instruction not to from a representative of the company you will be in breach of the terms and conditions of use the airport. Similarly, the terms and conditions may well say that you have to depart from the H.
Rule 40 of the Rules of the Air regulations says:
Movement of aircraft on aerodromes
40. An aircraft shall not taxi on the apron or the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome without the permission of either—
(a) the person in charge of the aerodrome; or
(b) the air traffic control unit or aerodrome flight information service unit notified as being on watch at the aerodrome.
So, if you do not have the permission of the air traffic control unit, you cannot taxi and on the apron. You might argue that your helicopter does not taxi, but simply lifts from the apron or manoeuvring area and so this doesn't apply. But if the aerodrome has an ATZ, rule 45 is applicable. Paraphrasing the relevant bits, it says an aircraft shall not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome unless the commander of the aircraft has obtained the permission of the air traffic control unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the zone.
If the aerodrome has controlled airspace around it, then rule 30 may well apply. Rule 30 says:
Maintaining continuous watch and complying with air traffic control instructions
30.—(1) Subject to rule 31, whilst flying within Class B, Class C or Class D airspace during the notified hours of watch of the appropriate air traffic control unit, the commander of an aircraft shall—
(a) cause a continuous watch to be maintained on the notified radio frequency appropriate to the circumstances; and
(b) comply with any instructions which the appropriate air traffic control unit may give.
Offhand, I can't think of any other rules that would apply - although I have no doubt that somewhere within the Ops manual/AOC under which you operating, there will be something that says you have to comply with a traffic control instructions (under normal circumstances anyway). As others have suggested, the RFFS cover available may not have been sufficient to meet your needs, either because requirements in your Ops manual or of your insurance cover.
Hope this helps in some way. It seems to me, although I'm no lawyer, but the rules are stacked against the pilot of this helicopter! None of us posting here will know the full story, and there may be a lot more to it than meets the eye - but it seems that it should not have been too difficult to find a solution by discussing the situation and needs of both the pilot and aerodrome operator with a member of the aerodrome management. Of course, this assumes that a suitably senior member of the aerodrome management, i.e. one authorised to make decisions, would make themselves available to a mere customer!
Here are a few thoughts which might be relevant.
First, by using the airport no doubt you will have in some way and read the terms and conditions set out by the airport operator. It is highly probable that within the terms and conditions there is a requirement that you comply with instructions issued by a representative of the company - or maybe more specifically, by ATC. If this is the case, if you depart in contravention to instruction not to from a representative of the company you will be in breach of the terms and conditions of use the airport. Similarly, the terms and conditions may well say that you have to depart from the H.
Rule 40 of the Rules of the Air regulations says:
Movement of aircraft on aerodromes
40. An aircraft shall not taxi on the apron or the manoeuvring area of an aerodrome without the permission of either—
(a) the person in charge of the aerodrome; or
(b) the air traffic control unit or aerodrome flight information service unit notified as being on watch at the aerodrome.
So, if you do not have the permission of the air traffic control unit, you cannot taxi and on the apron. You might argue that your helicopter does not taxi, but simply lifts from the apron or manoeuvring area and so this doesn't apply. But if the aerodrome has an ATZ, rule 45 is applicable. Paraphrasing the relevant bits, it says an aircraft shall not fly, take off or land within the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome unless the commander of the aircraft has obtained the permission of the air traffic control unit to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the zone.
If the aerodrome has controlled airspace around it, then rule 30 may well apply. Rule 30 says:
Maintaining continuous watch and complying with air traffic control instructions
30.—(1) Subject to rule 31, whilst flying within Class B, Class C or Class D airspace during the notified hours of watch of the appropriate air traffic control unit, the commander of an aircraft shall—
(a) cause a continuous watch to be maintained on the notified radio frequency appropriate to the circumstances; and
(b) comply with any instructions which the appropriate air traffic control unit may give.
Offhand, I can't think of any other rules that would apply - although I have no doubt that somewhere within the Ops manual/AOC under which you operating, there will be something that says you have to comply with a traffic control instructions (under normal circumstances anyway). As others have suggested, the RFFS cover available may not have been sufficient to meet your needs, either because requirements in your Ops manual or of your insurance cover.
Hope this helps in some way. It seems to me, although I'm no lawyer, but the rules are stacked against the pilot of this helicopter! None of us posting here will know the full story, and there may be a lot more to it than meets the eye - but it seems that it should not have been too difficult to find a solution by discussing the situation and needs of both the pilot and aerodrome operator with a member of the aerodrome management. Of course, this assumes that a suitably senior member of the aerodrome management, i.e. one authorised to make decisions, would make themselves available to a mere customer!
Thread Starter
Yeah, Rule 40 stops us, I suppose. Fire and Rescue isn't a factor for us, as the majority of our flights are done without any cover. Of course, outside of ATC hours, there is no ATZ, but the owner of the airfield refuses to allow us to depart after maintenance out of hours. There have been many discussions on the subject in the past, but they won't budge.
