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! :)

[Timothy]

What's been going on at Barton then?

Timothy

[Hold27Left]

Who said anything about Barton? :hmm:

[ATMspecialist]

Just out of curiosity, do you do IFR traffic at aerodromes with FISO in the U.K as we do here in Norway?

We have some 30 odd airports with FISO here, granted most of them are STOLPORTS serviced by Dash 8`s, but a couple are also served by 737`s and have had even larger visitors.

Most of these airports have LLZ/DME approaches, except those served by 737`s and up, ILS to at least one RWY.

Cheers
ATM Spec

(Ex FISO for 15 years)

[Jodel Hugger]

Hi,

I did visit the tower at Barton last year on a very busy Sunday, and spent a few hours sitting in with the FISOs, (Matt and Steve:ok: ).

These guys are really cool headed and have to deal with a lot - while I was there a plane had an engine problem and the FISOs had to get the firemen ready while still talking to the normal training and private aircraft - there were about 5 flying circuits and a lot of helicopters.
It was different to what I thought it would be like in the tower, they have some computers but most is done with little plastic cards which get moved around.

I'm really happy with the tower at Barton. I would love to do the job one day!

[1261]

There are a very limited number of aerodromes in the UK handling commercial traffic without full ATC. Interestingly though, I can't think of any which do so with AFISO service (somebody put me right!); they either have ATC or nothing at all.

Certainly the small fields up in the Shetland Islands have no service (Westray, etc.). Campbeltown (Machrihanish) has AFIS, but I don't think there are any commercial services into there, despite its 3049m runway!

[windsock9]

I think Barrow have a few king airs which operate commercially from the airfield, and i think that its pretty quiet. It runs on aerodrome FIS and i believe there is the possibility of an ILS being installed in the near future.

[tmmorris]

There was a CAA consultation document (no doubt someone more educated will know where to find it) recently about the possibility of approving IAPs for aerodromes with no approach control service or even in some cases ATC at all, i.e. allowing IAPs with AFISO. Don't know what happened to it.

With typical CAA tact they tacked on a bit which made the proposals unpopular with some pilots, which would have made it illegal to carry out a 'home-made' IAP into an uncontrolled airfield (which currently seems to be legal). Otherwise I think pilots would have supported it.

Tim

[caniplaywithmadness]

Campbeltown has a daily scheduled service from Glasgow, usually a twin otter, sometimes a saab340

[TC_LTN]

Well here is my penny worth as posted in 'another place' but relevent to this thread;

As an ATCO who provides ATC, FISO and A/G at various locations at various times I feel there are two aspects to the debate.

1. What type of service is warranted by the traffic levels, complexity of the operation and customer requirements at a given location?

2. The proficiency of the service provider (ATCO, FISO, A/G operator) in providing the service required.

The type of service required, I feel, is fairly easily defined. Airfields with Instrument Approach Procedures and accommodating more than on IFR flight at a time require the provision of Air Traffic Control. The reason for this is that CAA says that the fare paying passenger on an IFR flights deserves the 'protection' of a qualified ATCO providing separation between two aircraft. Personally, I also feel that the pilot operating IFR deserves this protection as well as his or her passengers! The debate, opened by the CAA a few months ago, as to whether Instrument Approach Procedures should be accommodated at airfields without full ATC is, IMHO, a non-starter as long as more than one aircraft wishes to carry out the procedure at a time.

Back to the FISO / A/G debate; I think there is very little difference in practical terms between what an A/G operator or a FISO are able to offer to aircraft in the air. The main difference is in the operation on the ground where the FISO exercises 'positive' control and there is virtually no difference between the FISO's role and that of an ATCO providing a GMC service.

So when does an airfield NEED an A/G and or FISO service? Well I guess this relates specifically to the type and intensity of the operation. A medium or busy training operation with continuous circuit traffic may well benefit from a pair of eyes in the tower keeping an eye on what is going on, issuing pertinent traffic information and airfield information. Many training organisations would also claim there are material benefits to be gained by having someone for their students to talk to at an early stage of their training. This, at least, allows the student to become familiar with that element of 'multi-tasking' and eases the process and fear that many students face of conversing with ATC in other phases of flight. At some relatively quiet airfields the integration of diverse operations i.e. fast jets, warbirds with light GA is often eased by the provision of good quality information to all parties concerned. The relaying of essential aerodrome information is clearly best accommodated by a person on the ground in busy traffic environments. Weather observations, official or otherwise, unserviceabilities and alerting action (overdue or emergency service) can all be easily coordinated via a single point of contact on the ground.

IMHO, the difficulty with FISOs comes in the role of positive control on the ground. I do not feel they are sufficiently qualified or indeed actually required, using the determining factors above, to get involved in positive control of traffic on the manoeuvring area. However, the illustrious authority have decreed (under a lot of pressure from a few power crazed AFISOs, at the time) that the FISO shall exercise this role. Ground control by FISOs is COMMONLY provided to the detriment of their primary task i.e. the provision of Flight Information to aircraft in the air. On three occasions when I have visited a particular FISO manned airfield, the FISO has been so deeply involved in 'controlling' what is going on, on the ground he has failed in the provision of flight information to aircraft in the air. Combining ancillary, support tasks with FISO'ing is another problem which has been mentioned. I think this is quite easily managed but there again I am a hairy arsed old ATCO who know exactly where his priorities lie. If faced with answering the phone, taking a landing fee, giving a taxi clearance or indulging in conversation with the noisy pilots standing at the back of the tower, I tell the pilots to shut up, rip the phone out of the socket, announce landing fees are free today, ignore the aircraft on the ground and TALK/LISTEN TO THE AIRCRAFT IN THE AIR. It is all a question of priorities, easy for me to say when my primary salary is not dependent on me refusing to do any ancillary duties.

So to proficiency; and this is the crux of the problem. There is a completely unacceptable disparity in the quality and variation in the level of FISO service provided in the UK. Some A/G operators are very good and provide just the right amount of information to support the operation they are responsible for. This may consist simply of aerodrome information upon request and the occasional bit of traffic information about other known aircraft. This is basically all that is required of the FISO for airborne operations. Unfortunately, the delivery and interpretation of the rules as well as a huge variation in individual abilities leads to a diversity in the way the service is delivered and I suspect a lot of the reticence amongst pilots. I cannot emphasise how strongly I feel that the responsibilities given to FISOs with regard to positive control on the ground contribute to overall poor service delivery. Far too often inexperienced and poorly trained FISOs are spending far too much of their time attempting to control what is what is going on, on the ground and not paying enough attention to what is going on in the air. This is a serious error but quite understandable given the rather strange allocation of responsibilities given to FISOs.

Solution; Get rid of FISOs and evaluate whether an airfield requires someone with the new Aerodrome Visual Rating or simply if a well trained and briefed A/G operator will suffice.

[bookworm]

The type of service required, I feel, is fairly easily defined. Airfields with Instrument Approach Procedures and accommodating more than on IFR flight at a time require the provision of Air Traffic Control. The reason for this is that CAA says that the fare paying passenger on an IFR flights deserves the 'protection' of a qualified ATCO providing separation between two aircraft.

Not so in general, TC_LTN. Many public transport flights operate IFR in class G with no such protection. It seems quite illogical to me that the CAA picks out IAPs for special treatment.

With a system such as the FAA uses, there is no need for ATC (or any other ATSU) at the airfield, as the approaches are regulated by a nearby Center or Approach facility. In the UK, of course, we'd have to figure out who pays for the marginal cost of providing that service. And so we have, IMHO, the worst of both worlds.

[TC_LTN]

With a system such as the FAA uses, there is no need for ATC (or any other ATSU) at the airfield, as the approaches are regulated by a nearby Center or Approach facility. In the UK, of course, we'd have to figure out who pays for the marginal cost of providing that service. And so we have, IMHO, the worst of both worlds

I don't think we are in disagreement. I think you would agree that an IAP requires the 'protection' of a controller whether they are located at the airport or not. After all we are already providing a remote service to many airports in the UK. It is just having the capacity and sorting the remuneration to increase the service which is the challenge.

[bookworm]

I don't think we are in disagreement. I think you would agree that an IAP requires the 'protection' of a controller whether they are located at the airport or not.

No, I do indeed disagree. But I don't think it's a cut-and-dried issue, and I respect your view.

I think that the risk of collision is a tiny part of the overall risk involved in an arrival in IMC. I believe overall safety would be improved by increasing the number of available IAPs at smaller airports, avoiding the need for scud running or home-made approaches, even if no separation is provided.

[quote]After all we are already providing a remote service to many airports in the UK. [quote]

Really? Which ones?

[TC_LTN]

No, I do indeed disagree. But I don't think it's a cut-and-dried issue, and I respect your view.

I think that the risk of collision is a tiny part of the overall risk involved in an arrival in IMC. I believe overall safety would be improved by increasing the number of available IAPs at smaller airports, avoiding the need for scud running or home-made approaches, even if no separation is provided.

Oh well :oh:

The risk of collision is small or at least very similar to operating IFR in Class G while just one aircraft wants to make the approach. The risk of collision increases dramatically once a second aircraft wishes to undertake the procedure especially if, as is likely at many of the contender airfields around the LTMA, only a single holding level is available.

[quote]After all we are already providing a remote service to many airports in the UK. [quote]

Really? Which ones?

Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, London City for starters. Maybe not operated in the way you are thinking in that they have controllers at the airfields as well but LTCC are responsible for the IAP for all these airfields and the separation of aircraft using them, remotely. IMHO there is no reason, other than resources, why a service could not be extended to an IAP at an airfield without an ATCO at the airfield.

[Chilli Monster]

[quote]After all we are already providing a remote service to many airports in the UK. [quote]

Really? Which ones?

LTCC - LHR, LGW, LTN, STN

Thames - Biggin, LCY

Aberdeen - Sumburgh

Lossiemouth - Inverness

Leuchars - Dundee

(Last two not official, possibly a local 'letter of agreement')

Plus there are various contingencies between adjacent radar equipped units in the event of one having a radar outage / unavailability.

Having spent the last 3 weeks in a 'centralised radar / airfields have towers only' environment then it really is the way to go. Lots of IAP's to many more airfields, with the approach unit providing the IFR protection.

However - if you go down this road then you've got to do something else to prevent the scud-running that bookworm mentions - a more attainable IR and more user friendly airspace?

(Obviously been in the U.S far too long haven't I ;) )

[Phoenix_X]

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?

I really don't know how you came to this conclusion. I know this thread is heading some other way, but I had to say this.

I think there's a (very) few pilots who don't like ATC, but who talk about it alot (like happens all over the world -- unhappy people talk alot). But by far most pilots actually are very, very happy that ATCOs are around, whatever service they provide.

Just had to say that.