Operating limits imposed at Blackbushe.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Dogmersfield, Hampshire, UK
Operating limits imposed at Blackbushe.
On the 9th of July the management at Blackbushe issued their Bulletin No: 148 headed "New Limits of Operation at Blackbushe Airport"
It reads:
"We have been advised by the CAA, Safety Regs Group that the following limits for operation should apply.
Take off
There should be an 800' minimum cloud base and 1000 meters visibility.
Landing
There should be an 800' minimum cloudbase and minimum visibility of 1000 metres.
The point of this posting is not so much to debate the limits but to ask if any other airfield has been similarly restricted. We are told that these imposed restrictions are the result of the very sad fatal KingAir crash a couple of years back.
Surely if something is learned from such a disaster then any recommendations or restrictions would need to be nationwide?
It reads:
"We have been advised by the CAA, Safety Regs Group that the following limits for operation should apply.
Take off
There should be an 800' minimum cloud base and 1000 meters visibility.
Landing
There should be an 800' minimum cloudbase and minimum visibility of 1000 metres.
The point of this posting is not so much to debate the limits but to ask if any other airfield has been similarly restricted. We are told that these imposed restrictions are the result of the very sad fatal KingAir crash a couple of years back.
Surely if something is learned from such a disaster then any recommendations or restrictions would need to be nationwide?
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: EGLL mostly
A number of fields are either having imposed (or are self-imposing) limits in line their SMS Safety Cases.
Cranfield is an example that was debated here a while ago. They have elected to impose a departure RVR limit of 800metres. The justification is that the airfield perimeter is not secure and therefore it is wise to impose a restriction that gives the ATCO some reasonable chance of verifying that the runway is unobstructed before clearing an aircraft to take-off.
It seems to me though that this is all a bit heavy handed. If a field drops below its published minima (and there is nothing wrong with having them), then it should become unlicensed, and the risk and liabilty is assumed by the aircraft operator. I feel this strongly for departures. Arrivals at a VFR field like Blackbushe is a rather more difficult call.
Charlie.
Cranfield is an example that was debated here a while ago. They have elected to impose a departure RVR limit of 800metres. The justification is that the airfield perimeter is not secure and therefore it is wise to impose a restriction that gives the ATCO some reasonable chance of verifying that the runway is unobstructed before clearing an aircraft to take-off.
It seems to me though that this is all a bit heavy handed. If a field drops below its published minima (and there is nothing wrong with having them), then it should become unlicensed, and the risk and liabilty is assumed by the aircraft operator. I feel this strongly for departures. Arrivals at a VFR field like Blackbushe is a rather more difficult call.
Charlie.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: Dogmersfield, Hampshire, UK
The cloud base will be determined by nearby Farnborough with 100 ft deducted. The bulletin does not give any clues as to how the visibility will be assessed.
Yes the circuit height is 800 ft at Blackbushe but during the PPL training we fly 500 ft "Bad weather circuits".
But why have the CAA singled out Blackbushe because of one incident??
Yes the circuit height is 800 ft at Blackbushe but during the PPL training we fly 500 ft "Bad weather circuits".
But why have the CAA singled out Blackbushe because of one incident??
