RAF Valley: Unauthorised landing and take-off
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Then, of course, there is that variation of "for stop and go"! Did cause the helo some way behind me on Final to query it with ATC who pointed out that "stop" means ... erm ... "stop" in a tone of voice that implied that, if the RW pilot couldn't figure that out, maybe he shouldn't have been flying that evening! 
The scenario? Years ago now on my Nite QCC to Norwich where I'd pre-arranged the landing fee but, of course the regs required a full stop landing followed by a separate departure. However, the regs never said anything about actually having to taxi anywhere between arrival and departure so I was most grateful to ATC for that one and for the airport having a nice long runway (for a PA-28 if I recall). Saved a few minutes on the ground .... and annoyed a RW jock!
Ah, happy daze! H 'n' H
The scenario? Years ago now on my Nite QCC to Norwich where I'd pre-arranged the landing fee but, of course the regs required a full stop landing followed by a separate departure. However, the regs never said anything about actually having to taxi anywhere between arrival and departure so I was most grateful to ATC for that one and for the airport having a nice long runway (for a PA-28 if I recall). Saved a few minutes on the ground .... and annoyed a RW jock!
Ah, happy daze! H 'n' H
Some years ago, with the CO sitting next to me in that hot Bulldog greenhouse, I took great comfort with his authoritative voice announcing we were down wind to roll. Fast forward a few years to private flying and I took up an entire downwind leg and extended base leg, arguing with some ATC bod who had not a clue about the phrase. For the sake of harmony/ safety, I ceased using it.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No ATIS as it was a Bank Holiday, entered a MATZ with out 2 way contact, landed at a military afd without permission and did not have permission to land there oh and was he covered insurance wise to land at a military afd oh and in a foreign registered aircraft.
If ATC is closed, as it was there are no red flares to fire, besides bet he'd ignore it anyway !
If ATC is closed, as it was there are no red flares to fire, besides bet he'd ignore it anyway !
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As MATZ are only operative when the associated airfield is open (AIP 2.2 2.1.6) I think we can safely drop it from the list of transgressions.
It’s striking that all USAF airfields in the UK benefit from the enhanced protection offered by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which makes trespass a criminal offence. I suspect the US insist on being able to enforce an appropriate level of security; the only RAF airfield to be so protected is Brize. Frankly I’m amazed that Marham and Waddington aren’t on the list given the nature of the hardware operated there. It serves to highlight just how weak the legal remedies are to something like the incident under discussion here.
It’s striking that all USAF airfields in the UK benefit from the enhanced protection offered by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which makes trespass a criminal offence. I suspect the US insist on being able to enforce an appropriate level of security; the only RAF airfield to be so protected is Brize. Frankly I’m amazed that Marham and Waddington aren’t on the list given the nature of the hardware operated there. It serves to highlight just how weak the legal remedies are to something like the incident under discussion here.
ATZs at military aerodromes are normally H24 unless promulgated otherwise.
Nevertheless, it would be sound airmanship and common sense to call 5 min before crossing a MATZ boundary.
Valley’s ATZ is indeed H24. So the pilot is in breach of Rule of the Air 45 because he didn’t get ATC approval to enter it (there being no exemption within that rule for accessing active ATZs outside ATS operating hours, ie there is no legal mechanism within the Rules for calling ‘x’ times without reply before proceeding).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street
It's Rule 11. The 2007 Regulations were revoked on the 30th April 2015 and the 2015 Regs now apply. Flight in an ATZ is Rule 11
Valley’s ATZ is indeed H24. So the pilot is in breach of Rule of the Air 45 because he didn’t get ATC approval to enter it
Last edited by Legalapproach; 5th Jun 2020 at 14:20.
That seems perfectly reasonable, as they are updated fairly regularly. My Little Chef map (with my carefully scribed updates) is a little tatty at the edges and I may well decide to embrace the 20th Century. I might get me ome one of those smart telling-bone jobbies and try this new fangled map system.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,617
Received 293 Likes
on
161 Posts
That seems perfectly reasonable, as they are updated fairly regularly. My Little Chef map (with my carefully scribed updates) is a little tatty at the edges and I may well decide to embrace the 20th Century. I might get me ome one of those smart telling-bone jobbies and try this new fangled map system.
I do hope your Little Chef map is sufficiently up to date to include the Southend Arterial Road?
Richard Wood to appear in court
Man accused of landing plane at RAF Valley without permission to appear in court
Richard Wood is due to appear before Caernarfon Magistrates Court next week
A man is set to appear in court accused of landing a plane at RAF Valley without permission during the Welsh coronavirus lockdown.
Richard Charles Priestley Wood, from London, is due to appear before Caernarfon Magistrates Court next week.
The Civil Aviation Authority, which prosecutes alleged beaches of aviation safety rules, confirmed that the hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
It is alleged that he "flew within an aerodrome traffic zone without having obtained information to enable a safe flight" on May 25 last year.
Richard Wood is due to appear before Caernarfon Magistrates Court next week
A man is set to appear in court accused of landing a plane at RAF Valley without permission during the Welsh coronavirus lockdown.
Richard Charles Priestley Wood, from London, is due to appear before Caernarfon Magistrates Court next week.
The Civil Aviation Authority, which prosecutes alleged beaches of aviation safety rules, confirmed that the hearing is scheduled for Wednesday.
It is alleged that he "flew within an aerodrome traffic zone without having obtained information to enable a safe flight" on May 25 last year.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Either somewhere in the 3rd world, the land of cheese and wine, or possibly very occasionally, at home.
Age: 59
Posts: 488
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At an airport near me many moons ago, an impounded 707 or more likely a DC8 was held until some debts were cleared, they had towed it to the wash bay and blocked it in with a de-ice truck. When cleared to leave he got the last laugh, his outboards overhung the edge of the taxiway and as he poured on the coals to climb the hill he departed in a cloud of low flying raised taxiway lighting.. he took them all out.
) taking off from Lulsgate/As it was probably still called then...)Just found a brief mention here... OldJets spotted
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Norwich
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does seem laughable. He admitted he had not familiarised himself with flying procedures in the UK, he was unaware of the airfield closure NOTAM and ignored instructions not to depart until the airfield was operational. Forgive my ignorance but I do find it worrying that there was no power allowing service personnel to prevent an intruder flying off from a military aerodrome. May be there should be a Speed Awareness style compulsory multiday Aviation Law course for such offenders.
I am also reminded of the failed/abandoned experiment to link fines to income.
I am also reminded of the failed/abandoned experiment to link fines to income.