I said 'should' in post 7 because some A/G operators aren't as informative as they could be.
Example: friend of mine flying a Kingair in the south east of England heading for France; as he approaches a notified parchute site situated on a licenced airfield with A/G service, he calls for traffic info even though he will pass overhead the ATZ. When he finally gets a reply after several calls, he's told 'no known traffic'. But as he's been on frequency for several minutes, he's aware that there is a parachuting aircraft airborne having heard him also calling the A/G frequency. My friend then talked directly to the parachute aircraft pilot and they sorted out a course of action.(the para man held his drop until the Kingair was clear of the ATZ). In my opinion the A/G operator SHOULD have advised my friend of the likelihood of getting 'meat bombs' descending on him but didn't.

Tall guy in a 152 Thanks for that radio call exactly what i was looking for :ok:
I did think of routing overhead at 5000ft but thought that the weather this time of year isnt that good :) so id thought i would ask what others would do as i do know what the rules of their air say to do but other pilots may know something else which isnt all that clear from reading a book of rules:}

Cheers for all your replys 10069

Which is a good reason to stay with Farnborough as Goodwood may not know anything about IFR traffic, (holding for example) . Farnborough may be controlling them or may have their info from radar.

It is not bad airmanship to route overhead if enough clearance is given. Certainly overhead at 4500' is fine, I do it a fair bit - it makes it easy if you have to divert in an emergency......(good airmanship?).

What did your mate not understand about the 'notified parachute site' part that there was some doubt in his mind as to the possibility of parachuting activity?

Why not just avoid the place by a few miles? if he hadn't heard anything
from the drop plane or the A/G operator, what was the plan of
action?

(or was this just the worst 'I've got a mate with a KingAir' post, ever? :E)

Useful discussion here.

While we are on the subject of ATZs;

If no reply is forthcoming from a call on the notified agency, (or if you fly a non-radio aircraft) can you fly through an ATZ marked on your chart?

eharding: the point I was making was that the radio operator said 'no traffic' when there obviously was (albeit descending into the ATZ from high level!) My friend was aiming to pass above the ATZ but just thought a courtesy call might be helpful. There were other issues that my mate told me about which I don't wish to discuss, but resulted in an official complaint to the CAA, and apparently not the first one about this particular radio operator.
And no I haven't got a 'downer' on them, I'm an A/G radio examiner hence I know what standards I expect them to maintain.

If you have a Com 2 box then it doesnt hurt tuning it up to the airfield and listening out. As with changing frequencies. When using Northolt Radar and routing via elstree I have on occassion requested Northolt coordinate a crossing for me whilst monitoring, that way I can get traffic information on comm 2, Elstree know im coming overhead, and I can maintain my FIS / RIS off Northolt.

Some will say why waste RT time.....I say....cause Northolt are a great bunch of people with not alot of traffic at times that love to actually do something, and at the end of the day! If they are too busy, they will soon say no! :-)

You can only ask right!

I don't see how they can co-ordinate with a FISO unit.

Stay cool, it's all done by mirrors.

The VOR 'en-route honey pot' has been mentioned but another consideration is instrument training. Airfields such as Stapleford and Shoreham are more likely to have IFR traffic holding in uncontrolled airspace above the ATZ. In these cases I would tend to make my presence known to the controller / FISO (unlikely to be A/G in this case).



what about if crossing LAM VOR IFR in IMC, above ATZ and below TMA with cloud base at 1500 feet and therefore little transit traffic through stapleford ATZ. Would it then be appropriate to stay with RIS and remain clear of ATZ and perhaps keep a listening watch on COM2 to the AG. I would think that talking to AG in this situation clear above ATZ not necessary. Please correct me if wrong

If I was IFR in IMC then I would definitely stick with the RIS and overfly the ATZ at 2400ft.

I recall a flight several years ago when I had a RIS from Thames Radar (before they got too busy...), VFR but in poor visibility. Passing North over the QE2 bridge the controller suggested calling Stapleford due to the potential for IFR training traffic OCAS. It may just have been a means to politely get rid of me, but I have called Stapleford ever since, or routed South around the ATZ. I admit that there isn't much the FISO can do except say "it's busy, keep a good lookout".

I have been very fortunate recently with RIS from Thames radar and have always found them very helpful. The reason for asking the question is that I have been able to get an RIS from Farn Lars all the way up to LAM and then on with Thames in IMC. They do sometimes ask you to talk to Stap Radio as you pass the ATZ, but not always.

From 1 March, initially on restricted hours, Farnborough will serve this area on 132.8. As to transitting over Stapleford ATZ; with a/d elevation 185 ft and base of LTMA 2500 ft you haven't got a lot of room to play with, hence you're asked to call Stapleford Radio as you transit.

OK, maybe I was a bit unclear for a legal argument...

Yes there is a duty to receive information in an ATZ, and it is prudent to do so when flying in the vicinity of an ATZ. The point I was making is that in exercising good airmanship, is that you should not rely solely on that information; just because the A/G service reports "no known traffic" doesn't mean you can stick your head in the cockpit and relax.

Looking at the original quote I think that was already stated , albeit in maybe slightly imprecise terms (my bold):