Something I forgot to ask earlier;

When there is a sigmet in force that would affect traffic landing and departing from Bristol, is the content of that sigmet included in the ATIS?

Regards,

DFC

DFC, that would be too sensible mate.

As a matter of fact yesterday 13.4.05 there was a THUNDERSTORM WARNING CURRENT, very very frightening indeed.
OK some bubbly clouds yes, but they just couldn't wait to wheel out the next WARNING.

What is it with you BRS really!

And "wheel" them out we merrily will, if nothing else, we can do it just to annoy the whiney beings amongst you. In fact, I might be tempted to put warnings up just to make sure you're all paying attention.:p

Fool's hole; check out my post 29/1/05.
Thunderstorm Warnings issued at BRS aren't just for the benefit of aircrew, they are for also us on the ground here, over the years I have seen numerous things struck here by lightning, GPU'S Buildings, even the tower last year, along with Nav aidsl & aircraft.
I have been involved in some very near misses myself, next time you are trundling down 27/09 & notice the patchwork of asphalt, some if not most of this repair work was nessasary due to surface damage caused by lightning strikes :ok:
The risk here has been assessed in relation to Thunderstorm activity & it is deemed nessasary to operate a Shut down on the aprons, when there is thunderstorm activity in the vicinty.
Tea up!!:D

Ranger, I'm sure no one would doubt that it's important to many other than pilots but I think the question is, why are warnings that are relevant to, for instance, Ops people, put on the ATIS? Bear in mind that the ATIS is supposed to take some of the RT pressure off ATC by broacasting information to pilots that would otherwise have to be passed by the controller.

I believe its put on the ATIS not just for the benefit of the commercial crews who receive it over the RT or at breifing, but also for GA & light aircraft pilots some of which could be considering a cross country flight for example & want to get the ATIS via the phone before hand, or even en route so they can plan ahead as to whether to fly into BRS or give the whole place a miss based on these warnings.
I have seen a few interesting approaches & landings from the ones who have departed BRS & on the return found the weather not to be as they thought it would be.:E
I suppose we could say nothing & sod the lot:ouch:
Check my post 29/01/05
Cheers :ok:

Ranger.
You may as well 'do nothing and sod the lot' as you put it because thats what all the other airfields do and it is not repeat NOT a problem.:rolleyes:
Truth is, as an earlier poster said, the ATIS is there to save ATC the trouble of reading everyone the weather. If something short term but relevant needs to be passed on (say it looks like its about to clamp in with fog, or flocks of birds are seen or whatever), that should be passed by ATC on the VHF to warn folk that something unusual or unexpected is happening or may be about to happen.
To use the ATIS to broadcast 'warnings' about anything which may or may not happen is frankly lazy.
You only have to look at the number of times these 'warnings' are broadcast by ATIS when they are plainly wrong to see that the net effect is simply to cry 'wolf!'.
For example when we hear 'hail warning current' or 'thunderstorm warning current' on BRS ATIS does it mean 1.there is a TS overhead, or
2. there are some cells nearby or
3. there are a few Cu visible from the tower window
or what?
It's completely useless!

To summarise. Ill thought out 'warnings' that go on half the day, irespective of the conditions are worthless and are not trusted by those who listen to them. Do us all a favour and stop them.
I might add that suggestions that perhaps BRS have got this right and all the others have it wrong show breathtaking arrogance:ugh:

Bristol is an (up and coming) regional airport but IMHO it could manage without these silly warnings just like all the other airports do. :ok:

Essential Aearodrome Information should be put on the ATIS to prevent ATC having to read it out each time to each aircraft (go look at the MATS Part 1 on the CAA website if you want to check)

The Muir Matheson system in use at Bristol is also in use at most regional airports in the UK and would have similar functionality, whether the local ATC use these features is of course up to them (and the extent of weather conditions affecting the particular airport concerned) but you can be assured that it would be SRG approved and certified with the relevant safety cases considered and inclusion of Met warnings on the ATIS would be on the specific direction of the Met Office.

Furthermore, Bristol Airport does not have a Met Office, the nearest being in Cardiff (in the city not the airport) who use the METARs provided by observers at Bristol and other information to formulate forecasts and warnings. Therefore Bristol cannot be responsible for the specifics of the warnings, they are simply passing on potentially useful information as they are required to do. If you want clarification of any weather conditions present or forecast then the weather centre is only a phonecall away.

The ATIS message is still structured and concise even with warnings appended, if you're not interested then don't listen but please do lay off ATC for doing their job as directed.

Hi sector
How come the 'warnings' come from Cardiff but are never found on Cardiff ATIS?

I guess Sector Who, gave a clue to the answer of your question in paragraph 3 of his post.
With regard to "other airports don't & its not a problem repeat NOT a problem" in your earlier post it appears there was at least one case, which to the CAA to issue a Notice to Aerodrome Licence Holders.
The full datails are to be found at www.caasrg.co.uk then Search for notal 1/98 :ok:

So tell me brain fade , why would weather warnings, which are specific to one airport, find themselves being broadcast on another airport's ATIS?:confused:
Sun over tha yard arm was it, too many rations of grog before we posted, perhaps? :rolleyes:

Standard
I see my Brizzol has some way to go before it catches up with yours. I like the very nautical theme to your last.
I've re read Sector twos post more closely and agree that it does appear, to the casual observer, that either the sun or the grog got the better of me. Sadly it was neither but I respectfully refer you to my user name:ooh:
However, at the considerable risk of doing this to death, I suggest that you make a late new years resolution to either
1. Persuade all other airports to adopt your 'warnings':{ or
2. Chuck it.

Truth is, it just makes you all look silly.

If you need to give out a 'warning' and 'warning' is actually rather a strong word to use, it should be correct.
Putting the 'warnings' on te ATIS means they are frequently wrong.
Putting out 'warnings' of things which have stopped happening ( like fog). Which may not happen (like hail or TS) or that are bleeding obvious (pick one!) are daft!

If it needs a 'warning' then its serious. Get it right and pass it by voice, only when it's correct to do so. Crivvens, you find the time to come out with enough 'verbal' at BRS, a wee bit more wont tax you!

Gert lush my babber!;)

mmmm, but all we put out is 'gale/thunderstorm/strong wind warning current'. Then if you want details, you need only ask. That way, it saves us using all our time giving warnings out on the r/t. Would you rather sit at A1 awaiting your clearance cos I'm giving all the inbounds the latest warnings? I'd prefer to keep the warnings on the ATIS and give you your airways more swiftly. That way, we get you into the wide blue yonder just that little bit quicker.

It was the pilot fraternity who requested that we switch to a GMC and TWR split because 133.85 was getting a bit too crowded on busy days. So it makes sense that we keep as many tx as poss off our frequency. Having the wx warnings on the ATIS helps us do that.
Look, I know my lovely rounded NI accent is just fabulous to listen to, but that doesn't mean I want to waste on weather warnings.

Right then, where's that bl00dy yard arm, I'm gasping!:}

Standard
Hope you enjoyed yer grog my luvver
Shurely you've heard 'fog warning current', the other day it was 'hail warning current' there is also 'snow warning current' .........get my drift? I do/could go on.:bored:

Wrong time of the year maybe, but as the jolly fat man says, 'ho, ho, ho.':p

Right Standard
I'm giving you the last word on this sucker, but mark my words, sooner or later you lot will 'drop' your silly warnings of your own accord, and when you do, assuming I'm still alive, I'll be issuing an ' I told you so'.

ya boo sucks
:p

To quote a fellow countryman.......................
Never! Never! Never! Never!

:} :}

Ranger, your sentiments are undoubtedly well meant but I must re-iterate that an ATIS broadcast is done for one thing alone and that's to take the pressure off ATC R/T frequencies. I'm not saying that the broadcasts are used for other things, simply that they are done for one purpose and the information they contain should be suited to that purpose (and that purpose only).

And yes, I've read NOTAL 1/98 but I'm afraid it doesn't support your argument. I don't see any reference to an ATIS - all it says is that information should be disseminated.

I am well aware of the reason for the existance of ATIS, which was not mentioned specifically in the NOTAL which you correctly pointed out but, in Paragaph 2 of the NOTAL states "The purpose of this NOTAL is to draw the atention of aerodrome Licensees to the need to ensure regular Meteorological observations are made during periods appropriate to the needs of public transport flights using the airport"
It then mentions in paragraph 4 "The authority strongly recommends that all aerodrome Licensees & providers of ATC services where appropriate review the proceedures for the provision & dissemination of meteorological observations at their aerodromes". which if I am not wrong could mean the use of ATIS, NOTAM, RT.
I mentioned the existance of this document to try & explain why these so called this & that warnings may arise at BRS, giving rise to the title of this thread in the begining "BRI warning this & that"

Today it was 'Gale warning current' all bleeding day.
Did it get above 15 Kt?

Sorry Standard I really promise to shut up now, but i couldn't resist one last dig:E

I may as well point out that NO ONE has yet answered the original question of 'why only at BRS?':p

No, brain fade, don't shut up, we do so enjoy your ramblings.:rolleyes:
Anyhoo, twixt 12 and 13z, it was up to 20kts.

But you might want to ask some pilot torturers at other units why not. That might elicit a sensible answer that even a pilot could understand (as long as they use small words, naturally;) ).

As I read all the above, I gather that I am not the only one that feels helpless in having to endure these warnings.
When I say endure I mean only at BRS.

The next thing nowadays is the "Threshold Elevation" just before you touch down for the millionth time somewhere! WHY?
There again WHY NOT in CDG, or AGP, or ALC, or PRG or BUD or....

There are other mind boggling things in Volmets all over, like cloud cover; broken at 23 thousand feet! Now that's gonna make the approach rather difficult!

Why don't you ATC people come together one rainy day all over Europe and sit down to agree one common way of presenting what's RELEVANT to us. Ditch the crap and just give us what we need. Short and sharp and to the point.
HOW??? By asking a few (hundred) of us what we need to hear perhaps?

Regards - Fool's Hole, NOT an a**e hole!

Fool's Hole - we've tried to get 'threshold elevation' put on the ATIS, but the nice inspectors at the
C AMPAIGN A gainst A viation won't let us do it, so we have to give it to you on each approach. Send your thoughts to them and see what reply you get, we've had a go, but to no avail!

Standard
Is it a requirement to pass the threshold elevation to a/c at all?
Again, most (all?) airports don't.

Re your 'pilot torturer' suggestion. Are you really suggesting that I ask controllers at airports where they dont do your silly warnings why you insist on them at Brizzol?

I think most folk would accept that as BRS is the ONLY airport which puts them out it would be quicker to ask you lot why you do it, rather than every other fecker why they don't!

Really tho, your 'yokel' warnings are a constant source of amusement rather than anything else, especially when they are plainly total bollocks, which is quite often. Any source of amusement is welcome.:=

What the CAA and anyone (ATC?) out there in the "peripheries" need to do badly, is to go on day trips with us for at least 4 sectors.
That is in order for all to see just what is relevant in today's cockpit regarding any "outside" information that reaches us at any time.
See how we deal with the information and make your own judgement whether it's just silly and unnecessary, or indeed is it a good bit of info that helps the operation.
The CAA in particular have no real understanding of airline operations, they are just a bunch that are trying to make a living by what they do and g_d knows they can be awful at that.
But the real "doing" is being done by us, all the time.
Even without the CAA we would be able to carry on for ever, even without a Crewing department we would be able to share out the rosters more evenly between ourselves, fairly and squarely.

Enough said for today though.

Fool's Hole
 

You have to understand that the CAA recognise two distinct classes of pilot:
The really big aeroplane important pilot who flies half-way round the world in a mega-jet and lands at Heathrow, and the "others".
The Heathrow jet-tropolis pilot can read and so will know the elevations from his/her charts.....the "others" are assumed not to be able to read, and despite flying into and out of the same airport day after day, week after week, need to be verbally informed of the elevation.
Funny thing though, I would have thought it should be the other way round.....but when there is a need to reduce R/T chat to the bare minimum, and to talk to foreign pilots from the other side of the planet, it is amazing what can be dispensed with.
Methinks time for a common-sense update to the "manual".

brain fade - We have to pass the threshold elevation for QNH app's. I do know that one of the big two airport units north of the border were allowed to put this on their ATIS. Since we have a similar Metcom system, I asked if we would be allowed to do the same. The ATSM forwarded my question and backed it up with the evidence of our Scottish brethren. We were informed that, no, we cannot include this on the ATIS message. The Inspector for this region doesn't like it on the ATIS, presumably because, as 055166k has already stated, we have to provide info not just for you fantasically skilled and professional airline pilots:rolleyes: , but also for the weekend 'once a year' merchants. Oh, and if you don't ask my fellow pilot torturers at other airports, why they don't put warnings on their ATIS thingies, how will you know how they get round doing it?
Still, it's nice to know we keep you amused with our silly little ATIS. But tell me, when we're giving you tfc info or avoiding action in respect of those flying at 500kts through the Bath gap OHMSS, do you consider that to be a case "plainly total bollocks"?
I'd rather get you out of the way of a Tornado sightseeing over Bath, than be spending time giving a once a year merchant in his homebuilt 'Sellotape special' the ins and outs of a gale warning that we can't put on the ATIS for fear of offending your ears!!

Fool's hole - as I've said before, you need to put that suggestion to the CAA Inspectors (based at Manch) for our region, probably best doing it through your Chief Neddy. Pprune isn't really the place to try to influence CAA policy.

055166k - who is in charge of updating these days, last I heard, it was someone who's name rhymes with 'mutton', and as I remember, common sense wasn't exactly at the top of his list of priorities.

Standards Noise
 

You've high-lighted a common problem; because here in the UK the "Authority" rides rough-shod over acceptable ICAO practices. They seem to think that this tiny island is so unique that practices and procedures that work perfectly well throughout the rest of the world are somehow inappropriate here.
Likewise the treatment of regional ATC units and their regular traffic. I reckon that low-fare multi-sector-day pilots exhibit a far higher standard of airmanship and ATC awareness than some of their main-line cousins who may do one landing per 10 hours as opposed to five landings or so.....what's more the lo-co is flying in the cauldron of the busiest, densest, and most demanding confusion of airspace anywhere.
One airport I was at required each and every vehicle movement to be positively controlled.....even though the drivers knew every inch of the airfield. Another airport was so busy and with a congested ground freq [and it was three times the size] that vehicles were regularly allowed to operate on own look-out.
My submission is that if a practice [such as no need to pass elevation] is safe at one airport and there has been no attributable accident or adverse evidence, then why can't that practice be adopted at all airports?
...Heathrow has so many exemptions and special procedures that one could be forgiven for thinking it was in a foreign country for all the commonality its practices have with other UK airfields.....and that smells wrong, wrong, wrong.

Of course, if everyone flew their approaches on QFE, there wouldn't be any need to put the threshold elevation on the ATIS..................

;)

;)

;)

True, but instead of transmitting the Threshold Elevation, the Controller is then required to Tx the QFE ! :p

I'd much prefer to hear sweet nothings from a controller than some mumblings from a clone of Marvin the Paranoid Android!

Standard
Please continue to help us miss fast jets etc. I'm not saying that you are incompetent at Bristol, just a bit wordy;) No need to get your standard ATC knickers in a twist!

But you still have not explained about the 'threshold elevation' bit. for info at most airports it's neither passed by voice OR found on the ATIS. It is on the charts however. So why don't you save your breath?

And re the 'yokel' warnings. They aren't found on the ATIS of every airport I know because, guess what? They don't need to be! Doh!

Re 'total bollocks' I thought I made it clear I was referring to the frequently erroneous content of the yokel warnings. ie 'Fog warning current' going on all bleeding day, last trace of fog left 6 hours ago.

Don't mind me tho' , really I don't mind, and it gives Brizzol a sort of twee, rustic charm. A certain individuality that is so often lacking these days. And it's funny too. So stick in!

On a more constructive note tho, why don't you put in for some ATC fam flights and see how it's done elsewhere. That's if you can bear to be parted from Brizzol!;)

brain fade - I thought I had explained 'threshold elevation'. We put it into that last tx before we put you to twr because the powers that be at the Campaign Against Aviation say we have to. End of. Unless they have a change of heart, we will keep doing it. Why or how others get away with not doing it, I have no idea.

I'm not sure you got my point about the 'fast jet' bit. By putting the warnings on the ATIS, it also saves us having to give them out over the r/t to the weekend homebuilt merchants which would take up valuable r/t time. Time which is better served stopping you and the Queen's top guns meeting somewhere over Bath or Chippenham.

Maybe I'll let you know next time I'm on leave, and I'll arrange a fam flight when you're on duty. Should be interesting.:ok:

Standard
If you come on a fam flight with yours truly, at least we'll have something to talk about!

Yes, I think I had missed your point about the jets. As you'll have realised by now I approve of minimising use of the RT.

You seem to be in denial about BRS ATC being the home of the repeated clearance or the unneccessary tx. Well I've tried (and failed) to convince you but it's true anyway, It might be more clear after a fam or two.

Tell me, std, is it just me or have BRS app recently started a policy of only passing one bit of instruction per tx? You know, saying 'abc123 turn left heading 090' then 'abc123 descend 2500'', then 'abc123 reduce speed 180 kt', rather than dishing out all 3 in the one tx. Seems to happening more and more and I simply wondered if it was a policy or just an idiosyncrasy?

Ta BF

wel MATS2 states that "messages should not contain more than 3 specific phrases comprising a clearance, instruction or pertinant information". Maybe if it's happening recently it may be due to a controller under training allowing him/herself a little bit of thinking time.

Might be due to experience showing that pilots can't handle that many instructions thrown together at once under certain circumstances. It can be a source of confusion at times at well, that's why the CAA got us to append the word 'degrees' to headings to avoid confusion with levels.

"abc123 turn right heading 090 degrees, climb flight level 80"

That's a bloody joke and all.
The same pilot may find himself on the same day flying out of sensible-safe Britain, into Maniana Country where Manuel may say things like: Monar 205, Cleared to fly-level 080 heading 005.
Couple of minutes later descend to fi-tousand fi-undred and so on.
No use the CAA working single handedly in a "unified" Europe. It means nothing to us. What about countries with 3 hours flight time from here who are still using altitude in meters, winds at m/s.
The whole lot is just a bloody joke, I can't take any of this job too seriously.

Sometimes pilots just can't handle three instructions in one tx, although as you know bf we constantly have radar training ongoing, what unit doesn't? Incidentally, if it was in a NI accent, I can only apologise, I must have been having a off day.:p

Thanks Std.
I take it from your reply that it's not becoming SOP. Phew!
Since some pilots can't handle three instructions at once I suppose you had better make it an SOP quickly before something terrible happens.

Also us cretins had better stop going anywhere busy as plainly it will all be too much for us!

Lets put it down to controller pedantry! (for training purposes:ok: ).

HURRAH! HURRAH!
We've decided on a new policy, no more met warnings to be put out via the ATIS. Seems the poor BRT and Sleazy pilots can't cope with them (summat to do with the limited amount of brain cells available on their flight decks!:} ) Oh, all that typing we won't have to do anymore, mar-vell-ous.:D :D