Calling 'Radio'

[Lawyerboy]

I know we've had many long and rambling discussions on here about the differences between A/G, AFIS and ATC units, but practically speaking how should I be dealing with this - picture the scene, flying back from a x-country navex towards Stapleford, on a heading of 220 and, lo and behold, 22L is in use. I call up Stapleford and after the usual polite introductions, say. .. .Me: Any chance of a straight in approach?. .. .Radio: Wait one.. .. .Do-de-do-de-dum..... .. .Radio: G-XXXX wind 180 at 12kts, QNH1004.. .. .So, the questions are these: . .. .1. Being Stapleford Radio, should I have in fact not posed my original request as a question and simply said something along the lines of 'I'm intending to conduct a straight in approach', and waited for them to 'suggest' an overhead join; and. .. .2. I know they can't actually give me permission to do anything, but would it not have saved that split second's worth of indecision had they added 'straight in at your discretion' rather than let me assume that it was OK?. .. .Yours curiously,. .LB.

[Mark 1]

As a pilot and an A/G operator, my perspective is that I cannot approve or disapprove any requests, and should not use the phrase 'at your discretion' (that is FISO phraseology).. .. .I will however give you information about known traffic (e.g. one aircraft on base leg and one on downwind), so that you can make your own decision.

[FlyingForFun]

Lawerboy,. .. .I think you already know the answers to your questions. You're right with Q1. And right with Q2, except that, being radio (and not information), they're not allowed to say "at your discretion".. .. .However, I personally would not do a straight in approach to an un-controlled field - certainly not from more than a couple of miles out, anway. It gives you no chance to see and avoid anyone else in the circuit (who would have right of way over you). Far better, if you want to get down quickly, to join on left-base or right-base, depending on the direction of the circuit in use. And if it's a field which I'm not familiar with (I get the impression from your post that this isn't your home field?) I'd always join overhead - this gives you a chance to check out the field beforehand.. .. .FFF. .---------

[Lawyerboy]

Thanks for the replies so far. Actually it is, sort of, my home field (I actually fly out of High Cross near Ware, but it's unlicensed so training takes place at Stap).. .. .Quite right, I did realise the 'at your discretion' point after I'd posted, but I suppose what I'm trying to get to is what should I be saying? If I'm, say, turning overhead an A/G field on a x-country should I be polite and say 'I'd like to turn overhead the field' or should I be mindful of the extent of the radio operator's ambit and frame it in terms of 'I'm five minutes out and will be turning overhead the field'?. .. .Sorry, rather pedantic all this I know. Bit of a lull at work..... .. .(editid for bad spelin). . . . <small>[ 20 March 2002, 13:47: Message edited by: Lawyerboy ]</small>

[Whirlybird]

Lawyerboy,. .. .If it's A/G, I always just advise them of my intentions, eg "joining downwind", "Five miles to the north with field in sight for straight in approach". If joining straight in I'd always call "Long final" at around 4-5 miles, so that circuit traffic knows what you're doing. And if told something like "numerous aircraft in the circuit, suggest you join overhead", I'd follow that unless I had an extremely good reason not to.. .. .That's for f/w aircraft of course. When helicopter flying, I never will understand why some airfields insist on asking helicopters to do overhead joins and join the circuit. We're in the way, difficult to see, and slow down before landing, which doesn't help anyone. Whereas if we come in low level to a nice quiet corner of the airfield, we're out of the way and bothering no-one.

[Bluebeard]

Lawyerboy. .. .This is something I can sympathise with, in fact I frequently use the overhead at Stapleford as a turning point. When I call up Stapleford Radio I normally use the rhetorical quesion approach eg 'We'd like to transit through your overhead'. . .. .I'm not expecting any specific reply, especially not any kind of refusal/permission. The A/G guy normally obliges with airfield information and details of any known traffic, especially coming in the opposite direction. For me using a question is a good combination of politeness and giving the other guy the chance to come back at me with anything pertinent.

[Avoiding Action]

Lawyerboy,. .. .I used to do the whole "polite" thing at A/G airfields, but my current opinion is that it gives the bloke on the ground too much rope to hang himself. To explain; "ask" for a straight-in join/approach and, if A/G operator isn't switched on, the word "cleared..." is already marching its way towards his next radio tx. The next thing you know the bloke is giving you sequencing from the 152 on left base,clearance to land,taxi to the gates, follow the marshaller etc etc. . .. .I suggest just treating it as almost an uncontrolled/unmanned field. Having assessed the traffic yourself, tell the bloke what you're going to do. ."Stapleford Radio, G-XXXX, 8 miles NE at 2000' to land, intend joining long final Runway 22.". .If there's any traffic or airfield info he can give you at this point, he should. Failing that you can ask for it.. .Bottom line: you've stated your intentions and you're not giving the A/G operator a chance to use the ATCO licence he doesn't have! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .Might make me sound a bit arrogant, but I've found it cuts out a lot of the hesitation and indecision <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[Monocock]

A/C: G-**** is a **** inbound from ****. Currently 5 miles south of you at 2500 ft on 1009 requesting circuit details and your QFE.. .. .Radio: G-****, r/way in use is 24 LH, QFE 1001.. .. .A/C: 24, LH, 1001, G-** will make a straight in approach and will call on 2 mile final.. .. .Whats the prob with that? Tell 'em what you want and make it short and sweet without the fannying.

[Keef]

A certain A/G airfield in the home counties, when I asked him if "straight-in approaches are frowned upon here" replied "we prefer them, all else being equal, because the NIMBYs complain less. For your information, there is no traffic in the circuit and nobody known to be inbound or outbound. QNH .... runway in use ....". .. .Clear, concise, no permission asked or given. We landed straight in (calling at 4m, 2m, 1m).

[NorthernSky]

Now now, you should all know better. I'll have to paraphrase, as I don't have the reference to hand (Rule 17, if memory serves), but the requirement exists to 'conform with pattern of traffic or keep clear of the aerodrome', along with the requirement to make all turns to the left, unless ground signals say otherwise (Rule 35, perhaps?).. .. .Straight-in approaches are for big aeroplanes, circuits for little ones. Overhead joins are safer for lots of good reasons.. .. .Bluebeard, using the overhead of a very busy aerodrome as a navex TP is very poor, as it contributes to the contents of the 'honeypot' where the mid-air will take place.. .. .Lawyerboy, if you need to save money by flying for four minutes less, you shouldn't be airborne.. .. .Finally, the remarks about joining angry palm trees at low level hit the mark. This makes for a safer environment for the reasons stated.

[M14P]

I generally agree with the consensus - tell the bloke what you're up to, don't ask. The 'spirit' behind the radio idea is to let others know where you are in the circuit. Sadly, megolomania often overrules the boundaries of authority on this one.. .. .NorthernSky: I understand and endorse your policy of not flying over busy airfields but Stapleford had a VOR on the field and is also constrained so much by zones and built up areas that I would suggest that it is the exception that proves the rule.

[Lawyerboy]

Thank you all, very informative. On the original phraseology point, I think I now know how I'm going to start framing my 'requests'. On the issue of whether a straight-in should, or should not, ever be conducted in a puddlejumper, well I'm leaning towards the probably not for reasons that have been repeated ad nauseam on here before. . .. .I ought however just point out that 4 minutes' flying time will not deplete my last cash reserves, NorthernSky, and I am not charging around the sky desperately trying to shave off the seconds. If I'm heading back to a field on a heading that will take me straight back to the runway it is, simply, sometimes a little too tempting just to keep going until you get to the ground...

[Polar_stereographic]

Can't see what's wrong with direct/base joins, providing one respect the circuit trafic. But is that not always the case? . .. .I always ask for the most sensible join and 95% of the time, it's not a problem. The remaining 5% that I'm asked to join overhead is also not a problem. . .. .Also, there are places that ban overhead joins, Headcorn for one due to parachutes. . .. .And, the reason I do it has nothing to do with money. Just seems sensible to join by the most expeditious route.. .. .PS

[FlyingForFun]

Very true, lawerboy, it is very easy to join straight in. But not really that much more difficult to join on, say, 1/2-mile base.. .. .Although this method doesn't give you quite as much awareness as an overhead join, I'd suggest that it's perfectly acceptable in almost all circumstances (the exception, possibly, being when you're totally unfamiliar with the field), as it allows you to get a good look at traffic on downwind, and join base leg slightly further out in order to give way to traffic in the circuit if necessary. And it adds much less than 4 minutes to the flight time, too! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> . .. .[Edit - after posting, and thinking about this, I realised that what I've suggested isn't strictly legal - in a left-hand circuit, you'd need to make a right turn to join the base leg. So, strictly speaking, you'd need to join base leg outside the ATZ. However, I don't think anyone is going to worry about this too much - the 45-degree join that our American friends seem so fond of will break this rule every time you join a circuit (sorry, pattern!) ]. .. .FFF. .---------. . . . <small>[ 21 March 2002, 10:04: Message edited by: FlyingForFun ]</small>

[RotorHorn]

Lawyerboy - I had the same basic question during my training. I came unstuck on a Navex to Barton (nr. Manchester)in an R22, when the FISO had less idea of what to do with me than I did. . .. .Approaching from the North he asked me to report the western boundary in sight. However, when I got there, he didn't really know what to do with me - the circuit traffic was finals from my right to left, and we were coming in at 60knots perpendicular to the active runway. . .. .tick tock tick tock.. .. .My FI took charge and pretty much TOLD the FISO we'd like to land on the 19 numerals on the nearest runway - which he approved 'at our discretion'. . .. .I think what I'm banging on about is that whole phrase "PIC" = Pilot in Command. Especially for A/G places - take command and tell 'em what you intend. I was that used to ATC at Blackpool giving me detailed instructions that non-ATC aerodromes always scared the crap out of me... !. .. .Nothing that experience won't fix though...

[Final 3 Greens]

lAWYERBOY. .. .This is merely my opinion:. .. .At a controlled airfield ask ATC for a straight in and follow their clearance.. .. .At a AFISO or A/G field join the circuit, preferably downwind (keeping a bloody good lookout) or base (same lookout) because this is the best way to minimise traffic conflicts. Note well the word minimise, not eradicate.. .. .Straight in approaches are great, but they can cause a conflict between circuit traffic and straight in traffic (the straight in traffic should give way at an uncontrolled field) and as much as I hate being conformist, cutting down the different places to look is helpful.. .. .The same statement covers w&%ky glider tug pilots and other tossers who join on the opposite base to the duty circuit at uncontrolled airfields: it is legal, but is it good airmanship? Head to head on base means a small x-section to spot in a confined area.. .. .My view is that the more we can do to cut down the opportunity for surprise, the safer our flying is.. .. .However I claim no monopoly on good judgement and others may have a different view.. . . . <small>[ 21 March 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Final 3 Greens ]</small>