Pilot Controlled Lighting - UK [Archive]

BillieBob

27th Jun 2010, 18:40

If it is solely a legal issue that would seem rather petty.If you want petty then the Wireless Telegraphy Act is the place to find it. I was wondering about the legality of MCW (A2A) transmissions in a band authorised for AM telephony (A3E) and datalink (ACARS) but, as yet, I have not found any definitive requirements on the Ofcom website as to permitted modulation types in the VHF aeronautical mobile band and so have been keeping my powder dry.

Where's Whopity when you need him?

IO540

27th Jun 2010, 20:10

Didn't the Cons promise to shut down Ofcom?

Sir George Cayley

27th Jun 2010, 20:38

For the CAA, the problem with PCL at licensed aerodromes, lies with a cheeky little paragraph in our favourite bedtime read; CAP168:ok: In particular the controlling words are in Chapter 6.

A sumptuous prize to the first Forumite to quote it:)

Sir George Cayley

rogerp

27th Jun 2010, 21:00

I would guess that CAP168, 11.1.3
"The control of an AGL system from beyond the boundary of a licensed aerodrome will only be approved by the CAA for the sole use of the emergency services. Where this type of control is desired, an operational requirement proposed by the aerodrome authority and supported by the emergency services involved should be submitted in the first instance to the CAA."
would effectively preclude pilot controlled lighting?
:ugh:

Satcop

27th Jun 2010, 21:04

I think you'll find it's Chapter 6 para 11.1.3

The control of an AGL system from beyond the boundary of a licensed aerodrome will only be approved by the CAA for the sole use of the emergency services. Where this type of control is desired, an operational requirement proposed by the aerodrome authority and supported by the emergency services involved should be submitted in the first instance to the CAA.

And

11.1.4
When in use, the operational status of the AGL system should be continuously monitored. An appropriate means of detecting an AGL system failure or fault and other serviceability information should be provided. The AGL system serviceability information should be provided to the AGL operator in a simple but accurate and concise way, so that if necessary the user may pass a report to flight crew. The report should enable flight crew to determine whether the AGL meets their current operational flight requirements or not (see paragraph 11.3.5).

We fell foul of this when we wanted to provide the AGL for public transport helis operating outside the published aerodrome hours.

IO540

27th Jun 2010, 21:11

But surely this is pure bollox.

Mandating the wearing of pink underpants would be as relevant to flight safety.

How can somebody come up with this "regulatory" garbage and keep a straight face?

If one could turn runway lights OFF remotely, that would not be so clever. But turning lights ON ??? :ugh:

Mickey Kaye

27th Jun 2010, 21:29

It annoys that when conducting a night nav exercise in a single engine piston and the donk quits (Obviously this isn’t the Rotax more reliable aircraft cause that’s not approved for night flight). I’m smack overhead an active aerodrome but I have to ditch in the blackness cause it doesn't have PCL – madness.

Fuji Abound

27th Jun 2010, 21:37

We have them.

You might want to redact that. :)

BillieBob

28th Jun 2010, 08:35

S-Works

28th Jun 2010, 08:49

You might want to redact that.

Why?............

mm_flynn

28th Jun 2010, 08:59

OK, that seems to cover licensed aerodromes but what about the (increasing) majority of airfields that are not subject to CAP168? The CAA has no control over the use of radio at unlicensed airfields - that's a matter for Ofcom, however it might be re-named in the future.

There appear to be no particular restrictions at unlicensed fields ... which is why Bose-X can post with no worries on this particular subject.

The more annoying part is that even when when airports permit 'unlicensed' after hours operations they are still licensed aerodromes from the perspective of not allowing PCL. My local field has PCL, but only for the copper chopper.

Spitoon

28th Jun 2010, 14:49

The CAA has no control over the use of radio at unlicensed airfields - that's a matter for Ofcom.....Not true, I'm afraid. Take a look at ANO Article 205/206 and the radio station licensing procedures applied by the Directorate of Airspace Policy.

And CAP 168 is a document published by the CAA setting out rules and so on in order to implement its obligations and policies. To that end, CAP 168 Chapter 6 para 11.1.3 (and many other references) are there because the CAA wants them to be there.

mm_flynn

28th Jun 2010, 15:04

And can your field's radio tell when it's the copper in his chopper pressing the ptt? ;)

Sadly it is a top secret frequency (not the info frequency) and in the interest of safety .... Special Branch will have to kill you if I let you know what it is ;)

BillieBob

28th Jun 2010, 16:34

Not true, I'm afraid. Take a look at ANO Article 205/206 and the radio station licensing procedures applied by the Directorate of Airspace Policy.Ok, poorly worded, perhaps. Radio licensing is the responsibility of Ofcom, including the terms and conditions under which the licence is issued. Some parts of this responsibility may be delegated to other agencies, such as responsibility for the FRTOL being delegated to the CAA, but the responsibility remains with Ofcom as detailed in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 and the Communications Act 2003.

IO540

28th Jun 2010, 16:37

The problem I see with PCL is that, to avoid pranksters, one should use a different frequency, but which one? One cannot just pick one at random...

An SMS controller is far better. Texts work fine below about 2000-3000ft.

What would be the market? I have a product which accepts SMS to control things, but does not currently have a relay contact. This could be added though.

Whopity

28th Jun 2010, 16:50

They have it at my favorite strip Badminton! Mind you for the couple of times the Earl uses it, £2060 for Spectrum Pricing will make it an expensive landing. If an aircraft calls to announce its arrival, how could connecting the receiver of that signal to a lighting system be illegal? The alternative would be the Armstrong method, where his lordship's butler pulls a handle in the palace connected by a suitable system of gears and linkages to the lighting switch at the airfield when he hears the aircraft transmit.

CAP168 has no legal status and contains the following statement:
The purpose of this document is to give guidance to applicants and licence holders on the procedure for the issue and continuation of or variation to an aerodrome licence issued under Article 128 of the ANO 2005, and to indicate the licensing requirements that are used for assessing a variation or an application. The document also describes the CAA’s aerodrome licensing requirements relating to operational management and the planning of aerodrome development. This document represents the minimum standards necessary to meet the licensing requirement.

Sir George Cayley

28th Jun 2010, 21:29

I know it's some time away to us impatient, devil may care, flying types but a satisfactory resolution to this problem approaches............

....and I never thought I'd say this, but it's.........

EASA :eek:

See they have a different idea about regulation and litter their regs with AMCs. Alternate Means of Compliance. Seems to me that coming up with some Euro-babble to satisfy Cologne shouldn't be beyond our collective wit.

BTW Rogerp, You win - well done. I've sent you a sumptuous ice lolly!

Sir George Cayley

Spitoon

29th Jun 2010, 20:00

Sir George,

You know that old saying, 'be careful what you wish for.......'

Phil Space

29th Jun 2010, 21:04

Who needs lights at a grass strip at night. I always managed with a mate at the
side of the threshold with his headlights on.

If you can't see the strip at 50ft then time to go elsewhere.

Some of you guys should try outback flying in Australia sometime.

Hotel-Mama

6th Jan 2011, 15:55

Sorry to resurrect, but with the long nights and short days of January, this is of more practical concern than back in June. I just gently enquired whether there is any chance in the future for PCL at Kemble (sorry, Cotswold), and was told rather emphatically that this is TOTALLY ILLEGAL in the UK, even for unlicensed airfields. According to the AIP entry for Kemble, "Aerodrome lighting does not conform to CAP168 and is not available for licensed operations", yet lighting can be used unlicensed by coughing up £150+ for someone in the tower to switch it on.

So there we have it: the lighting does not conform to CAP168, but can be used, whereas PCL also does not conform to CAP168, and is therefore illegal.... :ugh:

Can anyone come up with some legal obstacle other than CAP168? Of course, there are other obvious commercial reasons why airfields might not want PCL (for which I have some sympathy), but it would be good to know the truth why something almost universally available in the US is (almost?) unavailable in the UK.

S-Works

6th Jan 2011, 16:03

I enjoyed landing 15 minutes again in the dark after 5 presses of the button.....:p:p:p

W2k

6th Jan 2011, 17:54

Here in Sweden PCL is very common and typically on the TWR freq (or the traffic frequency if the field has no TWR). A 15 minute timer is common. When I was working on my NQ flying circuits at an airfield with PCL (ESSU, if anybody cares) I got a nice surprise when the lights went out on short final. Nothing to do but go around, ofc.

Tinstaafl

7th Jan 2011, 04:31

The CAA's concern about the integrity of the lighting system - including getting them switched on - is easily dealt with by mandating an alternate if PCL is planned to used or, alternatively, holding fuel + a responsible person able to switch the lights on manually. That's what Oz does.

Typical CAA bull****.

IO540

7th Jan 2011, 08:15

Very much so.

If I had my own strip I would do it quietly, and possibly use SMS instead. SMS works OK below about 2000ft.

Adrian N

7th Jan 2011, 09:03

Pressing the PTT button is rather easier than fumbling around with a mobile phone trying to send an SMS. And of course, as we all know, the latter would interfere with the aircraft's navigation systems and you'd end up in the wrong place! ;)

In South Eastern France, it is CAA policy to ensure that as many airfields as possible have pilot controlled lighting. They deal with the integrity issue by checking the bulbs work once in a while, and installing a backup generator. They then mess it up by reserving night operations to locally based aircaft in too many places, but at least you can arrive back home without problems.

Agaricus bisporus

7th Jan 2011, 14:23

IO540, as you no doubt know using your mobile whilst airborne is also illegal, but for much better reasons than PCL being so, which may well seem no more than pointless Blinkered British Bureaucratic Bollix. (and its got nothing to do with messing with your nav kit either)

Hotel Mama and others, the "truth" is very simple. The VHF a/g frequencies are allocated (by whoever allocates the electromagnetic spectrum, ie not the CAA) for voice comms only. PCL is signalling which (surprise!) is a different classification to voice, ergo; illegal. Anywhere else such distinctions might be ignored, but you ain't anywhere else, so it sticks. Elsewhere people tend to be sufficiently responsible to use such things correctly, here we seem to have a way of taking the p!ss out of such concessions. It wouldn't be long before some berk started using PCL for starting his central heating or sending burst transmissions to a fax machine, so the bureaucratic mind just says, "No!".

IO540

7th Jan 2011, 14:42

It wouldn't be long before some berk started using PCL for starting his central heating or sending burst transmissions to a fax machine, so the bureaucratic mind just says, "No!".

I hardly think so, given the number of remote control options on the market already. Nobody is going to be clicking on some air frequency to control his central heating. And if he really wanted to, nobody could stop him; all he needs is an Icom radio and a simple decoder on the headset socket :)

I am sure the only reason PCL is banned here is because the CAA are too scared to do anything innovative in case there is some sort of comeback, no matter how highly theoretical. Their lawyers probably told them that if the un-ban it, and somebody crashes at night when the system packs up, the CAA will get sued.

This is of course bollox, but if you ask a lawyer (paid by the hour) if there is a liability his answer will nearly always be Yes, and the lawyers working for the CAA are all of the same character profile (a #1 Pozi screwdriver stuck up their sphincter would never fall out under gravity).

Exactly the same reason why Lyco won't amend their 1960s engine menagement writings to support LOP operation.

Cusco

7th Jan 2011, 17:29

I'd dearly love to have PCL at our strip and would be very happy for it to be restricted to base a/c only.

But the lights wouldn't last five minutes at the hands of the local yobs....

Agaricus bisporus

8th Jan 2011, 15:25

Nobody is going to be clicking on some air frequency to control his central heating. And if he really wanted to, nobody could stop him;
Read through that again slowly. It is a logical nonsense.
Beyond that, your airy dismissal of the law on the basis that "no one can stop them" (Oh really? Why not?) is in diametric contradiction to your assumption that nothing can be done because of some completely fictitious "liability".

Sorry you seem to swallow all that twaddle about liability, it's one of the worst diseases crippling our society at present. One day we'll realise that even lawyers can't do things that are beyond their powers and we can all get on with the rest of our lives unhindered by imaginary and self-imposed restrictions. May it come soon.

As I suggested above, had you troubled to read it, the CAA do not regulate the electromagnetic spectrum. Surprise-Surprise OFCOM do that! The restriction below is neither imaginary nor imposed by the CAA.
UK Interface Requirement 2052 (http://search.ofcom.org.uk/search?q=cache:BwdpIs2PxYYJ:stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/spectrum/spectrum-policy-area/spectrum-management/research-guidelines-tech-info/interface-requirements/ir2052.pdf+ir2052&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&site=site&ie=UTF-8&client=ofcom-redesign&proxystylesheet=ofcom-redesign&oe=UTF-8)

See table 3.1, elements 3 and 4
That's where it says PCL isn't licenced here.

mark147

8th Jan 2011, 17:04

Hotel Mama and others, the "truth" is very simple. The VHF a/g frequencies are allocated (by whoever allocates the electromagnetic spectrum, ie not the CAA) for voice comms only. PCL is signalling which (surprise!) is a different classification to voice, ergo; illegal.If that were true, would it not make the 'speechless code' illegal also? (you know, 1 click=yes, 2 clicks=no, 3 clicks=say again etc. for use in case of microphone failure). Red herring I think. It's just the CAA doesn't want to allow it.

Spitoon

8th Jan 2011, 19:31

If that were true, would it not make the 'speechless code' illegal also? (you know, 1 click=yes, 2 clicks=no, 3 clicks=say again etc. for use in case of microphone failure). Red herring I think. It's just the CAA doesn't want to allow it. Emergency procedures are different from routine operation inaccordance with the relevant regulgations. Agaricus bisporus has given you all the details about why it is not permitted in the UK. What is interesting is why some other countries allow it despite international regulations to the contrary.

S-Works

8th Jan 2011, 19:46

Just out of interest how much does it cost to install the equipment that would upgrade bog standard lighting like we have in the UK to PCL.

About £200. Ours uses and aviation band scanner tuned to a frequency and responds on 5 clicks to activate a relay that switches a 110v transformer, has worked fine for over a decade.

mm_flynn

8th Jan 2011, 20:00

See table 3.1, elements 3 and 4
That's where it says PCL isn't licenced here.???

Out of curiosity how does element 3/4 say keying your analogue voice mic on an aviation transmitter 5 times is not an authorised use (and having a machine that counts the number of carrier on /offs in any 10 second period is also illegal?)

The only rule I have seen that seems to relate to this question is the CAAs refusal to grant the PCL capability to licenced aerodromes other than for the specific use of the emergency services (so maybe there is a table 3.1ES that specifically modifies 3.1 3/4 if it is an emergency service user???)

dublinpilot

8th Jan 2011, 22:11

The VHF a/g frequencies are allocated (by whoever allocates the electromagnetic spectrum, ie not the CAA) for voice comms only. PCL is signalling which (surprise!) is a different classification to voice, ergo; illegal.

What if you had a lighting system that simply came on if any voice transmittion on the frequnecy lasting longer than 3 seconds (to avoid random interference).

So you announce on the airfield frequency that you're inbound from the west, and when you get there the lights have already been turned on! No illegal signaling....just normal radio calls.

twelveoclockhigh

8th Jan 2011, 22:23

We used to have ours connected to a phone switch and turned them off and on by DTMF tones. worked very well.

The latest aerodrome lights are solar powered and come on automatically.

Solar Aviation Lighting, Solar Airfield Lighting, Solar Airport Lighting | Solar Aviation Lighting.com (http://www.solaraviationlighting.com/) for example.

MR.X99

8th Jan 2011, 23:27

Wow! I did not realize this. I no runway lights,$50 for every "touch & go" :ugh:

Need aerospace reform in the UK or have it run out of Brussels. That should be law,just like having lights on your car.

What an embarrassing aerospace fact.

Mickey Kaye

9th Jan 2011, 08:43

Is there anywhere in europe that has PCL?

Will it be legal if and when the UK joins EASA?

Sir George Cayley

9th Jan 2011, 13:38

Never even heard of the OFCOM document.

However, saying that it stops PCL doesn't appear to stand up. CAP 168 Chapter 6 has already been cited as the reason GA can't use PCL, but the Emergency Services can.

It's been common practice for Police Air Support Units to operate PCL outside ATC hours, some at licensed airports. In order to facilitate this a discrete frequency is allocated (and kept secure) via I presume OFCOM.

Is there a general exemption ?

Sir George Cayley

Agaricus bisporus

9th Jan 2011, 14:56

If people fail to see why that OFCOM reference covers it I can only think that it was a very long time since they did aviation law. It clearly states that the frequency band is authorised for AGA voice traffic and ACARS under defined parameters. Clearly any other use is not authorised, and blipping the carrier five times to switch a lighting system is nmanifestly neither voice comms or ACARS. What is hard to understand about that?

So Police use it - they've got an exemption and we haven't, though I'd be surprised if there were any discrete frequencies spare in our crowded aircraft VHF band. Do they use air band, or a seperate transmitter on another band? If its airband there'll be nothig very "secure" about it - does that mean "secret"?

And I think it is also clear that the CAA have no wish for this to become commonplace for whatever reason so there is no incentive for them to relax their stance. It just ain't going to happen here.

mm_flynn

9th Jan 2011, 15:36

The police do use the normal airband, it is 'secret' at my local field in that it is not published, but your normal Com box will activate it if keyed on the right frequency.

And I think it is also clear that the CAA have no wish for this to become commonplace for whatever reason so there is no incentive for them to relax their stance. It just ain't going to happen here. Quite probably true. However, must of us wonder Why CAA/OFCOM choose to regulate against this capability (as well as several other modern technologies), which have decades of proven implementation in other countries, improve utility and likely have a positive safety advantage (more common night flight, thus higher currency, more diversion airfields, etc.).

It is just another one of those annoying features where our safety regulator chooses to restrict utility for no benefit (other than jobs for the boys turning lights on after hours).

PS

Your logic also seems to imply that the double click acknowledgement on short final and the speechless code are also not authorised as they are neither voice coms nor ACARS and in fact are very similar to signaling

Spitoon

9th Jan 2011, 18:51

And I think it is also clear that the CAA have no wish for this to become commonplace for whatever reason so there is no incentive for them to relax their stance. It just ain't going to happen here. In my experience, the CAA are quite open to changing policy and rules where they can when presented with a reasoned and sound argument for the proposal. But 'It happens elsewhere' ain't going to cut it. The CAA is interested in assuring safety - PCL does present some hazards (none of which are unmanageable). If anyone really wants PCL, why not present a good case for allowing it rather than going around in circles on an internet forum?

IO540

9th Jan 2011, 21:18

Presumably if you want to do this at a public airfield then you can't keep it low-profile so the CAA would have to be approached.

If indeed they would care - would they?? I somehow don't think they would prosecute. I suspect that, more likely, the airfield owner would not want it for fear of the lights going out when somebody is on short final and crashes on the go-around (a climb into total blackness, on instruments). The UK is full of people who would worry about that, and looking at the calibre of some pilots, who can blame some of them?

Private strip owners can do what they like. They won't have their own VHF frequency anyway so they would use any of the existing radio control solutions on the market.

BackPacker

9th Jan 2011, 21:58

The police do use the normal airband, it is 'secret' at my local field in that it is not published, but your normal Com box will activate it if keyed on the right frequency.

There are 720 or so frequencies in the Aeronautical VHF band (assuming 25 kHz spacing). Five clicks = five seconds, then try the next frequency. So trying all frequencies takes 3600 seconds, give or take. That's one hour at most to find the right frequency. Although you might want to share the workload between a few pilots or you'll end up with a seriously sore finger.

But my guess would be that their secret frequency would somehow be "one-off" from any of the frequencies they normally use, for ease of remembering and selecting. That would reduce the number of frequencies to try to maybe 24 or so.

(A hackers mind is a joy forever...:})

Agaricus bisporus

11th Jan 2011, 05:21

IO540 gave a pointer there, I think. Private strip owners doing what they like -such as buying PCL sets and setting them to any old frequency because they don't have an allocated one, and causing interference with who knows what else uses that freq. The inability to control that alone would give the CAA good reason to say no. And you bet the CAA prosecute illegal use of frequencies causing interference with legal users.

Bit embarassing if you picked the same freq as the police base though, and your farm strip lights up lke a christmas tree every time they want to land, and vice-versa.

IO540

11th Jan 2011, 07:08

And you bet the CAA prosecute illegal use of frequencies causing interference with legal users.They will have to notice it first, which they won't. Every radio frequency has tons of interference on it, here and there. A private strip will have hardly any use at night, and it is a piece of cake to find a frequency not used by any known airport; there is a website listing allocated frequencies for the UK and probably Europe.

Not suggesting anybody does this though, because there is little point. Google on
sms remote control
and you will get the idea. There are loads of products and sms does work at low altitudes. It takes very little interaction with the phone to do this; just store a template message in some folder and send it when you want the lights on. I have such a box right here, enabling me to control the ADSL equipment at a remote location, to reset it when needed. It cost me about £200 and that included adding a big relay to switch a higher current than the built-in one.

S-Works

11th Jan 2011, 10:43

MPT1320 Licence exempt walkie talkies as used by bikers etc. Scanner to listen to the frequency also licence exempt. PCL circuitry recognises a specific series of clicks. In the case of ours it is 5 clicks in a specific timing.

Never fired up by interference nor failed to fire up. We can assign any frequency that the scanner can 'hear' this includes air and ground bands.

But the MPT licence exempt is the best way to go for those looking for an excuse to find illegality in use. It is also more reliable than an SMS. We don't get a mobile service in the air around our place, in fact we barely get one on the ground......

IO540

11th Jan 2011, 11:23

There are actually loads of other radio solutions. One can get radio modems which go up to about 20km (IIRC) and which are license-free. There are also off the shelf remote control solutions which work on 2.4GHz and which will work over more than enough distance. There are so many solutions for activating PCL that the legality issue becomes totally moot.

Nibbler

11th Jan 2011, 16:15

I know it's not in the area initially requested but on the more general topic Cumbernauld have the facility and activated for me to use for a late arrival (private use) in 2009. Unless of course the rules have changed since. It was activated on their allocated airfield frequency.

Sir George Cayley

11th Jan 2011, 21:00

Just to be clear about who has legal powers for controlling the misuse of frequencies. It's not the CAA.

It used to be the RCA (Radio Communications Agency). I worked with them a few years ago tracking down an oik who'd stolen a radio and thought it great fun to be a bedroom air traffic controller.

He was located using RDF and 'spoken too' by a big chap in a uniform.

THe RCA was absorbed by OFCOM. The CAA collect radio licence fees on behalf of, in effect, the Inland Revenue, but the only powers they have under the ANO in this instance would include reckless endangerment.

Hope this clarifies the position as I understand it.

Sir George Cayley

Shunter

11th Jan 2011, 21:12

Faking a caller ID on GSM is virtually impossible.

Cue loud coughing noises... It's actually so trivial it wasn't even fun.

I agree, the PCL situation is pathetic. If I had a private strip I'd buy it, install it and use it without giving slightest concern to whatever rules might prohibit it.

Spitoon

11th Jan 2011, 21:19

The CAA collect radio licence fees on behalf of, in effect, the Inland Revenue, but the only powers they have under the ANO in this instance would include reckless endangerment.
Whilst Sir George is correct up to a point, the CAA does (or certainly did a few years ago) have a bit more involvement with radio station licensing such as approval of callsigns, approval of frequencies for particular uses and services and the co-ordination of protected frequencies (i.e. assignments designed to try to minimise the likelihoon of interference from stations using the same frequency).

mm_flynn

12th Jan 2011, 06:09

A number of posters have said it is OFCOM that regulates frequency allocation and legitimate usage - With which I understand and agree.

However, it remains unclear to me that keying the voice carrier for the purpose of conveying a message is not a legitimate usage (and on this point I am already aware a number of you disagree).

However, if you are correct, why does the CAA choose to express this restriction against using the voice carrier to signal as

only a specific instance (PCL),
only for some aerodromes (licensed fields - at all times even if they are operating unlicensed at the time)
with a CAA managed exception for certain emergency services use (on airband rather than police band radios)

Rather than a general restriction that 'forbids carrier key signalling within UK airspace on aviation frequencies - this includes the use in PCL'.

The regulation as drafted feels much more like addressing an Aviation Safety concern someone had/has about landing at unattended aerodromes at night.

Or is this another example where the regulations are written in an indirect and overly wordy way so as to introduce ambiguity and the opportunity for increased bandwidth consumption on PPrune ;)

Agaricus bisporus

12th Jan 2011, 16:03

Flynn, the short answer is "because it is their train-set".
I'm sure they do feel uncomfortable at the thought of light aircraft coming and going at night willy-nilly, as would a number of other Govt agencies.

If I had a private strip I'd buy it, install it and use it without giving slightest concern to whatever rules might prohibit it.
Shunter, you do not belong in the aviation community with an attitude like that. You are a disgrace and a danger to the rest of us with that attitude to the rules. Aviation is not an activity for those with a gipsy mentality like yours.

IO540. Yor attitude is little better, as virtually every post you've mad so far recommends or suggests some sort of illegal activity and contempt for rules that were made by wiser people than you for reasons of safety, yet you always appear to know better.
For your (and others') info those frequencies not requiring licences are not exempt from the law, and one of them relates to height of the antenna above ground for reasons of reducing nuisance by excessive range.
and it is a piece of cake to find a frequency not used by any known airport;
It is actually rather difficult to find a frequency in Europe that is not nibbling into the coverage area of another station using the same one at or outside published coverajust ge area, and that is the licenced ones. You are not in posession of a geographical spectrum analysis so you are talking out of your fundament. It is pretty staggering to find someone so ill-informed and actualy peddling such utter crap on this forum. Does it not occur to you that although you have not heard any transmissions from ground level it does not mean that your Tx cannot reach and block someone airborne a hundred miles away, or that you just have't been listening at the right time.
Your attitude stinks too.

What's wrong with just accepting that you aren't allowed to?
Or fitting a decent landing light and using reflectors?
Or just not night flying from your private strip when there isn't enough moonlight to see.

For God's sake. We really get them on this forum, don't we?

IO540

12th Jan 2011, 16:33

I'm sure they do feel uncomfortable at the thought of light aircraft coming and going at night willy-nilly, as would a number of other Govt agencies.So, how different is it for me to phone somebody at the destination, before departing, and get them to switch on the lights at the appropriate time?

:ugh:

Yor attitude is little better, as virtually every post you've mad so far recommends or suggests some sort of illegal activity and contempt for rules that were made by wiser people than you for reasons of safety, yet you always appear to know better. What pompous bollox.

You must be Mr Guppy in disguise :)

Or fitting a decent landing light

Evidently, you don't fly (or are a retired ISO9000 quality inspector with FSX), for that would be illegal.

Mickey Kaye

12th Jan 2011, 16:40

Arse

PCL obviously works and is safe. One would struggle to find a more litigious society than America and its in widespread use there without problems.

Its no wonder people question the CAA current stance.

ShyTorque

12th Jan 2011, 17:55

A typical PCL transmission: - - - - -

Taking about three seconds. That's all.

Some posters here seem to live in a constant state of fear and/or anger. :hmm:

S-Works

12th Jan 2011, 18:35

Can someone please point me at these antenna restrictions for use of an MPT exempt radio?

LH2

12th Jan 2011, 23:32

[....]or are a retired ISO9000 quality inspector

That's very harsh. There is no need to be so insulting. :=

:E

mm_flynn

13th Jan 2011, 12:42

Flynn, the short answer is "because it is their train-set".

You have changed your position on this point. Earlier you were arguing the restriction has naught to do with the CAA and was an OFCOM regulation.

re-read my question. [PARAPHRASE]If that is true (i.e. the restriction is imposed by OFCOM) why do the CAA choose to communicate this restriction as only applying to licensed aerodromes and only one type of carrier key usage? [PARAPHRASE/]

If it is a CAA restriction rather than OFCOM (which I believe it is) then stop muddying the thread with irrelevant comments about frequency usage.

If one wants to make a case for change a good starting point is to understand who made the rule and why. To this end I believe it is the CAA’s rule, not OFCOMS and is 'safety' based)

IO540

13th Jan 2011, 13:51

And if it is "safety" based then the CAA needs to make a good case for retaining it, because it heavily detracts from the utility value of general aviation, which results in poorer pilot currency, a reduced safety, and economic damage.

It's pretty obvious that the case for "safety" here is about the same as the "safety" case for holding back GPS approaches. Both them and PCL work just fine in the USA....

I am sure the CAA can see this line of attack coming, which is why they are not going to go public with any reasons for being against PCL. The moment they state that they don't like it for safety reasons, they are toast. And if they give other reasons, they are toast as well. So they are just going to stonewall.

Tinstaafl

13th Jan 2011, 15:26

I'm not sure that the Ofcom argument is correct, although I'm prepared to be pursuaded. If so then the easy fix is to say 'click' (or whatever) each time the mic. is keyed. Voila! Voice communication.

The safety case doesn't hold water. You only need to look elsewhere to see PAL/PCL in use as a normal part of aviation - including public transport.

IO540

13th Jan 2011, 16:01

the easy fix is to say 'click' (or whatever) each time the mic. is keyed

Very clever :ok:

Even better would be voice recognition :)

"lights on please"

ShyTorque

13th Jan 2011, 17:19

What is the safety case?

I'm sometimes tasked to land at a private HLS that has PCL, just a ring of lights giving an outline of the landing pad. I know the frequency and will obviously use them if it's dark. However, if they don't come on, I still have to land there anyway. Landing without the pad marker lights is possible, because I'm familiar with the HLS but I reckon it's safer to use them.

Katamarino

13th Jan 2011, 17:41

Agaricus bisporus, people who unthinkingly and unquestioningly follow rules, just because "it's the rules", are a far greater danger than those people in this thread who have the maturity and brainpower to assess the risks themselves! If you truly believe that all rules are made by people who know better than you, you must consider yourself barely more intelligent than a newt...

PCL is a proven, safe technology (if you can even call it a "technology", it's so simple) that is kept out of the UK by lazy, unthinking bureaucrats who aren't worthy of washing our cowlings :ok:

Capot

13th Jan 2011, 18:00

If I owned/ran a licensed aerodrome in the UK, I would argue that the airfield is only licensed when it is published as open in the UK Air Pilot.

Bt definition, PCL is for use outside opening hours, when the airfield is unlicensed, probably unmanned, and therefore unregulated.

There is no law that I know of preventing use of an unlicensed airfield by an aircraft which is allowed to do so by the nature of its operation, by day or night, with the owner's consent. And there is no law which says that lights cannot be provided for such use at night. Neither the lights nor their method of operation is subject to regulation under the ANO in those circumstances.

Spitoon

13th Jan 2011, 19:28

Neither the lights nor their method of operation is subject to regulation under the ANO in those circumstances.Perhaps not, but the use of radio stations is, and the conditions of the radio station licence still apply.

That is not to say that I am particularly agin the idea of PCL, or that I blindly follow the rules without thinking about them. But to argue that PCL is used in another, different environment and so it should be allowed in the UK (or wherever else it is not permitted) is no better than the supposed stonewalling that the CAA has been accused of.

And some GA pilots wonder why the CAA doesn't seem to listen to them......

Capot

16th Jan 2011, 13:30

OK, understood, but the regulations are not about all radio stations, they are about transmitting radio stations.

The aircraft's radio transmission, on a particular frequency, is received by a receiver on the ground which turns on the lights. That's my understanding, and if I'm wrong I'm sorry.

The aircraft radio is not being used outside the terms of its licence, any more it would be if the signal were received by a person who replies "OK, Guv" and reaches out to switch on the lights.

I'm not arguing that PCL can/should be used in UK because it is elsewhere; I'm arguing that PCL is permitted now in the UK on an unlicensed airfield at least.

As the level of simple legal knowledge and aeronautical competence in the CAA heads South, so does their propensity for talking rubbish increase.

Spitoon

16th Jan 2011, 14:45

The ground radio station also needs a license - even at an unlicensed aerodrome.

It's an interesting argument that only a receiver is required because the legislation is focused on transmitters. Assuming that no transmitter is used on the ground on the frequency in question, perhaps it does come down to the terms of the aircraft radio station licence. But it begs the question, what frequency would be used?

Tinstaafl

16th Jan 2011, 17:27

If the field has its own or shared aerodrome frequency, then that would be the one to use eg CTAF, FISO, Air/Ground and the like.

Spitoon

16th Jan 2011, 17:50

And there's the problem - as soon as you use a frequency assigned to air-ground-air communications you are dragged into the licensing requirements for ground stations.

mm_flynn

16th Jan 2011, 18:39

And there's the problem - as soon as you use a frequency assigned to air-ground-air communications you are dragged into the licensing requirements for ground stations.
I continue to struggle with this constant referral back to frequency usage. There are a number of well known to the CAA PCL installations (generally airports that host the emergency services) and there are a number of probably well known unlicensed fields that are reasonably public about the fact they have PCL.

My local field (which does have PCL for Emergency Services) has been in dialogue with the CAA about allowing it to be used out of licensed hours for general traffic. I am told the answer they received from the CAA was

'You are a licensed field, just because you are not available for users requiring a licensed field out of hours does not mean your license has lapsed. The published rules specifically forbid the lights of a licensed field from being turned on by someone outside the airport boundary. PCL does just such a thing - therefore you can not have PCL for general use.'

There were not told, OFCOM prevents the use.... or OFCOM will only issue exemptions to emergency services...., or PCL is not legal in the UK. It was a very specific answer.

Spitoon

16th Jan 2011, 18:58

Forget the matter of what emergency services might be allowed to do - you are a mere mortal just like the rest of us.

There are rules that we have to follow, lest we live in anarchy. Take a look at the rules that apply here - you can start with those in the CAA's CAP168, CAP670 and no doubt others. Look at the terms of all of the licences and approvals that are issued to go with the radio stations involved. Then take a look at the WT Act and the associated ITU Regulations.

The rules have been put there by people who see the big picture rather than one small and insignificant corner of one's own world. Sometimes those rules become outdated. If you think the rules are wrong then put your argument to rulemakers - but make it an argument instead of simply saying you don't like the rules or you don't see why the rules are the way they are.

IO540

16th Jan 2011, 20:07

The issue, evidently, is that the CAA don't comment publicly.

One wonders why.

Is it to prevent being held up to ridicule?

If the CAA commented publicly, half the forum threads would be superfluous.

mm_flynn

16th Jan 2011, 20:19

...
There are rules that we have to follow, lest we live in anarchy. Take a look at the rules that apply here - you can start with those in the CAA's CAP168, CAP670 and no doubt others.

We all understand that rules are for a purpose! I (and more importantly the management of the airport) have read the CAAs rules and have asked the question (getting the answer I quoted earlier).

I have also tried to find the relevant radio regulations, and the summary OFCOM documents indicate they have pretty much delegated everything to do with these frequencies to the CAA and international agreements.

The broad existence of PCL outside the UK seems to support my view that their is no intrinsic international restriction against using these frequencies for this purpose. Hence the people with a proper big picture -- rather than a little island picture seem to support this application.

The only reference provided to support your position that OFCOM (and or WT Act, ITU, etc. ) have a position is the argument that the frequency is only approved for specific data and voice - and that keying the mic while not talking is signalling (a prohibited activity). It seems a very weak argument to pin your position that it is OFCOM/WT Act/ITU that is preventing this usage rather than simply the CAA choosing to not allow PCL at licensed airports (which as someone already said, they are perfectly entitled to do as it is their train set).

...The rules have been put there by people who see the big picture rather than one small and insignificant corner of one's own world. Sometimes those rules become outdated. If you think the rules are wrong then put your argument to rulemakers - but make it an argument instead of simply saying you don't like the rules or you don't see why the rules are the way they are.

If one wants to make a case, as a start, you need to know who to speak with and their concerns. Going to OFCOM with a technical argument for why this is a legitimate use of spectrum with no adverse impact on other users when it is a CAA safety based decision would be a bit daft.

If you have a more specific reference of why the radio regulators (either locally or internationally) have a view on this use I would love to see it.

As it stands, I remain convinced the originator of the rule is the CAA and the context is provided by Chapter 6 of CAP 168 (a concern about the monitoring and integrity of lighting used at licensed aerodromes and nothing at all to do with your 'an aviation station licence prohibits this use' position).

Capot

17th Jan 2011, 18:05

The CAA said (above) The published rules specifically forbid the lights of a licensed field from being turned on by someone outside the airport boundary. PCL does just such a thing - therefore you can not have PCL for general use.'The actual rule (CAP 168 Chap 6) is;

11.1.3 The control of an AGL system from beyond the boundary of a licensed aerodrome will only be approved by the CAA for the sole use of the emergency services. Where this type of control is desired, an operational requirement proposed by the aerodrome authority and supported by the emergency services involved should be submitted in the first instance to the CAA.The ANO is silent on the matter. The key word is licensed.

So the argument hinges on the CAA's assertion (above) that a licensed airfield remains licensed outside its opening hours. As sometimes happens, an outwardly quite true statement conceals the real truth which is that although the licence is not withdrawn during closed hours, its conditions only apply within opening hours.

If the CAA were right, there would be the absurd situation that an unmanned unlicensed airfield, of which they are many, could safely provide PCL for night use, while its neighbour, licensed during daylight opening hours but not when closed and unmanned at night, may not do so.

Mickey Kaye

30th Sep 2012, 19:04

Now we are in the new world of EASA is it possible that anything could change on this front.

peterh337

30th Sep 2012, 19:11

IMHO if you just do it, nobody is going to stop you.

The other way is using SMS, which is pretty reliable at low level, and is obviously out of the jurisdiction of the CAA etc.

xj8driver

30th Sep 2012, 21:05

IMHO if you just do it, nobody is going to stop you.

I can't realistically see that any licensed airfield would take that chance; once word got out that such-and-such airfield has PCL the CAA would jump on it pronto.

As for SMS, the PCL would still be controlled from outside the airfield boundary.

Personally I think it's all about keeping the neighbours happy, and not necessarily all about safety; PCL works perfectly well elsewhere in the world, but the last thing the CAA want is a backlash from the nimbys - think of all that paperwork they'd have to deal with! The CAA knows the neighbours will tolerate the emergency services flying at night, because they know it's for a noble reason - but GA pleasure flights? I think not..

Just to clarify, I've used PCL in the US, and think it's great. I'd love to see it used here in the UK if only, initially, until 10pm. That way I'd get to keep up my night hours!

Flyingmac

1st Oct 2012, 08:19

We have PCL. On a timer. Unlicensed airfield.

A few clicks to turn it on for departure. The same for arrival. To argue that switching it on from the cockpit while static is ok but switching it on from the overhead isn't, is pedantry in the extreme. :=

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 08:53

the CAA would jump on it pronto.On the basis of exactly which ANO clause?

The airport I am based at (Shoreham) has PCL. For use by the based police helicopter :) You won't need a PhD and £1M of kit to work out the frequency it is on. I also don't exactly recall an ANO clause which talks about PCL and exempts the police...

S-Works

1st Oct 2012, 09:51

Won't be seeing much use after today then with the demise of the Shoreham police heli service.

Maybe you could persuade them to let the plebs use it.

Mickey Kaye

1st Oct 2012, 10:36

"I can't realistically see that any licensed airfield would take that chance"

But if its now allowed then maybe a few of them would. By all accounts it doesn't cost a lot to install and may generate some extra revenue.

Where I am based it is effectively impossible to fly at night. Two of the 3 regional international airports have 100 quid handling fees. The one that doesn't closes at 2200.

There are one other local GA airport that has lights but its only open till 2000.

Its nigh on impossible to do night ratings in this part of the world (and totally impossible over summer) I've even met people who have gone to the states to add a night rating to their licence so they can start their CPL training. Hardly ideal for our local flight training establishments.

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 10:53

The solutions are fairly trivial.

At work (industrial electronics), we don't do any aviation stuff but we make a little box (email me if interested) which functionally is very close to doing exactly this i.e. turn on a relay from an SMS message, for X seconds. It costs about £300, including the GSM modem.

That's what I would do if I had a strip and wanted PCL. IME, SMS is more or less guaranteed to work below say 2000ft.

The FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) surrounding PCL goes back many years, to some old boy in the CAA who has long retired. I would bet you anything the CAA would never enforce it today.

mad_jock

1st Oct 2012, 11:04

I doudt its even the pilot side of things which is being the hand brake.

I suspect its ex mil ATCO's which are dead against it along with the Dft and others not wanting aircraft landing at airports at night with no records of it.

Another_CFI

1st Oct 2012, 11:05

CAP168 (Licensing of Aerodromes) states "The control of an AGL system from beyond the boundary of a licensed aerodrome will only be approved by the CAA for the sole use of the emergency services".

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 11:10

OK, but unlicensed ones are not bound by this.

Mickey Kaye

1st Oct 2012, 11:41

And are licensed ones when they unlicensed? eg the fire crew have gone home

dont overfil

1st Oct 2012, 11:52

And are licensed ones when they unlicensed? eg the fire crew have gone home

Licenced airfields are still licenced after hours. The licence cannot be switched on and off. We've been through this with the CAA for other reasons. The ATZ may not be H24.

What all this comes down to is we do not live in a "can do" culture. (yet)

D.O.

riverrock83

1st Oct 2012, 12:38

mm_flynn

1st Oct 2012, 12:46

Rather than the issue being Nimbys, is it not more a safety issue - as in - someone turning the lights off when someone else is on approach?

Licensed aerodromes are likely to have a much greater volume of traffic than unlicensed.
Two planes are approaching an airfield at night, the first guy turns it on (say by SMS), then the second guys turns it on as well. The first guy doesn't know about the second guy, so once he vacates, he then turns the lights off again - leaving the second guy in the dark...
Landing at night is likely controlled by other means (simply no permission granted to land between certain times).
I don't think there is a particular correlation of traffic at licensed vs unlicensed fields.

Also, PCL doesn't work like that. You can turn it on and you can adjust its level, but you can't turn it off with the PCL system - it goes off on a timer.

PCL is common in other countries (particularly the USA) and IFAIK there are no safety issues - beyond the general reduced safety of night time operations.

However, even if you are in a busy circuit you should key up the system. I was once doing a night landing away and was something like number 5 in the circuit with the field and ALS lit up like a Christmas tree- so didn't bother to key the PCL again. On final the Christmas tree turned into a black hole :eek: Oops. Never have I gotten out 7 clicks on the mic faster!

I have no idea why this rule exists, I am pretty sure the CAA has lost the logic in the mists of time. But I also know my local field has PCL for the police and tried to get it available for all but failed.

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 12:47

Am I right that since licensing is no longer required for flight training, any field wanting PCL (and be 100% legit as per the regs) can go unlicensed - unless they want to retain AOC business.

CAP168 (Licensing of Aerodromes) states "The control of an AGL system from beyond the boundary of a licensed aerodrome will only be approved by the CAA for the sole use of the emergency services". I am really suprised there is still a regulation on PCL, as posted above. What is the point?

The issue with the light turning off too early is potentially there no matter what technology is used.

phiggsbroadband

1st Oct 2012, 13:04

It would be possible for lights to be Re-Switched-On with just the press of the PTT, after the first 'coded' switch-on. I think anyone with a Phd in electronics could configure a PIC Chip to do the neccesary functions.

One objection to night flying is that it could lead to no revenue for the airfield, if the office is closed, and also neighbours objecting to multiple free circuit sessions in the dead of the night.

Pete

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 13:13

Sure, but that is a policy decision for the airfield owner.

If he thinks that preventing arrivals from avoiding the payment of landing fees outweighs the much increased utility of having night capability then he needs to think hard about what kind of customers he's got based there :) Sure some will take the micky but most people aren't crooks.

fattony

1st Oct 2012, 13:26

The CAA knows the neighbours will tolerate the emergency services flying at night, because they know it's for a noble reason - but GA pleasure flights? I think not..What about all the commercial pleasure flights from LHR/LGW etc? Most commercial flights are packed with people going on holiday, i.e. traveling for pleasure.

You're probably right though. That likely is the reason. It frustrates me.

The issue with the light turning off too early is potentially there no matter what technology is used.That could also be a problem with tower-controlled lighting. At a licenced field with no radar the tower could switch the lights off at 6pm when they go home while there is traffic joining the circuit with comms fail. Tenuous I know but could happen.

One objection to night flying is that it could lead to no revenue for the airfield, if the office is closedThat may be some people's objection but plenty of fields operate without someone there to take landing fees. Most people will leave the money in an envelope.

How about a petition? Anyone think we can generate enough pressure to get the CAA to review their position?

soaringhigh650

1st Oct 2012, 13:57

The reasons for refusing PCL are the most stupid I have ever come across.

Where is the "can do" attitude among the bureaucratic regulators?

Tell them that if they are not convinced about safety to go and talk to the FAA and fetch the stats.

Another_CFI

1st Oct 2012, 14:16

As an airport manager (now retired) I tried in the past to get permission for PCL supported by risk assessments,etc and basically the CAA response was "Rules is Rules".

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 14:52

Is there any history of enforcement on this?

It's not much different from using 123.45 for air to air comms, which is widespread, and in many cases the pilots could be traced. Yet I have never heard of anybody prosecuting this.

dublinpilot

1st Oct 2012, 17:50

CAP168 (Licensing of Aerodromes) states "The control of an AGL system from beyond the boundary of a licensed aerodrome will only be approved by the CAA for the sole use of the emergency services".

I think you are all looking too hard for a reason for this to be illegal. I see nothing in the rule quoted above which would prohibit the use of PCL. The only thing that it requires is that for a licenced aerodrome, that the control take place inside the boundary of the aerodrome.

Airports take up a reasonable amount of space. Surely with a GPS the pilot can position into the known overhead, and thereby be sure that they are within the boundary of the aerodrome when activating the lighting.

Once activated they can then go and position onto a downwind and complete the remainder of the circuit.

What they can't do is turn on the lighting from 5 miles away to help them find the airfield.

Yes it's a stupid rule, but I can't see how it would stop the legal use of PCL, so long as the pilot positions themselves into the overhead first :8

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 19:28

That is very clever, Dublinpilot :E

Fly to the overhead first....

Shunter

1st Oct 2012, 20:01

I think it's one of those rules which are simply so petty they are best dealt with using the "easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission" methodology. The half-century-old and utterly irrelevant legal bolleaux quoted on this thread (over and over) has almost no basis in fact, logic or plain old common sense.

If I had my own strip I'd put them in without even giving it a second thought.

riverrock83

1st Oct 2012, 20:42

I was trying to lookup the definition of "aerodrome boundary"

in CAP 168 Ch1 Page 3 5.3 it says:
... the aerodrome licence should show the boundary of
the area of the aerodrome set aside for the movement of aircraft requiring the use of
a licensed aerodrome, so should include runways, taxiways, aprons and, in most
cases, the area adjacent to the terminal building. This is the area that will be audited
by Aerodrome Standards Inspectors, and is also the boundary of the area referred to
in Condition 3 of the aerodrome licence.

This is the only definition I have found and matches the example maps later in the document.
That would mean that in most aerodromes the control tower would be outside the legal definition of aerodrome boundary. Nowhere in the document does it say that the control tower must be inside the boundary.

I know this doesn't make sense (ATC doesn't run down to a box beside the runway at Heathrow and throw a switch) but what am I missing?

mm_flynn

1st Oct 2012, 21:24

If I had my own strip I'd put them in without even giving it a second thought.
Once again, not the problem. There are a reasonable number of 'strip'/ unlicensed fields that have PCL are some other non-approved approach to lighting. It is specifically getting this at licensed fields that is the issue. In that case one has a business that requires a license and that license can be revoked on the basis of providing PCL. This is not a sensible risk to take - on the basis that the management pays many tens of thousands of pounds pa to comply with the license conditions it must be reasonably important to the management - so risking loosing it is just not a clever plan.

I strongly agree the rule is bonkers, but have no clue how to get the CAA to review and remove this rule and as another poster has mentioned, there are licensed fields with proactive management (who one assumes are more familiar with lobbying the CAA than most of us) who have tried and failed on this particular PITA rule.

Mickey Kaye

1st Oct 2012, 21:26

"The issue with the light turning off too early is potentially there no matter what technology is used."

Actually that happens now. One airfield that does have lights has them on a timer and they go off at exactly 2000 hours regardless. Apparently people have been on approach when it has happened.

smithgd

1st Oct 2012, 21:57

peterh337

1st Oct 2012, 22:11

There are airports which, if you are on final when they close, will tell you that you cannot land, and you have to divert.

I think it's pretty common, and is connected with "somebody" having to pay ATC and fire crew a massive amount for overtime if one goes past even 1 minute.

Turning off the lights is pretty mean but is really the same as not issuing a "cleared to land". If you wanted to land in that situation (no clearance) you would have only some seconds in which to notice "low oil pressure" and declare the mayday ;)

I come back to what I said earlier i.e. if unlicensed then the solution is easy. If licensed then you rely on the CAA to sign you off, which they don't have to do. But who needs to be licensed? It is surely only for AOC ops these days?

Mickey Kaye

2nd Oct 2012, 07:03

Sadly I think its a case of all ready too late.

Some 20 years ago I did my PPL training from what is now effectively a GA no go international regional airport. Each year a significant number off students got night ratings in fact the place was as busy at night as it was during the day. There was also a couple of other airfields that had lights nearby and they were pretty busy also.

These days the number of people who get night ratings has dropped through the floor. Also when I am airborne at night its no where near as busy as it used to be.

I think the damage from not allowing PCL has already been done. I also think to reverse this will take a lot of cash - lets face it installing lights is not cheap.

The other problem is where are we going to train the next generation of night pilots. If the CAA wont allow training using PCL at licensed airfields are they going to allow it at unlicensed ones?

peterh337

2nd Oct 2012, 08:07

They cannot control it at the unlicensed ones.

soaringhigh650

2nd Oct 2012, 09:25

I strongly agree the rule is bonkers, but have no clue how to get the CAA to review and remove this rule and as another poster has mentioned, there are licensed fields with proactive management (who one assumes are more familiar with lobbying the CAA than most of us) who have tried and failed on this particular PITA rule.

Engage your local AOPA advocacy team. You can be good at managing a field, but not necessarily the skills to campaign. Time to fight the Campaign Against Aviation.

peterh337

2nd Oct 2012, 09:38

Another-CFI

As an airport manager (now retired) I tried in the past to get permission for PCL supported by risk assessments,etc and basically the CAA response was "Rules is Rules".

Can I ask when you tried this?

I recall reading posts somewhere saying that this interpretation was consistently applied by a particular long term resident in the CAA, who has now retired.

CAP168 is not the ANO or the Civil Aviation Act. Like LASORS, it is one of a number of CAA publications which the CAA draws up as it wishes. So, while the CAA has the legal power to draw up these rules, the "rules" are their own making, so them saying "rules is rules" is a bit circular...

This box (http://www.kksystems.com/english/html_files/product_pages/kdmon.htm) (among quite a few others on the market) will energise a relay for x seconds (where x is 1 to 100000) following an SMS message. However, the current drawn by runway lights will require an external relay. We another similar box (made by somebody in Australia, of all places) to interrupt power to internet gear if something needs seriously rebooting, so this stuff is mainstream and has been for ages. You just need to keep the SIM card topped up; a £20 topup lasts for years because the box sends out a dummy SMS every 89 days (programmable) to stop itself expiring. The only gotcha is that some satellite phone SMSs are not delivered to terrestrial GSM networks :)