'They're down there because we're up here'.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

PPPPP's post on the Manch LLR got me thinking that maybe some PPLs, especially those trained relatively recently, are perhaps too in awe of 'the man in the tower' and inclined to beleive that the radio is a primary flight control with ATC's hand on it.

As an illustration, our departure for Barton from a well known airfield in the south of England on Saturday was extended by an AFISO who decided to demote us from no. 2 to no. 3 (and I think would have gone on to further demote us to no. 4) in the take-off queue simply because numers 3 and 4 were 'local based and therefore take priority over visitors' (his words!).

For the return journey (I'd been P1 for the journey down from Barton) my friend, who is younger and relatively recently trained as a PPL, was P1. He sat there and was just letting it happen. I don't like being peed around like that without some reasonable explanation - it's arrogant at best - so I took over the RT to ask the reason for the T/O order change.

This was met with stupified silence to start with (perhaps this guy was not used to being challenged by mere pilots?). Then there was a repeat to hold position, to which I answered that we were so doing, and repeated my demand for the reason for the order change. More silence, then that lame explanation. Our demotion then ceased and we were cleared to go no. 3.

I was tempted to say that we treat our visitors rather better than that up north, but this exchange had gone on long enough and I relinquished the RT to the P1.

If more pilots were a tad more assertive with some of these guys (almost always the non-professional ATCers in my experience), it would maybe be for the greater good of GA - IHMO of course.

SSD

[vintage ATCO]

Don't you lot start becoming argumentative otherwise I'll have to get my big stick out. . . . . :D :ok: :D

[2Donkeys]

I am with SSD. The youth of today :cool: seem to think that the wings will fall off when you reach for the radio off switch.

[Spiney Norman]

Hello SP (vA) are you 'doing' Duxford on your days off then? Still remember the Court line days eh!

Spiney

[Thrifty van Rental]

I can only agree with a fellow Yak pilot :p

Perhaps there is something particularly English about this though. I often think that in England, you give your pilots a moving map GPS, an IMC rating and a radar information service, and he thinks he is driving an airliner, and becomes dependent on an airliner-style Air Traffic Control Service, without the training or the airspace to support it.

In France, our pilots cannot fly IFR until they have an instrument rating, a qualification which very few of them ever get. We have FIS-based Flight Information Services which do not want to talk to you, and our flying clubs do not go for long range touring. Most priviate flights are just circuits, or visits to nearby aerodromes for coffee and a chat.

As a result, we don't suffer so much from this disease. Perhaps this is why so many of us get confused and violate your controlled airspace when we visit :D

[phartygobshite]

Shaggy,

Not fair to call us weekend AFISO's 'non-professional' we try our best! Try Shobdon one weekend - always guaranteed to be treated 'in turn'

pharty

[vintage ATCO]

Hi SN, no, I don't 'do' Duxford but somewhere slightly further west.

I agree with all that's been said but it doesn't help when pilots, inbound to an A/G or FIS field 'request joining instructions' or ask 'can I join straight in?', etc . . . .

. . . and conversely, when I use to do Luton Approach/Radar call me 'Luton Radio'!! :confused: What have they been taught?

Some of my best friends are non-radio! :D:D


--------------------
vintage ATCO
www.stevelevien.com

[Keef]

Must admit I've never been given treatment like SSD had at Duxford. I know about "the first shall be last", but wasn't aware it applied to takeoff clearances.

I wonder if it's Duxford "policy" or a FISO looking after his friends. Perhaps we should ask...

[Whirlybird]

If every ATCO, FISO, and AG operator did exactly what they were supposed to do, newer pilots wouldn't be confused, and the rest of us would play it by the book. BUT...

A certain AG operator in a certain well known airfield regularly insists on telling pilots how to join the circuit, when they can depart, taxi etc, and gets very annoyed if they don't do it his way. It's safer and easier to allow him his delusions of grandeur. Actually, I can think of TWO airfields like that.

Another airfield, recently upgraded to full ATC, had at least one ATCO who didn't seem to have realised this. Having given me joining instructions, he then ignored me. I twice asked hm if I was actually cleared to land, on a clear grass area reserved for helicopters, and was ignored. I started to wonder if coming to a hover was legally "landing" (it isn't, but I wasn't sure then, and anyway most ATCOs don't know this) when he finally realised why I wouldn't leave him alone, and remembered that what had been legal a week earlier...

Some airfields who have a different service during the week and at weekends have people on the radio who seem to forget that this means more than just their having a different name for the service.

I could go on, as these are not isolated cases. So yes, I do ask small airfields how they'd like me to join. It's much easier than my telling them, and then getting into an argument about it.

[vintage ATCO]

Personally, I'd always land next to a B-17. . . . . . :D :D :D :D

[Spiney Norman]

Personally I believe this problem began with the introduction of the AFISO level some years ago. I'm sure the CAA meant well in requiring a greater standard of 'control' at busier airfields. What they forgot was that as you introduce more levels of service you run into the problem that, 1. The power crazed or ill informed will imagine they are qualified ATCO's. Or 2. Pilots will be confused by the level of service they're getting. The constant posts on this subject show this is a recurring problem. Perhaps it's time the CAA had a look at reducing the ATC levels of service to ATCO & A.N. Other. Myself, I'd be quite happy with Air to Ground.

Spiney.

[Keef]

I don't suppose it's correct procedure, but I always ask A/G for "arrival information" and usually get runway in use, QFE or QNH, and wind info.

Sometimes, if they report no other traffic and we're close to runway heading, I'll ask "Do you mind if we join direct on final?". Some have gone so far as to say "We'd be glad if you did, as it keeps down the noise complaints." Others say they prefer overhead joins, so we do.

As long as we both know that this is "airfield operator's preference" rather than ATC clearance, it seems OK to me.

[rustle]

As long as we both know that this is "airfield operator's preference" rather than ATC clearance, it seems OK to me.

Well said, Keef

Often do the same thing at home (EGLK/Info) - helps them, helps me. No problem :cool:

Edit: Forgot to say that I thought the FISO(s) at Duxford did a splendid job.

On first contact, he knew who we were, how many POB he expected and departure aerodrome - obviously he'd bothered to read the fax I sent. He even had time/inclination to explain to me that a C421 isn't an Aztec ;) When we paid he explained departure procs and couldn't have been more helpful.

On departure, the (different) FISO was as helpful as we could have wanted as well.

[vintage ATCO]

The European Harmonisation (due this Nov) was suppose to simplify matters but am wondering if the CAA will give up the FISO method. I agree with you, SN, that A/G is often the best way.

Whirly, if you keep asking how places want you to join when you don't have to then it will just perpetuate the problem. It won't ever go away.

Off to work now for a bit of control! Just what I need. . . :D

[Spiney Norman]

Va.
I went to an SRG presentation recently in which the new EU 'harmonised licences' were introduced. You may be right. However the new ATCO licence's and endorsements were so complex we all left unsure of what we were qualified to do!! So it might get worse yet!

Spiney.

[FlyingForFun]

Lots of sensible comments here. As for the airfield's preferred joining method, I think the phone is the best way to ask for this (although granted that Duxford weren't too good at answering the phone last weekend). But having established what the preferred method is, I'll always follow it unless I think it's unsafe.

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

[Northern Highflyer]

Maybe asking for joining "instructions" isn't a legal requirement but surely it helps if everyone joins in the same manner. I know my home airfield always ask/insist on overhead joins and those who say they are joining straight in are asked to join overhead (and they usually comply). In open FIR it's each to their own but at a busy airfield this could get very messy with people joining at all corners of the circuit.

I don't see a problem asking for "instructions". Granted the word "information" might be technically more correct.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

(although granted that Duxford weren't too good at answering the phone last weekend).

Too right. I tried to phone several times before deparure from Barton. All I got was either the engaged tone or the fax (presumably it defaults to fax if no-one asnwers - both are same number).

Eventually I left a voicemail on the number given in Pooleys for the airfield manager. Would have been nice to get a briefing and a weather check, though.

SSD

[Mike Cross]

There are a number of finer points here which haven't been addressed.

The airfield has an owner and we use it with his consent. The radio operator, acting in his capacity as representing the owner is within his rights to issue whatever directions he wishes with regard to your use of his facilities. If he wants to prioritise departures he's within his rights. However this can give rise to safety implications as prolonged holds are not good for engines.

This bit is surely legally a civil matter.

With his ATCO/AFISO/a/g operators hat on he has additional powers in law. The AIP in
AIP 2.7.2 (http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/enr/20104.PDF) calls up Rule 39 (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1991/Uksi_19912437_en_2.htm) which makes it illegal to enter, land or take off within the ATZ wouthout the PERMISSION of the ATCU if one exists. If there is no ATC Unit then you are required to obtain INFORMATION from the AFIS or A/G operator to allow the flight to be conducted safely.


Mike

[Flyin'Dutch']

SSD

Could not make SU this weekend for family reasons and am a bit surprised to read about your bad experience. Been a fair few times and have never come across this sort of thing before.

I dont know if it is their rules but if it is you can only suck it. I do have to point though that I am slightly surprised by it. If it is not in their rules it was just bad manners. Surely to let an agile Chippy disappear can not unduly delay the operations at Duxford I would have thought.

If you want to experience some longer ATC delays you can always try some of the other big training fields.

;)

FD

[Spitoon]

OK - maybe I'm being dense but why would A/G be better than FISO at an airport?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

OK - maybe I'm being dense but why would A/G be better than FISO at an airport?

Because A/G is far less intrusive on airfield movements - the pilots can get on with it themselves.

Some FISOs, as SN pointed out, unfortunately seem to think they are ATCOs - without the associated training and ability. Others are overly conservative (understandably perhaps since it is in their interest to eliminate any risk of traffic conflict if a pilot so cleared enters then squats on the runway) in not allowing aeroplanes to enter the runway to depart when it is patently obvious to the pilot that it would be quite safe for them to do so. This causes delay (I know, I suffer it a lot since my home field went from A/G to FISO).

And some, unfortunately, are on a power trip at the expense of efficient airfield operation.

What does a FISO contribute positively? Absolutely zero IMHO.

SSD

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

I always thought the best cure for ATC/FISO/AG hassles was to leave the radio turned OFF, fly around in free airspace (what's left of it!) where you're entitled to fly and have fun.....The best flying I EVER did was 500hrs in a non-radio Cub around East Anglia, landing anywhere and everywhere.

On the subject of Duxford FIS. Bear in mind that normally they only have 1 FISO on duty during the week, sometimes 2 at a weekend and having to talk to several Ppruners on the RT normally means that you won't get a prompt reply by phone.


Shaggy,

Unfortunately, the nearest I got to Duxford on Saturday was driving past on the M11, but it may be that the 'home based' aircraft actually needed to get airborne before you. Maybe an overheating Spitfire desperate to feel the airflow, or aircraft getting airborne for a timed rendezvous etc etc.

Chill.....................

[Windy Militant]

Hello SSD what were the A/C that you were being bumped for. If they were War birds then I could understand as some of these types tend to overheat very rapidly on the ground. So if that was he case then I'd understand (Be green with envy but I've done it before elswhere) If they were GA types Then I can understand your being miffed.
The guy in the tower was realy earning his crust when we arrived. My mate couldn't get his call for finals in edgeways as everbody and his dog was on channel as we arrived and we had to wait quite a while to book in as the poor bloke was inundated with arrivals, requests for fuel and answering the phone. he was busier than a one armed paper hanger!
As for standard procedure we were listening to Brize on the way home and heard the nice lady on the radio respond to one request with Okie Dokie! ;)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The aircraft we were bumped for was a Rapide. The one were probably would have been further bumped for was a Tiger Moth. Both have the same technology engine as our chippy, albeit in the Rapide they are 6 cylinder Gipsy Queens rather than the 4 cylinder Gipsy Majors in the Chippy and the Tiger.

If it had been a heating-up Spit or Mustang I would not have any problem at all about them going first. But even if that had been the case, a quick explanation ("I'm making the Spitfire no. 1 since he'll have to shut down due overtemp if he doesn't go now) would be good manners.

The reason given was, as I said, 'locals take priority over visitors'.

SSD

[bpilatus]

Those two aircraft taking persons on paid-for joy flights...

I must ask this do you get tired carrying your aircraft on your shoulder?

[drauk]

If it's a privately owned airfield surely they can do as they wish. Of course, it might be impolite, bad manners or bad for business, (and to me it sounds all three) but it's up to them. Your recourse is to "vote with your feet" and not use that airfield any longer. In my mind it's a bit like people moaning about the guy on the end of the radio at Elstree. Yes he is rude and if I had lots of choice I might choose to fly somewhere else because of it, but it's the most convenient airfield for me so I use it.

You could write and complain and if they run it as a decent business they might then give you some serious consideration, but otherwise, well, tough. Or buy your own airfield and run it the way you'd like!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think one or two posters are going a bit off-track here. I didn't start this thread as a rant against Duxford, who are quite entitled to do what they want within the law (I didn't identify the airfield in my original post, either). The thread was inspired by PPPPP's Manch LLR post as an illustration of how some newer-trained PPLs will happily take sh*t from a FISO simply because they hold the radio in awe, when they should really be a bit more assertive. Or turn off the radio ;~))

SSD

[Davidt]

There must be a wally at Duxford, went there for Autumn's Flying leg Ends and on arrival was handed an info sheet for visiting pilots with various info for departure including the instruction:

Do not call for taxi instructions, proceed along the grass taxi way to the active hold and call tower only when ready to depart.

I duly did so only to be shouted at by said wally

" G-**** we usually call for taxi clearance here"

No you dont wally!

Shame when one pratt spoils all the hard work of so many who do a superb job

[drauk]

SSD, not sure if you were referencing my post with your own, but I'm guessing perhaps you were as it followed it directly. My point was that I don't think that you were given (and thus taking) anything bad from a FISO, they were just telling you what they wanted you to do, which is within their rights. I don't think being more assertive is really the answer; to me being assertive in this way just sounds like posturing, along the lines of "I've got loads of hours, I know best". I doubt you're actually like that, but that is how it sounds to me. Like you said, you can switch off the radio and limit yourself to airfields that are happy to accept non-radio traffic or, again, buy your own airfield and do what you like!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

drauk said:

My point was that I don't think that you were given (and thus taking) anything bad from a FISO,

A couple of professional ATC guys who overheard the exchange disagree with you there, drauk.

As far as I am concerned this thread has now served its purpose. The point has been made, and some sensible guys (including some professional air traffickers) have replied with worthwhile observations.

SSD

[Squadgy]

SSD,

Just a question re you being sat at the hold waiting for departure - have you fed back to the FIS Unit, perhaps by visiting the tower so that the FISOs can understand your view point and vice-versa?

Also what do you class as professional and non-professional air traffikers ?? All FISOs have to do several written examinations, on the job training followed by a CAA SRG validation, and then a relavidation every 24 months. Most units have further training and competence checks. Additionally FISOs proffesional status is recoginsed by an external body as they can become members of the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers.


(Edited for speling);)

[Thrifty van Rental]

The particular incident at Duxford has been interesting to watch from far away. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to the event itself.

It seems to me, that since Duxford is a privately licensed airfield, its FISOs can prioritise their own traffic as much as they like. They are not subject to the rules of equal access that a public licence holder would need to adhere to. It is a commercial and operational decision whether they wish to upset any visitors by making them wait.

Personally, I don't see many aircraft like the Dragonfly in my home fields, I would not mind to wait for a few minutes to watch it pass.

To Squadgy, I would say that whislt FISOs are pro-f-e-ss-ionals in their own right, we also have to recognise that their level of proficiency is not the same as an ATCO, and their licences and privileges reflect this fact.

I wonder what will happen to the FISO licence when JAR is applied to ATC. There is no such licence under JAR, I am told.

[rustle]

I wonder what will happen to the FISO licence when JAR is applied to ATC. There is no such licence under JAR, I am told

:rolleyes:

Haven't you heard about the new NFISO licence ;)

[Squadgy]

I would say that whislt FISOs are pro-f-e-ss-ionals in their own right, we also have to recognise that their level of proficiency is not the same as an ATCO, and their licences and privileges reflect this fact.


I would suggest that a FISOs level of proficiency is equivalant to an ATCO for the role in which they operate - it has to be. I wouldn't expect a FISO to be able to sit in the GMC's position at EGLL, and I wouldnt expect an ATCO to be able to work the FIS position at Duxford without the required training and licences, in the same way as which a pilot of a 747 should be as proficent as a pilot of a Beech Duchess.....

[PPPPP]

the thread was inspired by PPPPP's Manch LLR post as an illustration of how some newer-trained PPLs will happily take sh*t from a FISO simply because they hold the radio in awe, when they should really be a bit more assertive. Or turn off the radio ;~))

I'm sure I never mentioned FISOs in my LLR post. My point, obviously not well made, was that although I was monitoring the frequency and not receiving or desiring any kind of service, I would have been happier being able to announce my presence as an aid to safety in what is, after all, a tunnel 750 ft high by 4 miles wide...

[drauk]

SSD, given that I'm obviously not sensible but do aspire to be, what did the professional ATC guys think was wrong with the instructions you were given? I'm not being funny, I genuinely want to know and learn from it. Did they just think it was unprofessional (as I do)?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

drauk

Just that.

SSD

[simon brown]

As a PPL I have found generally all ATC to be helpful.Indeed on my qualifying X county flight heading for Half Penny Green Birmingham advised I turn right 5 deg as I was slightly off track, which was very helpful to a flustered student. I also remember transiting Brize Zone the day before Fairford so was V busy. They could have told me to F' off and stay clear, but they didnt and gave me a radar advisory, so good fun was had dodging pairs of fighters etc...good experience.

Remember having a bollocking off an ATC unit at regional airport in the SW when doinfg a PPL solo hour building flight. Having cleared me to cross their zone VFR not less than 3000' , and informing me ( as if i didnt know listening to the RT) of a 737 on a half mile final with no other traffic, I responded and included "visual and I will need to deviate from track to remain legal" no response, & he didnt give me a clearance to descend slightly . I so I know exactly where the 737 is by which time I was well south of the upwind end of the runway, at 3500'. I then put in a slight left turn (right turn wasnt an option)to remain legal coz of cloud and the git balled me out for putting myself on a collision couse with an aircraft on final (probably over the boundary by then) and that i should never ever do anything like that again. I stood up for myself(rightly or wrongly) and reminded him I was routing VFR as implied by my initial call and subsequent response, had a full visual with the aircraft concerned (3500' apart vertically 2 miles apart horizontally!)and the descent was no option as he didnt clear me to do so ..........radio silence .......then out of the ether, a Scottish accent exclaimed " yeah yoo tell him "

Somebody must have been having a bad day....

[flower]

My own experiences with Duxford on Saturday were good , we had absolutely no difficulties with them at all , but I am well aware of the problems others experienced.

As a Professional ATCO it is very interesting to see how FISOs and AG operators work , and certainly I am grateful to work for a large organisation which ensures that staffing levels and equipment are maintained.

It came as a shock to me probably because I reside in the Ivory towers of ATC that an Airfield operator can determine who has priority with regards to aircraft movements.
Drummed into you from the first day of ATC training is that traffic must be handled in a safe ,orderly and expeditious fashion .
This to me means that you handle traffic to produce aside from being most obviously safe , the most expeditious sequence of traffic. To prioritise traffic because they are locally based at the deteriment of visitors seems well outside this remit.

I have often wondered why GA traffic avoids talking to ATC when we are there to provide a service inparticular a LARs service.Having listened into various Air/Ground frequencies enroute to Duxford and back I think I may have formed a theory.

The way in which some of the AG operators spoke to aircraft was awful and extremely unprofessional. Perhaps if as a GA pilot you have only trained under these circumstances you may believe that ATC will be even more demanding and not want to provide you with any form of service. This couldn't be further from the truth, you will i'm sure come across ATCOs who do behave in that manner but the majority are willing and able to provide you with as much assistance as you require within the limitations of your licence. If you are lost we can help , even if all you want is a regional pressure setting call us up .
Just because when you have failed to get a zone transit once through a piece of airspace does not mean you will never get one, it could simply have been that at that time it was unavailable.

[Spitoon]

Sorry Squadgy I would suggest that a FISOs level of proficiency is equivalant to an ATCO for the role in which they operate - it has to be. I wouldn't expect a FISO to be able to sit in the GMC's position at EGLL, and I wouldnt expect an ATCO to be able to work the FIS position at Duxford without the required training and licences, in the same way as which a pilot of a 747 should be as proficent as a pilot of a Beech Duchess..... Methinks you underestimate the job and knowledge required to be an aerodrome controller!

[knobbygb]

So, does anybody notice any difference in the politeness and helpfullness received when comparing civil to military controllers?

When I first started using the radio during training, I had a kind of preconception that the mil. people would feel more 'put upon' having to deal with a Piper or Cessna buzzing around just outside their zone - surely they'd have better things to do? I am glad to say that I was proved wrong and most people I have spoken to have been really helpful.

I only ask, because I was shouted at for the very first time on the way down to Duxford by the approach controller at one of the Lincolnshire RAF fields. All I did was ask her for clarification of a clearance to penetrate the MATZ (if in doubt ask!) and was treated to a loud tut, a shouted AFFIRM, and a long sigh! Not really a problem - it was quite busy and I probably just called at the wrong moment, but it just made me think. There does often seem to be a VERY SLIGHT undertone of 'bloody amateurs' sometimes.

I know the mil. guys are often also operating on HF frequencies at the same time, or may be running 2 or even 3 MATZ's (as Linton/Fenton/Leeming often seem to). Please remember that we can't always tell just how busy you are from our end.

Anyway, just totting up, and I spoke to a total of 12 controllers that day and all but two were exactly what I'd expect.
[Edit: My previous comment deleted 'cos I thought better of it].

[stiknruda]

Knobby G - interesting, intelligent post marred by the last clause.

Flower is right most ATC'ers are dead helpful. On my way home from Kemble late Sat afternoon, I had no help from Lakenheath and maneouvered to avoid somethin 'kin huge on long final to Mildehall. L'heath are generally really helpful but are now closed to VFR 128.9 traffic from 5pm (bst) - soooo.......

Stik: Norwich approach, G-stik, request
Norwich App: G-ik, pass your msg
Stik: Regional Presure setting and surface wind, pse for G-ik
Norwich App: Yarmouth 1027, surface wing 010-5G8
Stik: Roger copied, ik out

They gave me all I needed to make a safe approach to a private strip.

Nice guys and girls.

Stik

[Cusco]

SSD

I was in the Arrer directly in front of you: We were both held for about 5 minutes while the Cosmic Wind ahead of me went straight into an aerobatic routine overhead from takeoff.

I personally enjoyed the display but perhaps this short delay was the cause of your intemperate r/t transmission, which I heard and was frankly a bit startled to hear argument over the airwaves.

In fact I think another flyer transmitted his disapproval as well.

The Rapide was on a commercial flight, and hell, whats a short delay: happens all the time in commercial.

The Trident crashed outside Heathrow in the 70s because the captain had been in a paddy just before takeoff and he forgot his flaps/slats.

I have two mottoes to guide me through life:

'Back off and be happy' and
'Get angry and die'

Safe (and stress-free) flying

Cusco

[Dufwer]

SSD, please bear in mind that being more assertive is only one small step away from being more aggressive. The last thing I would want to hear on the radio is a bit of air rage because somebody feels a bit put out. If you have a problem with an AFISO or other ATC types, I would say get hold of them via phone after your flight and after their shift so as not to aggravate the problem further, especially when the issue is not safety related!

Getting back to your opening statement, as I’m a newly trained PPL, can I remind you of the saying navigate, communicate, aviate, or is it communicate, aviate, navigate, ooohhhh I’m confused again. I’ll have to ask the nice chap it the tower what I’m suppose to be doing.

D

[Northern Highflyer]

Dufwer

It's Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If you don't aviate the other two are irrelevant. :O

Simon Brown

You got a Radar Advisory when flying VFR ???

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Dufwer -

From the Cambridge dictionary:


Assertive: adjective

describes someone who behaves confidently and is not frightened to say what they want or believe:


Aggressive: adjective

behaving in an angry and violent way towards another person:


A world of difference, IMHO.

SSD

[Dufwer]

SSD,

From the Oxford Dictionary :-

aggressive adj. 1 given to aggression; hostile. 2 forceful, self-assertive.

I believe Oxford have the upper-hand this year?


Definitions of words aside, I do not think having 'arguments' over the radio is a good idea. To date I have not had a bad experience with ATC, but like I said I'm newly qualified. I'm sure I'll have my turn someday. Hopefully I will apply a 'Back off and be happy' approach.

D

[flower]

Arguing over the RT is never good but it happens , yes I agree best left to a phone call .

However if someone who doesn't like what I do asks for an explaination I have no difficulty with that .

Truth be told if I had been at the holding point ready to depart and other aircraft got priority not for Air traffic reasons but reasons as were displayed at Duxford I to I think would have eventually lost my temper.

[Aussie Andy]

From Mirriam-Webster (http://m-w.com):

Main Entry: ag·gres·sive
Pronunciation: &-'gre-siv
Function: adjective
Date: 1824
1 a : tending toward or exhibiting aggression <aggressive behavior> b : marked by combative readiness <an aggressive fighter>
2 a : marked by obtrusive energy b : marked by driving forceful energy or initiative : ENTERPRISING <an aggressive salesman>
3 : strong or emphatic in effect or intent <aggressive colors> <aggressive flavors>
4 : more severe, intensive, or comprehensive than usual especially in dosage or extent <aggressive chemotherapy>
- ag·gres·sive·ly adverb
- ag·gres·sive·ness noun
- ag·gres·siv·i·ty /"a-"gre-'si-v&-tE/ noun

synonyms AGGRESSIVE, MILITANT, ASSERTIVE, SELF-ASSERTIVE mean obtrusively energetic especially in pursuing particular goals.

AGGRESSIVE implies a disposition to dominate often in disregard of others' rights or in determined and energetic pursuit of one's ends <was taught to be aggressive in his business dealings>.

MILITANT also implies a fighting disposition but suggests not self-seeking but devotion to a cause, movement, or principle <militant protesters held a rally against racism>.

ASSERTIVE suggests bold self-confidence in expression of opinion <the more assertive speakers dominated the forum>. SELF-ASSERTIVE connotes forwardness or brash self-confidence <a self-assertive young executive climbing the corporate ladder>.

Hope this helps the semantic debate! :bored:

Andy

[Squadgy]

Methinks you underestimate the job and knowledge required to be an aerodrome controller!


I think not !! I more than appreciate the level of knowledge and the work required of an Aerodrome Controller. If you reread my post you will see that in no why was I implying that a FISO could do an ADC job. I was however talking about levels of proficency, which as we're looking at definitions :

proficient adjective
skilled and experienced

I would hope you aren't suggesting that FISOs do not have the skills and experience required to do their job??:confused:

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

SSD,

Personally, I would have shut down the engine, relaxed and watched the display by the Cosmic Wind......And also happily watched the Dragon Rapide get airborne, safe in the knowledge that all those pax were paying money into CAC's coffers, therefore enabling the Managing Director to feed his wife and kids for a few weeks to come.

One thing I learnt years ago is that flying should be a relaxing pastime. The poor chap who crashed the YAK52 at Compton Abbas last year is rumoured to have had a massive row with somebody just before he crashed.

Gawd 'elp us (A London colloquialism) the day it gets like driving a car round the M25!!!!!!!!

Chill...

[Final 3 Greens]

CuscoThe Trident crashed outside Heathrow in the 70s because the captain had been in a paddy just before takeoff and he forgot his flaps/slats.

Not quite the case.

If you are interested, here is the report:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/formal/garpi/garpi.htm

In fact it is suspected that the capt had a massive heart attack, leaving the FO suddenly and unexpectedly in charge in turbulent IMC.

The droops (not slats) were retracted instead of the flaps and the stall pusher overriden, causing a deep stall from which recovery was impossible.

As with most accidents, there was a chain of events and if the chain had been broken, the crash would have been avoided.

I've been through a recreation of the experience in Andy Mattock's Trident sim and it seems unbelievable that the crash could have happened when you are sitting in a danger free environment, already understanding what happened and why.

But I don't think this is too relevant to have a barney with ATC, more about breaking event chains.

[Spitoon]

Look, Squadgy, I don't want to row about this but you started your post with a quote saying that a FISO's level of proficiency is not the same as an ATCO and then seem to argue that this is not the case for the roles that each perform.

I wasn't suggesting that FISOs are not suitably skilled or experienced for the job they do, simply that I imagine an ATCO could have a quick read of the FISO rules and have a fair stab at doing the job - and, yes, I know it would have to be done under supervision in that situation. I'm not sure that a FISO could do the same at LL GMC.

The R/T is just a fraction of the knowledge and ability needed by a FISO or ATCO - the background knowledge needed by an ATCO is significantly greater that that needed by a FISO and covers all of that needed by a FISO.

Using your definition of proficient, I would just expect that an ATCO is likely to be more skilled and experienced in the whole air traffic business than a FISO.

[Whirlybird]

I think this thread proves what should be obvious - that ATCOs, FISOs, and A/G operators are individuals . However well trained, some are better than others at coping when overloaded, some instinctively know how to deal with different sorts of people while some don't, most are nice and some are complete b@stards! To say nothing of the person who's had a row with their spouse, isn't feeling well, or just happens to be having a bad day. Yes, they should all be professional enough that it makes no difference, but we're all human beings, not machines.

I've had some wonderful service on the radio....the Birmingham ATCO who calmly and sympathetically directed a very new and lost PPL out of their airspace and on my route home...the Brize and Lyneham controllers who, despite being incredibly busy at the start of the Gulf War, directed a soon-to-be CPL(H) on a complicated nav ex through their airspace...the controllers at Waterford who directed me on my first trip to Ireland when we couldn't find any of their reporting points on the chart. And then there have been the impatient, brusque, incompetent, and those who think they're God. But unless there's a good reason, I prefer not to argue, or be aggressive, or even particularly assertive...though I do have a bit of a campaign to explain that helicopters don't need runways. :D Because generally, unless someone's doing something dangerous, it doesn't matter that much. Flying is supposed to be fun. It can be stressful, but I really don't want to add to that stress, either my own or anyone else's. So usually I do as they ask, and if they're breaking the rules or doing it wrong or whatever, that's their problem, and I really don't see any reason to make it mine.

[drauk]

Whirlybird, I couldn't agree more, but in my opinion your wasting your breath. SSD said some time ago in this thread:

As far as I am concerned this thread has now served its purpose. The point has been made, and some sensible guys (including some professional air traffickers) have replied with worthwhile observations.

What I infer from this is that he feels any replies which don't agree with his are neither sensible nor worthwhile. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong and he thought the contrary points were worthwhile and from sensible people, but I doubt it. Each to their own...

[Squadgy]

Spitoon,

Yep - I think thats the point I was trying to make - FISOs are proficent at their own job

Glad we agree

:ok: