Steve,
there is a CAA document CAP xxx (dont know the number) that tells you about these things. I seem to remember there is something about events having more than 100 aircraft requiring the airfield operator to consult their local CAA office. So if you think you will only have 99 arrivals you dont need to do anything, if 900 happen to turn up then it was your lucky day (or maybe not!) But you probably cant get away with that too many times before the CAA "know" of your event and insist on putting their oar in.
This CAP xxx has lots of other things in it that some people consider you must do at the smallest fly-in, but the document is really aimed at big airshows, so the majoirty of it is irrelevant even to events like the old rally, let alone small fly-ins.
unfortunately its a bit like the infamous yellow jackets where there is a CAA recommendation that people WORKING airside SHOULD wear them. Note WORKING (ie marshallers, refueller etc not GA pilots) and SHOULD which has a totally different meaning to MUST in CAA speak. But some airfields where the management are scared of their own shadow will insist everyone has them, similarly all the irrelevant aspects of this CAP xxx will be imposed at some fly-ins! (and no Im not talking about Sywell here)
SLOTS
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Steve Brown
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Mmmm. thanks for the responses. I have had a look at CAP 403 (revised 1st April 2009) and if one is not organising a flying display as defined in ANO Article 80 the rest of the document is advisory and for guidance as far as I can see.
In other words the law is the ANO and provided you don't contravene that, you are legal whereas CAP 403 is a guidance document and code of practice only (of value certainly but not to be used as a justification for rule creep.).
The hi viz jacket issue is a classic example whereby by donning a hi viz jacket one can appear to be in authority or get access to parts of the air field and other secure places whereas without one you may be challenged.
One could extend this perverse rule creep logic to saying all road users inc pedestrians 'should give consideration to' wearing hi viz jackets at all times otherwise if they are knocked down by a car they may be deemed partly responsible for not reducing their risk of being hit to, in HSE speak, ALARP (as low as reasonably practical).
Getting back to the subject , CAP 403 quotes
1.1 Air Displays and Aerial Special Events form a significant part of the UK leisure industry
today and participation, together with their organisation and administration needs
careful consideration if the highest safety standards are to be achieved and
maintained. This publication is intended as a code of practice and an indicator of best
practise to provide guidance to ensure that the safety of both the participants and the
spectators is not compromised.
1.2 The coverage of this CAP ranges from full Flying Displays through air races and rallies,
parachuting, helicopter and balloon events to model aircraft displays and the minima
and standards quoted should be treated as almost absolute unless sound logic
demands otherwise.
Air Rallies
2.1 Notification should be made to DAP AUS to enable promulgation of a suitable
NOTAM. Many of the requirements discussed earlier in this document may not be
applicable to rallies, but the attention of organisers is drawn to the recommended
weather minima and to the need for full written briefing of participants, including the
arrangements for notifying a cancellation of the event.
2.2 If weather conditions cause a rally to be cancelled, every possible means should be
used to ensure that participants are informed before take-off or en-route so as to
avoid dangerous congestion at the destination aerodrome.
2.3 The aerodrome management and ATC at destination should be fully consulted about
the proposed event so that appropriate safety arrangements may be made and
conflicts with other traffic avoided. The rally will almost certainly require co-ordination
with other airspace users. Therefore, details should be notified to DAP AUS at least
42 days prior to the date of the event.
2.4 If an event is likely to attract more than 100 aircraft it is essential that (SB comment - presumably only air traffic) proposals are
discussed with the CAA ATSD prior to any firm arrangements being made. These
discussions should be initiated at least 90 days prior to the date of the event (See the
appropriate parts of Chapter 5).
Thats it for air rallies!
In other words the law is the ANO and provided you don't contravene that, you are legal whereas CAP 403 is a guidance document and code of practice only (of value certainly but not to be used as a justification for rule creep.).
The hi viz jacket issue is a classic example whereby by donning a hi viz jacket one can appear to be in authority or get access to parts of the air field and other secure places whereas without one you may be challenged.
One could extend this perverse rule creep logic to saying all road users inc pedestrians 'should give consideration to' wearing hi viz jackets at all times otherwise if they are knocked down by a car they may be deemed partly responsible for not reducing their risk of being hit to, in HSE speak, ALARP (as low as reasonably practical).
Getting back to the subject , CAP 403 quotes
1.1 Air Displays and Aerial Special Events form a significant part of the UK leisure industry
today and participation, together with their organisation and administration needs
careful consideration if the highest safety standards are to be achieved and
maintained. This publication is intended as a code of practice and an indicator of best
practise to provide guidance to ensure that the safety of both the participants and the
spectators is not compromised.
1.2 The coverage of this CAP ranges from full Flying Displays through air races and rallies,
parachuting, helicopter and balloon events to model aircraft displays and the minima
and standards quoted should be treated as almost absolute unless sound logic
demands otherwise.
Air Rallies
2.1 Notification should be made to DAP AUS to enable promulgation of a suitable
NOTAM. Many of the requirements discussed earlier in this document may not be
applicable to rallies, but the attention of organisers is drawn to the recommended
weather minima and to the need for full written briefing of participants, including the
arrangements for notifying a cancellation of the event.
2.2 If weather conditions cause a rally to be cancelled, every possible means should be
used to ensure that participants are informed before take-off or en-route so as to
avoid dangerous congestion at the destination aerodrome.
2.3 The aerodrome management and ATC at destination should be fully consulted about
the proposed event so that appropriate safety arrangements may be made and
conflicts with other traffic avoided. The rally will almost certainly require co-ordination
with other airspace users. Therefore, details should be notified to DAP AUS at least
42 days prior to the date of the event.
2.4 If an event is likely to attract more than 100 aircraft it is essential that (SB comment - presumably only air traffic) proposals are
discussed with the CAA ATSD prior to any firm arrangements being made. These
discussions should be initiated at least 90 days prior to the date of the event (See the
appropriate parts of Chapter 5).
Thats it for air rallies!
-
Jonathan Smith
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:19 pm
I have read this thread with interest and a little concern. I am an Air Traffic Controller who spends a percentage of my paid employment sat in front of a radar screen talking to big jets but I have also spent the past 25 years volunteering at various special events, airshows, rallies etc. providing full ATC, Flight Information Service or Air/Ground depending on the situation and the organisers requirements. I am also an LAA member and have flown into a large number of the type of events under discussion.
Personally, I think the major influencing factor for me, in terms of service provision, at all these types of events is UK ANO limitation on land afters or multiple occupation of the runway. The 'regulator' takes the view, as prescribed in Rule 14 of the ANO that a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider. This, in my experience, becomes a limiting factor to capacity at these types of event when you are getting to around the 100 aircraft mark, depending on your arrival window. An 'air traffic control' unit has traditionally meant just that, full Air Traffic Control in order that somebody on the ground has authority over somebody in the air or on the runway in order to ensure multiple occupancy of that runway is achieved safely. Whether or not pilots are capable of discharging that responsibility themselves is a whole other debate but, for the moment, we function under the burden of Rule 14. Interestingly, the CAA have occasionally given a blanket exemption from Rule 14 to allow certain events to accommodate land afters without full ATC. I seem to remember the last rally at Kemble operated like this and utilised FISOs rather than full ATC. I completely acknowledge and understand the cost argument re. full ATC. The licensing and equipment for a temporary event are prohibitively expensive, even if your ATCOs volunteer their services for free (another debate) and in my view you gain little safety benefit in the safety management of the event other than being able to legally accommodate multiple runway occupancy.
So what has all this got to do with slots. Well if you do elect to have full ATC at your event then the ATCO immediately has certain obligations with regard to the management of the aircraft in the air i.e. in the circuit and on the final approach as well as on the runway. For this reason I fully understand why an event utilising full Air Traffic Control may elect to adopt some sort of a slot allocation system simply to manage the controllers workload and allow him or her the capacity to discharge their responsibilities. Controversially, I would suggest that the ATCOs at the old PFA rallies did not fully discharge their responsibilities with regard to the entire traffic pattern but simply conducted a 'fire fighting' exercise to manage the final approach and optimum runway utilisation, that element being achieved particulalry successfully.
If you don't have full ATC supporting your event i.e. you utilise FISO as in the case of Sywell or simply Air/Ground, the FISO or A/G operator has no responsibility for the management of traffic in the air and in my opinion no slot system is necessary to support the FISO or A/G provision.
The application of a slot system when full ATC is not being provided should only be to protect the participating pilots from themselves.
Again, controversially, I would suggest as an ATCO, FISO, A/G operator and as a participating pilot that slots may be a necessary measure given the diminishing level of competence/airmanship I have witnessed at various events over the past few years. The number of people apparently incapable of flying a standard join and circuit to land or maintain a good look-out results in the occasional near miss or hairy encounter but if left unmanaged by way of an unregulated arrival flow may result in a concentration of incompetence to the extend that the situation becomes dangerous. It is this 'risk' that event organisers should be evaluating when determining the necessity of applying a slot system to an event.
One final aspect of the thread I would like to comment upon is the apparent reluctance to adopt the sort of detailed route planning/pre-event briefing achieved via an AIC or other formal briefing material. I firmly believe and have good evidence to support my theory that by far the best mitigation to electing not to adopt a slot system is to provide clear concise and easily achievable inbound route structures which facilitate the safe, systemised integration of arriving aircraft. These type of procedures have the added benefit of affording some degree of protection to other airspace users from the impact of the particular event i.e. preventing or reducing the risk of airspace infringements, integration with adjacent traffic patterns and even placating the NIMBY issue.
Sywell airfield management will have their own reasons for wishing to adopt an inbound slot system but perhaps a more understanding and conciliatory approach by some people in combination with the establishment and compliance with some good sound arrival procedures may make them feel that such a draconian measure would not be necessary at a future LAA event?
Personally, I think the major influencing factor for me, in terms of service provision, at all these types of events is UK ANO limitation on land afters or multiple occupation of the runway. The 'regulator' takes the view, as prescribed in Rule 14 of the ANO that a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider. This, in my experience, becomes a limiting factor to capacity at these types of event when you are getting to around the 100 aircraft mark, depending on your arrival window. An 'air traffic control' unit has traditionally meant just that, full Air Traffic Control in order that somebody on the ground has authority over somebody in the air or on the runway in order to ensure multiple occupancy of that runway is achieved safely. Whether or not pilots are capable of discharging that responsibility themselves is a whole other debate but, for the moment, we function under the burden of Rule 14. Interestingly, the CAA have occasionally given a blanket exemption from Rule 14 to allow certain events to accommodate land afters without full ATC. I seem to remember the last rally at Kemble operated like this and utilised FISOs rather than full ATC. I completely acknowledge and understand the cost argument re. full ATC. The licensing and equipment for a temporary event are prohibitively expensive, even if your ATCOs volunteer their services for free (another debate) and in my view you gain little safety benefit in the safety management of the event other than being able to legally accommodate multiple runway occupancy.
So what has all this got to do with slots. Well if you do elect to have full ATC at your event then the ATCO immediately has certain obligations with regard to the management of the aircraft in the air i.e. in the circuit and on the final approach as well as on the runway. For this reason I fully understand why an event utilising full Air Traffic Control may elect to adopt some sort of a slot allocation system simply to manage the controllers workload and allow him or her the capacity to discharge their responsibilities. Controversially, I would suggest that the ATCOs at the old PFA rallies did not fully discharge their responsibilities with regard to the entire traffic pattern but simply conducted a 'fire fighting' exercise to manage the final approach and optimum runway utilisation, that element being achieved particulalry successfully.
If you don't have full ATC supporting your event i.e. you utilise FISO as in the case of Sywell or simply Air/Ground, the FISO or A/G operator has no responsibility for the management of traffic in the air and in my opinion no slot system is necessary to support the FISO or A/G provision.
The application of a slot system when full ATC is not being provided should only be to protect the participating pilots from themselves.
Again, controversially, I would suggest as an ATCO, FISO, A/G operator and as a participating pilot that slots may be a necessary measure given the diminishing level of competence/airmanship I have witnessed at various events over the past few years. The number of people apparently incapable of flying a standard join and circuit to land or maintain a good look-out results in the occasional near miss or hairy encounter but if left unmanaged by way of an unregulated arrival flow may result in a concentration of incompetence to the extend that the situation becomes dangerous. It is this 'risk' that event organisers should be evaluating when determining the necessity of applying a slot system to an event.
One final aspect of the thread I would like to comment upon is the apparent reluctance to adopt the sort of detailed route planning/pre-event briefing achieved via an AIC or other formal briefing material. I firmly believe and have good evidence to support my theory that by far the best mitigation to electing not to adopt a slot system is to provide clear concise and easily achievable inbound route structures which facilitate the safe, systemised integration of arriving aircraft. These type of procedures have the added benefit of affording some degree of protection to other airspace users from the impact of the particular event i.e. preventing or reducing the risk of airspace infringements, integration with adjacent traffic patterns and even placating the NIMBY issue.
Sywell airfield management will have their own reasons for wishing to adopt an inbound slot system but perhaps a more understanding and conciliatory approach by some people in combination with the establishment and compliance with some good sound arrival procedures may make them feel that such a draconian measure would not be necessary at a future LAA event?
“Flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway”
That cannot be correct. As an ex glider pilot at a hill site, the wind stops, everybody lands. I have participated in 30 + gliders landing on the same patch of grass when the wind stopped. What were we supposed to do, go round?
Rod1
That cannot be correct. As an ex glider pilot at a hill site, the wind stops, everybody lands. I have participated in 30 + gliders landing on the same patch of grass when the wind stopped. What were we supposed to do, go round?
Rod1
021864
-
Jonathan Smith
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:19 pm
RodRod1 wrote:“Flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway”
That cannot be correct. As an ex glider pilot at a hill site, the wind stops, everybody lands. I have participated in 30 + gliders landing on the same patch of grass when the wind stopped. What were we supposed to do, go round?
Rod1
I am not saying it is morally correct, I am saying it is the element of the law (ANO) which I feel is relevant to at least part of the debate over the necessity of slots at Fly-Ins and Rallies.
Jonathan,
Many thanks for your input. I think that you have identified the issues and summed it up very well.
Rod, if you finish the sentence it says .. unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider.
Are there are any gliding sites that operate with air traffic control units?
There is full ATC at Wycombe but they also have glider operations. The tugs and gliders use the grass area adjacent to the grass and asphalt runways and operate virtually independently. If a glider or tug requested to use the grass or hard runways then I guess a landing clearance would still be required.
Regards
Chris
Many thanks for your input. I think that you have identified the issues and summed it up very well.
Rod, if you finish the sentence it says .. unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider.
Are there are any gliding sites that operate with air traffic control units?
There is full ATC at Wycombe but they also have glider operations. The tugs and gliders use the grass area adjacent to the grass and asphalt runways and operate virtually independently. If a glider or tug requested to use the grass or hard runways then I guess a landing clearance would still be required.
Regards
Chris
032850
Sywell are saying camp overnight. I take it from recent posts that this will not be allowed by your aircraft?
edited..I tried phoning but having gone through a list of options on the auto system didn't actually get to speak to a human being.
I feel sorry for everyone involved in this event ,it started out looking so good......
edited..I tried phoning but having gone through a list of options on the auto system didn't actually get to speak to a human being.
I feel sorry for everyone involved in this event ,it started out looking so good......
John Cook
031327
031327
-
David Broom
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Herts
Dave
A bit of thread drift creeping in perhaps but you overlook the second part of Jonathans post regarding Rule 14 :
"as prescribed in Rule 14 of the ANO that a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider"
A bit of thread drift creeping in perhaps but you overlook the second part of Jonathans post regarding Rule 14 :
"as prescribed in Rule 14 of the ANO that a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway unless the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider"
Rod , many glider fields are grass aerdromes without runways , so only the right of way issue applies (leave clear to the left those who have landed).Rod1 wrote:“Flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway”
That cannot be correct. As an ex glider pilot at a hill site, the wind stops, everybody lands. I have participated in 30 + gliders landing on the same patch of grass when the wind stopped. What were we supposed to do, go round?
Rod1
Jonathan mentioned that a large part of the problem is managing land afters i.e. clearing the runway to keep the flow manageable. The event has also been billed as a dress rehersal for a full Rally, my issue is that for many years I have worked as part of the marshalling team at the rally and although I have contacted my rally manager and emailed other contacts I have not had a response. Does that mean that our services are no longer required?
If there are more than 500 arrivals then it could be interesting....
If there are more than 500 arrivals then it could be interesting....
013346