The threat of ATC at small grass fields [Archive]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

10th Jan 2003, 10:38

The latest AAIB reports are out, including the PA28/Thruster collision at Barton last summer. I quote from the report:

"The Air Traffic Services Investigation (ATSI) department of the CAA Safety Regulation Group conducted their own investigation into the Flight Information Services aspect of this accident. Their report reached the conclusion that the provision of a FIS at Barton is adequate but the movement rate, together with any increase in operational complexity, should be monitored on a regular basis by the CAA. They recommended that if there were a significant increase of either, an upgrade to a full ATC service should be considered."

Over regimentation and regulation threaten recreational GA as never before. It is my opinion that FIS, never mind ATC, is overkill for Barton; we managed OK without it for years, and IMHO it has added diddly squat to safety or efficiency since it was introduced. In fact, efficiency has suffered dreadfully since the increase in 'ground' radio calls that FIS has generated. Motorists seem to be able to drive around Sainsbury's car park without hitting each other. Is it too much to expect qualified PPLs to see and avoid while taxying without having to have 'big brother' watch over them?

In fact, as this accident demonstrates, FIS not only doesn't help pilots in the air, but it may actually detract from flight safety. The FISO was busy 'controlling' a ground movement (!) and so didn't see this incident developing. A radio operator (like what we used to have) is more likely to have been watching the circuit traffic and perhaps might have been able to radio some separation advice.

The CAA's gut reaction is to consider full ATC at Barton. I'd say get rid of FIS and revert to the A/G system which served Barton perfectly well for years - even when the number of non-radio movements was much higher than it is today.

SSD

FlyingForFun

10th Jan 2003, 10:48

SSD,

Any chance of a link to the AAIB report into this collision?

My gut reaction is that ATC, as you say, should not be necessary at a GA field, but it's also not something which would detract from safe and enjoyable flying. Unlike airspace expansion, putting ATC in place at an airfield does not reduce the airspace available to us, or restrict the way in which we can use the airspace, so I don't have a problem with it. And I'm going to look out the window regardless of who I'm talking to.

(The last time I flew from Fairoaks, which has AFIS, the AFISO was very helpful in assisting me with spotting some traffic in the circuit, which he was not required to do. But he failed to mention a commuter aircraft being pushed back by a tug directly in front of me, at night, when I was taxying back - I feel he should have instructed me to hold until the tug was clear, but because I was looking out the window I stopped anyway, and proceeded when clear, so there was no danger. Just one example of how controllers can help whether they're required to or not, and don't necessarilly detract from safety even when they don't spot something they should. Obviously if the incident report in the case you mention describes a different situation, I may revise my opinion - especially since I've never been to Barton.)

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

Circuit Basher

10th Jan 2003, 10:59

Your wish is my command, FFF!

AAIB Report on PA28 / Thruster (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/jan03/gbzbg.htm)

Interesting to see the level of experience of the PA28 captain!!

Shaggy Sheep Driver

10th Jan 2003, 11:08

FFF

One of the attractions of grass roots flying is that pilots are responsible for their actions and don't want/need nannying. Pilots who aren't happy with that have loads of 'controlled' fields to fly from.

ATC is entirely appropriate for commercial, all-weather flying. At small felds like Barton it would kill the field's 'character', cripple the movement rate, make mega circuits mandatory iinstead of a crime (itself a safety issue), and spell the end for non-radio flying.

SSD

Genghis the Engineer

10th Jan 2003, 11:17

I've flown out of Barton once or twice, along with some much busier AFIS airfields such as Popham rather more. I can't say I agree with SRG's conclusion. If a pilot was unable to make a timely finals call that was due to too much RT chatter and there may be a local RT discipline problem rather than not enough ATC.

I do agree totally with AAIB's conclusions about overtaking however, they are not supposed to criticise in their reports, but that comment is pretty close to it.

One point not made in the report, but I'd note reading the report and having flown a few hours in both types is that a PA28 has very poor visibility forward and down, and a Thruster has very poor visibility upwards and behind. I know it requires "thinking out of the box" a little, but it never harms to be aware of the characteristics of the aircraft around you in the visual circuit- something that looks also to have been lacking here.

G

poetpilot

10th Jan 2003, 11:51

Genghis, I think you may have hit the nail on the head there, but I must be careful what I say. I was in the air that day, albeit arriving at Barton some 20 minutes or so after the accident.

I wasn't asked for any opinions or facts, but then I wasn't in the immediate vicinity at the time therefore I had none on the face of it to give. All I know is that it was a weekday afternoon around 4pm, and that is not a particularly busy time for Barton. The only "busy" - ness I could think of in those circumstances would be chat to ground traffic. IMHO the remedy would lie less in applying heavier controls on ATC services and more in ensuring that appropriate & correct radio use is adhered to.

Unfortunately in these circumstances (and again only in my lay opinion as a user of the airfield) any accident investigation cannot fully use subjective evidence or background information, which, if understood, might contribute to prevention of similar situations developing. It's rare that any accident is attributable entirely to one cause - I'm sure that this is the case here.

Kirstey

10th Jan 2003, 12:02

IMHO it's the lack of regulation that SRG has over FISOs can make them a liability. I know nothing of Barton, but can give examples of South East Aerodromes where FISOs give ATC clearances and are generally a liability. SRG want stronger controls over them and over A/G stations (which they have no regulation over). AFIS is a good system I think, but pilots have absolute responsibility for their actions and what they do. In the air a FISO can give a FIS and ask for a pilot's intentions. They can't ask you to join in a particular way, they can't give you any clearance at all. It's all down to the PIC.

However, a good FISO ie Fairoaks will give you all the information you need to make a good decision. This info only backs up what you see and assess with your own eyes.

Philip Whiteman

10th Jan 2003, 14:52

I suppose I ought to post this under some form of pseudonym, but one of the simple pleasures of my type of flying has long been calling: "QSY to en-route frequency" to the FISO, A/G person or whoever at the airfield just visted—and, after any acknowledgement, turning the radio off.

The Old Man and I used to cackle like schoolboys on doing this, but the real pleasure was in looking after our own selves as pilots. Of course, we would—and did, once—turn the Icom back on if there was some kind of emergency, but a sharp lookout and the ability to land in almost any field were our real margin of safety.

For fair-weather VFR, at best the radio is a mild stress. At worst, as Shaggy Sheep Driver suggests, it can be a genuine hazard to both pilot concentration and basic airmanship. Or am I out of step with the times?

Kirstey

10th Jan 2003, 15:33

Phillip - I think it's a very "romantic" way to go about ones flying. I wouldn't do it myself but I wouldn't have any issues with anyone doing it in Open FIR.

I do think liscenced aerodromes should have some for of ATS and that it should be well regulated. Just because an AFIS is less complex than an ATCS doesn't mean it should be regulated any less. If ATS staff are there then at least a bad t/o landing will guarantee someone is about to call the emergency services.

Places like Lydd scare me though. Clearing me immediate t/o, telling me to orbit in the circuit etc etc..

foghorn

10th Jan 2003, 15:38

Does Lydd Radio still have delusions of being Heathrow Director, then?

I've not visited therefor several years because I experienced the A/G operator 'controlling' on several occasions, including an on-air bo!!ocking for not following the instructions that he shouldn't have given in the first place:mad:

Evo

10th Jan 2003, 15:38

AFIS is a good system I think, but pilots have absolute responsibility for their actions and what they do. In the air a FISO can give a FIS and ask for a pilot's intentions. They can't ask you to join in a particular way, they can't give you any clearance at all. It's all down to the PIC.

Without wanting to get into an arguement about CAP413 et al. (I know what it says), I see nothing wrong with a FISO asking me to join in a particular way (or asking anything else) - I can always say no, after all. They've presumably got a reason to ask (maybe they have a student on first solo and my 10-mile airliner straight-in would make him have to orbit on base?), and if it doesn't cause problems for me then why not?

Telling me is, of course, a different matter (and would tempt me to reply "negative, Flight Information Service only" ;) ).

Kirstey

10th Jan 2003, 15:55

I agree - a good FISO can clearly give advice and leave it to you to make a decision.

As for Lydd Director! well they do have a fully functional ILS now, which I have on good authority they will never be allowed to switch on!!

Shaggy Sheep Driver

11th Jan 2003, 19:10

The more I think about FIS the more I wonder what it's for. To train future ATCOs perhaps?

The only effect it has on Barton traffic as far as I can see is to needlessly increase the number of ground radio calls - few if any of which achieve anything - at the expense of bandwidth left on 122.7 for important circuit calls.

SSD

Sir George Cayley

12th Jan 2003, 23:44

I landed at Barton about 15 minutes before the unfortunate accident occured. How is the injured student pilot?

I was still annoyed with the AFISO on duty but as we pushed the a/c into the hangar the collision occured. Had it not I had made up my mind to speak to him in the presence of the CFI.

In my opinion borne out of several exchanges over a period of time this particular individual uses inappropriate phraseology over the r/t. At best its a distraction, at worst a safety issue due to long and irrelevant transmissions.

The other AFISO's are generally OK and some based PPL's could do with thinking before pressing the button too.

I fly to relax and escape from earthbound tribulations. I get enough proper ATC in the day job so would also vote against any extension to the "service"

One underlying problem is that Barton serves too large a catchment area so has more based a/c than it should per capita.

Another is that as costs rise more pilots content themselves with shorter local flights. All this adds up to a busy circuit. Add in a verbous individual in the tower and one has the recipe for disaster.

Sir George Cayley

The air is a navigable ocean that laps at everyones door

SteveR

13th Jan 2003, 10:34

It sounds like Sir Geoge Cayley has some witness info which could have been of use to the investigators. I get miffed by poor r/t (on both sides), but have never felt sufficiently outraged or ego-strong to make a noise about it - so perhaps the FISO really did overstep the mark that day.

Did you get asked? or volunteer it?

Steve R

ps. Yes - the Lydd INFO radio voice is still very controller like - I think he's trying to make the place sound a bit like, as well as look a bit like, an International Passenger Airport.

FNG

13th Jan 2003, 10:36

I would also oppose the extension of ATC to small GA fields, and am not persuaded that FIS is all that useful unless there is something complicated about the ground layout or unusual stuff goes on in or near the ATZ (Duxford seems to me an example of a place where FIS works well).

I would worry about ATC making some pilots over dependent on being told what to do and less alert to their own safety and that of others. There are already some GA pilots (a sizeable minority?) who seem over reliant on ATC and on r/t generally. Not so long ago at Waltham (a place where, as has been observed before, the basic, correct a/g service and the generally adopted habit of looking out of the window produces a busy but safe environment with little radio chatter), I and other aircraft were gently troubled by an aircraft departing for Booker who wanted a clearance to blow his nose or stick his finger in his ear (he appeared to have his finger stuck somewhere else, having been cleared for that from birth).

This keen reader of CAP 413 eventually showed some initiative: he decided all by himself that it would be a good idea to line up and then sit motionless on the runway waiting for a take off clearance. Admittedly, he was a particularly ATC-dependent example of the species, all he did was cause minor inconvenience to a few others (in fact I sort of appreciated the go-around practice as I hadn't been flying much lately), and, once airborne, he may have been a hotshot stick and rudder honcho who could fly rings round me, but his antics did not inspire confidence in his airmanship, and would have been less amusing if someone had needed that runway in a hurry.

As I said, this was a particularly bad example of ATC dependence, but I would worry about this sort of thing spreading if more and more of us train and habitually fly only under ATC.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

13th Jan 2003, 11:01

I would worry about ATC making some pilots over dependent on being told what to do and less alert to their own safety and that of others. There are already some GA pilots (a sizeable minority?) who seem over reliant on ATC and on r/t generally.

A very good point, FNG, and it's definatly getting worse at Barton. IMHO the change to FIS has accelerated the trend.

One of the great attractions of flying for me is the freedom coupled with it being one of the few areas of modern life where you make your own decisions and enjoy or suffer the consequences.

Why are so many newer recreational PPLs happy to be 'nannied' by ATC, and seemingly always looking for approval from the man in the tower? Is recreational GA becoming less a fascinatiing and 'stretching' hobby, and more a training ground for the air transport industry?

SSD

Genghis the Engineer

13th Jan 2003, 11:21

Being more specific, could I propose a few bits of unnecessary verbage that could get happily chopped out of A/G or AFIS conversations:-

- "call finals", why is an instruction being given for a standard practice?
- "say point of departure", they'll know when you sign in and it's scarcely relevant just at the moment.
- "say Captain's name", ditto - you've signed out or are about to sign in after you'velanded.
- "Please avoid noise sensitive areas", they are in Pooleys, I also phoned for a briefing, I'm a responsible aviator, I wouldn't do otherwise.

G

Gerry Actrick

13th Jan 2003, 20:51

I agree with SSD.

I’ve been flying from Barton for over 10 years now, so I think I can add something to the argument. It is a bit busier now than it was a few years ago – but not that much. Don’t listen to the experts who quote the number of movements – they are now counted in a different way.
Over the last couple of years the radio is busier – something to do with the ASISO service?? I am now finding it increasingly difficult to get a radio call in – not because of other aircraft, but because of useless AFISO information. - good God – they gave me a wheels down time the other day!!!!
I personally don’t think this helps the pilots or airfield safety.
There seems to be a move at Barton to constantly upgrade the radio service and the fire service – not because it is needed, but because we seem to be taken over by frustrated ATC officers and firemen. The “Heathrow Boys” and “Toy town fire men”. I don’t mind these guys having a hobby – but not at my cost or the expense of my safety.
Part of the this incident may be put down to playing “Heathrow” in the tower by shuffling strips and entering movements into the computer when he should have been operating the radio and looking out the window.
However, there were only two aircraft in the circuit, so you can’t blame it on being busy. (although part of the solution seems to be additional AFISO in the tower at busy periods)
This type of accident will happen. The way to prevent it is not to take control from the pilot, but to make him better at controlling situations and being more aware of what’s going on around him. I would feel safer with a Unicom than an ATC.
Gerry

rightofway

13th Jan 2003, 22:02

Being involved at Barton for some 9 years myself, I can say that movements have increased some 25% since 1993. Movement figures are recorded in the exact same way to maintain consistency. We have similar movement rates now to other similarly sized airfields with FIS. In fact, we equal or exceed movement numbers at some larger commercial airfields.

I agree with Gerry Atrick that there are sometimes some unnecessary calls made, but I also feel that a lot of pilots also should brush up on R/T discipline. Is it really necessary to read back a request to 'report downwind' with 'report downwind G-AB' when 'wilco G-AB' will do, or to read back the wind on final or when departing. Its amazing the number of pilots who do. If you've only been for a local flight, do you really need to waffle on about your life history. Why not a quick call; 'G-AB horwich 2000ft inbound request airfield information'

With regard to the particular incident, there are a number of factors which are not included in the report, but which could have played a part, though I would not wish to discuss here. Too often though I feel the knee jerk reaction of some pilots to an incident like this is to blame the regulation, when they should really be looking at the wider picture. Everyone has their own part to play when flying, the FISO is just one part of the jigsaw.

Prior to the incident there were already a number of steps in place or being moved towards to releave the workload on the FISO. The primary duty of looking out of the window was and still is the most important aspect above all else. Other duties such as answering telephone calls, or logging movements are always put second place. Prior to the introduction of FIS, there were a much higher number of incidents relating to conflicts in the circuit when under a/g only and especially with incorrect phraseology being used and applied incorrectly.

There are issues I believe with FIS in general as the service stands, and these have been brought up with SRG on several occasions. There are still improvements which can be made to the service, and we are constantly striving to ensure that this happens to improve safety, which includes improved and more comprehensive training for new FISOs.
Sir George Cayley mentions about the individual FISO concerned. Perhaps any faults in the service provided at any time can be ironeed out if people actually approached the managers to discuss it, rather than holding it back for 'clubhouse gossip' instead, which does nothing to help improve safety.

Referring to the “Toy town fire men”, perhaps I could draw attention to CAP699, which is the basis for most of the changes which have occured recently. This is a new document which we are required to comply with for licencing requirements for the airfield. The changes in my view provide a much more professional attitude towards the service provision, which has resulted in a much more efficient team for almost no additional expense. And may I point out that for may of the staff at Barton, it is not jsut a 'hobby' but is also a livelyhood.

Rightofway.

Prof Denzil Dexter

13th Jan 2003, 22:41

At the risk of being accused of being negative, I totally agree with Philip Whiteman. Turn the radio off, leave it off and make your own decisions. Even in the 21st century, it is still possible to fly all day around most of the UK without using a radio, quite safely. Here in North Uist, it's compulsory!

:D

poetpilot

14th Jan 2003, 18:26

Being a pilot who has flown from Barton for nearly30 years (OK I come down for a pee now and then), I would agree with RightofWay's sentiments, having an understanding of the bureacracy from regulatory authorities that forces many changes onto small airfields.

I also take offence at the remarks from others about the barton people "playing" and doing it "as a hobby". If the barton people are guilty of anything, it's that they are enthusiastic about their work. I say this, not as a worker there but as an ex-committee member who tried to increase the enthusiasm of the workforce for their job (and happily in many cases, succeeded).

I would, however, temper this by saying IMHO that there were obvious failings at a human level which contributed to the accident - but that it was the combination of these, rather than sole blame, which caused the accident. And this is something which has done, and will always, happen, with aviation, maritime, road, etc etc etc accidents. It's hardly ever one thing alone that causes an accident.

I think this is a case of "he who is without blame, let him cast the first stone". How many of us have failed to see someone in the air, and have been lucky? How many of us have b*ggered up an R/T call or given duff info out on the airwaves? How many of us have given an incorrect position report? I bet 99.9% of us if we are totally honest about it. But probably 99.8% of us learned from it without an accident occurring.

Thankfully no-one was killed, and we can all learn from this without hammering the individuals to death by anorakking...

Oh yeah, one more thing.... there was a time, long long ago, when the tower was open house for the old boys to sit and natter whilst the ground operator tried to do his/her job. I'm very glad those days are over...

High Wing Drifter

14th Jan 2003, 18:54

Keef

14th Jan 2003, 21:46

Strange, this. I operate out of an airfield with approach and tower - that's where I live - and I have to say there isn't much yak on the RT.

Call for taxi clearance, call ready for departure, get takeoff clearance and wind, reply "Clear take off", and go. When a safe distance away, tell them continuing with enroute frequency. End.

Coming back - standard position report to approach, and get QFE/QNH and cleared to somewhere. Announce when there, asked if field in sight, passed to tower if so. Usually cleared to final unless it's busy.

Call final, get cleared to land (with wind).

There's a little more RT if departing or arriving in IMC or IFR, but not a lot, and it's all stuff I want to know!

I reckon on getting more yak from some A/G stations (notably one near here that used to pretend he was EGLL). Some places seem to delight in asking me to confirm three greens. I've *never* been asked anything of that nature at Southend.

Genghis - my understanding for the reason ATC say "call final" is so that you know you're cleared to final and don't need to call downwind or baseleg. Mind you, I've not joined anywhere further out than left or right base at Southend in years.

jayemm

15th Jan 2003, 13:13

Why are so many newer recreational PPLs happy to be 'nannied' by ATC, and seemingly always looking for approval from the man in the tower? Is recreational GA becoming less a fascinatiing and 'stretching' hobby, and more a training ground for the air transport industry?

OK, I'm a recreational PPL. I may be a slow learner here, but here's a no bull**** response on my view of ATC and the need for the person in the tower for we of few hours especially at busy airfields.

My least confident time as a pilot was for the first 100 hours after getting the PPL (I'm now at 190). The PPL is just a licence, it doesn't mean you're a good pilot. The learning just goes on and on. Many of you on this thread are clearly very experienced aviators for whom R/T and managing your aircraft in relation to other movements on the ground and in the air is second nature.

For many new recreational PPLs entering a world of very capable and experienced people, it's quite intimidating. When I started to venture out to different airfields the different responses from people in the tower on Radar, Information and Radio services mixed with developing and stumbling confidence levels and a cautious nature, sometimes felt intimidating and influenced my approach to others. ie. a stroppy ATC can make you a little more 'nannied' when you're trying to build confidence.

When flying to somewhere busy like Shoreham, you know it's going to be very busy, you know that the overhead has aircraft joining from opposite directions, and you want to let Approach know you're there as soon as possible to get all guidance and info possible. Thankfully, Shoreham are pretty assertive and I can understand why they want the 'on final' call, because so much is going on both in the air and on the ground they need positive confirmation of all movements and intentions. I missed the response to the 'clear to land' call once, and they got pretty shirty.

I wanted nannying (=information and guidance) in those early days at busy airfields (I have never been to Barton) or those with parachuting and gliding, because it's not easy to anticipate the movements of others.

I picked up an aircraft at Hinton-in-the-Hedges the other day, and found the airfield surprisingly complex to move around. I had studied the Pooley's plate and it looked pretty straightforward. The guy on Hinton Radio was doing one of the best and most literal radio jobs I've experienced, but with parachutists, gliders and other traffic backtracking in both directions, I would have appreciated guidance in relation to all the movements. In the end I just announced I was holding until another pilot helped out and let me know his intentions.

So, I reckon that early hours recreational PPLs appreciate ATC guidance at busy and complex airfields. This doesn't answer the Barton question, but remember there's a very mixed-experience group flying and moving together, so you can't anticipate the moves of everyone.:)

Shaggy Sheep Driver

15th Jan 2003, 14:14

jayemm

Experience is relative, and we all started off with none. I’ve been flying since 1978 not including the gliding I did before that, but I’ve only got around 700 hours, nearly all P1. Most of that is tailwheel, grass airfield flying. A fair bit is aeros time. Most is local or short trips – an hour or two max, with only occasional longer trips, so lots of take offs and landings. All of it hands-on (no autopilot) and almost all self-navigated (not much radar vectoring or beacon hopping), though I have had a small GPS for the last couple of years (for backup, not primary nav, of course). Compared to many here, I am quite inexperienced.

But I have never in my life, not even when I was an early-hours student, felt intimidated by anyone in ATC whether it be A/G, FIS, or ‘the real thing’. I have been annoyed sometimes, and irritated. And sometimes resigned. Often, especially with ‘the real thing’ (usually Manchester Approach) I have been delighted with the service received. The times when I might have had an excuse to feel intimidated have been at the hands of the less experienced A/G and FIS guys, some of whom (only a few, but their influence is hard felt) are somewhat up themselves.

The reason these guys don’t and never have got to me isn’t anything to do with experience (though there’s no doubt experience helps). It stems from my deep-rooted belief that “they are down there because I’m up here”. NOT the other way about. That in turn stems (I think) from my early flying being in a either a non-radio or only occasional radio environment. We looked out for ourselves, made our own decisions, and used radio for our own purposes when it suited us, and didn’t use it when we didn’t need to. And our instructors were not low-houred trainee airline pilots (though some were and it showed), they were mostly ex-WW2 free spirits with very high standards of airmanship who loved flying and were very good at it But we also learned in a location hard against the Manchester Control Zone into which we often flew. So when we did use RT, it had to be good (I’d spent years listening to an air-band radio to get it right, and actually passed my RT test - examined by Paul Eyte, a Manch controller and all-round great aviation guy- before any of my PPL exams).

As a result we grew up knowing for sure two things:

1) The radio is not one of the aeroplane’s primary flying controls. Nether does its use improve the quality of your landings or the shape of a loop.

2) You will survive or not in the potentially dangerous environment of an aeroplane by your own efforts. No-one sitting in a chair in a remote room with a mike in his hand can do your flying for you.

I think (and it’s only my opinion) that pilots today start their flying experience in a fairly intensive RT environment – and so did their instructors. That’s where the intimidation comes from. That’s where the nannying starts. But it doesn’t have to. FIS is a totally unnecessary and counter-productive (see my earlier posts) extension of this environment.

All IMHO, of course ;~))

SSD

Kirstey

15th Jan 2003, 15:05

SSD,

A FISO can provide you with weather, advice on the local area provide you with up to the minute information on danger areas etc. They have a big telephone which means they can communicate with any ATSU for you. They have a big AIP with information on any airfield sunset times etc etc (which you have as part of your flight planning - however if you're flying the plane in a bit of a sticky spot then it's easier to use a radio).

Ultimatly there's a lot of traffic around, and a lot of big fast planes hacking around even in class G airspace. Why not improve your odds by having someone give you as much information as possible? I think the value of a FIS - especially, but not exclusivly, enroute is from listening to people giving position reports/estimates or intentions and then working it out for yourself from there. If you're trekking around the south east with a 2,500ft boundary into the london tma then if you slip up and fly too high the odds are you will be identified and clearead out of the way with a minimum of fuss - if you are not in contact with anyone then god knows what could happen.

If Barton is as busy as it appears on here then, a FISO can at the very least prevent a departing aircraft from lining up. Someone in a tower for many hours a week, will be able to make a more reasonable judgment call on this than many of the pilots into Barton, it's not perfect...

anyway stuck for something to say now. But I will always contact someone, for some kind of service. You don't have to chatter much and the benefits to me are fantastic. As I have said before I have no qualms with people not spending their flight gabbling away on the radio, but it aint for me.

FNG

15th Jan 2003, 16:09

Shaggy, you've expressed very well a position which I tend to share. I don't disagree with Kirstey's observations about the occasional (albeit, I would say, limited) usefulness of obtaining a Flight Info Service when flying outside ATZs, but concentrate below on what goes on within the ATZ.

I recall a thread here last year about what to do in a certain situation when in potential conflict with another aircraft in a controlled circuit. I don't remember the details, but do remember being struck at the time by an impression conveyed (intentionally or not) by some of the contributors that "you should do X because the controller just told you to do Y" [even if doing X could be a questionable judgment] and that you were in some way magically "protected" by being under full ATC in the ATZ, whatever anyone else did. The impression was almost one of "phew, now I'm out of the scary-bad open-FIR, the nice man in the Tower will position me and land me: all I have to do is pull the levers and press the knobs".

I stress that I don't for blame ATCOs for the development of this habit of mind. As mentioned above, Southend offers an excellent example of slick, helpful, and verbally economical control of a circuit with a variety of mixed traffic.

A footnote on the "call final" call: Like Genghis I'm not sure that it's the most useful of calls, but I suppose that at least it informs a pilot who might otherwise think that he/she needs to call again (although I wonder why he/she should think that?) that his/her next transmission is expected when on final. Using Southend as an example, if joining overhead there they usually tell you to report downwind, meaning "no need to tell us that you are overhead or deadside, just let us know when you are established in the circuit, ie downwind". I don't buy into the suggestion of being "cleared" for any particular leg of the circuit: surely once you have joined the merry merrygoround you have permission to fly round and round it until you get cleared to land, or run out of fuel and glide into the chief nimby's pony paddock, or crash into the control tower, or whatever.

KCDW

15th Jan 2003, 17:50

I’m of 2 minds on this one. And thought I could add to the discussion from my current US perspective.

The US has a lot of Class G “Uncontrolled” airfields, similar in size and movements to Barton, Headcorn, Lydd etc. At these airfields there is no ATC. Instead you have something called Unicom, where you announce yourself and position to the traffic in the area…. that’s it. Literally, it is acceptable to land at one of these places with one call and you don’t get or expect a response. eg:

“Sussex traffic, Warrior N2280Q downwind to land, Sussex”

You can try to talk to the people running the Unicom, but you may or may not get a response. Everything else is down to you. I can remember after my first landing at a Class G, feeling very… well… free. It was a great feeling.

On the other hand, at a busy day at Headcorn, it is nice to know you are number 3 to land, and you can see the other 2 guys.

Also, I have come across a few cowboys at the US uncontrolled airfields, pushing in on the circuit, flying a right base when everybody else is doing a left base etc., and it does make you wonder how safe it all is.

So I guess what I would like to see is the best of both worlds. When it’s busy, a gentle touch from the tower, and a second pair of eyes, and when it’s not, the freedom to make your own decisions.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

15th Jan 2003, 18:24

If Barton is as busy as it appears on here then, a FISO can at the very least prevent a departing aircraft from lining up. Someone in a tower for many hours a week, will be able to make a more reasonable judgment call on this than many of the pilots into Barton, it's not perfect...

This is precisely the sort of thing I’m talking about. Perhaps, on that basis, I should take the back seat and employ Brian Lecomber to fly my aeroplane every time I go flying. At least (unlike the line-up judgement, above) I know he’d be better at it than me.

Why should the person in the tower be thought to be a better judge than the pilot in charge? In my experience they cater for the lowest common denominator and are overcautious in issuing line-up instructions to completely obviate any possibility of causing a go-around. This wastes runway capacity and frustrates pilots who know they could have been away a couple of times over during the FISO-induced delay. In the Yak I often tried to promt them with “Once I’m on the runway I won’t be there long”. They never took the hint.

And they sometimes get it wrong the other way as well. Only the other month I was on short final when a FISO cleared someone to line up. I transmitted “G-AB hold your position please. Chipmunk on short final”.

Such judgements, at a field which does not have full ATC, should be the pilot’s. Sometimes they will get it wrong and cause a go-around, but In my pre-FIS Barton experience, very rarely.

I stick to my guns. The value added by FIS is negative, IMHO.

SSD

AliB

15th Jan 2003, 19:14

I think a great improvement to PPL R/T would be to give trainees broader experiance.

I trained at a FIS airfield and visited a couple of ATC airfields but never went to an A/G field. As a result my first attempt resulted in some confusion for all involved.

I have also been guilty of over zealous R/T - it has since been pointed out that a FIS outside an ATZ is rarely of any benefit and quite distracting for myself, the FISO and other pilots. I put a little more thought in before pressing the button now - but have some sympathy for those who still use the R/T for comfort.

PPLs are not (or rarely at least) taught appropriate use of the services available. The written exams focus on what is and what is not legal and the flying focuses on practical flying skills.

Have some sympathy for bad R/T users - it is often a result of a bad sylabus and/or badly planned training.

Ali

Tee

15th Jan 2003, 19:52

In my opinion, the purpose of A/G and AFIS is to provide structure and discipline to the flow of communications so that pilots can make their own decisions based on a full and clear picture of the situation. The person in the tower is effectively a channel through which to communicate with everyone else on frequency. Operating in accordance with CAP 413 terminology and procedures through an A/G or AFIS provides a far clearer picture for everyone than ad hoc air-to-air comments and robs no pilot of his freedom in the air. Additionally, the person in the tower, having seen and heard everyone, has the best overall picture and may also be aware of situations developing off-air.

Why are so many pilots so persistently anti-tower?

Gerry Actrick

15th Jan 2003, 20:06

I can’t help agreeing with Shaggy. A radio operator on the ground – of any sort – who is up his own botty will slow things down and frustrate pilots. Good ones can be an enormous help.
As a pilot you are in control. When you end up as a heap of metal and wood because you followed instructions / suggestions, the guy in the tower will not (cannot) take responsibility.
I’ve seen an accident not long ago where a low hour pilot was intimidated to use the active, and cross wind, runway. Not instructed – intimidated.
Shaggy is correct – they are there for us. Some of them don’t know that.

Dog's Bone

15th Jan 2003, 23:09

Shaggy -

< In the Yak I often tried to prompt them with “Once I'm on the runway I won’t be there long”. >

The Yak was there a bit longer than expected one day, when the wheels were not lowered for landing. :eek: Perhaps that was the AFISO's fault? Ah, but then the Yak was non radio, was it not! And it was left to the AFISO to sound the crash alarm before the aircraft had even touched down, all the time pointing the aldis light at the aircraft, but to no avail. :rolleyes:

Genghis -

<- "say point of departure", they'll know when you sign in and it's scarcely relevant just at the moment.
<- "say Captain's name", ditto - you've signed out or are about to sign in after you've landed. >

Agreed. However, you will be surprised by the number of pilots who do not sign in or out, and some who do not even pay for the fuel/oil.

But you may not be surprised to learn that these folk get a closer look-see when Special Branch visit.

And on the subject of the unmentionables (going completely off topic) it is sad to record the death of Special Branch Officer Stephen Oake. Steve was
the officer stabbed to death in Manchester yesterday during the detention of the three terrorists suspects. He had been a regular visitor to Barton as part of his SB job.

Sir George -

The student, if memory serves me correctly, suffered a broken hip(?) bone, a broken left wrist where he held on to the steel tube cross bar in
the cockpit, his shoulder harness having been cut by the propellor of the PA28, more serious were his facial injuries which will require specialist treatment for some time. The fact that he is still alive is unbelievable, as he was only a milli second from being bacon sliced.

The AAIB Report -

A great deal of information has been skipped in this public report.

The PA28 descended on top of the Thruster, the underneath of the PA28's left wing, adjacent to the port wheel contacted the tip of the Thruster's tail. At the same instant the PA28's propellor sliced through the Thruster's metal tail boom and the pilot's restraining shoulder harness cables, which run alongside to the rear anchor point.

The Thruster was then somersaulted over the PA28, with its port wing metal tube main spar breaking into two sections as it hit the PA28's fin. The PA28 landed under control straight ahead. The Thruster made a vertical nosedive into the runway numbers, with the student occupant holding on to the steel cross tubing - a protective cage which has undoubtedly saved his life - having lost all upper torso restraint.

The AAIB report may be a noncommittal overview of the facts. It has very little to do with ATC of any description. How many times does it need to be said: head up - look out.

The ATC question -

Shaggy is correct to ask the question about the various levels of ATC at any GA airfield (not just this one). And with respect to the southern based contributors to this thread, who have (a) never visited Barton or, (b) only once or twice, please remember that Barton can, at times, be one of the busiest GA airfields in the country. It may not
have been on the day you visited, but regulars will tell you otherwise.

Visiting air traffic controllers from Manchester and elsewhere are often amazed at the amount of traffic handled BY ONE PERSON and have stated
that they (a professional major international airport controller) could not handle the multiplex situations. They are only dealing with a handful of aircraft at any one time before passing them to the next sector, with assistants to handle all the other chores. And the NATS people are on a good salary ;)

Even under the old system the annual movement figures were impressive and would often out perform many larger airports such as Liverpool and Blackpool both of which have multiple ATC staff on duty, in Liverpool's case 24 hours a day.

Circuit Basher

16th Jan 2003, 07:02

Kirstey - I didn't comment on one of the statements in your post as I just thought I'd let it ride (and that someone else would probably pick it up). This hasn't happened, so I just thought I'd clarify the situation AIUI:

If Barton is as busy as it appears on here then, a FISO can at the very least prevent a departing aircraft from lining up

Of course, a FISO cannot prevent anything- he / she can merely advise of a developing conflict. A pilot disregarding this advice may be found to have been failing to exercise due care in the subsequent enquiry if it all goes to poo, but I do not believe that they would have actually committed any offence against current CAA regulations by disregarding a FISO.

Sorry to get pedantic, but it seems like one of those threads.... ;) :D

Beethoven

16th Jan 2003, 08:06

I am pretty sure that a FISO has control up to the holding point and can thus prevent an aircraft from lining up.The phrase "at your discretion" means exactly that i.e. "as far as I am concerned you can go but it's your bum in the captains seat now".
As a regular flier from a small grass airfield,I understand all the concerns that people have expressed about questionable R/T calls from the tower having once (as a solo student pilot) been told to vacate the runway immediately after landing when I was going much too fast to do so safely due to a following aircraft being too close.My immediate reaction was to put in a bootful of left rudder and nearly toppled over when,of course,I had right of way.I was more angry with myself for doing it than I was with the FISO but the tone of his voice when he said it made me think someone was about to land on top of me when in actual fact it was someone who should have gone around due to being too close.
May I suggest that next time You are issued with an illegal instruction simply say "******* please confirm your callsign" might get their backs up but if they want to be ATC they should do the study an ATCO has to do for the privelege.
Best Wishes,
Beet

Shaggy Sheep Driver

16th Jan 2003, 10:19

Visiting air traffic controllers from Manchester and elsewhere are often amazed at the amount of traffic handled BY ONE PERSON and have stated that they (a professional major international airport controller) could not handle the multiplex situations. They are only dealing with a handful of aircraft at any one time before passing them to the next sector, with assistants to handle all the other chores. And the NATS people are on a good salary

Exactly so! Chalk and cheese!

The job of ATCO is no more applicable to small grass VFR fields than is the job of Chartered Accountant applicable to adding and subtracting darts scores down the pub. That doesn't mean the Chartered Accountant might not enjoy a game of darts - including keeping score - it's just to say that doing so would have little in common with his day job.

They are completely different environments - which has been my point all along.

SSD

Kirstey

16th Jan 2003, 14:26

Circuit Basher - Pedantic is always good! and usually I'm wrong! however on the Ground a FISO has control over you up to the holding point. Once they let you past the holding point its all up to you. An issue came up at gloucester I believe when FISOs were given the right to control aircraft on the ground. The airport manager immediatly contacted the CAA to see if he could employ a FISO as a ground controller and then have ATCOs to do the rest of it.

and I'm sorry I forget who it was, but someone in a tower will be a better judge of you regarding approaching aircraft because 1)they will deal with many many more situations like that than you do. 2) there perspective will be better than yours at the holding point.

My issue is that FISO should be monitored more closely as opposed to done away with.