I can't imagine an AR instructor/UNICOM operator being so silly. I can, however, imagine a PPRUNE contributer misinterpreting a "suggested go-around due to a queue at the take-off hold point" as being a go-around command.

Dudd....hmmm...so how come I continue to hear reports from Unicom on number of aircraft in the circuit, etc

slackie - time for you to read up on what a unicom service is there for, and what they are allowed, and not allowed to do.

they are allowed to say how many aircraft are reported in the circuit - a handy piece of information

perhaps you should call Alan, the manager at AR unicom and he can explain it all to you. :ugh:

Slackie!
Thats unfortunately exactly the response i would expect from someone working at Airways, however not from someone who operates from Ardmore!
UNICOM is allowed to report the number of aircraft in the circuit
1) so long as someone requests the information
2) UNICOM uses the word [B]reported[B] in that phrase
3) at any time UNICOM sees fit using the above phraseology, 'due care' ie not allowing planes to crash into each other???
Also, i do beleive, correct me if im wrong, UNICOM in Taupo (prior to closure) used to be in the air Nz back office, when the poor Seneca crashed didnt notify airways for nearly 20 minutes even though they had talked with UNICOM on the apporach about the conditions....hmmm wonder if that would happen at AR.
Then mysteriously, they are put back in the tower not long after....

Never heard UNICOM direct anyone, have heard the word "suggest" which is Legal, and as others have said maybe they have averted a few situations .....one comes to mind.....

Thread creep
 

FL440/6080ft...to avoid "thread creep" (who is that??) I'll shortly start a new thread titled something like UNICOM v AFIS v ATC...just give me a chance to type my view!! Two finger "hunt and peck" takes time.

6080ft...I'd suggest that YOU re-read what UNICOM is legally permitted to do...try the new thread for some background

Who I work for is immaterial (Air Traffic Controller)...apart from possibly being more familiar with the regulations surround air traffic control/flight information and other services, and being an operator at AR allows me to observe "uncontrolled aerodrome operations" first hand...I have also sat up in the tower with UNICOM on a couple of occasions (although not in the last 12 months or so).

New thread is http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3518288

FL440 - to address a couple of your observations... (1)/(2) UNICOM are only permitted to pass on the number of aircraft that are "REPORTED IN THE CCT" and the position that they reported in the circuit...how quickly is this information obsolete...how many pilots report clear of the circuit and report clear of the RWY....as this is the information that UNICOM are permitted to pass on. UNICOM place a strip when the aircraft REPORTS entering the runway for departure and remove the strip when they report clear of the circuit MBZ...if pilots don't do that then the information is invalid and not permitted to be updated by visual observation by UNICOM!!!! (3) this is NOT their job nor their responsibility nor their "duty of care". Location of AP UNICOM and its move had nothing to do with the Seneca crash, but on availability of the TWR and addressing OSH requirements.

You are showing your lack of familiarity with AR there slackie. Pilot's would very quickly be corrected if they failed to give these reports. It is a typical Airways view that people must stick rigidly to legislation or guidlines even when a more practical approach would be benificial. I would like to see you sitting in the Unicom tower at Ardmore and carefully following your little black MATS book as one aircraft runs over another. Time for a little common sense please.

I come from a sosciety where people will at times step beyond there job, resposibiliby or duty of care to fill an obvious requirement. Ardmore is an uncontrolled aerodrome. Pilots know that anything said by unicom is of an advisory nature only. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

CloudCutter...this has nothing to do with Airways...Airways has no interest in AR...are all your views exactly the same as your employers...'cos I guarantee you not all mine are!!! This is probably closer to the view of our regulator - CAA. It is a common misconception that Airways are the policemen...they are not, they are just an ANSP - CAA are the policemen!

I have never said that I am particularly familiar with AR, but I do operate in and out of there, and am just reporting what I hear personally. And, out of interest, who would correct a pilot if they failed to make one of these calls???

I wouldn't sit in AR UNICOM as anything other than an observer, as I sit in my own location DOING MY OWN JOB.

Oh and by the way...our MATS is blue!!! My little black book has other stuff in it!!

Touché salesman.

You will appreciate my answer was somewhat tongue in cheek. As you know, we pilots love to give you guys a rev-up whenever we see an opportunity (and vise-versa of course).

I do think however that pilots would quickly be asked to lift their game (by either unicom, or any other local operator) if not making adequate position reports, i.e. 'XYZ, confirm you've vacated the MBZ'. At least that's how it was back in the dark ages when I was there.

Cheers

In addition to this comment and a previous post by someone that AR Unicom have ''saved the day'' would perhapes indicate that the service CAA have deemed adequate at AR would not be the case if they (Unicom) are operating outside the scope of their Rule part certification??

Wouldn't have changed a thing regardless of the level of service (ATC / FIO / Unicom) being provided. There is no low level radar coverage and the only way someone could have perhapes warned the aircraft was off track would have been through the use of a VDF in the tower which gives the bearing. If that device wasn't available (and it wasn't) it wouldn't have mattered if it was ATC FIO or Unicom on.

Finally, as Slackie has put it - CAA are the regulators and it is CAA who determine the level of service required within airspace and airports NOT Airways.

I don't think he was suggesting that the unicom would have prevented the accident involving the seneca - more that after a short period of time when no aircraft appeared on the runway or there was no call made that the aircraft had commenced the missed approach - that there may be something wrong.