Flight Information at Aerodromes and whats the point?

[Hold27Left]

After recent events that have happened, I decided to surf through these Forums to see what people thought of Flight information and i must say the views I have come across are of a mixed variety and one of something that makes interesting reading. Especially One post made by Shaggy Sheep Driver. Before I carry on, please can I make myself clear that i am not having ago at any one person here, but only expressing my personal view over flight information (as a FISO), with its benefits and its disadvantages.

Here is what I noticed..

Ok we all know most pilots don’t like ATC in what ever form it comes, whether its A/G, FIS, or full ATC. I can only assume its because its another thing that you must do and only gets in your way?
Why is this though? What is it we all seem to have against any ATSU?
SSD, in an old Post you made sometime last year, you said that at where you fly its continuous R/T chatter? And you cant understand why? - Have you ever considered that the field you fly from is one that’s very busy, with pilots like yourself flying out in the open space of Class G airspace? and with every pilot that flies, there is bound to be R/T transmissions? (With every movement there is approx 7 necessary calls). It appears to me that you have some sort of grudge against the people who man your tower? - is this just because they stop you from taking off when you want to? or what? i would be interested to know, assuming you still read these forums.
SSD, please don’t think I am having ago at you, its just yours seems to stand out from most of the threads I have read.
I will however ask you one question, Have you ever thought about the benefits these people provide you!? And yes they do.

You will find that most people who provide Flight information at small aerodromes do it to earn a crust, just like you do in your own way, and are people who are very dedicated in doing their job well and efficient They are people who have put themselves through the necessary training, and who have sat the relevant examinations, in order to sit in their ''tower'' day in and day out (often poorly paid for what they do), in order to help relieve the pilot from some of the extra stress they don’t need. Whether its choosing a suitable runway, or pointing out that one piece of traffic that GXXXX Clearly hasn’t seen, OR (and god forbid) is the one who ''will pick up the pieces'' when something does go wrong.

From reading a large selection of threads, I also get the feeling that some of you out there feel FISO's are just "wannabe" ATCO's and are using their job as a stepping stone to getting there, and in some cases may not do a ''proper'' job. For this i would like to say one thing, We too like you pilots are regulated, and do, like you pilots, have to have Frequent Comp Checks, in order to show that we are doing our job in the correct, sensible and above all safe Manner.

One final thing I would like to express on this matter is, when can there be too much R/T Chatter? - Ok I will admit on some stations, and even at the one I work at, there can be some FISOs who give un-necessarily calls, but on the other-hand maybe that one call, it the one that ''flicks that switch'' and saves your life, or your pride!?!

So ppruners, please feel free to reply to this, I would like feedback on what i have said. Be you a fellow FISO, or a Pilot yourself.

I shall leave you all in piece now, but if you ever do wonder what does go on in that "big bad tower", then why not pop up and pay us a visit? We would be more than welcome to see you, and no don’t worry we don’t bite
:)

P.s this is also posted in the ATC issues section, as well as Private flying one! :)

[tacpot]

Yes, there can. I've heard some very odd exchanges between ground stations on A/G frequencies. Some A/G frequencies tend to be very 'relaxed'.

For myself, I welcome a higher standard of ATC at busier fields, such as might have an FISO. In the right place, I think Flight Information is a good compromise.

[FNG]

"Most pilots don't like ATC". Huh? I think you'd have to search quite hard to find people commenting other than in very favourable terms about the ATC and FIS services provided to GA pilots. Shaggy Sheep Driver and others, myself included, occasionally observe that some pilots appear slightly too dependent on the radio and on ATC, but no one slags off the ATCOS or FISOs. There was a thread a few weeks ago about this but it disappeared.

If this thread is meant to say: "FISOs can be very helpful ", I agree.

[Monocock]

Have to agree with FNG on this one.

I personally believe that it's not the A/G, Information or ATC that is the problem. The MAIN problem is how many pilots cannot identify between them and what they can do for them.

You can almost work out where people have been trained these days by the way they speak on the radio. For example at Popham last week I heard

"G-** Ready for departure"

(No answer)

"G-** Ready for departure"

(No answer)

"Blind call for all a/c in circuit, this is G-** ready for departure, currently by the holding point with two on board, shortly to be lining up"

"G-** Lining up"

"G-** Rolling"

And would you believe it..."G-** airborne!

None of these transmissions were met with a response (as is often the case with Popham's A/G. I believe he was heading for somewhere like Shoreham.

Similarly, you often see pilots at somehwere like Gloucester who start up, start taxying get to the hold and then mutter their intentions to the Tower.

Some airfelds have flashy towers with mirrored glass and all singing and dancing masts and aerials above them who only provide an A/G service. Others have a run down shed that is held together with chewing gum and they are providing full ATC.

It is the pilots responsibility to know what he should expect when he presses the PTT switch. Blaming the man in the tower for something is very easy.

So is looking in Pooleys to know who you are dealing with.

[IO540]

Personally I like full ATC, or, as an alternative, an airfield where not a lot is happening.

Otherwise, flying a plane which is slightly faster in the circuit than the average, one has to do a lot of go-arounds if it's a nice day. I don't know of a way to get around that, other than ATC getting people organised, or perhaps running a field where everybody is properly trained in the local procedures and no visitors are allowed :O

I like the comment about Popham v. Shoreham :O I think Shoreham has the best ATC of all the "GA" fields - very professional and helpful.

Once I flew into Eaglescott. I called up

E. G-xxxx

no reply

E. G-xxxx

no reply, heard some chatter about Fred going for a beer

(5 mins later)

E. G-xxxx

"Listen, mate, just make the right calls in the right planes and don't expect any response!!!"

OK, that's the extreme example perhaps... but one does get a lot more rude people in non-ATC fields. One also gets some "controllers" who like people to do the overhead join just for their enjoyment - a waste of everyone's time.

It has to be said that most PPL students find radio operation (while flying the plane, navigating etc) one of the hardest things. So it's not suprising many don't like to do much radio. But it's a great asset and should be used whenever there is a benefit i.e. not a lot of point in calling up London Info :O Often a listening watch is the best thing.

I think another aspect of the problem is that many PPL instructors over-do the radio. They get students to call up London Info every 5 minutes, pointlessly increasing the workload. I reckon the system turns out a lot of pilots who are afraid of using the radio.

[Evo]

A/G can be fine. It can also be a pain in the ar$e when it's busy and you've had to go around twice because someone has lined up five seconds after you've called short final. In that situation a FIS is a real benefit, and IMHO strikes the right balance between keeping some order on the ground and allowing you to do what you think is best in the air.

[Ludwig]

Hold27, I’m not sure that I would agree that Pilots, and I imagine you are talking here about GA rather than the big boys, dislike the tower people. At most places I have visited everybody does their bit for the aviation activities whether it’s flying, talking, or whatever. There are some places which stick out as being less user friendly I agree, and there are a few A/G operators who think they should be honorary ATCOs, but I would say that most of the really really crap RT comes from Pilots, often at A/G airfields where no one is actually n any type of control even in the looses sense.

From a GA Pilot view point my general observations on the Tower versus the Pilot debate would be:

• Very busy airfields with A/G I think are dangerous, especially when a some of the locals randomly use any one of a selection of runways regardless of wind.

• There are a small minority of A/G operators who well over step their authority. At one grass strip I have visited, the A/G man gives take-off clearances, followed by instructions to route via this that and the other climbing not above this and reporting level at this!

• The larger airfields which amass great swathes of airspace who unhelpfully on first contact say something like, remain clear of controlled airspace and change to on another frequency, goodbye. Stanstead is one of the worst for this.

• And the biggest problems in the RT environment of all, are often the pilots. So often you hear people rabbiting on about completely irrelevant stuff, using very very non standard RT phrases, have not thought at all about what they want or why they are talking; stepping on other peoples transmissions because they don’t listen before they press the PTT; the worst example I have heard for a long time was last Saturday on Rochester’s frequency; the poor chap in the tower was at his wits end with people stepping on other transmissions – crap airmanship, and so rude.

Perhaps it’s time for a compulsory RT re-test every now and again.

Some Tower chap and chappess are an absolute delight to work. Again this Saturday, the guy in the tower at Lydd was fantastic, so friendly

[windsock9]

I will second that evo, no more is needed at barton (for example) there seems to be just the right balance. FIS works well although alot of people think it is actually air ground, some even respond on the radio as if its full ATC, it would be nice if people began to read into FIS and tried to grasp a greater knowlage of what the service actually is.

Talking about wasted |RT time.... One thing i hate, is hearing people asking for radio check on 122.70 on initial call up, this is a huge waste of RT time. i think about 11/12 hours a year is spent on the radio in total asking that (quick estimate of 2 seconds a call 20,000 call ups?!), if the pilot was not on 122.70 in the first place they would know it. They wouldnt get a respone from the ATC unit in question, and basically if the radio is crappy enough, i think the pilot would be told regardless to weather he/she asked for a radio check!

W9

[FlyingForFun]

I totally agree with comments about the excellent service ATC provides.

But I still can't help wondering what the point of an AFISO is. That's not intended as a negative comment on the people who do the job, but on the people who created the position in the first place.

I have yet to meet a pilot who can not negotiate his way around a (usually) small airport without bumping into someone else on the way. On the other hand, it is practically impossible for us to visually spot every other pilot in the air - even when we know (through traffic information from ATC, or from the pilots' position reports) where they are. Yet here we are, given an AFIS service, where the poor AFISO is allowed to give us instructions on the ground where we really don't need them, but not in the air where, arguably, we do :confused:

I have, in the past, received some excellent service from AFISOs. In my experience, although they can not give instructions to us in the air, the information they provide is invariably helpful. They generally seem to do a very good job within the nonsensical limitations their role imposes on them.

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

[bookworm]

FFF

Good points. I think the important aspect about the AFISO is that there's guaranteed to be someone on watch, following the traffic in the circuit. Why they let AFISO's control traffic on the ground is a mystery to me.

[Boing_737]

The one thing that gets right up my nose is (and this seems to happen more often on A/G radio) you turn final and want to make that call, and then some charlie sparks up on the radio with his full life story - knowing full well that they're not going to get any kind of response.

I would say that any issues are not the fault of the ATSU, FIS, or A/G radio but just that pilots don't know how to use the different services effectively, efficiently, and succinctly.

I have to say that I also feel sorry for the controllers at Farnborough. They seem to get tom, dick, and harry calling them up. Using Benson (if you are north of Farnborough) can be much better as they are usually much quieter - reduces your stress levels significantly, and helps reduce the workload on the F'boro ATSU as well.

[Mike Cross]

The orginal question did not differentiate between FIS being provided by an AFISO at an aerodrome and FIS being provided by a controller elsewhere.

Personally I will call for FIS if I need it, e.g. to get the QNH.
If I call for some other service, e.g. an airspace transit then I will normally expect FIS unless I have specifically asked for something else, if they offer more then it's a bonus.

If I intend to fly within an ATZ then the Rules of the Air Regulations are absolutely specific about what I should do. If anyone need a refresher they are here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF

The problems appear to arise where either the pilot or the ground based radio operator does not understand the rules.

For example Rule 35 says you can't taxi without permission of the person in charge (whether he's ATC, FISO, a/g or whatever)

Rule 39 requires permission to fly within the ATZ if it's ATC or the obtaining of information to allow the flight to be conducted safely if it's AFISO or a/g. Therefore ATC can refuse entry but AFISO or A/G cannot.

It follows that AFISO's and a/g operators can both DIRECT the movement of aircraft on the ground, they connot however direct the movement of aircraft in the air.

ATC can DIRECT the movement of aircraft on the ground and in the ATZ if it is "notified for the pupose of rule 39" (which most are).

There is of course the usual get-out that makes the Commander entirely reponsible and allows him to disobey an instruction if it dangerous to comply.

Friction arises when the Pilot dislikes what the other guy says, which might be because he is overstepping his authority or because the pilot doesn't understand that he has the authority.

The above is the legal position WRT the flying rules. It is of course entirely legitimate for an aerodrome operator to devise procedures for joining, departure or noise abatement and make adherence to those procedures a condition of using his aerodrome. Persistent offenders tend to get banned.

Mike

Bookworm said
Why they let AFISO\'s control traffic on the ground is a mystery to me.
I refer m\'learned friend to Rule 35 ;)

[bpilatus]

Did we not so long agao talk of this same critisism for FISO personel and agree that some times it is very good and sometimes it is not

I find out discussions here
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=87009

[Stoney X]

windsock9, can I remind you of the following from CAP413 regarding the radio check :
1.15.1 Test transmissions should take the following form:
a) the identification of the aeronautical station being called;
b) the aircraft identification;
c) the words ‘RADIO CHECK’;
d) the frequency being used.
While it might be your personal hate, people who specify the frequency in a radio check are in fact using the correct phraseology.

Regards
Stoney X

[FlyingForFun]

Mike,The orginal question did not differentiate between FIS being provided by an AFISO at an aerodrome and FIS being provided by a controller elsewhereI thought the thread title of "Flight Information at Aerodromes and whats the point?" rather gave the game away on that point??? :D

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

[High Wing Drifter]

Regarding the Radio Checks: I agree, if the station name is in the call then why? However, I prefer to do things by the book unless there are official requests not to. One example is Blackbushe FISOs don't like taxi requests. Does beg the question why FISO (as said above) but then with helicopters, jets, turboprops and light a/c it probably does pay to have them full-time (as also pointed out above).

[Mike Cross]

FFF

You are of course correct:ok:
Just desirous of pointing up the differences between FIS and the person providing it, who can be an ATCO, or a FISO. If it's at an aerodrome he's more correctly referred to as an AFISO I believe.

Mike

[Kingy]

Not wishing to sound stupid... but....

I thought a 'flight information service' was given to an aircraft in flight by an ATC unit, and a FISO gives an 'information service'. Indeed, I have heard a student ask for a FIS at a full ATC field only to be told curtly one would not be available until he was airbourne...!

Kingy (confused by all this RT business)

[vintage ATCO]

The term AFISO was dropped some time ago, Mike. Now just FISO. :D


Radio checks . . . why bother? Yes, I know it says so in CAP413 but if you call for taxi clearance and your radio is no good the ATCO/FISO/bloke on the end of the radio is going to tell you, I hope. One less call when you're busy.

[windsock9]

Stoney X, The point was not about using the frequency for a test transmission. The points that you made were perfectly valid about the correct way to do a "test transmission" - hence: stating the frequency to increase the RT time for a better listen to the radio from the other side (atc).

But when calling up an airfield for the purpose of flight. You do not need to ask for a radio check on "one - two - three - decimal - four - five, just ask for a radio check if thats what you want! Stating the frequency is a waste of RT time and could be cut out of your initial callup. If there is no response - radio IS faulty or your on the wrong one....

Could you imagine a BA captain on a long haul to somewhere sunny departing from Manchester or Heathrow asking for a radio check on the ground/delivery freq stating all the numbers of the freq he is using? as well as his departure and taxi instructions? I just dont think its right and i know alot of people which share this annoyance

[Stoney X]

windsock9, I did think you were complaining about the frequency part :ugh: hence my post, but if you are complaining about the whole radio check then that's even worse :suspect: vintage ATCO answered his own question of 'why bother?' by tagging on the 'I hope' bit in his post. It's the PIC's responsibility to ensure he has the required equipment for the flight and that it is working correctly, so it could be argued that performing a radio check keeps you in line with the ANO, unless the radio isn't a required item for the flight you are about go on of course. We all certaily hope that if the radio was a bit dodgey that we would be told but can you be sure?

I personally prefer to positively confirm that my radio is working by requesting a radio check, but like most others I include this in a startup/taxi/airfield information call and I can't remember ever having requested a radio check with the frequency except when I did the RT practical exam. Yes I agree there are areas where RT chatter needs to be cut down (G-** is lining up, G-** is rolling, G-** has raised the nose/tail wheel, etc) but I treat a radio check as a required part of pre-flight preparation. There must be other things to get annoyed at rather than at somebody checking their equipment is up to it?

Not sure what BA pilots do a Heathrow but I'm sure they have SOPs to cover all this.

Regards
Stoney X

[windsock9]

Hi stoney x, i think you have misinterpreted my post. Radio checks are great if you want one, you only have to ask for one, but why read out the entire frequency that you are transmitting through?? it seems a waste, basically as i said before, if there is no response from that unit you have called you know automatically your radio is on the wrong frequency! eg...

ABC tower, GABCD request radio check and taxi.....

not....

ABC tower, GABCD request radio check on one-two-three-decimal-four-five and taxi......

its the reading out the frequency part im getting at! not the radio check in general

regards W9

[Stoney X]

windsock9, agreed, I think. :O

[Squadgy]

Kingy

FISOs and ATCOs can both provide a full and identical Flight Information Service. There is no lower level of 'Information' Service.

Some ATCOs may have the benefit of a radar to help in the provision of traffic information, although as traffic information is not guaranteed this is an extra.

[paulo]

Looking at the original post, I'm trying to work out what the question is.

Do we think that FISO is a superfluous addition to AG?
Do we think that FISO is a problematic downgrade from full ATC?
Or do we just hate FISOs?
Or do we like them?

What's the queston?

(I hope that doesn't sound too harsh. I sat down to write about how great the FISO services I've had have been, and then wondered whether I was actually answering the post...:confused: )

[morning_star_sm]

Hold27Left, don't be surprised that SSD didn't bother answering your question. His radio NIMBY attitude excludes him from discussions about r/t.

[DRJAD]

Sorry, I have not yet read all through the complete thread, but am responding to the initial thoughts.

i. I am extremely grateful for all of ATC, AFIS, and A/G, providing me with information when I need it. I don't have a problem with the differing completeness and control regime, provided I understand what I'm getting.

ii. As a pilot I'm very happy to provide the information about my flight progress which assists the provider of the relevant service to build their picture of traffic.

iii. As has been said, I think, discipline in use of RT, particularly at A/G aerodromes by pilots is key to clarity and rapid build of traffic awareness by all pilots on frequency. Lack of that discipline is always a danger at such fields, though I hasten to add that I have not encountered any particular problems at fields I have visited.

iv. AFIS has been very helpful to me when transiting close to an ATZ containing a busy navaid for example.

These are just personal opinions, but overall I feel grateful for the services provided.

[bookworm]

Bookworm said

quote:
Why they let AFISO's control traffic on the ground is a mystery to me.

I refer m'learned friend to Rule 35

I agree with what you write about Rule 35 Mike, but as you point out it applies equally to AFIS and A/G. Why then, when the aircraft is ready to taxi, does the FISO need to instruct (CAP 410 b):

"(Aircraft callsign) taxi holding position (designation) runway (designation) via (route), surface wind (number) degrees (number) knots, QNH/QFE (pressure) millibars, left/right hand circuit."

when the A/G operator must advise (CAP 452):

"(Aircraft callsign) runway (designation) left/ right hand circuit QFE/QNH (pressure) millibars."

?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Hold27Left - check your PMs

morning_star_sm - grow up.

SSD

[Power Up]

Just my 2p worth

I think generally any service available to aid the pilot is appreciated (i am ppl(H) training for CPL). It is the times that there are informal chats on the frequency that they get annoyed (i do), as there is no need for it. Everytime I speak to a service, upon leaving frequency I will say my thanks, but that is the only informal remark that I will make, you never know when someone else may need to be transmitting - especially if an emergency arises.

Anyone else share the same view?

[DRJAD]

Powerup,

Yes!

[Capt. Manuvar]

I haven't had the misfortune :} of dealing with FISOs but i regularly use FIS from ATC aerodromes when i can. it comes in handy in areas where LARS is unavailable or for checking regional QNH. I've also gotten helpful traffic info when passing navaids which is helpful for dodging IR/IMC students practicing their holds.
I use FIS as a "poor man's" LARS when the latter is unavailable. I usually fly near coventry and with the airliners flying out of there now, FIS can be a Godsend. When recieving FIS i believe an ATCO has a duty to inform you of any dangers but i stand to be corrected. Its naive to assume that class G is only for spamcans, speaking to an ATCO recently, I was suprised by the number of airliner that they vector out into Class G airspace.
Capt. M

[FNG]

and you have a duty to look out of the window, Captain

[bar shaker]

You are right about commercial stuff using class G.

St Mary's marsh is popular for general handling and is used by many schools in Kent and some in Essex.

When Southend are using 06, they vector heavies over St Mary's as low as 1500ft. And its their published radar approach pattern.

FIS is a godsend at times and I would hate to see it go.