Airfield Briefings

[Barney_Gumble]

I visited an airfield recently for the first time. In order that I knew what to expect on arrival, I sought information from two sources.

1. Pooleys - which stated "GA aircraft are to join overhead at 1500ft QFE......"

2. UK AIP Specific Aerodrome Information - which stated "There are no overhead joins" and later "It is therefore essential that pilots obtain a briefing prior to departure..... "

I decided to phone up to gain the required PPR and for a briefing and I got a very short response saying they were busy and to look in Pooleys (which it transpired is incorrect for this airfield) and then the phone was put down.

Am I being a bit sensitive here, or is the AFISO having a bad day? Also if the UK AIP says "It is essential that a briefing is obtained is there or, more importantly, should there be an expectation that this is possible given the controller workload i.e. maybe the tower should have two people minimum on watch or is this unrealistic.

I haven't mentioned the airfield because it doesn't matter, it is just an example to highlight a general question.

Any advice warmly welcomed

Barney

[Special VFR]

Oh, Duxford then. . . . . ! :D :D :D

Ask SSD

[Barney_Gumble]

SVFR

In the words of a famous politician...."You might like to think so but, for myself, I couldn't possibly comment."

It doesn't matter where it was particularly, I was just interested to understand a bit more about it e.g. am I expecting too much from the airfield to give a briefing when they might have 30 other inbounds? Should I be making more efforts to research the information myself? On a busy day they might need to have a pre-recorded telephone message to deal with the briefings.

Barney

[Special VFR]

BG

No, you are not asking too much. It is the age old problem of One Man and His Dog (only the dog wasn't there) trying to answer the radio, answer the telephone, speak to the fire crew, take a landing fee, make the tea, etc. It really is up to IWM to provide more people.

Doesn't help when info is wrong in Pooleys, does it.

[Barney_Gumble]

Yep you are right SVFR, the old resource issue. Anyway, I will send a little note to Pooleys, although I expect they already know.

Cheers

Barney

[Mike Cross]

My Pooleys (shamefully out of date at 1 Dec 00) says in bold type "Caution: High performance aircraft carry out circuits in both directions. Therefore there is No deadside and No overhead joins are permitted."

Is yours even older than mine BG?

No overhead joins does not of course mean you can't overfly. It just means you can't let down into the circuit from overhead. If you haven't been before and want to check it out it's perfectly OK to overfly above 2000 ft aal to have a look, turn on to a suitable heading, remaining above 2000 ft until beyond the ATZ before descending and turning to join the circuit.

AIP is of course the authoritative source in case of discrepancy.

I wouldn't get too upset that the guy on duty couldn't give you the attention you wanted. He probably had circuit traffic that required attention and it's unreasonable to expect IWM to overman on the basis that it might get busy. We did after all get discount!

And wasn't it a fine day out to boot?


Mike

PS We weren't relying on my out of date Pooleys. Rustle, who is much more organised, had printed out the AIP info.

[aiglon]

Pooleys is frequently incorrect but I suspect it is not entirley their fault. No doubt they rely upon infirmation from the airfields themselves and I wouldn't be surprised if many simply couldn't be bothered to update their own info.

[Barney_Gumble]

Thanks for the info Mike. My Pooleys is 2003 bought just two weeks ago. Nowadays it states:

Caution:High performance aircraft often join via 'run and break' manoeuvre. GA aircraft are to join overhead at 1500ft QFE before turning and descending downwind to a circuit height of 1000ft QFE

Your point about the overfly is very good and I hadn't thought of that. I will make that the lesson learned for this occasion.

Please don't think I was having a go at any A/D in particular. I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday and would go again without a second thought. I was interested to know what other folks thought about conflicting information that pilots get sometimes.

Like Rustle, I printed the same AIP info and used that as the authority.

For the record Duxford FISO did an excellent job IMHO, certainly when I arrived it was busy but well organised and safe.

I do wonder whether the AIP ought not to say "essential" because it means to me that if something were to go wrong and there was an accident (God forbid) then when I am before the court (or worse at the pearly gates) the barrister prosecuting on behalf of the CAA might ask

"Mr Gumble, did you obtain your essential briefing before departure, as stated in the AIP?"

to which I might say "No!"

and would then perhaps be left with the remark "So you were not sure as PIC that the flight could be undertaken safely then?" to chew on

My point being that if manning levels do not allow the essential briefing to be available throughout the hours of operation it should not be stated as essential. Or conversely if the briefing really is essential then manning levels should be set accordingly or maybe a pre-recorded telephone briefing line might be a good idea. This could be set up as a premium rate line and the revenue generated could be used to help preserve the fantastic aircraft collection they have.

Anyway, I don't want to detract from what was an absolutely excellent day out for all PPRuNers.

Cheers

Barney

Edited by BG because I can't spell!!

[Thrifty van Rental]

Pooleys is not the only guide to be incorrect on the subject of Duxford. the pocket flight guide has it wrong too.

On the occasions that I have flown over for various airshows, it always seems to me to be very well run. The only run-in I have ever had was a little while back with a lady FISO and I don't know whether she is still around.

They do need to sort out their parallel runway usage though. Sounds to me like somebody has mis-applied CAP168. Would be interested in any informed comment, perhaps in a PM...

[vintage ATCO]

Pooleys is frequently incorrect but I suspect it is not entirley their fault. No doubt they rely upon infirmation from the airfields themselves and I wouldn't be surprised if many simply couldn't be bothered to update their own info.

aiglon

It is not the responsibility of airfields to keep third party documentation up to date. Their only responsibility is to the UK AIP, the third parties get their information from that although I guess some airfields do try and help. I have in the past, contacted some BIG third party documentation suppliers pointing out the error of their ways, and sent NOTAMs correcting their info.

If Joe Blogg Publications Inc comes along and decides to publish a guide then airfields cannot be held responsible for the information it contains.

[Spiney Norman]

Vintage ATCO.
Although what you say is quite correct it does surprise me that airfields don't take greater care to publish flight safety info. I know for a fact that 'another flight guide' than the one previously mentioned posts out to all the airfields they cover annually. Considering the fact that they then have time to send info in and the means to return it at no cost to themselves you'd be amazed at the number that don't bother. There is one regional airport that actually asks for payment for providing info! I should add that this was done as a back-up to amendments gleaned from the usual authoritative source.

Spiney

[aiglon]

So there's no chance that Pooleys etc don't send out info requests to the airfields?

[Mike Cross]

VA

Agree with what you say but if the AIP says "get a briefing" and when he does so the AFISO tells BG to "look it up in Pooleys" then BG has played it right. (assuming this is a fair account of what happened)

BG should not of course enter the ATZ without permission so it shouldn't result in any a problem either way.

Odd that Pooleys should change its tune between 2000 & 2003. Makes you wonder if the AIP had changed as well.
The AIP entry is dated 26 December 2002 (do they really work on Boxing Day?) so if it was a change it could have missed Pooleys press day (and if it did has there been an amendment?)


Mike

[Thrifty van Rental]

I may be misunderstanding what you are asking Aiglon.

It seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect an airport to respond to requests for information from any number of commercial flight guides - all of whom want the information to sell at a profit.

The flight guides simply need to ensure that the information they publish is in accordance with the AIP and they won't go too far wrong.

If an airport fails to keep its AIP entry up-to-date, then that is another question. There are some offenders in Britain, many in France :*

[vintage ATCO]

Spiney Norman

I am sure airfields do great care to publish Flight Safety Information but that only extends to the UK AIP, as required by the aerodrome licence. At the airfield I was involved in, we never sent info to third party suppliers, it was picked up from the AIP. How on earth could we know every third party documentation supplier?

Aiglon

I am not aware of third party suppliers sending out info to airfields to be checked, maybe they do to some. But you need to understand that airfields are not responsible to check this information. A licenced airfield's only responsibility is to the UK AIP.

[knobbygb]

I too had the same problem on Saturday - didn't get an answer at all - it just rung out and diverted to the answer-machine then promptly cut me off (I went through the museum switchboard to get there because the number in pooleys seemed to be a fax).

Inbound I ended up orbiting to the north for a couple of minutes because I either couldn't get a word in or there was no reply when I did.

No complaints of the ATCO - he was, I'm sure, doing his best on a busy day. Ironically, when I called into the tower at about 2pm, there were 2 chaps on duty but virtually no traffic. Having one guy working the radio, answering the phone, taking payments and coordinating the fuel truck is unrealistic on a sunny weekend when they know they are expecting at least 25 additional aircraft. The landing fee isn't the cheapest around either.

As a newly qualified PPL who's not been anywhere that busy before I'm not sure if that's the norm, or was it an exception?

Anyway, didn't detract from a very enjoyable day, and I will be visiting them again soon (hopefully on a weekday).

P.S. Pooleys clearly states "Simultaneous runway operations not authorised". AIP says similar. Someone better tell Duxford that, because when I asked on final which runway was in use I was told "either, your discresion", very abruptly.

[Barney_Gumble]

Mr Cross, Sir

assuming this is a fair account of what happened

Are you suggesting for a single nano-second, Sir, that my account could in some way be less than 100% fair? ;)

Regards

Andy

P.S. This posting is an attempt, albeit probably a poor attempt, at humour :D

P.P.S Knobbygb, I had a similar thing happen to me when I asked which runway. I declared my intention clearly to use the asphalt to avoid any miss-understandings. The chap behind me was close(ish) and decided to use the grass and I said I would hold short when exiting the ashphalt for him to land but was informed this was not permissable due to the combined nature of the r/w. Like you I am low hours (100 odd) and I think this posting probably represents us new pilots on a learning curve.

[vintage ATCO]

knobbygb:

P.S. Pooleys clearly states "Simultaneous runway operations not authorised". AIP says similar. Someone better tell Duxford that, because when I asked on final which runway was in use I was told "either, your discresion", very abruptly.

Simultaneous operations means two acft at the same time. If you were no. 1 and the only one then clearly the option was yours to make, at your discretion.

As for the 'ATCO' in the tower, he was a FISO. You need to understand the difference.

[knobbygb]

Yes vintage ATCO, fair point. I admit to not being sure exactly what simultaneous operations meant - as Barney implies, we're all at different points on the learning curve. That was one of the questions I would have asked if I could have contacted them by phone beforehand. We have paralell grass and tarmac at my home field but they are much stricter about switching between the two - guess that's what confused me. Just re-read the AIP and it says "treat both as one runway" - makes sense now :=

I assure you I do understand the differences between an A/G, FIS and full ATC service, though. Just a case of me using the wrong acronym, honest :D Respect to you ATC'ers for coping with us lowtimers. I wasn't trying to rubbish the FISO, just pointing out that when it gets busy, communications can be less than ideal.

[vintage ATCO]

Knobbygb, I think there is a degree of puzzlement over the way the runways are operated at Duxford and I hope that can be resolved soon.

I operate A/G, FISO and ATC, unfortunately many pilots don't understand the difference. :confused:

Take care out there!

[Whirlybird]

In America, when you want to fly to an airfield, you fly there, call them on the radio, and get told where to go. Being airfields, they are organised and prepared for that sort of thing.

In the UK, you look up the airfield, and are almost invariably told it's PPR. Now, you ask, does that mean phone in advance, or call them on the radio when you're approaching? Often it'll say "PPR by phone", so you call, and get told casually that it's fine to fly in, and no-one wants to know who you are anyway. Sometimes, as with Duxford, you phone, and can't get through...and we tried three times, eventually leaving an ansafone message. Now, I've left an ansafone message at another airfield once, and got thoroughly told off when I arrived, since I hadn't actually been given permission. Yet, some airfields say they're PPR, and everyone knows it's fine to just fly in, and call up on the radio as you approach.

If you fly helicopters, it's even more confusing. In the US, circuits are almost always to one side for f/w, to the other for rotary. In the UK, sometimes they want us to follow the f/w circuit, sometimes go the other side, sometimes be at a different height, sometimes approach low level, sometimes they have no idea what to do with us and hope we can tell them what we want to do. Sometimes it's in Pooleys or the AIP, sometimes not.

It's all very confusing, and emigrating across the pond might be easier. And I've got news for all you low hours pilots. It doesn't get any clearer...well, not for those of us with around 500 hours anyway, after that I don't know.

[2Donkeys]

It is frustrating the Duxford don't want to chat when you phone for PPR, but the concept isn't really so confusing, Shirly?

Phone up and get permission before you take-off. If the briefing is unimpressive or they don't want/need your details, then you were still in the right.

If they won't/can't pick up the phone, leave a message and have a diversion plan in mind, if all else fails.

No big deal. Try landing at certain strips in the US without Permission:-)

[Keef]

Well, Whirly, it usually works like that in the USA. But with all those unmanned (should that be "unpersonned"?) ones, you just announce what you're doing and get on with it (just as in France).

If the book says "PPR", I always phone first. Once, I got a shirty response and the phone put down on me (a certain North London airfield). I took that as "Don't bother me, and you have permission." When I arrived, the FISO was as friendly as could be and we all had a great afternoon.

The budding PPL I took then is now an RAF fast jet instructor at Valley, so you know how long ago that was!

[flower]

Returning back to the issue of briefing , I have said in other forums it is a real bug bear of mine that a number of GA pilots fail to brief themselves properly and thus end up infringing zones or are unaware of standard VFR arrival procedures.

But it would seem the shoe is back on the other foot now. If the AIP and VFR Flight Guides or Pooleys guides say ring up to pre brief then surely you should be given a proper briefing not told to "look us up in Pooleys".
I understand the difficulties of single manning when busy, but if the AFISOs find they cannot accept the telephone briefings then it is up to them to inform there management and either sort a staffing issue out or make an amendment to the AIP.
Making amendments is not difficult I am currently spending a great deal of my time doing just that .

As an aside it was an eye opener to me as an ATCO to listen in to various frequencies en route. A few empire builders on the air/ground frequencies, I would never ever dream of talking to pilots in the way some of these people do it was astonishing and quite frankly blatently rude.
I would have willingly punched one air/ground person on the nose, sorry you guys have to put up with such behaviour:(

[Tinstaafl]

When I get a rude response I reply "Thank you for your advice. I'll give it the consideration it deserves when **I** decide what **I'm** going to do."

[Thrifty van Rental]

You should come to France if you want poor radio practices from FISOs. Ours are not even properly licensed and many of them think that they are controllers.

Pilots too need to learn proper RT in a FISO environment. There is no point in requesting clearances and asking how you should join the circuit. Such things actually encourage the FISO to take control of the situation. This often happens with low-hours pilots.

[Barney_Gumble]

Hi Folks,

I will send a little note to Pooleys

Well I did and got a reply today by e-mail from the editor's office.

The airfield details were revised by the airfield Manager in June 2001. When I [Pooleys] first received his amendments, I queried the overhead joins as I was very much aware of the high-speed run and break manoeuvres having visited the airfield on more than one occasion.

He was very adamant that we publish his amendments as applied. Thus, a revised page was issued with Airnote 3/01 dated 12 July 2001.

Pooleys go on to state that when they were updating for 2002 no significant changes were notified, but during updates for 2003 there was a change in airfield management. During this time, somehow, the information did not end up in the print run for whatever reason; whether not returned by airfield or not printed I will not offer comment.

Suffice it to say that Pooleys finish the e-mail by saying …[The] page has been revised and is slotted to be issued with the next amendment Airnote.

There is another thread going now about updates to the 2003 guide. That is another story. I might reply to the e-mail and ask when the updates are due out.

Anyway, I learned from this that commercial flight guides are a useful aide-memoire in the cockpit, but should be checked for validity with the AIP as part of flight planning….just in case.

Barney

[Kingy]

Okay, I’m gonna say my bit then scuttle back off into the shadows,

This post relates to this, and the other Duxford bashing thread.

Many posters are being very negative about Duxford 'Information' I think that this is very unfair. It took me at least 10 minutes to pay my landing fee because the poor guy in the tower was rushed off his feet - he was doing it all.. Taking the landing fees, answering the phone and trying to deal with many arrivals all at once.

The 'hangar' list was faxed to Duxford the day before for PPR so I took that as no need to phone. We called at 10miles and got the QFE and active. We then called field in sight, and in due course, lobbed overhead at 1500' (no we didn't enter the deadside) and slotted ourselves in late down wind. We flew the circuit and landed. All with no drama what so ever.

I must say that I was a little disappointed that many were expecting joining instructions - It took about 30seconds to realize that Mr Duxford info wasn't in the business of 'playing' full ATC and it was up to visiting pilots to slot themselves in - what's wrong with that?? Frankly, building up your own situational awareness by monitoring r/t from other traffic and looking out of the window is all you need.

It was also interesting to monitor r/t from the resident warbirds - they stated their intentions when airborne rather than asking a FISO if it's OK... I think that this is the norm at the field and is just how it should be.

On the ground however, the FISO CAN give instructions that should be followed - this is only sensible with often priceless machines with limited forward vision being operated.

I had no problems with Duxford information at all and thought they did a great job in the circumstances.

Kingy

[Barney_Gumble]

Valuable points Kingy. I started the thread but didn't name the airfield on purpose because it was irrelavant to the initial subject. I was naive to think it wouldn't be mentioned and any negative points.....well, they should not be aimed at the AFISOs, they do the job to the best of their ability that's for sure. I had no problem with Duxford on the approach and landing at all and as you say others did, I sated my intentions and just got on with it.
I guess the original thread was highligting the fog of information, what is incorrect or correct etc and how private pilots should best filter and make sure info was correct anywhere we fly.

Best just to let the thread pass into the archive.

Barney

[wet wet wet]

Just in passing the advice in Pooleys is to join overhead and descend downwind, this is NOT the same as an "overhead join" which implies descending on the deadside, which does not exist at Duxford. So I believe that Pooleys does not conflict with the AIP.

I have visited Duxford several times and have always found the AFIS to be helpful.

[Barney_Gumble]

WWW,

I think I understand what you mean. Is it similar to Redhill where there is also no deadside?

and

Fixed-wing aircraft join at 1300ft QFE. If required to join overhead - enter the ATZ on runway QDM reamaining within the fixed wing circuit area. When instructed, descend to circuit height and join the visual circuit pattern

So applying that at Duxford an aircraft could join fly along the QDM at 1500ft and turn x-wind and then descend or indeed descend whilst flying along the r/w QDM.

I was letting this thread fade to the archive but there is still value here WWW please confirm this is what you mean Sir.

[wet wet wet]

B_G

I believe the reason that there is no deadside at Duxford is because of a potential conflict with nearby Fowlmere, in fact the ATZs overlap. From memory, the reason that there is no deadside at Redhill is that they have helicopters operating opposite direction ccts to fixed wing.

No deadside so no overhead join possible, as the standard overhead join requires a deadside letdown. But that doesn't prevent arriving above the airfield (in the "overhead") at a safe height above the circuit and letting down into the circuit, in the case of Duxford on the downwind leg. Personally, when I've visited Duxford I've either joined downwind at circuit height or straight in, depending on the r/w in use. The AFISO will advise on any known conflicting traffic.

Hope this helps.

WWW

[Aussie Andy]

Overhead joins are still possible where there is no deadside, you just need a published procedure which deals with this: i.e. its no longer a "standard" overhead join, but a local procedure which must be followed if using such field.

Take for example Wycombe: gliders one side, fixed wing the other, and helicopters under that... so no "dead" side, but there's still a perfectly good overhead join procedure, oftenb used whne circuit is a bit full, much along the lines of that described above for Redhill.

So they might implement something like that at Duxford I suppose if they chose to, unless there's some sort of other traffic (like "run and break" or other high energy joins) which make this impractical perhaps? But anyway, perhaps that just not busy enough often enough to justify the need for this...

Whatever :=

Andy

[Airbedane]

I've been out of action for a week and have just spotted this thread - apologies for joining late with a comment that relates to the first page, but it has to be said....

Pooley's certainly do send to their airfields every year and ask for updated info. At least, they ask the question of Old Warden every year.

So, for GA airfield's, such as OW, there is no reason why the info should not be up to date, provided, of course, that the operator actions the return.

A