A little over 10 years ago AOPA, supported by GATCO and the RAeS suggested to the CAA's SRG that civil flying training schools adopt the military R/T call-sign prefix "Tyro" to indicate to ATC (as it does in the military) that the pilot is a student and thus inexperienced.
Having been involved in such discussions, although not a neddy myself, the difficulty is knowing what to do wih this information. Tyro works well for first solo - but maybe not for the last solo nav ex the day before getting a licence (the following day the pilotwould still be inexperienced by many measures but not using the callsign prefix/suffix). That assumes it would be used for all pre-licence flights - what other criterion should be used? And how much more careful should a controller be when dealing with an inexperienced pilot?
At any airfield where initial flight training/GA goes on the controllers should be alert to a pilot who is possibly getting overloaded. In reality, this applies anywhere because we are all human and we can all get overloaded - pilots and controllers alike. Lots of experience gives us something to fall back on but it is no guarantee that we'll not 'loose the picture'. If there are signs that a pilot is having some difficulty, I would expect a controller to pick up on those signs and either offer help or modify the controlling techniques - this applies anywhere (although what the controller might do will differ greatly depending on the circumstances). Just as I would expect a controller who is showing signs of getting overloaded to be helped to manage the situation. I've no doubt I'll be accused of living in cloud-cuckoo land, but that's what I would expect and it's what I have seen on what I would describe as good ATC watches/units. Not wishing to get emotive here but livesare at stake as this accident shows. To sum up the last few lines, 'Tyro' might help in a small number of instances but its value will soon be lost - far better that controllers have a better appreciation of what its like to fly an aeroplane (and v.v.).
Which leads on to another point. On first reading of this thread i was tempted to bemoan the fact that controllers no longer get much flying training and suggest that this played a part in the events. But then I read in the report that both of the controllers on duty had PPLs. It's hard to work out why they did not pick up on the clues that were so obviously there in retrospect but clearly more flying training is not the answer! Likewise, it's easy to be wise in retrospect but the report notes that the SATCO, working in the support position, noticed that the aircraft was low and slow - but the report does not suggest that he/she did anything as a result of this observation.
Ultimately the tradgedy is that someone died before we start analysing how it could happen. The original post sought views on the AAIB report's recommendations. The report, which is surprisingly well presented in comparison to many others that deal with ATC involvement, sadly falls into the same trap as many others in its recommendations.
One recommendation is that 'It is recommended that London Southend Airport includes information relating to the notification and handling of flights by inexperienced solo pilots in its Part 2 of the Manual of Air Traffic Services. - that's good, so it won't happen again at Southend. Although we will have to guess just what the AAIB hopes the '
information relating to the notification and handling of flights by inexperienced solo pilots' will achieve, let's hope that the stuff they put into the MATS Part 2 is more than 'try not to do anything non-standard to inexperienced pilots'. But why is this not a recommendation addressed to all airports to review the usefulness of notifying 'solo traineee pilots' when booking out or whatever and to review the guidance/training that is provided to controllers for handling such flights? And if AAIB can't make that recommendation directly to the airports, how about through the CAA?
I've already expressed my views about appending Tyro or student to the callsign - but I'm a bit dubious about the advice that AAIB would like to see put in the MATS Part 1. That should be common sense......surely?
But the one I really have trouble with is 'The Civil Aviation Authority should amend MATS Part 1 so that, with the exception of issuing instructions to go?around, controllers shall not issue instructions that would require an aircraft in the final stages of approaching to land to deviate from its expected flight path unless exceptional overriding safety considerations apply.'. Quite apart from the fact that this accident resulted from what was essentially, if badly communicated, instruction to go around, this limits many controlling techniques which, if used sensibly, can make life easier for pilots and controllers alike. How far out should this rule apply? Does it stop me instructing an aircraft to make a long way round turn onto final or, heavens to Betsy, an orbit on final approach? Even this latter I've used on many occasions, with the agreement of the pilot - admitedly only with pilots that are obviously experienced, and never with a pilot that is known to be inexperienced or shows signs of being unsure of how to follow instructions or slow to respond to the RTF. But do we really need yet another knee-jerk reaction that takes away controlling techniques that are perfectly sound and safe when used correctly? Maybe the best approach would be to include some of this TRM and awareness stuff in TRUCE.