Rough reception at Popham!

[oscarzulu]

I flew my little home-build over to Popham on Sunday for a cup of tea and chat with the boys, I did all the usual things that I've been doing for the past 25 years when I plan to visit another field, ring for PPR, study the pattern , frequency, joining procedure, make sure nothings changed.
I called up and obtain the details and join on the base leg, on reporting established I'm told "who are you? I've never heared of you" I was a little surprised as I'd passed my details only minutes before, but I relayed them again. I was then issued with a hold-nothing-back b******ng, over the airwaves , by the time it finished I was on final! I reported "final" but heared nothing back, a stoney silence, I could see the wind sock and as I didn't need a clearance (its an air/ground ATSU at Popham) I landed, only for more of the same when I entered the club house to pay my landing fee and sign in.
I was also accused of cutting up another aircraft in the circuit, which was complete rubbish, I was starting to wonder if this was some sort of set up and I was being filmed, but sadly it wasn't. This numpty was in deadly earnest.
Give the wrong guy a clip board and you create another Stalin, well thankfully my aircraft isn't based there so I've no reason to go back, and I wont, its a real shame, its a lovely little field that Dick Richardson has built up since the crazy days of Jim Espin, but if the fee-paying public are treated like this then it wont be long before it's just another ghost station. Unless you have the hide of a rhino -- Avoid--

[mad_jock]

Write a chirp on it.

Seems to be either the same perosn or there have been a spate of less that satisfactory goings on by FISO's at certain airfields.

Seems like its a growing problem which needs nipped in the bud.

http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/503087-should-i-complain-about-atc.html

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Just tell him to F off.

I think you should keep going and keep telling him to F off too.

P.S. Not on the radio though.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

A great pity. My wife and i spent many happy hours at Popham and it seems that one fool is doing the place a terrible diservice.

[Finals19]

Definitely complain. I would even suggest you consider a MOR - or the voluntary version - link below:

Accident and Occurrence Reporting | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1425&pagetype=90&pageid=8178)

Popham uses and A/G (air/ground) facility and is NOT FISO equipped (to my knowledge). Having some guy reprimanding you on the radio while you are joining the circuit is unacceptable, and I hope you told him so. R/T transmissions are supposed to be strictly operational.

If for any reason they were not able to accept you, they should have requested (and I mean requested as that is all they are allowed to do) for you to remain clear of the circuit / standby.

I've flown in/out of Popham many a time - using a/c based there and not, and have on more than one occasion requested joining instructions / PPR over the Radio from 10 mins out. This did not create an issue.

I would also suggest you email the airfield operator complaining about the individual in question. B*****king you on the air while you're configuring your a/c in the circuit is borderline dangerous and distracting and there's no room for idiots like that. Popham is not a licensed airfield and its a shame that such people address incoming traffic as if they were approaching a major class D aerodrome!

What makes this even more sad is that the field itself is lovely and lots of the folks there are equally as nice.

Good luck and don't let this incident slip through the net!

[Dave Gittins]

So run that by me again.

You phoned for PPR, gave an ETA, studied the pattern, conformed to the circuit direction and joined in a normal way and landed as you were entitled to.

In amongst that you got shouted at on the A/G frequency and again after landing when you got in the clubhouse.

So when you patiently explained per para 2; what was the rant about ? and the response ?

Were any of "the boys" present .. and what did they say / do ?

[Beethoven]

And, if you DID cut anybody up, did they themselves make themselves
known to you? I concur with the earlier post to tell him where to go...

[chevvron]

This is the problem with letting 'amateurs' loose on the radio. I would question whether the radio operator concerned even has a Certificate of Competence; I'm sure none of the people I've examined for them would not normally act like this.
Many people are STILL under the mistaken impression an FRTOL permits you to do A/G which it doesn't, you must still take the exam with an authorised examiner, and those holding FISO (Aerodrome) or ATC Licences with ADV/ADI ratings must still hold an A/G C of C also, usually by just applying and giving your licence number. Regretfully the issue of the AGCS Certificate of Competence is no longer free; wef last October it wil cost you (£35 I think).

[oxo]

Which numpty was it?

"ATC" Information (http://www.popham-airfield.co.uk/ATC.htm)

If it's the top one, then it looks like no apology would be forthcoming..

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Oxo, how can you tell from his picture?

Is it cos he's a baldy?!

[oxo]

Well that would of course contribute.. but no.

It's because he seems to be the head honcho there and the website is his copyright (see at the bottom of the page)

[Monocock]

If it is 'the top one' on the list, why not email him through the website, providing him the opportunity to explain what he thought it was you'd done, rather than publicly lambast him on here.

Are you sure you didn't cut someone up?

[1800ed]

ATC Information
http://c20xe.co.uk/board/images/smile/facepalm.gif

[maxred]

Thread drift

Thats a really cool ICON. How did you get that on.....:confused:

[airpolice]

Make a formal complaint.

There was a string of similar situations at Cumbernauld, just about all of us complained, the guy no longer works there and we are all safer as a result of that.

[oxo]

Maxred,

Simple http://c20xe.co.uk/board/images/smile/facepalm.gif

It's an image from another website:-

http://c20xe.co.uk/board/images/smile/facepalm.gif

[NorthSouth]

and we are all safer as a result of thatGiven the way many pilots - not ALL rotary, but they are the worst - have no clue what to do with the airfield information they are given, whether it's by an A-G or by other aircraft in the circuit, and then just blunder into the circuit from any direction at any height with not a thought about anyone else, I doubt that your statement is true.

There's a happy medium to be found. In my view it has to include conformity with Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules of the Air.

NS

[DX Wombat]

How did you get thatThe easy way is to right click it, then click copy, add it to your store of photos then upload it to somewhere like Photo Bouquet from whence you will be able to post it here. :ok:

[Monocock]

So, just to clarify...

Regardless of whether you telephoned ahead or not, am I right in my understanding that your first RT call was on Base leg?

[Crash one]

Regardless of whether you telephoned ahead or not, am I right in my understanding that your first RT call was on Base leg?

I don't think so. It looks like he called up first, then joined base leg then called "Established base" then got a bollicking. Lets not pick holes in the pilot with "Are you sure?" It looks like to me he did all he could.


when I plan to visit another field, ring for PPR, study the pattern , frequency, joining procedure, make sure nothings changed.
I called up and obtain the details and join on the base leg, on reporting established I'm told "who are you? I've never heared of you" I was a little surprised as I'd passed my details only minutes before, but I relayed them again.

[Pilotage]

If complaining, the best thing to do would be to complain to Dick Richardson. He is thoruoughly pro-aviation, will do just about anything to ensure his customers are safe and happy, and is very good at keeping Popham on an even keel.

P

[oscarzulu]

My first call was made at approx 10 NM out, there were about four aircraft in the circuit and my feeling was that there was a misunderstanding or confusion on the part of the A/G operator as to who was asking for 'airfield details'- which I read back along with the QFE and informed him, and everyone else in the circuit how I intended to join. The next call was made when I established on base leg. That was the one that got the "who are you, never heared of you" retort.
All my calls were in acordance with CAP 413, and until I was on base leg, I was quite happy that everything was normal, I'm a CAA R/T examiner (with just short of 10,000 hrs in various different disciplines) so I've got a reasonable handle on how it should be conducted.
On the subject of the picture "oxo", yes, it was indeed the top one.
Someone mentioned the 'cut up traffic' this was an Air Camper that was about half a mile behind me and is even slower than my Kitfox, so there was no question of any conflict. I understand from the Boys that the afore mentioned Numpty is a fan of this type and it therefore would have priority. No mention of it in the Notams though..

[screwballburling]

I am disgusted reading your post.

Apart from the rudeness, there is a safety issue here.

You are not doubt an experienced pilot in this type of environment. However the pilot could have just as easily been a very inexperienced pilot. This could have caused a distraction, which possibly could have triggered a chain of events that led to an accident.

A thick skin in most cases, comes with experience and not normally at the beginning of the lifelong learning curve.

[Finals19]

oscarzulu...

On the basis of your last post, matey hasn't got a leg to stand on. He's an A/G operator which to me means that whatever transmissions are made "air-to-air" are for his reference ONLY...he has no authority whatsoever to enforce or influence them (correct me if I'm wrong...with respect to your RT examiner knowledge). The fact that you joined base (and not overhead or whatever the procedure is at Popham) is of no legal consequence to him either (or anyone else on the ground).

This kind of unprofessional, unwelcoming and somewhat arrogant behaviour that you received really incenses me and puts people off visiting new airfields. Such places then become insular little "redneck" communities where if you're "not in, you're not in". Popham of all places shouldn't end up like that as it has too much to offer.

Hopefully the Popham regulars (even management) are reading this. :ugh:

[Talkdownman]

If I have read this correctly (and there is every chance that I might not have done!), the bit that troubles me, with all respect to OZ and my friend CT, is reading about a ∿10,000 hr CAA examiner joining directly on a base leg into an uncontrolled and busy circuit. After 46 years in the biz I have noticed that such a join is likely to upset someone, either up there or down here!

[DeeCee]

Joining Base is fairly common. If the right calls are made and you give way to circuit traffic there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

[oscarzulu]

Talkdownman- I tend to agree with you up to a point, but joining overhead in these days of routine noise complaints from the locals, especially on a fine Sunday is something I try to avoid, always assuming its safe to do so, I think that its far better to get down with the minimum time droning around in the vicinity, hence the base leg join. My point wasn't that I never do anything wrong, but that errors, or peceived errors for that matter, shouldn't be dealt with by a blast over the airwaves whilst turning onto final approach.

[Monocock]

I'm now confused by why happened as what OZ says in his last couple of posts is not the same as he wrote in his first.

In your 'senior' flying role that you have clearly outlined, I'm rather perplexed as to why you haven't called to speak to CT about this one-to-one before publicly writing here. Had you done that, you'd have no only been briefed as to how your joining actions weren't suitable (and subsequently annoyed him), and you'd also have done the more gentlemanly thing.

PS He likes Kitfoxes as much as he likes Aircampers so that was a weak stab.

[maxred]

Thanks oxo and DX. Cool little icon.

Right, I am now a bit perplexed and am tending to side with Monocock.

Why not call him prior to a rant on Proon??

Where was your first call made and what did you ask?

If circuit is active, it can be a PITA if someone relatively unannounced blunders in on base.

You state you did not want to upset the NIMBYS by put putting about??
however you appear to have now upset almost everyone else.

More to this methinks

[Talkdownman]

That's fine if giving way / conforming with the traffic pattern is executed in a reasonable manner. Many A/G operators and FISOs have observed conflicts when pilots attempt to join a busy traffic pattern in an unreasonable manner and consequently become concerned about the wisdom of direct joins. Whatever, a rebuke over the air or in public on the ground is inexcusable.

[maxred]

Agreed that any bollocking or unwarranted chatter is inexcusable. No way should it ever happen.

Sorry I appear to have missed the bit where Oscar Zulu states he called 10 miles out.

In that case, suggest you call him, discuss it thoroughly, ask for an apology, and let us know what happens next.

Does anyone know if the perpetrator is actually reading this??

[ifitaintboeing]

Popham website:

Overhead joins should generally be used though it is common practice to use a dead side join over the woods when using 08/26 and approaching from the south.

I don't know the circumstances, but I do know the A/G operator. I would suggest you give him a call OZ, as he is also a reasonably experienced aviator and I am sure he would welcome the feedback directly. There is never a reason for an 'ear bending' on the radio, although I think it is reasonable to provide guidance and training once you're in the clubhouse if you have not followed the published procedures.

Popham is a great place for all types of GA; your experience there is not the experience many of us have received when visiting Popham.

ifitaint...

[Richard Westnot]

I am not perplexed in the slightest. I think that I already have digested and have a reasonable insight and handle on what the OP and others have already said.

Why call a numpty for an apology? What chances do you honestly think that you will achieve in receiving one?

Thanks for the warning :ok:

If he ever lambasters me on the radio over the airwaves, he is in for a shock upon landing.

[Silvaire1]

Any aggressive tone on the radio is inappropriate. That said, the thing that always amazes me about screamers on the radio is their apparent lack of awareness that the recipient might decide to resolve the issue with a baseball bat, on the ground. There's a lot of different kinds of people out there, and not all of them are predisposed to prissy verbal interchanges. It's not good to make assumptions about who you're screaming at, when you can't see them.

[Monocock]

I am not perplexed in the slightest. I think that I already have digested and have a reasonable insight and handle on what the OP and others have already said.

Why call a numpty for an apology? What chances do you honestly think that you will achieve in receiving one?

Thanks for the warning

If he ever lambasters me on the radio over the airwaves, he is in for a shock upon landing.

Some people just don't have a clue. I used to think it was a genetic thing, but now I'm convinced it's all about junk food and poor education. :E

PS If he "lambasters" you, what'll that mean? :rolleyes:

[Richard Westnot]

It'll mean that his mike will go where the sun does not shine :yuk:

You are not related to the said gentleman by any chance ? He had a similar condescending nature about him as well from what others have said here :rolleyes:

[maxred]

PS If he "lambasters" you, what'll that mean?

Is it not something to do with URANUS........

Richard you beat me too it by 1 minute:ok:

[Monocock]

You are not related to the said gentleman by any chance ? He had a similar condescending nature about him as well by all accounts

Nope. Just been reading this particular forum long enough to know when someone is just trying to stir up trouble, and isn't man enough to deal with it in a decent way. :ok:

[oscarzulu]

Monocock- After I landed I had an arguement with the man concerned that solved nothing, I was left with the choice of continueing untill someone got punched in the face, or sorting it out with a third party, I went into Dick's office but he wasn't there. So I sat down and had a cup of tea and thought it over. I've been thinking it over ever since, and I still feel that it was completely wrong to blast someone over the radio, its unprofessional at best, sure, if there's a urgent need (in a different situation) to vector an aircraft out of the way then I can accept you might have to let a pilot know they're in the wrong, but this is an A/G station, it is there purely to inform traffic of information such as runway in use and the like, it's not Air traffic Control. I think the man concerned has lost sight of this.

[Monocock]

Oscar Zulu

I read what you say.

I've also just read a very balanced email from the person you've accused of being out of order. He's given a very fair and balanced account of what happened. I will not disclose his account of the events, as he plans to do so himself. All I'd say is, when you're in a hole.....

You might want to fill in a few of the gaps in the story.....

[airpolice]

Richard: He had a similar condescending nature about him as well by all accounts

Not, by any stretch of the imagination could you honestly say, by ALL accounts.

There are posters on here defending the chap in question.

[Richard Westnot]

Fair comment :ok: edited accordingly.

One sometimes finds that condescending people are defended by similar traits to ones own nature. Off course, I may be proven wrong with any such relationship.

[scrambled]

Regardless of the personal issues and the posturing:

Read CHIRP 54 (GA) A Contested Departure and take on board the CHIRP comments. In my view this is one of the most valuable pieces of CHIRP feedback in recent years.

Have your arguments about the rights and wrongs in private. Popham has been a great GA airfield as long as I've been flying and is bigger than any individual.

Fly safe

scrambled

[Cusco]

Oscar Zulu

I read what you say.

I've also just read a very balanced email from the person you've accused of being out of order. He's given a very fair and balanced account of what happened. I will not disclose his account of the events, as he plans to do so himself. All I'd say is, when you're in a hole.....

You might want to fill in a few of the gaps in the story.....

OK so when/where will we read this account?

I find these 'I know something that you don't know and I'm not telling' posts a tad pathetic.

If OZ's complaint is far out let the A/G bloke tell us so we can make our own minds up.

Cusco:rolleyes:

[Monocock]

OK so when/where will we read this account?

I find these 'I know something that you don't know and I'm not telling' posts a tad pathetic.

If OZ's complaint is far out let the A/G bloke tell us so we can make our own minds up.

I'm not going to copy & paste his full email, but am happy to provide some facts from it and I know he'll be happy with this. In the event he decides not to post his full account tomorrow, you're ALL welcome to email him for his version of events. His address is on the website.

1. Two other aircraft in the circuit confirmed he hadn't called at all prior to calling Base.

2. He didn't have PPR (which isn't actually required, but why lie about it?).

3. His attitude was rather poor (mentioned by another pilot) and he carved a tight Base leg with no warning, thereby cutting up other aircraft.

4. He only used the last two letters of his call sign, even on first (Base) contact.

5. He said he'd called at Chilbolton but no other aircraft had heard that at all, hence he was asked if his radio was functioning.

Let's not forget, this guy works the radio for many events at Popham each year and has done for donkey's years. The big micro-rally in May has many hundreds of visitors and thousands of radio transmissions. How often have we heard complaints about Popham's radio system???

Exactly.....

:rolleyes:

[Crash one]

Mono, Regardless of who is right or wrong. Do you agree that a bollocking was administered over the radio? If so, that is the unforgiveable bit, regardless of any wrong doing on the part of anyone.

[Monocock]

Crash,

On the basis that most of what OZ has accused is apparently false, I don't personally believe that a "bollocking" was indeed administered over the radio.

Maybe some stern words were transmitted (which, according to the email were for the benefit of the person he cut up), but with what he did, he deserved it.

Sorry.

[FBS]

I am not convinced we are getting the full story here. We have a so-called telling off on air with someone that joined base leg after an initial information call. On air telling offs - if that is what happened - are not acceptable but also, not yet at least, a hanging offence.

We have the suggestion that someone may, or may not, have been cut up in the circuit but we are only hearing this was not a problem from one side.

I can see a lot of hot air being blustered by someone that may well have made a small mistake but is now making a lot of noise that is disproportionate, and sometimes this is a clear sign that someone cannot accept being wrong.

If you were told off on air then that is not acceptable (if that is actually what happened rather than a simple comment about 'where did you come from' being taken the wrong way.)

You tried to take this up with the airfield manager who was not there.

However, you did not write to him, telephone him or email him but instead decided to go public, on a forum that has WAY more listeners than the traffic at Popham, to not only call the radio operator names but also to suggest to people should avoid the airfield. Do you not see that your actions are way more unacceptable than anything that happened at the weekend? You have had every opportunity to deal with this in a businesslike manner but have resorted instead to online insults and an attempt to damage the legitimate business of one of our remaining small airfields.

I am afraid Sir that you have shown your colours. They are not impressive.

I also sincerely hope that I do not come up against your 10,000 hour plus CAA RT examiner version of airmanship. You may think you are an excellent pilot but I think that may be part of the problem.

Popham is a good place but it is not perfect. You sir, are not perfect either.

[Crash one]

Mono
OK, I wasn't there & if this sorry tale is in fact a bunch of lies as you are implying then I reverse my view.
For an aparently high time pilot/RT examiner to make such remarks incorrectly should, I think, warrant serious investigation.

[Monocock]

& if this sorry tale is in fact a bunch of lies as you are implying

I'm not implying anything.

I'm just saying two things:

1. Popham's radio has never historically been considered as offensive.

2. The OP has stated (publicly, (and rather curiously) before taking it up with the airfield) what appears to be rather embellished and incorrect facts about his experience, based on a series of well presented facts I have received in an email.

As I have said, if anybody has issue with anything the OP has alleged, they are perfectly welcome to email Popham.

I have no connection with the airfield other than being a loyal member.

[Richard Westnot]

Mono
Likewise, "IF" the version of events are found to be exaggerated, my apologies will follow.

Yours off course, in the interim will also be gratefully received. :ok:

[Monocock]

Richard

I don't think you eat junk food, and you're clearly highly educated. I'm sorry for suggesting you were otherwise!!

:ok:

[Richard Westnot]

Mono
I have been known to eat the occasional quarter pounder :ok:

[FBS]

Richard, you appeared to swallow the original rant hook line and sinker. That may not be the case, but that is how it appeared.

[Crash one]

based on a series of well presented facts I have received in an email.


Monocock.
You appear to be more involved in this affair than some of us to have received said email.
You appear to know more than you are telling this public forum.
I may be wrong & you may not be more involved.
I may be wrong & you know no more than the rest of us.
I retract the statement "Implying".
I am sorry I expressed an opinion based on the OP.
There are two (apparently) people involved in this affair, one of which deserves a firm kick up the arse. I now have no idea which one.
I no longer care.

[Richard Westnot]

FBS
Firstly, I did not swallow ;) Lets make that quite clear.

From what was initially said, followed by what others actually went on to say, down to a point of identification (with no mention from the op) a picture was forming.

I stepped in purely along the lines that if this radio operator was lambasting people over the airwaves, how would a newly qualified pilot react to this on final approach?

It could have been an accident waiting to happen. I would have also stepped in if I was an aircraft on frequency and I heard Mono getting a b****ing for what ever reason.

I still recall that guy at Elstree and indeed that Sunday afternoon in his little tower, uninvited.

[flybymike]

this radio operator was lambastering
Sorry, I can't bear it any more.
The word is "lambasting"

[FBS]

OK Richard, accepted

Being a long time resident of Popham this story does not ring entirely true, as I stated in my first post (which was written while Monocock was replying so we crossed in the post)

It is still a good airfield to visit. Let us not forget that.

[Richard Westnot]

Er, you are quite right :ok:

[piperboy84]

I have no opinion on the rights or wrongs of the OP or the radio guy, but wonder, if you are making an approach to land (with or without PPR) to a field with this type of comms coverage wouldn't the default (and safer) join be from the overhead regardless if preceding and/or local traffic are joining in other ways. Why would you join on base like the OP did, is it personal choice i.e. just however you fancy joining coz its uncontrolled or would the AG guy offer this join?

Never been to Popham and no idea where it is, just trying to figure out the correct procedure for this type of field and setup, if indeed there is such a thing.

[frangatang]

If there are other aircraft in the circuit then you were a **** to go straight onto base. Even if said traffic gave their positions to give you a mental picture of the situation , Unless you can see them take it with a pinch of salt, as one mans downwind is bloody miles away from someone elses! Oh and by the way, if you want REAL abuse on the radio/ground, go further west to He.....e(tarmac)!

[Monocock]

Monocock.
You appear to be more involved in this affair than some of us to have received said email.
You appear to know more than you are telling this public forum.


I'm not at all involved in this. In just a member of the flying club at that airfield and have sound knowledge of exactly how it operates from a visitor's perspective. The alleged manner in which the OP was treated is completely uncharacteristic of the place, hence my decision to defend him, and the airfield.

I may be wrong & you know no more than the rest of us

That's correct. The OP's initial account was the first I'd heard of the event.

My email to the person on the radio was completely out of the blue for him and he didn't have to respond to it. But, he did, because he's perfectly reasonable as a person and had the OP been genuinely keen to proactively resolve the issue, he too could have emailed the person himself for a full briefing of what it was he did upon arrival that was wrong.

[Johnm]

Having popped into Popham (sorry) many times over the years, though not recently, I just assumed the OP was a Troll!

[FleetFlyer]

I've personally witnessed someone getting a b****ing over the radio within minutes of starting up at Popham. The guy had taxied from one end of the flight line to the other and made the heinous omission of not announcing his intentions to the guy behind the desk.

I was absolutely shocked. I completely agree that A/G radio is not the appropriate medium to issue b*****ings, regardless of the perceived faults of the person on the receiving end.

Come on Popham! You used to be great, and now you're driving customers away. If you're unsure how your radio operators ought to behave, go to a club like White Waltham, and ask them to show you. They are polite and know when to let something slide and when to have a DISCREET word. Its that level of CUSTOMER SERVICE that keeps people coming back.

[dont overfil]

I've personally witnessed someone getting a b****ing over the radio within minutes of starting up at Popham. The guy had taxied from one end of the flight line to the other and made the heinous omission of not announcing his intentions to the guy behind the desk.


This must be a local rule. Is it published?

D.O.

[crt86t]

I do not usually get involved with petty squabbles on these forums but as it has been brought to my attention I will give the Popham side of this saga. This is the only post you will get.
As the main radio operator I always make every effort to answer all aircraft fairly and promptly even when we are really busy. I fully agree that an A/G cannot “control” anything (even though Farnborough, Lasham, and Solent Radar still refer to us as ATC).
I will attempt to deal with some FACTS for the initial posting.
On Sunday 13th January Popham had steady traffic all day and the radio was in constant use. I had been working since 08:30 and answered various calls for PPR and had been actively discouraging any visiting aircraft due to the soft and muddy runway conditions. There was no telephone PPR call from this pilot or he would have been told this. In itself this was not a problem as Popham is only PPR for non-radio aircraft.
There were two aircraft in the circuit that had called earlier some way to the north, a Pietenpol and a Sky Ranger (registrations available if you wish to ask). The first call from the aircraft in question was “OL base for 03” (N.B. no full call sign). I radioed the aircraft to see if I had perhaps missed an earlier call to get the full call sign and was then given it without question. The aircraft (now observed for the first time as a KitFox) then cut directly in front of the Pietenpol already on the correct final for R03. As I fly a Pietenpol myself I am aware that the P1 view from the back cockpit of a Pietenpol is limited on finals so I radioed that the KitFox had cut in and the Pietenpol replied that he could manage the approach and landed safely behind the KitFox. At no time was any “slanging off” done by myself to the KitFox on the radio.
An A/G operator can make any calls they like in the interests of safety.
The following conversation took place at the desk (NOT on the radio).
When the pilot came to book in I asked him in a normal tone if he had a problem with his radio due to his sole short call on base leg. He replied that had had called at Chilbolton and as he received no reply had continued inbound. I pointed out in a normal tone that he had cut into the circuit in front of the Pietenpol whereupon he got quite aggressive and sarcastically asked if I was giving” Radar Vectors” as well. (Note: If I had been he would have been on a proper final like everyone else!). Whilst there is no basic problem with joining on a base leg, if he had not received a response from me at Chilbolton he should possibly have joined overhead and followed the other aircraft already in the circuit. He said he had seen the Pietenpol on finals but did not consider it a problem. I was then called “rude” and I said I would “agree to differ with him” and it was left at that. All the time this conversation was going on I was still working the radio.
Speaking afterwards to both the Pietenpol pilot and the Sky Ranger pilots, they both stated that they had been monitoring the traffic from some way out and neither had heard any call from the KitFox until the base call. Only the KitFox pilot would know if he had actually made calls and received no answer.
Quote: “A CAA R/T Examiner with just short of 10,000 hours in various disciplines” should really query the airmanship of making an incorrect radio call (only gave his short call sign) and joining short left base in front of an aircraft already on finals. The pilot was NEVER “Roasted” by me, simply initially queried about his radio possibly not functioning, and did not have to be so objectionable when checking in and then posting an exaggerated tale on these forums, trying to give Popham a bad name.
I stand by my actions in these circumstances and welcome anyone to sit with me on the radio, listening to calls of extremely variable quality, at Popham when we are busy and see how a simple A/G operator has to manage a “Crystal Ball” to sometimes divine what is going on from the only “Tower” in England that is below the level of the runway!

[whosyerdaddy]

Popham is a delightful airfield with a/g and I have had nothing but friendliness and politeness from the radio (and everyone else) on the many occasions I have visited.
Some might say the original poster is a troublemaking troll. I couldn't possibly comment.

[taxistaxing]

I've personally witnessed someone getting a b****ing over the radio within minutes of starting up at Popham. The guy had taxied from one end of the flight line to the other and made the heinous omission of not announcing his intentions to the guy behind the desk.



I have to admit, I didn't have a great experience there when I visited over the summer.

The A/G operator only answered calls sporadically when I was joining, and after I'd landed I asked him where he wanted me to park. No answer. So I parked up near to the clubhouse, went into the building (expecting the usual friendly airfield welcome), and had to wait while the miserable s*d behind the desk was having a loud argument with someone on the phone. Then he hung up and started to give me a rollocking for parking too close to the building! He shut up when I pointed out some of the club aircraft were parked closer!

When I left he ordered me to depart on the runway with trees on the end, rather than the other runway as I "wasn't familiar with the noise abatement procedures" even though I'm a qualified PPL and they don't look that difficult.

Shame really because it seems like a nice airfield, just lets itself down slightly on the customer service front.

[Richard Westnot]

Having just looked at the Popham website again, there is a A/G radio guy who is a fine musical legend :D

Some music while we await the statement.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=melvyn%20hiscock%20robert%20weaver%20song&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRx8jOd19cBk&ei=xpz2UMzkD-mI0AWN_YHwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEVjfhwf9cGsO5iP7TcKSHqZBqA8w

[Monocock]

From the man himself..

He's unable to get it to post for some reason so I'm doing it on his behalf.

I do not usually get involved with petty squabbles on these forums bit as it has been brought to my attention I will give the Popham side of this saga. This is the only post you will get.
As the main radio operator I always make every effort to answer all aircraft fairly and promptly even when we are really busy. I fully agree that an A/G cannot “control” anything (even though Farnborough, Lasham, and Solent Radar still refer to us as ATC).
I will attempt to deal with some FACTS for the initial posting.
On Sunday 13th January Popham had steady traffic all day and the radio was in constant use. I had been working since 08:30 and answered various calls for PPR and had been actively discouraging any visiting aircraft due to the soft and muddy runway conditions. There was no telephone PPR call from this pilot or he would have been told this. In itself this was not a problem as Popham is only PPR for non-radio aircraft.
There were two aircraft in the circuit that had called earlier some way to the north, a Pietenpol and a Sky Ranger (registrations available if you wish to ask). The first call from the aircraft in question was “OL base for 03” (N.B. no full call sign). I radioed the aircraft to see if I had perhaps missed an earlier call to get the full call sign and was then given it without question. The aircraft (now observed for the first time as a KitFox) then cut directly in front of the Pietenpol already on the correct final for R03. As I fly a Pietenpol myself I am aware that the P1 view from the back cockpit of a Pietenpol is limited on finals so I radioed that the KitFox had cut in and the Pietenpol replied that he could manage the approach and landed safely behind the KitFox. At no time was any “slanging off” done by myself to the KitFox on the radio.
An A/G operator can make any calls they like in the interests of safety.
The following conversation took place at the desk (NOT on the radio).
When the pilot came to book in I asked him in a normal tone if he had a problem with his radio due to his sole short call on base leg. He replied that had had called at Chilbolton and as he received no reply had continued inbound. I pointed out in a normal tone that he had cut into the circuit in front of the Pietenpol whereupon he got quite aggressive and sarcastically asked if I was giving” Radar Vectors” as well. (Note: If I had been he would have been on a proper final like everyone else!). Whilst there is no basic problem with joining on a base leg, if he had not received a response from me at Chilbolton he should possibly have joined overhead and followed the other aircraft already in the circuit. He said he had seen the Pietenpol on finals but did not consider it a problem. I was then called “rude” and I said I would “agree to differ with him” and it was left at that. All the time this conversation was going on I was still working the radio.
Speaking afterwards to both the Pietenpol pilot and the Sky Ranger pilots, they both stated that they had been monitoring the traffic from some way out and neither had heard any call from the KitFox until the base call. Only the KitFox pilot would know if he had actually made calls and received no answer.
Quote: “A CAA R/T Examiner with just short of 10,000 hours in various disciplines” should really query the airmanship of making an incorrect radio call (only gave his short call sign) and joining short left base in front of an aircraft already on finals. The pilot was NEVER “Roasted” by me, simply initially queried about his radio possibly not functioning, and did not have to be so objectionable when checking in and then posting an exaggerated tale on these forums, trying to give Popham a bad name.
I stand by my actions in these circumstances and welcome anyone to sit with me on the radio, listening to calls of extremely variable quality, at Popham when we are busy and see how a simple A/G operator has to manage a “Crystal Ball” to sometimes divine what is going on from the only “Tower” in England that is below the level of the runway!

[soaringhigh650]

and answered various calls for PPR and had been actively discouraging any visiting aircraft due to the soft and muddy runway conditions. In itself this was not a problem as Popham is only PPR for non-radio aircraft.

We've established that telephoning is clearly time wasting for both callers and the recipients. Why do you think doctors are moving off the telephone based booking system?

PUBLISH NOTAMS. READ THE NOTAMS.

[ifitaintboeing]

As an unlicensed airfield Popham are unable to publish NOTAMs.

[chevvron]

crt86t: I apologise for calling you an 'amateur' in post #8.

[taxistaxing]

and answered various calls for PPR and had been actively discouraging any visiting aircraft due to the soft and muddy runway conditions. In itself this was not a problem as Popham is only PPR for non-radio aircraft. We've established that telephoning is clearly time wasting for both callers and the recipients. Why do you think doctors are moving off the telephone based booking system?

PUBLISH NOTAMS. READ THE NOTAMS.


Soaringhigh, not sure I agree with your post. Things may be different in the US, of course, but in the UK it's good practise to call airfields before you visit, even where PPR by 'phone isn't strictly necessary.

They can give you the latest gen on issues like quality of the runway surface and local weather. Quite a few airfields have tricky nuances in their joining procedures and noise abatement procedures which are best discussed before you visit.

As per the previous posts NOTAMS are important but can never give you the full picture of what is happening on that day at that particular field.

Not sure I understand the relevance of doctors' booking systems!? :confused:

[Crash one]

Quote:
I've personally witnessed someone getting a b****ing over the radio within minutes of starting up at Popham. The guy had taxied from one end of the flight line to the other and made the heinous omission of not announcing his intentions to the guy behind the desk.
This must be a local rule. Is it published?

D.O.


Fife A/G would have something to say since being a Para drop shop, course you knew that:ok:

[DaveW]

... a a/g operator (who refers to himself as ATC on the website..)

Point of Order: No, he REALLY doesn't.

The website (http://www.popham-airfield.co.uk/ATC.htm) is at pains to point out that they are not ATC, despite what others (including agencies who do know better but are using shorthand) might call them:

N.B. The Rules! It is a CAA requirement as CAP413 now includes the paragraph:
"It is correct procedure to announce identity on all telephone calls: with incoming calls it is the opening remark and with outgoing calls it is the reply to the recipient’s announcement of identity. FISOs and AGCS operators must never identify themselves as '....air traffic control'."

Popham radio is Air/Ground and as such is NOT Air Traffic "Control", however the generic term "ATC" is widely used as everyone seems to understand this abbreviation! Even Solent Radar, Farnborough, Lasham, Boscombe, Odiham, etc., still call us on the phone and ask for "ATC"! Perhaps we should just use "AT"!

We get numerous calls asking for us to correct the "ATC" question so before you write in again the answer is the same - all we can do is repeat the above!

The above on a page titled "ATC" Information - NB "ATC" in quotes!


Popham: Great place, great people. "If Carlsberg made unlicenced airfields..." ;) Don't let a storm in an electronic teacup put you off.

[140KIAS]

mmmm .... if the individual is who I think it is, then I had some 'experience' of him providing guest a/g radio service at a certain Scottish airfield several years ago.

Despite it being a/g I seem to remember he was directing aircraft and getting somewhat upset at anyone who did their own thing without his clearance.

I wasn’t bollocked but got a sarcastic remark on departure. It was my first time on grass in this particular type, which was rather underpowered and had a propensity to use quite a bit of runway. Therefore I back tracked, turned and started the takeoff run without a full stop line up. Can’t quite remember what was said, but it was something along the lines of 'feel free to takeoff from my airfield whenever you like'. Not exactly what was needed when I had a high workload and was somewhat tense.

A complaint was lodged with the Manager with overall responsibility. No idea what happened as shortly thereafter he was sent to Coventry ;) I believe.

[Piper.Classique]

Now then, now then. Calm down folks. Just go non radio and use two eyes, instead of one mouth. Popham is a nice friendly place which doesn't require you to sign your first born child away to use their grass. There are very few things worth getting so wound up about, and IMHO this isn't one of them.

[Pilotage]

I tend to believe Chris Thompson of the two.

I've flown from Popham on and off for years, in a lot of types. I've witnessed several bollockings (thankfully never received any -at Popham anyhow), which were all:-

(a) Delivered on the ground, and
(b) For flying over the Petrol station.

I've seen Chris in action whilst enjoying tea and cake, or flying circuits, and whilst he tends to be a little dour, I've never seen him less than professional in his conduct.

It is however 'injun country around there - and traffic can come from anywhere, and be talking on any or no frequency. Everybody should behave accordingly.

P

[Richard Westnot]

I really don't know what to make of this now. I was rather hoping that OscarZulu
would have come back to substantiate either his, or the other statement.

Safety, is paramount and that is why I took the view that I did. We have today all witnessed an horrendous accident with an extremely experienced pilot involved, obviously working in a high pressure (weather) environment.
It can happen to any one of us, nobody is infallible.

"If" the a/g operator is course with his words, probably now is the time to reflect upon what some have said here. I do not wish Popham or indeed the a/g operator any harm whatsoever.

On that basis, I apologise to Mono and I understand why you said what you did. :ok:

I now plan to fly into Popham when the runways have dried out and sample the ambience that has been described by many.

[Radar]

Richard,
Be sure to let us know how you get on.

[Fuji Abound]

I know nothing of this incident.

I have been to Popham more times than I can recall. I havent had any "issues".

I have a few observations.

1. There has always been a great deal of confusion about the remit of an A/G operator. Without doubt I have heard many A/G operators going well beyond their remit. From a regulatory point of view their remit is clear for good reason and I suspect legally there is even better reason that they should take great care not to push the boundaries. Equally they are often well placed to observe dangerous situations developing. None of us should want to allow a dangerous situation to develop and in this case if the A/G operator felt that was what was happening I dont have an issue with him drawing the pilots attention to the danger.
2. Neither the pilot or the A/G operator has any business turning the exchange into a "debate". To the extent that either or both do, they are culpable, the pilot no more excused than the A/G operator. There is no more or less reason why if the pilot feels the A/G operator wants a debate he shouldnt say "please can we discuss this later on the ground, or over the telephone" - that line is not reserved for the A/G operator!
3. Follow these simple rules and you have just avoided any dispute over the radio.
4. If you as the pilot have an issue I cant see why you would not want to discuss your issue with the A/G operator personally, or if he refuses to do so, the next person up the chain of command - whoever that might be. If the discussion doesnt go well and you feel you are in the "right" then by all means air your grievance further (and perhaps on here) but it would seem unreasonable to do so without at least having the discussion. Surely it is only fair to at least give the other fella a chance to explain his side of the story.
5. I know that all might sound too civilised and butter wouldnt melt, but after all it is not road rage where the other person might just be a total nut, but this should be an exchange between two professionals who are prepared to take very seriously what we do because when we get it wrong the consequences can be all too serious.

[ShyTorque]

As an unlicensed airfield Popham are unable to publish NOTAMs.

I've read this here before. However, having spoken to the authority at Gatwick, I was told that anyone can request a NOTAM to be published.

At the time I was enquiring about a "permanent" NOTAM, about kite flying from a strange location on a regular route I flew. It was supposed to be active every day, from sunrise to sunset. Having got in touch with the individual concerned, using the phone number supplied, I discovered it was unnecessary because it was requested by a hobbyist who had given up flying kites at low heights from there, so there was no need to avoid the area at anywhere near the published altitude.

I also queried another one about kite flying, this time requested by a chap training hawks to fly to a lure, with no other aviation connections.

Obviously, neither were operating a licensed airfield!

[Mike Cross]

ST. Anyone can indeed request that a NOTAM be published, however the request will be refused if it concerns facilities at an a/d which does not appear in the UK AIP. Go read the definition of NOTAM. If the information is not in the UK AIP then any change to it won't get published.

BTW last time I looked NOTAM had little to do with Gatwick. They are issued by the Airspace Utilisation Section of the CAA who unless they have moved are at Kingsway in London and published by NATS AIS on the A4 just outside Heathrow.

On the subject of Popham I've flown from there for a number of years. CT is unfailingly courteous, I've never seen him get ratty. He's also a very experienced pilot in his own right.

[ShyTorque]

If the information is not in the UK AIP then any change to it won't get published.

Obviously not. How can a change be made to something that doesn't exist?

[Talkdownman]

Come on Popham! You used to be great, and now you're driving customers away. If you're unsure how your radio operators ought to behave, go to a club like White Waltham, and ask them to show you
One doesn't have to go to White Waltham, good that they are. There are other decent A/G operators about, one or two highly experienced that I know of even closer...maybe Popham could do with some new blood on CT's team... ;)

[mary meagher]

Regarding NOTAMS. Can be issued by anything or anyone that may affect aviators. Shenington Gliding Club issued a NOTAM for our 1940's Hangar Dance.....because part of the fun was a genuine funtioning WWII searchlight!

Kept trying to capture a Ryanair but they were keeping well clear.....

[gileraguy]

I always thought it was an overhead join on the way in and three legs on the way out, unless you're a commercial jet...

[JW411]

I wasn't there either so I cannot really comment too much.

I have been to Popham many times in my old PA-28 and I have never, ever had less than a friendly reception.

The bit that I find fascinating is that OZ finds it necessary to tell us all that he has 10,000 hours and is a CAA R/T examiner.

I personally found the first 10,000 hours to be a bit of a learning curve and I would never have thought it relevant to mention that I was a CAA TRI/TRE and an FAA Check Airman just to reinforce my argument.

I obviously have still got a lot to learn when it comes to negotiating skills.

[chevvron]

Fuji Abound wrote 'Without doubt I have heard many A/G Operators going beyond their remit'

Could this be because once they have the Certificate of Competence in their hand, there is no form of regulation to ensure they 'stick' to this remit? OK the C of C has to be signed by the radio station licence holder, but there is nothing written down to say that the licence holder MUST ensure the A/G Operator is competent and maintains that competency.

ATCOs and FISOs have to have their competency checked at regular intervals by an approved Local Competency Examiner and the results of that check have to be notified to CAA/ATSD. All ATC communications MUST be recorded and the CAA recommend that FISO communications are recorded, but nothing like this exists within the AGCS.

Don't forget the CAA read these pages and by complaining about levels of service, contributors may trigger action by the CAA, either to require some sort of competency check for A/G Operators or maybe invoke the regulation that says 'The CAA can require an airport operator to provide a particular minimum level of Air Traffic Service' ie FISO instead of A/G or ATC instead of FISO.
Would you really want that to happen?

[Fuji Abound]

Chevvron

You raise a good and interesting point.

I have wondered what ongoing training of ATCOs takes place - if any.

I do recognise the problem. If ongoing "training" was a requirement then inevitably some one must pay and I assume ATCOs are neither well paid and if their employers met these additional costs it would be yet another expense for hard pressed small airfields.

That said perhaps the CAA should take responsibility for "vetting" ATCOs say once a year without charge as part of their responsibility to ensure standards are maintained.

It does seem to be the way that whenever someone is excercising a professional skill that impacts on others some form of vetting is de rigueur.

[mcgoo]

Fuji, just to make sure everyone's on the same page are you talking about ATCO's or A/G operators, ATCO's are checked regularly and earn more than most pilots.

[2 sheds]

Fuji
You seem totally confused about the difference between an Air Ground operator and an Air Traffic Controller. Mind you, whatever their merits otherwise, the operators of Popham add to that confusion on their website by their reference to the Air Ground Communication Service as "ATC" ("because that's how other people refer to it"), in quote marks initially but then eventually even dispensing with them in a further reference. To my mind, they should be told by CAA to get their house in order and refer to the service correctly - as should a certain other aerodrome not a million miles away that advertises "Air Traffic Control" on the tower building - again, only an AGCS.

2 s

[Fuji Abound]

Sorry - I have no idea why I said ATCOs - other than a few glasses of fine wine!

Of course I meant A/G - thanks for pointing that one out

- yes we are definitely on the same script - or are now. ;)

[Talkdownman]

a certain other aerodrome not a million miles away that advertises "Air Traffic Control" on the tower building - again, only an AGCS.
Where is that?

[tomtytom]

every pilot should carry a emergancy falsh tash (i keep mine in my handy arm pocket) then in the event of sudden grief from some one be it another pilot or atc or atc wannabe then proudly affix your tash square up to the culprit dishing out the grief and say "what ho squiffy i dont like your jib! now be a good old chap fill the kettle to tabs and get a cuppa on" Any incoming threats should be replied to as "now thats just not cricket" and if it all goes tits up swift back hand slap and run like the clappers!

[Katamarino]

perhaps the CAA should ... without charge ...

I'll have one of whatever this man is drinking :}

[tommoutrie]

WITHOUT CHARGE!! Are you having a giraffe!!??!!

Someone in the heavily subsidised cafeteria on the top floor will have just dropped a cheap doughnut because of that shocking remark.

I went to Popham once and it rained. Popham, how do you expect to attract visitors when you can't even drum up a sunny day for me to quaff my tea?

Buck your ideas up. And move your airfield nearer to my house. I need an airfield close to my house.

When I am on my deathbed I am going to wish I had the 20 mins I spent reading this thread back. Lifes too short - OP, if the bloke don't answer, the bloke aint heard. AG operator, its astonishing how easy it is for someone who's under a bit of stress to take something you say the wrong way. CAP 413 doesn't let you call someone a **** on the radio but if you are thinking it then it gets transmitted in the tone of your voice. And some folk are more sensitive than others.

(I only posted to mentally justify reading it all in the first place)

[oscarzulu]

Having read CT's side of events I think this is a case of ' One man's constructive criticism being taken as a another man's bollocking' over a scratchy radio above a screening 2-stroke, its not hard to see how, this is why we have standard phraseology, and to vary from it is a risky thing. Next time I think the phrase "Please report to the club house on landing" would be a far better bet.
That way at least I would get time to form a defence..

[chevvron]

I would suggest that to clear up any confusion, the airfield operator should change any mention of 'ATC' to read 'ATS', the reason being that AGCS is a type of Air Traffic Service along with ATC and FIS.

[mad_jock]

How about getting rid of the TLA's and just name it Pophams Airfield Information Service.

Don't forget the CAA read these pages and by complaining about levels of service, contributors may trigger action by the CAA, either to require some sort of competency check for A/G Operators

To be honest some form of compentcy check would be a good thing.

And as the digital recording of the frequency is relatively cheap and easy these days maybe htat would also be the way forward.

And BTW I also think that the pilot side of things need changed as well so that there is some form of panel which un acceptable behaviour can be forward to.

[Fuji Abound]

WITHOUT CHARGE!! Are you having a giraffe!!??!!

You are right - a moment of weakness, it must have been the wine.

Next I will be suggesting the CAA freeze all charges given the present economic climate.

[flybymike]

And BTW I also think that the pilot side of things need changed as well so that there is some form of panel which un acceptable behaviour can be forward to.
I say Jock old chap, what a frightfully spiffing idea. We could have the gentleman pilot's club where any transgression results in an interview with the committee and a dishonourable discharge. ;)

[2 sheds]

chevvron:
I would suggest that to clear up any confusion, the airfield operator should change any mention of 'ATC' to read 'ATS', the reason being that AGCS is a type of Air Traffic Service along with ATC and FIS.
The UK adopts the ICAO definition of ATS and does not include AGCS as an Air Traffic Service. The operator should use precise terminology and not this regrettable slang.

2 s

[Flyingmac]

So. This guy turned onto final ahead of a Pietenpol that was too far out to be inconvenienced, endangered or hindered in any way?

As I read it, the Pietenpol trundled on down final and landed on a clear runway. No eggs broken. Hardly worth five or six pages.

[Talkdownman]

AGCS is a type of Air Traffic Service along with ATC and FIS
CAP452 states that AGCS is not viewed as a type of Air Traffic Service:

Air Ground Communications Service (AGCS) is a service provided to pilots at specific UK at aerodromes. However, it is not viewed by the UK as an Air Traffic Service because it does not include an alerting service as part of its content.

As an AGCS Examiner you should be thoroughly familiar with CAP452 and therefore know that... :=

So AGCS is not ATC nor ATS so why not call it 'AGCS'? What could be simpler? Why muddy the 'already-muddied' waters even further?

[dont overfil]

I must say I am amazed at the casual response OscarZulu has offered the forum after his initial lambasting of Popham Radio. over a scratchy radio above a screening 2-stroke,

If OscarZulu had simply reported. "Have AC on final in sight." it would have allowed CT to relax.

Then again of he had tried again to get a response to his initial call. Or if he had joined overhead. You get the drift.

Some of the airmanship I have witnessed as an AG operator has been absolutely shocking. Two VERY near mid air collisions has made me nervous of non standard joins. Probably CT feels the same.



D.O.