CAP 413 Edition 23 - is this what we are now to expect of UK CAA?
Unbelievable and utterly incompetent. Examples given of surface wind information being placed between the runway and the clearance itself when the latter two elements constitute a standard phrase, the first qualifying the second. Where is the justification for this - what reference from ICAO or Europe? AND the date (the year!) is still wrong in the Revision History, apart from all the "legacy" errors that are outstanding and have not been addressed!
2 s
2 s
Thread Starter
On the same theme as this thread, returning to how simple life used to be, if you in the past had a query on the applicability or interpretation of UK Civil Aviation legislation you could phone or email the Legal Department and in a short period of time a gentleman (I stress "gentleman" as a mark of my esteem for him) would come back to you to explain.
Had a recent need to ascertain the applicability of a particular ANO Article so emailed. Got a relatively quick (by CAA standards) response to indicate that "the CAA is not in the business of dispensing legal advice", together with a suggestion that I obtain legal advice from elsewhere!
The "gentleman", and the values that he stood for, appears to have both retired.
Had a recent need to ascertain the applicability of a particular ANO Article so emailed. Got a relatively quick (by CAA standards) response to indicate that "the CAA is not in the business of dispensing legal advice", together with a suggestion that I obtain legal advice from elsewhere!
The "gentleman", and the values that he stood for, appears to have both retired.
New version out.
What's the logic in putting the surface wind between runway and clearance? Seems like a retrograde step to me.
What's the logic in putting the surface wind between runway and clearance? Seems like a retrograde step to me.
There is no logic - and it should not have happened. CAA has not been able to justify the decision - they quoted two "references" - ICAO and EU - neither of which contained any mention of the phraseology for passing wind information! Neither were they able to produce the minutes of the meeting that made this ill-judged decision. I get the impression that the phraseology Working Group is unfit for purpose and that collectively they have little understanding of their subject matter.
Keep writing to the editor!
2 s
Keep writing to the editor!
2 s
There is no logic - and it should not have happened. CAA has not been able to justify the decision - they quoted two "references" - ICAO and EU - neither of which contained any mention of the phraseology for passing wind information! Neither were they able to produce the minutes of the meeting that made this ill-judged decision. I get the impression that the phraseology Working Group is unfit for purpose and that collectively they have little understanding of their subject matter.
Keep writing to the editor!
2 s
Keep writing to the editor!
2 s
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: far far away
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else had a confused pilot query the clearance after trying the new improved phraseology? Where do the people come from that dream this stuff up? Are they experienced in the aviation world, or just in a particular job because of old buddies network?
As the CAA has, so far, been unable to produce any justification when challenged, I suggest that this is totally ignored until such time as they can do so. Apparently, this was suggested by a FISO (yes, FISO) member of the Phraseology WG quite a few years ago, was agreed by the infinitely stupid members, for some reason was not actioned but was resurrected as a C/F action recently. Apparently, they did not understand the principle that a standard phrase (i.e. runway plus clearance) should not be split with other information inserted in the middle. The ICAO and EU references that were quoted as the authority had no mention whatsoever of this topic!
2 s
2 s
