Stapleford A/G - WTF?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 452 specifically instructs A/G operators NOT to use the phrase 'at your discretion'; the correct reply to someone who states they are ready for departure etc is either 'roger, no known traffic to affect' or 'traffic is.........'.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks as if we all start to face similar trouble on the radio. The worst IMHO is flying uncontrolled airfields in Germany. Only recently I came to fly to EDXO and heard on 10 miles to the airfield the warning "St. Peter CTR active" of a fellow pilot. That tiny Info field had some old guy doing radio in a way, I almost turned around. Very, very annoying with bull**** like threaten to file official complaint against the pilot of a C172 because he rolled to holding point without "clearance". Aren't there any requirements for refresher cycles for radio ops?
I am a bit surprised of Stapleford. It has been quite a while since I was a frequent flyer to there, but I don't remember radio to be something special or bad.
I am a bit surprised of Stapleford. It has been quite a while since I was a frequent flyer to there, but I don't remember radio to be something special or bad.
Quote:
CAP 452 specifically instructs A/G operators NOT to use the phrase 'at your discretion'; the correct reply to someone who states they are ready for departure etc is either 'roger, no known traffic to affect' or 'traffic is.........'.[QUOTE]
Actually, it is "no reported traffic" !
2 s
CAP 452 specifically instructs A/G operators NOT to use the phrase 'at your discretion'; the correct reply to someone who states they are ready for departure etc is either 'roger, no known traffic to affect' or 'traffic is.........'.[QUOTE]
Actually, it is "no reported traffic" !
2 s
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some relevant quotations:
From CAP413:
From CAP452:
The CAA are not entirely blameless for the confusion caused. 'Duty of Care' has crept into CAP413 which these days includes examples of phraseology provided by AGCS operators which include provision of traffic information (It didn't used to). This alone muddies the waters and blurs the edges between AGCS, AFIS and ATC.
From CAP413:
Personnel providing an Air/Ground Communication Service must ensure that they do not pass a message which could be construed to be either an air traffic control instruction or an instruction issued by FISOs for specific situations.
An AGCS radio station operator is not necessarily able to view any part of the aerodrome or surrounding airspace. Traffic information provided by an AGCS radio station operator is therefore based primarily on reports made by other pilots.
NOTE: Air ground operators must not use the expression ‘at your discretion’ as this is associated with the service provided by FISOs and is likely to cause confusion to pilots
Air Ground Communications Service (AGCS)...is not viewed by the UK as an Air Traffic Service because it does not include an alerting service as part of its content.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What surprises me is that so many aerodromes elect to provide AFIS when under The Air Navigation (General) Regulations 2006 Regulation 13 they may not in fact be required to do so. Certainly different aerodrome operators deliver AFIS in many different ways…ie. inconsistently! Last time I looked the following were AFIS units in the UK. Which of these ACTUALLY NEED to provide AFIS?
SCOTLAND (10)
Barra
Benbecula
Campbeltown
Islay Port Ellen
Kirkwall
LerwickTingwall
Oban
Stornoway
Tiree
Wick
ENGLAND & WALES (16)
Barton
Blackbushe
Goodwood
Duxford
Elstree
Fairoaks
Halfpenny Green
Kemble
Old Warden
Rochester
Sywell
Shobdon
Walney
Wellesbourne
West Wales
Yeovil
MoD (2?)
Fleetlands?
Netheravon?
SCOTLAND (10)
Barra
Benbecula
Campbeltown
Islay Port Ellen
Kirkwall
LerwickTingwall
Oban
Stornoway
Tiree
Wick
ENGLAND & WALES (16)
Barton
Blackbushe
Goodwood
Duxford
Elstree
Fairoaks
Halfpenny Green
Kemble
Old Warden
Rochester
Sywell
Shobdon
Walney
Wellesbourne
West Wales
Yeovil
MoD (2?)
Fleetlands?
Netheravon?
Last edited by Talkdownman; 30th Jun 2014 at 16:24.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bizarre remnant from long gone days. Get rid of A/G altogether - what on earth is the purpose of it? All it does is confuse. And it doesn't control traffic anyway. On top of this it opens up to little Napoleons thinking they are something they're not. Let the planes themselves coordinate separation over a CTAF frequency. Works fine everywhere else.
Either you have air traffic control or you don't.
Either you have air traffic control or you don't.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get rid of A/G altogether - what on earth is the purpose of it?
Better than every arrival pratting about looking for the signal square and the windsock.
A/G or ATC thats for me.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 18nm NE grice 28ft up
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What surprises me is that so many aerodromes elect to provide AFIS when under The Air Navigation (General) Regulations 2006 Regulation 13 they may not in fact be required to do so. Certainly different aerodrome operators deliver AFIS in many different ways…ie. inconsistently! Last time I looked the following were AFIS units in the UK. Which of these ACTUALLY NEED to provide AFIS?
SCOTLAND (10)
Barra
Benbecula
Campbeltown
Islay Port Ellen
Kirkwall
LerwickTingwall
Oban
Stornoway
Tiree
Wick
SCOTLAND (10)
Barra
Benbecula
Campbeltown
Islay Port Ellen
Kirkwall
LerwickTingwall
Oban
Stornoway
Tiree
Wick
All the Scottish fields listed have scheduled flights. On the other hand I agree with you. Other parts of the world manage fine without it.
D.O.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On the wireless...
Posts: 1,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dont overfil
I thought as the rules stand an Aerodrome FISO is the minimum service for aerodromes with a scheduled passenger service.
13.—(1) This regulation shall apply to every aeroplane registered in the United Kingdom engaged on a flight for the purpose of public transport of passengers on a scheduled journey and to every aeroplane so registered whose maximum total weight authorised exceeds 5,700 kg engaged on a flight for such a purpose otherwise than on a scheduled journey.
(2) For the purposes of article 42(1)(c)(ii), the following manning and equipment are prescribed in relation to aerodromes intended to be used for landing or as an alternate aerodrome by aircraft to which this regulation applies—
(a) air traffic control service or aerodrome flight information service, including the reporting to aircraft of the current meteorological conditions at the aerodrome;
(2) For the purposes of article 42(1)(c)(ii), the following manning and equipment are prescribed in relation to aerodromes intended to be used for landing or as an alternate aerodrome by aircraft to which this regulation applies—
(a) air traffic control service or aerodrome flight information service, including the reporting to aircraft of the current meteorological conditions at the aerodrome;
AFIS for those PT flights in Scotland makes complete sense to me. That's also the way it is done in Scandinavia, especially at the remote Avinor fields. But some of those England aerodromes puzzle me. I don't see much evidence of scheduled PT, or PT over 5.7T, at several of those. Why waste the money needed to provide AFIS? AGCS should suffice at such aerodromes. Unnecessary costs will only get passed on to the Users. Neither do I witness AFIS being delivered correctly i.a.w. CAP797 in the case of some of those aerodromes.
We have A/G operators purporting to be FISOs, and FISOs purporting to be ATCOs, and, worst of all, A/G operators purporting to be ATCOs. SARG should get a grip on this muddle, and do a bit of cleansing...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Out of curiosity, is the guy paid or a volunteer? Does he deserve the bashing on here, or just a bit of friendly advice from someone higher up at Stapleford?
It would seem to go without saying that the money used faffing about with people on the ground could be used to provide automated weather, provide for pilot controlled operations, pave the runway so nobody has to look at it every five minutes and move into 21st century.
That aside, the funniest thing about Air to Ground is that it isn't, the name is just a tax dodge. With that irrational regulatory underpinning it's really no wonder A/G doesn't function well.
That aside, the funniest thing about Air to Ground is that it isn't, the name is just a tax dodge. With that irrational regulatory underpinning it's really no wonder A/G doesn't function well.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 1st Jul 2014 at 05:47.
Could you send me a list of their names and I'll offer to give them the exam and tell them I'll tell the CAA if they decline.
Don't forget, an FRTOL does NOT cover you for A/G nor does it exempt you from the exams.
Don't forget, an FRTOL does NOT cover you for A/G nor does it exempt you from the exams.
Air Ground Radio Operators are just that, radio operators, they do not give clearances, seperate traffic or conduct any of the other ATC functions; they are there simply to pass basic information on the radio in accordance with CAP 452.
It seems there are many pilots who are ignorant of their function and continue to request services that are not available. Passing information that is not required, or inappropriate on the grounnds that, if I fill the ether will irrelevant garbage I will be safer, is no substitute for lookout!
It seems there are many pilots who are ignorant of their function and continue to request services that are not available. Passing information that is not required, or inappropriate on the grounnds that, if I fill the ether will irrelevant garbage I will be safer, is no substitute for lookout!
That would make them Ground/Air operators rather than Air/Ground... 
Yes I know it is a mere squibble of words, but the term "Air/Ground" is really but then really unfortunately choosen. Small wonder there's confusion.
As others have said, there is no reason to have any type of service other than "INFO" (no authority) or "TOWER" (full authority). Unambigious, clear, effective.
Yes I know it is a mere squibble of words, but the term "Air/Ground" is really but then really unfortunately choosen. Small wonder there's confusion.
As others have said, there is no reason to have any type of service other than "INFO" (no authority) or "TOWER" (full authority). Unambigious, clear, effective.
