Can you call another A/C?

[Mr Cessna]

Called another A/C in flight to ask for position and altitude today whilst solo and radio operator said: ''you cannot call another aircraft''? I haven't taken R/T exam yet but what did he mean?

:uhoh:

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Which ATC unit were you in contact with? If it was busy I can well understand them objecting. If it was quiet it would have been good procedure to ask ATC if you could contact another aircraft.

[Mr Cessna]

Seething and there was only one other A/C in the circuit???? :\

[vanHorck]

Lets be clear: was this the Seething radio operator r was it the other plane's radio operator?

[Mr Cessna]

myself and the other aircraft were both on the seething freq. and i asked the guy for his position?

:confused:

[Mr Cessna]

I was just inbound to seething

[Mr Cessna]

ok sorry my fault i shall explain further...

I was joining and other aircraft had just joined and when i was overhead i called G-aaaa can i have your position please because i had not heard him call downwind etc. just after the other A/C gave me his position the A/G radio guy said: YOU CANNOT CALL ANOTHER A/C IN FLIGHT!!!!

YOU NEED PERMISSION????

[GaryS]

Since when can A/G operators tell you what to do??

[Mr Cessna]

that is exactly what i thought!!! :E

Can R/T or rules of the air prevent you from contacting another A/C in flight??

Strange?

[GaryS]

On a busy frequency I could understand the controller being upset, but a A/G operator TELLING you that you cannot contact another aircraft? :mad:

Your the pilot and you decided what was best.

A/G offer advice and thats it.

[Johnm]

A/G and FISO or ATC basically do what it says on the tin. A/G not A/A therefore. However if the A/G frequency isn't busy you could say "GAAAA to GBBBB say position" and no-one should take exception since you are the pilot in command responsible for the safety of your aircraft. If it's FISO or ATC you should ask the ground station to find out for you as a courtesy.

[Danscowpie]

The R/T Operator is wrong and has no right to give such an instruction, or any instruction at any time.

You are quite within your rights to do as you did, although it does suprise me that you encountered such a problem at Seething - everyone there is normally extremely professional and accomodating, whether they are pilots, radio operators, engineers or bacon butty makers.

I've never across such a problem with them.

[vanHorck]

Perhaps A/G prefers low wings...... But yes, you call the shorts, certainly not an A/G operator....

[Mr Cessna]

This has helped bundles... many thanks


:ok:

[Dan the weegie]

SoCal,

Most people solo before passing the RT practical.
Just had a look at CAP 413, no mention of not being able to talk A/C to A/C.
Wouldn't press the issue though as the A/G people tend also to be the people giving you coffee and fuelling your plane :).

flying is full of people that know everything :) you just have to learn to let them alone.

[mrmum]

There is no (UK) legal requirement to have passed any exams before going solo while training for a JAA-PPL (A). However it is almost universally "required" by schools and instructors that students pass the aviation law, by reason of being sensible, duly diligent or simply covering your a**e.

[stiknruda]

Posts 13, 14 and 15 are all pertinent. You have a PM, too - it's basically posts 13-15 as I'm fairly local to Seething and aware of their RT usage!!

Stik

[bingofuel]

Perhaps the first call should have been ' Seething radio can you give me the position of other circuit traffic?'

That way, it keeps the A/G operator happy, and also checks for other traffic you may have been unaware of. If no response then blind calls and request position reports yourself.

Just my comment on what I would have done.

[mur007]

Bingofuel - as he is an a/g operator he cannot give out that info. I have to admit, my understanding was that aircraft could not call each other in that way but then I fly from an atc field so maybe things are not as rigid at a/g fields?

[mrmum]

Yes they can give traffic information if requested to do so Air/Ground (A/G) - A two way communication between an aircraft and a ground station in which the ground operator may only pass advisory information regarding the situation local to the aerodrome.

See also CAP 413, chapter 4, pages 32-35
5 Aerodrome Air/Ground Communication Service Phraseology

5.1.1 ..... It is not only the means by which information is passed but it also assists pilots in maintaining an awareness of other traffic in their vicinity
5.2.3 An AG radio station operator is not necessarily able to view any part of the aerodrome or surrounding airspace. Traffic information provided by an AG radio station operator is therefore based primarily on reports made by other pilots. Information provided by an AG radio station operator may be used to assist a pilot in making decisions

[skyfly150]

Seething is Air Ground radio only so cannot tell you what to do.

What day of the week was this and a rough time.????

Aircraft in the Seething area often talk to each other as the Tower is not always manned.

Seething Satco

[Wessex Boy]

SoCal, I didn't pass my RT until 19 years after I got my PPL!!

It wasn't a legal requirement to have one in the '80s and it wasn't until I came back to flying later on that I had to do it.


In this situation I normally say to the A/G: "G-xxxx request circuit traffic" which normally gets me a quick run down of who is doing what, this is especially useful at airfields where you need to backtrack

[aluminium persuader]

Surely it's an air/ground frequency, with Seething holding the licence, and not an air/air frequency?

When a/g is closed, obviously the a/c have only blind calls to make & each other to talk to, but when it is open a request would have to be made through the a/g operator, I would have thought?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Surely it's an air/ground frequency, with Seething holding the licence, and not an air/air frequency?

I never heard of frequencies being classified this way, I learned frequencies are associated with services and services are associated with regions of airspace.

Back to the original question: my R/T syllabus mentions "interpilot" communications and outlines how to do them properly (though I must admit I couldn't rehearse it all right now), so I really can't see what the A/G operator was whining about. Just a bad moment, probably, that has happened to the best of us, hasn't it.

[flybymike]

I trust you were not blabbering away on 123.45

[mrmum]

RT rating was a requirement if you intended to use the radio
SoCal, the word "if" is the crux of the matter here, there were places even into the nineties IIRC where you could do a whole PPL course on non-radio aircraft. Admittedly, this would be an unusual option and not sure how many may have chosen to do so. But if you intended to fly something vintage with no electrics out of a private strip, then why not?

[riverrock83]

Just wanted to say - not all Flying Schools require air law for first solo - I first soloed today (grin required :) ) and haven't sat the exam.

[ADB25]

As PIC, you do what ever you feel you need to for safe flying practices.

[FREDAcheck]

A/G and FISO or ATC basically do what it says on the tin.
Stone me, I've seen them in towers, huts and caravans. Is this a Seething speciality? Normal for Norfolk...

[The500man]

radio operator said: ''you cannot call another aircraft''


My response to this would've been, "I think you'll find I just did!"

[Flyingmac]

"I was joining and other aircraft had just joined and when i was overhead i called G-aaaa can i have your position please because i had not heard him call downwind ".

How then, did you know that he had just joined?

If you were in the overhead, about to descend deadside, why call him at all? There was no conflict. A blind position report would have told him what you were up to. That's why we make such calls.

[Mark1234]

Reading this, I'm thinking that all the convoluted application of 'the rules' is removing something pretty important, namely common sense, though to be fair it is increasingly absent from life in general these days.

If you're tooling around, knowing another aircraft is in the vicinity, but you can't see it, why doesn't matter - if you stuffed up, so what? Break the chain. Talk. Ask. One of the major reasons for having a radio is alerted see and avoid - it'll hopefully get both of you looking in the right direction. Ask for forgiveness later (if necessary), hard to do that if you're tumbling earthward..

For what it's worth where I learned to fly (aus), it was entirely common to coordinate directly with other a/c in the circuit.

[2 sheds]

skyfly 150

Do I read it correctly that you are signing your post as "Seething Satco"? Delusions of grandeur or what?

2 s

[flybymike]

Perhaps he is a Satco who is very cross.

[Conventional Gear]

Reading this, I'm thinking that all the convoluted application of 'the rules' is removing something pretty important, namely common sense, though to be fair it is increasingly absent from life in general these days.

If you're tooling around, knowing another aircraft is in the vicinity, but you can't see it, why doesn't matter - if you stuffed up, so what? Break the chain. Talk. Ask. One of the major reasons for having a radio is alerted see and avoid - it'll hopefully get both of you looking in the right direction. Ask for forgiveness later (if necessary), hard to do that if you're tumbling earthward..

For what it's worth where I learned to fly (aus), it was entirely common to coordinate directly with other a/c in the circuit.

Though I think it is no big deal what OP did, I can kind of understand the response from A/G too.

I think OP shouldn't be too bolstered up on 'hey you did nothing wrong'. It might not have been 'wrong' but on the other hand it isn't usual practice at an A/G field to talk directly to other aircraft for positioning, this is why each aircraft makes position reports. I think to be honest we have a situation with a student pilot probably A) did the right thing in the circumstance, B) should take away from the experience that some further training is required regarding 'normal' radio procedures at an A/G field. It's always worth simply talking to those involved when things like this happen and learn their opinion direct. Quite a bit of rubbish spoken on this thread regards the 'powers' of an A/G operator. I don't see that the A/G operator issued an instruction or gave a clearance, simply that they were trying to guide regarding the normal R/T procedure.

That isn't to say I've never been contacted by another aircraft at an A/G field, but one wouldn't usually do it IMOH and lets remember we are only hearing one side of the story. :)

[SlipSlider]

Mr Cessna, as a standard practice you should not assume the right to talk aircraft-to-aircraft on any active frequency, no matter whether A/G, AFIS, or full ATC, without the specific approval of the ground operator. Out of hours, certainly on the first two, is perhaps another matter; but even then calls should be short and to the point.

In the case you quote, if you were really concerned about a conflict, give your standard position call “overhead / dead-side” etc, ending with “request other traffic”. Either the ground operator or the other aircraft should respond.

In reality, safety (although I detest the current catch-all over-use of that word) is the priority, and any reasonable use of the radio to achieve that end in my opinion is valid, irrespective of what the book says.

As an example when flying in to an event at a well-known airfield with (at that time) A/G radio, on very short-final when a Cherokee appeared large in the windscreen right above, having apparently cut in front of the others on final behind, descending steeply and at almost the same speed. Gulp! The call “?X Cherokee immediate go-around NOW, you’re right on top of me and I’ve nowhere to go” is not in CAP413, but it worked.

I’m slightly bemused that your profile says you have a PPL, and are current on 8 or 9 different types …. but have no R/T licence ….

I take the view that nobody should issue a reprimand of any kind over the radio, especially to a student, as it is likely to achieve nothing but distraction.

[Mark1234]

Conventional Gear, I agree.

Generally it's not normal, even at a completely uncontrolled field, though not necessarily entirely unusual. Nor was that an 'attaboy'. Normally the position reports suffice. If anything I suspect the training point is better situational awareness, but that's something that comes with time.

I take the point about requesting traffic, but that is less direct, takes more time, and in many cases the radio operator may well not have the circuit under observation. Maybe it's a culture difference, but there seems to be an attitude that ground services are there to tell us what to do, rather than to facilitate our needs.

I seem to recall that there's a catchall somewhere in air law that says the PIC can do basically what they want if they percieve safety to be an issue, just be prepared to justify your actions later :E

[ShyTorque]

I seem to recall that there's a catchall somewhere in air law that says the PIC can do basically what they want if they percieve safety to be an issue, just be prepared to justify your actions later

Yes, that's correct.

It's totally unnecessary (and a potential flight safety hazard) to be taken to task in the air, especially by an A/G radio operator at an unlicensed private strip!

[ShyTorque]

All we have is an interpretation of what the OP stated took place.

And that is exactly what I have responded to.

An A/G operator cannot control an aircraft or issue any sort of clearance (or not) and the regulations specifically warn them not to do so.

[Conventional Gear]

Must admit I only posted as it all seemed a bit one sided. Glad to see others can at least see the same.

Reminds me a lot of a thread here a couple of years or more ago before I joined up.

Guy goes to flying club, flies with instructor, instructor won't sign him off to fly club aircraft.

Wow, the abuse against instructors that followed went on for pages. What an 'idiot' the instructor was, how dare an instructor teach a qualified PPL how to fly when he just went for a checkout and so it went on. (and on, and on).

Here I was laughing my head off reading it all, knowing said instructor who is in simple terms one of the best I've had the good fortune to have flown with, knowing the flying club, where quite simply they only employ damn good instructors. Knowing the actual circumstances of what the plonker had done during the flight to not get signed off. Fact he went on to fly with another instructor from the club with exactly the same result said it all really.

I made a total hash once of joining at Lydd. Complete mess of it and they assumed I had descended dead-side which isn't allowed. Made for some frosty R/T. I could have come on PPRuNe and told a very one sided story and had lots of people tell me I was PIC and could do no wrong. I didn't I simply called up when I got home and talked it over with the guy on the phone. I got where he was coming from, he got what I had actually done and why, we both gained something from it. Most importantly I knew I could fly back again and be really confident that it wouldn't be a problem next time.

All in all the best advice on here, if you have any R/T issues with an operator at a field you arriving at, either go talk to them when you land, or at least when you get back home and see if you can learn something.

[ShyTorque]

Already agreed by skyfly150 - who appears to be one of the A/G operators at Seething - and it is noted that his questions were never responded to by the OP...

I responded to the post of the OP. So I agreed with what someone else posted on the matter. What business is that of yours?

[ShyTorque]

I do get "touchy" about posters trying to control / moderate the posts of others. We have official moderators for that.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Excuse me for coming back to my earlier posting, but

as a standard practice you should not assume the right to talk aircraft-to-aircraft on any active frequency

seems a total contradiction to the "Interpilot" procedures I was taught. Could anyone substantiate the above quote from an official source? Preferrably one not limited to the UK?

[FlyingStone]

As PIC, you do what ever you feel you need to for safe flying practices.

Simple and most definitive answer. If you think there is an aircraft in the vicinity of your planned flight path and the person "responsible" for passing you that information hasn't done so, it is not only smart, but I'd say it's actually neccessary for you to get the required information - unless of course you have the ability to spot every possible traffic in every situation or you blindly believe the Big Sky theory... If the traffic is near, or coming in opposite, it may not be enough time to get adequate information if you first ask ATC/FIS/AFIS/.... which first acknowledges, then asks the other aircraft involved, wait for a response, ...

ICAO Annex 2, 2.3.1 Responsibility of pilot-in-command

The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall, whether manipulating
the controls or not, be responsible for the operation of
the aircraft in accordance with the rules of the air, except that
the pilot-in-command may depart from these rules in circumstances
that render such departure absolutely necessary in the
interests of safety.

Full stop.

[SlipSlider]

The OP asked about air/air transmissions on an active air/ground frequency, in the UK, with someone operating that frequency on the ground. That was what my earlier "no you shouldn't" post was intended to answer.

JO's post says that my answer seems a total contradiction to the "Interpilot" procedures I was taught. From that should I infer that those procedures allow a free-for-all exchange pilot to pilot on an active ATS-attended frequency? Surely not.

When a frequency is inactive eg out of hours or simply unattended, UK CAA CAP413 specifically states as below. However, my perhaps heretical view is that CAP413 is a guide to recommended usage, and common-sense should prevail.

6.1.4 All transmissions at unattended aerodromes shall be addressed to '(Aerodrome name) Traffic'. No reply to an unattended aerodrome report shall be transmitted.

At the last CAA-run "Safety" Evening I attended, under the "we want to hear any suggestions that will enhance safety" session at the end, I raised the question of introducing the Unicom-type and Air-toAir frequency procedures that are available in other countries. The CAA man's ever-so-helpful reply was that I should emigrate.

[Jan Olieslagers]

JO's post says that my answer Quote:
seems a total contradiction to the "Interpilot" procedures I was taught
. From that should I infer that those procedures allow a free-for-all exchange pilot to pilot on an active ATS-attended frequency? Surely not.

Why not? Who says?
And again: there exists no such thing as an "air/ground frequency". (or it should be another UK peculiarity).

[SlipSlider]

Jan I have no desire to enter in to a fruitless debate with you, because if you seriously believe that pilots are quite entitled to clog up an active ATS frequency with pilot to pilot calls, then nothing I can say is likely to change that.

And again: there exists no such thing as an "air/ground frequency". (or it should be another UK peculiarity).

And just so you know, in the UK there are numerous Air to Ground Radio frequencies allocated. Here is just one of those facilities, extracted from the White Waltham entry in the UK AIP.

A/G Watham Radio 122.600

[skyfly150]

#FrequencyLocationUser 1122.600Abbeyshrule,EireAir/GroundDetails (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693447;290059;267_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693447;290059;267_uk_avi_db)2122.600Castlebar, EireAir/GroundDetails (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693495;1771;269_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693495;1771;269_uk_avi_db)3122.600Inverness AirportApproach/TowerDetails (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693545;585089;271_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693545;585089;271_uk_avi_db)4122.600Lerwick (Tingwall)Air/ground and Ai...Details (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693593;204832;273_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693593;204832;273_uk_avi_db)5122.600Seething AerodromeAir/groundDetails (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693644;430598;275_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693644;430598;275_uk_avi_db)6122.600Sherburn-in-Elmet...TowerDetails (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693691;661114;277_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693691;661114;277_uk_avi_db)7122.600White Waltham Aer...Air/GroundDetails (http://www.airscene.co.uk/tinc?key=nxzd3Zh1&session_currentpage=index&session_mode=guest&formname=uk_avi_db&session_searchcriteria=122.600&session_sortby=field_1&userid=1308833030;162547;439&session_nextpage=data_edit&session_offset=50&session_start=1&session_dbkey=1239693740;702061;279_uk_avi_db&dbkey=1239693740;702061;279_uk_avi_db)

Yes there are several stations on 122.60 and Seething is one. We also pay the CAA/Ofcom £650 per annum for the privilege of using it.

Seething Satco.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I will look up the "Interpilot" section in my ground class syllabus.
As for the A/G: yes, that does seem to be something UK-specific, didn't realise that. But I understand it to be a misleading denomination for a type of service, rather than a property of the frequency.

Agreed that discussion is only useful if aimed at result and consensus.

[Spitoon]

This thread seems to be drifting around a bit. If it helps, here is a bit of info about the assignment of RTF frequencies. In the UK almost all aircraft service frequency assignments are technically for communication between ground stations and aircraft stations. You will often find this referred to in the rules as air-ground-air or AGA.

Communication directly between aircraft stations is not part of the licence conditions so, technically, except in those situations where we break the rules for safety reasons, pilots should not talk to each other directly.

These licence conditions are largely derived from the International rules set out by the International Telecommunications Union - a United Nations specialised agency for information and communication technologies - which means they should be very similar in almost all countries. However each country has to put the rules into its own law and this introduces differences.

Almost all frequency assignments in the aviation communication band are for air-ground communication. The use of the frequency to provide an air traffic service (ATC or FIS) or the UK's Air Ground Communication Service is authorised under different rules and is associated with specific frequency assignments.

So, the man at Seething was probably technically correct to say that the OP should not have called the other aircraft directly but as many others have pointed out we will have to be sensible about the way frequencies are used.

[Zulu Alpha]

Mr Cessna,

I'm surprised that the A/G person at Seething made such a fuss of it. However, it isn't "normal" for two aircraft to talk to each other directly on an airfields frequency when the ground radio is manned and operating.

My suggestion in a situation like this is to make a call to the ground station along the lines of

G-XXXX is at (your location). Not visual with the reported traffic, say again his position.

That is then an open invitation for the other aircraft to report his position to the A/G radio unless the A/G replies.

Then you can't be accused of talking directly to the other aircraft but you have achieved your aim.

I do think that radio operators who spend time on the radio telling pilots off are unprofessional. If the pilot is a student, then they are just overloading him/her and a word later on the ground is much better. If it is a qualified pilot then a word afterwards is also much better.
Duxford once spent an age giving me a bollocking on the radio insisting that I did not have PPR. Wasted minutes where no one else could speak.... and they were wrong, they had mislaid the piece of paper. As an inbound pilot all I could do was argue with them while circling or go home.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Well, I did check it, and found that I was mostly wrong. That is to say, my syllabus says - loosely translated:
"Two planes can call one another, at an appropriate frequency, or with the consent of the controller on an air/ground frequency."
So I was right that there does exist a well defined interpilot procedure, according to my text the messages must include the word "interpilot" and also the frequency; but I had forgotten (if I ever learned it properly) that it is subject to controller approval.

I am even more surprised that my text does mention the concept of "an air/ground frequency" which still sounds very queer to me.

I must admit I had it mostly wrong, sincere apologies!

[skyfly150]

.........The reason I was following up this point is that the person who made the comment 'You are not allowed to talk to another aircraft' shouldnt have been using our ground radio in the first place. ((that's if the transmission wasn't from an aircraft in flight))
There were NO Seething Air Ground operators on the airfield on Monday which was the suggested day of the 'event'. We have a list of 'approved' A/G operators in our club and they are all 'trained to a standard' as laid down in CAP413.

Just unfortunate that I couldnt trace the 'culprit' (in the loosest sense of the word) Perhaps he would have received a RED card.

[ShyTorque]

or with the consent of the controller on an air/ground frequency."

Two conflicting terms. An A/G station cannot control.

[Jan Olieslagers]

That's true, in the UK with its particular definition of an "air/ground" frequency. Which I still interpret as "the assigned frequency of an air/ground service".

But I did say it was a loose translation, didn't I? My original says "met toestemming van de verkeersleiding op een lucht/grond frequentie" if that is any help to you. "leiding" translates to "controller" for me, literally it would be "director" or "guide" or "manager".

[stiknruda]

Skyfly150/Seething SATCO

You know as well as I do that on most days the radio next to the bar at Seething is not manned. It is therefore not uncommon for someone to pick up the handset and try to help out if an a/c calls. Hell - I may have even been of doing it myself - passing r/way in use and wind to the air-amby scooshing through the cct on its way to an RTA on the A143. So on days when the club is not A/G manned then any Tom, Dick or Harry (or Mike, Brian or John) could be sitting having a drink and trying to assist.

Whether that person is A/G trained or just a seasoned PPL is a moot point. MOST of the time the info is pertinent, useful and timely. There are occasions and these might emanate from an a/c in the visual circuit that the RT usage departs from CAP413 and becomes more verbose and conversational in nature. Never seems to happen on busy days but during slack periods.

It's quirky and I for one don't dislike it, I guess that you'd have a problem trying to enforce better RT discipline on most Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Bank Holidays.

Stik

[ShyTorque]

There does seem to be a bit much blind, loyal enforcement and adherence to silly rules in some quarters of aviation, and too little rejection of them - driven by licensing and fear, I'd suppose.

Very true, well said. Often with little thought to what the radio is actually there for - i.e. to enhance flight safety.

It appears from what has been posted here that someone who wasn't qualified to use the radio as an A/G operator may have made the radio call which prompted this thread.

[vanHorck]

Jan, perhaps in this context, Air-Ground frequency refers to ANY radio frequency used for aviation communications, because "Verkeersleiding" suggests indeed "controller" in the sense of being in charge, and there are no "controllers" on UK A/G frequencies, I believe they are called operators as they are not allowed to control anything.

Groetjes

Bert

[Pull what]

On two occassions in my career I have been cleared to line up and asked,

"shall I wait for the landing aircraft to land first"?

I have also refused to descend to altitudes below what I considered to be my safety sector altitude on at least two occasions, on one occasion ATC later admitted they had been vectoring the wrong aircraft.

The commander of an aircraft has the ultimate decision on whether to obey any instructions given to him and its this quality that makes a commander, not pedantic hair splitting or point scoring on forums..

[skyfly150]

Absolutely correct Stiknrudda......A....Yes we all know that does happen and often, and we all know accidents can happen.......there could be serious repercussions if the info given proved to be wrong. We dont want any of that!!

Anyway, the use of A/G radio will all change in the very near future thanks to the dreaded EU. Most likely within a year.

If you want to use A/G you will need a new AGCS licence.
(Air Ground Communication Licence) ((Includes pactical and theory test))

Gone will be the old CA1308 certificate of authorisation!!

I Love to hate the EU.

[Flyingmac]

If I'm inbound to an airfield and there's someone in the circuit but no-one manning the ground station, I EXPECT the other pilot to pass me any relevant information he might have. To remain mute is just plain BAD airmanship.

On the other hand. If I'm manning the tower and an inbound pilot decides to cut me out of the loop, I'll be just a little miffed.

As for an A/g operator not being able to issue instructions: Sometimes you have to in order to avert an accident. There just isn't time to make a polite suggestion. Stuff the rules.

[UV]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]As for an A/g operator not being able to issue instructions: Sometimes you have to in order to avert an accident. There just isn't time to make a polite suggestion. Stuff the rules.
/QUOTE]

Correct...Operators may issue "Instructions" in an emergency. Already in the rules!

[Jim59]

Yes there are several stations on 122.60 and Seething is one. We also pay the CAA/Ofcom £650 per annum for the privilege of using it.

Seething Satco.

You are being ripped off. That's a future fee as proposed by Ofcom - some years in the future. you should not be paying more than £100 at present.
See: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Srg_1417FFenabled.pdf

[mary meagher]

Couple of years ago they asked me to do an evening lecture on correct use of radio. So I boned up on the distinctions between "Radio Littleham", being a humble base station with no claims whatsoever to authorise anything, and the other sorts, called "Control" which one can think of as a tower if you like.

The humble base station may pass information. But never never use the phrase "at your discretion"! Or the magic word "cleared" for anything!

So the aircraft nearby calles "Littleham Ground, this is Golf Whiskey Hotel
Alpha Tango, abeam the Brewery, inbound to you."

And Littleham Ground can say "Alpha Tango, Runway 24 in use, eight gliders in the circuit....cables in use for launching" and pray that Alpha Tango has enough nous to know what to do about all that!

Actually most of the time nobody is paying attention at Littleham anyhow, the only people anywhere near the radio are a couple of clueless visitors and the airfield dog....

Why on earth do we not have the simple Unicom system like in the US?
"Littleham Traffic, this is Cessna November 24885, down wind for 24"
And then anybody else nearby responds, giving their positions and intentions. What could be simpler and safer than that?

[ShyTorque]

Why on earth do we not have the simple Unicom system like in the US?
"Littleham Traffic, this is Cessna November 24885, down wind for 24"
And then anybody else nearby responds, giving their positions and intentions. What could be simpler and safer than that?

That very system, albeit under a slightly different name, has existed in UK for about six or seven years.

(From Flyer Portal)
CAA unveils SAFETYCOM
First Posted: Tue 05 Oct 2004

November 11th sees start of SAFETYCOM
The CAA has unveiled the details long awaited SAFETYCOM which is intended to be similar to the widely used UNICOM in the USA.

Assigned the frequency 135.475 MHz SAFETYCOM can be used throughout the UK by aircraft operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome or landing site that does not have an air to ground frequency.

SAFETYCOM can only be used by aircraft at 2000 ft or less above aerodrome or location elevation or below 1000 ft above circuit height. It is restricted to 10 nm of the landing site and should normally be used only to broadcast the pilot’s intentions. There should be no response from the ground, except where the pilot of an aircraft on the ground also needs to transmit his intentions.

The CAA stress that it is not intended to be an air to air chat channel and is available to assist pilots to avoid potential collisions between arriving and departing aircraft.

[stiknruda]

So - 5 pages in and the OP is AWOL. I sent him/her a very friendly PM (cos I'm near Seething and pop in and out for fuel, etc) alerting him to some vagaries mentioned in a plethora of posts above.

Where is he? Is he hiding under a bridge somewhere?

Stik

[2 sheds]

Mary

I see that you are in the UK, but your post seems very confused, referring as you do to "Radio Littleham" ("Littleham Radio"?) and then giving an example with the callsign "Littleham Ground" which is an ATC callsign. And you were giving a lecture on the "correct use of radio"!


The sooner the the CAA gets its act together in addressing the AGCS issue, the better, preferably either getting rid of A/G stations and making them either Safetycom or obliging them to upgrade to FIS.

2 s

[The500man]

The sooner the the CAA gets its act together in addressing the AGCS issue, the better, preferably either getting rid of A/G stations and making them either Safetycom or obliging them to upgrade to FIS.


Or by leaving them alone and allowing pilots to continue to make use of them, as they have done quite safely in the past?

5 pages later, and it must now be obvious that yes you can talk to another aircraft, you just need to press the PTT button and open your mouth.

If the question is should you talk to another aircraft? Can't we all get used to exercising common sense? I don't see why there needs to be absolute regulation of everything. If it works, use it.

If the op had a bit more experience he would've known he could just as easily have found out where the traffic was from the a/g operator as he could asking directly. The fact is he didn't have an accident and the a/g operator shouldn't have felt the need to have a go at him.

[patowalker]

The sooner the the CAA gets its act together in addressing the AGCS issue, the better, preferably either getting rid of A/G stations and making them either Safetycom or obliging them to upgrade to FIS.

Won't getting rid of A/G stations and making them adopt Safetycom saturate the frequency?

Below 2000' in the vecinity of my base I hear aircraft talking to a station nearly 100nm away.

[SlipSlider]

Patowalker, spot on. One of the main drawbacks of SafetyCom is that it is one frequency that is potentially used at perhaps hundreds of locations in the UK. Agreed that those locations should by definition be low-traffic, but on a good weekend with several farmstrip fly-ins, SafetyCom can be nigh on useless especially when users do not both start and end the call with the location.

And as far as getting rid of A/G frequencies is concerned, Ofcom seem to be aiming for that anyway with their totally unjustified daylight-robbery fees. :mad: