ATZ question
 

My question:

If an aerodrome has an ATZ which extends up to 2000ft would you need to be in contact with the aerodrome radio/tower if you over flew it at say 2500-3000ft (i.e would u need permission). For example if i was to overfly goodwood at 2800ft would i need to contact there AFIS or could i just maintain contact with farnbourogh radar as i flew over it??

Any replys appreciated :}

cheers
10069

Technically, no.

However, I would strongly recommend that you do, not just out of courtesy but also for traffic information. Why not use the service that's available to you? i.e. ATC, AFISO and A/G will be able to advise you of anything relating to your safety.

Don't forget (relating to your Goodwood/Farnborough query) that although F'boro provide an excellent service, Radar coverage/performance is by no means perfect and they may not be able to see all aircraft on their screen. Some aircraft are too small/light to paint on radar!

To summarise, in this particular scenario I would say it is worth checking in with Goodwood. They can confirm/update anything you know from Farnborough, and they can then tell other a/c about you!

Foxy

.... and remember ATZ vertical limits are defined as AGL. Make sure you have an AMSL fudge factor applied if you are on QNH.

Courtesy of the extension of LARS service from Farnborough, extra radar feeds mean that you can be seen on radar down to about 1500ft or lower in the vicinity of Goodwood.(can see traffic just above ground level at Shoreham on the same radar head) However it's a good idea as Foxy Loxy says to call the relevant FISO unit even when transitting above an ATZ especially when there's large inviting VOR on the airfield which people might be using to carry out IF in VMC; there might also be someone aerobatting over the airfield (as happens at Popham) so if you're all on the same frequency it can only be safer.

Why fly over the top of an airfield anyway? We have reviewed our procedures after a student(not one of ours) flew into another aircraft O/H Moreton in Marsh disused. Since then we/I always try and use checkpoints we think others may not be using!

Also dont forget if there is traffic in the circuit the radar controller may well get a scrambled picture as you go into the overhead and may not be able to differentiate between you and other aircraft.

My advice stick with radar but change to advise the AFISO of your intentions and then change back to radar.

thanks for the replys guys so i will remember to give them a call to advise them what im up to as well as getting traffic information.

Reason why i asked is i want to see the racing circuit at goodwood from the air :8 without paying a landing fee:}

another quick question do you need to get a clearance from the airfield atc to do a zone transit even though its only a FIS?? or would it be more of a case that you advise them of your intentions and then judge from what traffic info they give you as to whether or not to transit.

sorry about all the random questions
cheers
10069

FIS and A/G cannot issue 'clearances' to penetrate an ATZ, (only ATC can do that), but you must call the published frequency if you do wish to penetrate and you should then be given traffic information to enable you to remain clear of other traffic in the ATZ.

I'd stay with Farnborough and keep my eyes open!

AFIS is just "information" so do not rely on them for traffic anyway.

You could of course change to Goodwood, tell them you'll be going overhead at 2800 and you're with Farnborough, bye, if you like.

Just make sure no one else has the same idea at the same time!

10069

As a pilot you should be familiar with the Rules of the Air from which you can answer your own question. A modicum of Airmanship will then tell you that to fly just above the ATZ of an aerodrome without informing them is STUPID.

I'm a PPL student, so my advice is perhaps not worth as much as that from people more experienced than me...

I am learning at Goodwood though, so I thought I'd add that it can be surprising how busy the overhead there is at times - often with traffic not in contact with the AFIS. As chevvron says, the VOR on the airfield is presumably a large draw.

Would definitely recommend landing and checking out the circuit close-up though - there's often activity on the track and some good cars to be seen, though not so much going on there over the winter.

Cheers

I bet if you tried hard you could put that in a much better way and it would have more authority.

I think your advice is excellent -thank you, the point about the VOR is a very important consideration

I'm a bit curious about your assertion of "should" about A/G providing ATZ traffic information?

At a busy airfield with no radar, it can be very difficult to keep track of all the traffic in the ATZ. Remember, it remains the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid other traffic, and you can't assume that a FIS or A/G service will give you the complete picture. Neither can you assume, of course, that another pilot hasn't done something stupid without notifying the radio service.

alexpc, http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html
'Shall' is neither conditional nor contingent. The regulation is very clear on the duty to receive information before operating in an ATZ. A mere acknowledgement of radio contact is insufficient for this purpose. Furthermore where an officer (or a/g radio operator) fails to reply owing to high workloads it is evident additional ATZ operations cannot be carried out safely.

Airmanship (imo) generally dictates that an aircraft should not over-fly in close proximity the aerodrome traffic zone of an aerodrome unless the commander of the aircraft has [contacted] the air traffic control unit [etc] at the aerodrome to enable the flight to be conducted with safety.

Legally if you are clear of the ATZ then there is no requirement to call but whether it's good airmanship to do so is another matter. As has been commented if there is a radio beacon nearby then it's possible that aircraft are utilising same for training etc.

The question is though where do you draw the line? If one is 1,000 ft above the top of the ATZ would you call?

Bit like those that want a FIS or RIS on a gin clear CAVOK day I cannot really see the point - why not just keep a good lookout?

A bit of local knowledge can help the decision making process.

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).

In the specific case of the original poster, I would call up something like
"Goodwood Information, G-ABCD PA28 EGxx to EGyy, overhead Bognor 2000 ft, routing via your overhead for a short photographic detail over the airfield, request traffic information"

Alternatively, if while listening in it became obvious that the frequency and airfield were very busy, I might just keep quiet and route overhead at 5000ft, keeping a good look-out. It's always good to have a back-up plan.

Ok but one presumes the commanders of these aircraft are ensuring that an adequate lookout is being maintained in VFR or if VFR cannot be maintained that they are in receipt of RIS if possible?

I would hope, but not presume! RIS in the South East has always been tricky to obtain, but the new Farnborough Radar will make a big difference.

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):