Elstree - Has R/T Improved?

[CaptAirProx]

Lots of comments on here recently saying Elstree FISO/AG operators had improved.

Well I was there a few weeks ago and went to the tower to collect some aircraft keys. Was extremely polite to the fella in the tower particularly as I know of their snappy personalities. I asked if I could go to the back room to get the keys and I was greeted with an evil stare and a response of just looking through me and turning away. Quite rude really. I responded with "I guess thats a yes then????" If I was a Tyro Pilot I would be getting a picture that all operators in towers were horrible little men...............

Secondly, I state at the hold "ready for departure". No response from tower. Try again, no response. PA28 then calls 4 mile final. He gets told call 2 miles by FISO. I then ask for radio check. We also swap boxes. Aircraft on final confirms he's reading us 5's. So we announce our intention to back track and line up for immediate departure. All of a sudden a voice on the R/t says " No you don't there's an aircraft on final"

I say "why will you not respond to our transmissions". He's says "you have an aircraft on final you should wait". We'll excuse me mister but when In your FISO training did you get told to ignore an aircraft's request for departure because you believe he should'nt line up. What about saying, "G-#### hold position - aircraft 4 mile final"

As it happened the aircraft called two miles as we lifted off the runway, so I cannot see this guys problem accept that he has a serious attitude and should go try another career. If you don't like your job - do something else.

Anyone else still find Elstree as Elstree has always been?

[FlyingForFun]

Since when is a FISO allowed to tell you not to line up, anyway? It's "at your discretion" - and if there's traffic which, in the FISO's opinion, would affect your decision, he should inform you about it. At least, that's the way I thought it was supposed to work...

I'm sure I will fly in to Elstree one day, since most of my family and many of my friends live in the area, but I haven't been there yet, so wouldn't like to comment on their R/T procedures...

FFF
--------------

[Aussie Andy]

T*ssers

[Dannyboyblue]

In response to flyingforfuns reply, FISO's have full control on the ground, up to the holding point of the runway so they can indeed instruct an aircraft to hold position at a holding point.

If in any doubt this rule can be found in CAP 410 part A and B and cap 427

[FlyingForFun]

Thanks DannyBoy.

Of course - now I think about it more, it makes sense. They don't have control over the runway - but you can't get onto the runway without using one of "their" taxiways :rolleyes:

Still doesn't excuse what CaptAirProx says happened to him though.

FFF
--------------

[M14P]

I flew past Elstree on Sunday and was pleasantly surprised by how polite and normal they sounded. I hope that a new leaf has been turned!

I had just visited Denham who were absolutely fantastic in accomodating to my requests and needs. I believe that the chap on duty is a Northolt TWR fella and was a model of professionalism - thanks boss.

AFISOs do have 'control' on the ground but like any other controller they do not have the power to 'prevent flight'. I am absolutely sure that coordination of landing and departing traffic is outwith of their technical remit but it is a really vague point. Can anybody clear this point up? Surely unless there is a clear and immediate danger of collision the phrase should be "At your discretion"?

I know that I am verging on a rant but I find the AFISO/Controller/AG thing very confusing and almost impossible to teach to students. I think that we should be moving towards abolishing AFISOs and their half and half responsibilities and be making it easier/cheaper to train a basic Tower Controller. That way we have two very distinct systems: A/G (or even a UNICOM-style system) "it's your own responsibility" and Tower "You are in a coordinated system".

The current system is absolutely mental and is open to all sorts of interpretations by more zealous AFISOs. Proper TWRs or nothing I say! I wish AOPA would lobby the CAA on some real issues.

[FlyingForFun]

I agree with M14P about abolishing AFISOs - can't really see the point of them. If anything, I'd rather be controlled in the air, but not on the ground.

I logged 100 hours flying out of a field with full ATC (Chandler, in Phoenix, AZ). Although there was a seperate frequency for Ground, which controlled the main taxiway, the ramp area was uncontrolled, and aircraft could move around freely without bothering ATC. In fact, the most common action by ATC when there was a conflict on the taxiway was to direct one of the aircraft onto the ramp... in other words, "I can't be bothered with these conflicts - move over to the area that I don't control and sort it out yourself." That's no a criticism of the controllers, who were excellent - but demonstrates that even at a busy field where ATC is needed, pilots are quite capable of taking care of themselves on the ground. The idea of being controlled on the ground but not in the air seems completely the wrong way round to me...

FFF
-----------

[BRL]

Hi all. I have decided to 'copy' this post from the private flying forum to here. Just think it may be of interest to some of you......... :)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I sympathise with you Capt, although I'm not a pilot. I often listen to an aerodrome close to me with a FISO service and what goes on makes me, as a professional controller, absolutely cringe. I'm sure it's just down to the individual so hope you get treated better in future.

[ex-EGLL]

HD, trust you are not referring to the one I used to moonlight at ;).

Thanks for the tea and sticky buns last month when we dropped by, good to see you and AC.

ex-egll

[Fallows]

I am a regular flyer at airfields with full ATC, FISOs, and radio. I think that one of the main issues is that a lot of pilots are unaware of the kind of service that they are receiving, and that is a pilot training matter.
Incidently, at White Waltham where I fly from there is no ATC service, but a radio service, the system works safely and efficiently and the circuit discipline is excellent because pilots safety is in their own hands rather that ATC.
I also wonder whether the smaller airfields would be able or willing to finance a full ATC service?

[CaptAirProx]

Thanks chaps for replying.

Some of you have mentioned that we should abolish FISO/AG etc. Well from my experience the problem with these services is the inconsistency in how they are provided. I reckon the CAA should put pressure on the airfield managements for not overseeing A/G operators properly. At one of my local airfields, the radio is based in the flying room so everyone including students, ground personnel, club members, and instructors start using the radio and come up with some complete nonsense on the R/t. Whilst us instructors are trying to instill discipline in our students flying, the management show no regard for standardisation/safety. I does make a mockery of the whole system which I'm sure would be fine if discipline was applied in right places.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

God help us.. an hour and a half ago I read Fallows note: "circuit discipline is excellent because pilots safety is in their own hands rather that ATC". I've only just stopped laughing enough to be able to use the keyboard. I've met more suicidal circuit-flying twitcher pilots than I've had hot dinners!

Ex-EGLL.. nah, don't think so.. I meant the place just near us. Good to see you too.

[Wide-Body]

Hi Heathrow director.

I have to say the Waltham system generally works very well. There are a couple of glitches every now and then but lookout is generally very good. Elstree has its problems, and putting a "partially" trained controller sometimes creates more difficulty than it solves. By putting a control at WW would cock the traffic flow up altogether, increase ground delays and up the cost of flying. Have a look at some of the local fields (with control) around London on a busy sunday and see how much avgas is burned by aircraft at the hold. As well as the odd freyed temper in Pilot controller "discussions".

Let us keep control out of GA as much as possible. As long as pilots maintain the good standards I normally see then there would be no need for it. then of course all of the AFISO's could train as full cat controllers and cut the workload at West Drayton (but that is another topic)

regards

Wide;)

[Final 3 Greens]

HEATHROW DIRECTOR

You may be interested to know that the only reportable airprox I have ever experienced was whilst under ATC in the circuit at a busy south eastern airfield.

Cleared to land at 2 miles, I had to take immediate avoiding action when another aircraft cut in a few hundred metres in front of me.

In the resulting report, it emerged that ATC were not aware of the other a/c and that only good lookout by my a/c had prevented a collission.

Perhaps you might think a little more carefully about posting your mirth at "see and avoid procedures" in the future.

I agree that there are examples of poor airmanship in evidence at A/G airfields, but at the end of the day we should remember that the buck always stops with the a/c commander who is responsible for maintaining safe flight.

[Bright-Ling]

F3G....

In the resulting report, it emerged that ATC were not aware of the other a/c and that only good lookout by my a/c had prevented a collission.

THEN it wouldn't matter what type of service you were getting if bounced my an unknown.

Your actions were commendable, in looking out the window in that VFR type of way!!

And anyway, a question for you......

You may be interested to know that the only reportable airprox I have ever experienced was whilst under ATC in the circuit at a busy south eastern airfield.

Can you file an airprox at a FISO/AG unit?!?!? Aren't all Airproxs' reportable?

[Final 3 Greens]

Bright Ling

THEN it wouldn't matter what type of service you were getting if bounced my an unknown.

This is precisely the point I was making to Heathrow Director after he was falling about all over the place at Fallows comments.

ATC does not offer a 100% guarantee and the commander is always responsible for the safety of the a/c and therefore Fallows (in my opinion) made a very good point in the context of light aviation.

As to your second point, all I was saying was that the only time I ever reported an airprox happened under ATC and did not suggest that airproxes were limited to any particular scenario.

I've had a few "close encounters" over the years, but this was the only one where I felt the need to take reporting action, since I had to stand a heavy single on it''s wingtip in landing configuration and thought that the reasons why should be investigated.

As it happended there was a blind spot from the tower and a cctv unit was added to cover it so the outcome was positive for everyone.

[srs what?]

While we are on the subject of FISO's and their duties it is worth mentioning that SRG are trying to increase the reponsibilities of FISO's by giving them control of aircraft on the ground e.t.c. and currently looking into the possibilty of FISO's being able to do Procedure Approaches.

Going back to the original post in this thread, it is clear that the person in question has a serious attitude problem and by no means should have ingnored the aircrafts call. However, FISO's only have control upto the holding point and can't clear you past it. Can they therefore not allow you to go past it!?!

The response to the pilots call of holding short should have been either:

1) G-CD Roger. No known traffic, take off RWY26 at your discretion, surface wind 260 at 10 knots, report lining up.

2) G-CD Roger. Your traffic is a PA28 on 4 mile final report lining up.

In the case or No. 2, the pilot should then either report holding if he/she deems there is not enough room to line up and take off or report lining up.

Once the aircraft reports lining up the FISO can then give the surface wind e.t.c. e.t.c.

The problem mainly lies with friendly bunch at ATS Standards who very kindly change the rules in in CAP427 and CAP410 A&B but don't inform pilots. The result: Pilots accusing FISO's of making incorrect calls and FISO's getting frustrated at Pilots making incorrect calls.

The phrase "lining up" and FISO's having control of aircraft on the ground upto the holding point has infact been in place for a good few years but only appeared in the latest CAP413 printed a month or so ago.

[bookworm]

srs what?

Your options appear to omit one rather relevant option mentioned in CAP 410:


Aircraft at the holding position of runway to be used for departure ready for take-off

Phraseology:
(Aircraft callsign) hold position.

(Aircraft callsign) take off at your discretion, surface wind
(number) degrees (number) knots.

(Aircraft callsign) traffic is (traffic information) take off at your
discretion, surface wind (number) degrees (number) knots.


Note the first option.

[srs what?]

I was actually quoting from our FISO Manual and not the CAP410 which you would consider to both say the same thing.

I haven't got a recent copy of CAP410 with me at the moment so can't check it. What edition have you got? It's more than likely been changed again as there was a big fuss at the time about it, just haven't seen a bit of paper from ATS Standards advising as such.

Along the same theme of differing Aerodrome Manuals and CAP410, the following (or similar) appears in CAP410:


FISO's are not permitted to authorise a turn after departure, which is within the ATZ, that does not conform to the traffic pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft.

However, our Manual (which is of course approved by "The Authority") allows you to do the opposite. :rolleyes:

[Spitoon]

srs what? , I don't think your FISO Manual id 'Approved' by the Authority - all the ANO says is that the Manual must be produced if asked for and that any changes requested by the CAA are incorporated.

As for differences to national procedures, if it's anything like the MATS Part 2, one of the main purposes of the FISO Manual will be to permit local differences to be specified.

[bookworm]

CAP 410 Part A (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/docs/cap410PartA.pdf)

CAP 410 Part B (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications/docs/cap410PartB.pdf)

Of course just because CAP 410 permits something doesn't contradict your local rules.

I can't find anything in CAP 410 that suggests whether or not the AFISO is responsible for separation on the runway or not. I suspect not, which makes it rather odd that an AFISO is given the authority to instruct an aircraft to hold position at the holding point.

[bluskis]

Why wouldn't a pilot comply with a ground radio request/instruction, regardless of the status and procedural correctness of the communication?

On the grounds of safety would be one answer.

Otherwise out of courtesy why not comply. Other aircraft may well be expecting you to comply, and be planning to manouvre accordingly.

I am pretty sure that most pilots could not quote verbatim the controllers varied regulations as to what they are and are not supposed to say anyway.

However, it is unhelpful if not downright dangerous when a controller/radio operator adds additional stress to what may be a pilot who is already stressed by an error he has made or by a misheard or misunderstood communication.

Ultimately pilots have the inconvienent option of not using an unwelcoming landing place.

[niknak]

If, as has been suggested, FISOs might be given more powers of control - similar to ADC , it is essential that they are all required to retrain by attending and passing an approved course of instruction, folllowed by annual checks, proper emergency training etc.

Unfortunately, this would increase costs to aerodrome operators and have a knock on effect for landing fees etc, but at least a standard would be set and maintained, which doesn't exist at the moment. :rolleyes:

[fen boy]

I'm afriad that if you increase the costs and demand set courses you will lose many of the current FISOs. It's all very well for you NATS chaps who get paid to train but many FISOs don't have that option. My dad (FISO) paid for his own training, exams, inspections and pays for his medical - 20 years worth of weekends as a FISO (unpaid - does it for free).

You would certainly lose him and many others who provide a service at relatively small airfields. The service would then revert to un-licensed A/G or nothing.

[srs what?]

FISO's do go through regualr checks and training. The FISO Exams consist of questions from PPL Met and Nav papers, there is also an Airlaw and FISO procedures paper to complete.

Local Examiners are no longer able to carry out emergencies during LCE's as the airfield has to have a training plan. This is a scheme of practice emergencies e.t.c. that are monitored by the SFISO throughout the year.