When is a/g no longer safe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When is a/g no longer safe?
I fly from a very busy GA airport with only intermittant A/G and the general standard of airmanship around the airfield is low and standard of R/t is utter ****e. The instructors from the resident school are some of the worst offenders, regularly jumping in on final when someone else is already on final. They seem to have absolutely no regard to other people whatsoever and ifappraoched just bang on about the heroc miltary flying careers so how dare anyone question them. How the hell the pupils ever manage at a controlled airfield is beyond me!
The place has three tarmac and three grass runways (no names no pack drill!) all of which can be in use at the same time with a/c using opposing runways because someone is trying some low or slow flying stunt, whilst perhaps a twin is using the longest runway and someone in a microlight is using the into wind runway and aeros going on in the overhead. If one questions the wisdom of this the one is shot down as a kill joy but it is only a matter of time before some flys into some else. There is actually no deadside but people descend deadside to a particular runway and it is impossible to know what the hell is going on elsewhere.
Do fellow ppruners think that there should be a free for all with fortune favouring the brave?
Is the a point in terms of movements when the CAA look to upgrade at least to AFIS?
The place has three tarmac and three grass runways (no names no pack drill!) all of which can be in use at the same time with a/c using opposing runways because someone is trying some low or slow flying stunt, whilst perhaps a twin is using the longest runway and someone in a microlight is using the into wind runway and aeros going on in the overhead. If one questions the wisdom of this the one is shot down as a kill joy but it is only a matter of time before some flys into some else. There is actually no deadside but people descend deadside to a particular runway and it is impossible to know what the hell is going on elsewhere.
Do fellow ppruners think that there should be a free for all with fortune favouring the brave?
Is the a point in terms of movements when the CAA look to upgrade at least to AFIS?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been to such airfields, found a similar sort of thing and thought much the same as you.
But the counter argument of the locals (who in effect "own" the place) is that full ATC (which is the only legal way to stop people carving you up on the inside when you are turning base, etc) costs a lot and the landing fees will go up, etc.
Also there are great many people, some simply "macho men", some are people who hate using the radio, and some who fly planes without an electrical system, and all of these are against what they regard as an infringement of their civil liberties and personal freedoms
But the counter argument of the locals (who in effect "own" the place) is that full ATC (which is the only legal way to stop people carving you up on the inside when you are turning base, etc) costs a lot and the landing fees will go up, etc.
Also there are great many people, some simply "macho men", some are people who hate using the radio, and some who fly planes without an electrical system, and all of these are against what they regard as an infringement of their civil liberties and personal freedoms
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ludwig, if it's as bad as you say, you might send in a CHIRP. It sounds as though the problems you describe derive more from the culture of the place than from anything inherent in operating air/ground radio only. To offer a contrast to the situation which you describe, very busy airfelds such as White Waltham operate successfully with the correct (and minimal) use of air to ground radio. I am not sure that adopting a Flight Info Service would necessarily solve the problems. It could even make things worse, as I've noticed that FIS sometimes encourages radio operators to start behaving like Controllers when they are not and sometimes encourages pilots to start behaving as though they are flying within a magic shield, held aloft and saved from crashing into anyone by the kindly radio waves. Incidentally, the same can sometimes be said of the effects of ATC, salutary though they may be in general: the bloke in the Tower can help to prevent the circumstances arising in which you get carved up or smacked into, but can't actually stop it from happening. Anyway, it sounds to me as if the problems at your place start and finish somewhere other than the radio room.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Gone.........for good this time.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An A/G service should not affect the safety of an airfield. Pilots should make their own decisions, have impeccable airmanship and not resort to the MS Flight Simulator type of flying in the circuit. There's enough road rage on the roads.
Aviation will always attract W
ers, but I think we've covered this thread before.
Speak to Air Traffic Services Dept at the CAA and they will advise.
IO540,
Most of the people that choose not to use a radio do so because of the very reasons mentioned at the start of this thread. I personally don't like using a radio, even when I have one in the aeroplane, but I don't consider myself 'Macho', just a pilot who likes to exercise the privalege of flying without being told what to do by somebody on the ground, and to make MY own decisions regarding MY own safety. Civil Liberties don't come into it at all. Besides, I can never see the dials on the modern radios
Legality is not an issue here. People will cut you up whatever ATC service you have. I've had a airline Shorts 330 cut me up whilst I was head down on a practice ILS approach into an extremely busy airport in the South West before. Just as well my instructor had his eyes peeled.. The airport in question had full TWR/APP in use, yet the 330 pilot still managed it.
Poor airmanship, poor lookout and not being aware of what's happening in the circuit are almost certainly the main causes.
I fly from a busy airfield with an A/G service and there is GA flying, parachuting, helicopter flying, aerobatics overhead, ballooning, the occasional glider dropping in and large model flying. We all fly there in perfect harmony, and safely because all of us respect and know what the other pilots are doing. Most of the time without even talking on the radio..
Aviation will always attract W
ers, but I think we've covered this thread before.Speak to Air Traffic Services Dept at the CAA and they will advise.
IO540,
Also there are great many people, some simply "macho men", some are people who hate using the radio, and some who fly planes without an electrical system, and all of these are against what they regard as an infringement of their civil liberties and personal freedoms
....that full ATC (which is the only legal way to stop people carving you up on the inside when you are turning base, etc)
Poor airmanship, poor lookout and not being aware of what's happening in the circuit are almost certainly the main causes.
I fly from a busy airfield with an A/G service and there is GA flying, parachuting, helicopter flying, aerobatics overhead, ballooning, the occasional glider dropping in and large model flying. We all fly there in perfect harmony, and safely because all of us respect and know what the other pilots are doing. Most of the time without even talking on the radio..
Last edited by Zlin526; 10th Dec 2003 at 05:41.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds more like the operators need to instil some basic rules regading airmanship.
Some simple rules like observing the signal square instructions or else would stop most of this stuff.
Upgrading the radio service is an option and these days oh so popular - but an expensive and probably for the majority of the time an unnecessary one.
Look at airfields that have truly high traffic rates - Kemble, Sun 'n Fun etc. A rigid set of rules and effectively no radio. It worked when aircraft didn't have radios and it still does.
Radio is a shambles might bring a bit of order - or it might just make it seem like there is some order.
Basic operational rules are the real requirement here!
Some simple rules like observing the signal square instructions or else would stop most of this stuff.
Upgrading the radio service is an option and these days oh so popular - but an expensive and probably for the majority of the time an unnecessary one.
Look at airfields that have truly high traffic rates - Kemble, Sun 'n Fun etc. A rigid set of rules and effectively no radio. It worked when aircraft didn't have radios and it still does.
Radio is a shambles might bring a bit of order - or it might just make it seem like there is some order.
Basic operational rules are the real requirement here!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zlin526
I think that if you have full ATC, they can then take steps against pilots who persistently do the sort of things you describe.
But I don't think ATC is a good solution for most GA airfields; too expensive for a start.
I often don't use the radio en-route (when all that is available is a non-radar service like London Info, there is little point) but to not use it in the circuit is bound to be detrimental to safety simply because a pilot does not have a perfect field of view.
I think that if you have full ATC, they can then take steps against pilots who persistently do the sort of things you describe.
But I don't think ATC is a good solution for most GA airfields; too expensive for a start.
I often don't use the radio en-route (when all that is available is a non-radar service like London Info, there is little point) but to not use it in the circuit is bound to be detrimental to safety simply because a pilot does not have a perfect field of view.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ludwig
This is not particularly an ATC issue.
What is being described are breaches of the ANO and/or the Rules of the Air Regulations .
If the operators of the airfield are knowingly permitting or condoning breaches of the law then they may well find themselves liable under Common Law and could have their license withdrawn by the CAA which would prevent the local flying school from carrying out ab-initio training.
If you feel that your safety has been infringed then file an MOR , that's what it's there for.
So if I have this right:-
You are a witness and complain of dangerous practices.
You have the means at your disposal to do something about it.
You are not prepared to do something about it.
You think the way to deal with this situation is for the CAA to require the aerodrome operator to employ a licensed AFISO or ATCO so that he in turn can witness what you allege is going on and file the MOR that you yourself are unwilling to file.
I sense a wind-up here.
Mike
This is not particularly an ATC issue.
What is being described are breaches of the ANO and/or the Rules of the Air Regulations .
If the operators of the airfield are knowingly permitting or condoning breaches of the law then they may well find themselves liable under Common Law and could have their license withdrawn by the CAA which would prevent the local flying school from carrying out ab-initio training.
If you feel that your safety has been infringed then file an MOR , that's what it's there for.
So if I have this right:-
You are a witness and complain of dangerous practices.
You have the means at your disposal to do something about it.
You are not prepared to do something about it.
You think the way to deal with this situation is for the CAA to require the aerodrome operator to employ a licensed AFISO or ATCO so that he in turn can witness what you allege is going on and file the MOR that you yourself are unwilling to file.
I sense a wind-up here.
Mike
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it when someone raises a question on these forums that they don't like the look off or they think that there answer is the only answer does the question automatically become a "wind-up"??
The question was not one of when to report someone it was one of if upgrading from A/G to AFIS or even ATC would provide a greater level of control and thus a greater level of safety.
I am very familiar with the airfield in question and quite agree that the standard of airmanship shown there frequently is sub standard. Bad enough to file an MOR maybe at times, bad enough to file a CHIRP same again and I know one or two have been filed.
Personally I think an upgrade to AFIS would go a long way to solving some of the problems. Traffic movements on the ground would be controlled with runways in use being decided by the duty controller. This would help to prevent some of the multiple runway use events. I think a FISO would also encourage better standards of RT. The A/G operators in question do a good job but at the end of the day they have no formal training ( I hold an A/G certificate). A/G operators have no power to control ground movements and this is often where things start to go wrong.
There are other areas that do need addressing, certain of the instructors attitudes certainly need a readjustment but this was not the subject of the thread!
People who still think that carrying a radio is an infringement of there civil liberty still amaze me. They are the same people that think the GPS is evil (as being discussed in another thread) or these new fangled electrical systems will never catch on. These are the same people that unless they change will ultimately cause the death of our sport.
There is no doubt that a radio aids flight safety along with good airmanship. I never fly without a radio, even aircraft with no electrical system I carry an Icom A22, gives me something to plug my BOSE into!
If A/G was sufficient to deal with everything at a busy airfield then why do we have FISO and ATC?
The question was not one of when to report someone it was one of if upgrading from A/G to AFIS or even ATC would provide a greater level of control and thus a greater level of safety.
I am very familiar with the airfield in question and quite agree that the standard of airmanship shown there frequently is sub standard. Bad enough to file an MOR maybe at times, bad enough to file a CHIRP same again and I know one or two have been filed.
Personally I think an upgrade to AFIS would go a long way to solving some of the problems. Traffic movements on the ground would be controlled with runways in use being decided by the duty controller. This would help to prevent some of the multiple runway use events. I think a FISO would also encourage better standards of RT. The A/G operators in question do a good job but at the end of the day they have no formal training ( I hold an A/G certificate). A/G operators have no power to control ground movements and this is often where things start to go wrong.
There are other areas that do need addressing, certain of the instructors attitudes certainly need a readjustment but this was not the subject of the thread!
People who still think that carrying a radio is an infringement of there civil liberty still amaze me. They are the same people that think the GPS is evil (as being discussed in another thread) or these new fangled electrical systems will never catch on. These are the same people that unless they change will ultimately cause the death of our sport.
There is no doubt that a radio aids flight safety along with good airmanship. I never fly without a radio, even aircraft with no electrical system I carry an Icom A22, gives me something to plug my BOSE into!
If A/G was sufficient to deal with everything at a busy airfield then why do we have FISO and ATC?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since FNG gave White Waltham as an example of somewhere where A/G works well, here are some extracts from the West London Aero Club Flying Order Book, which all pilots flying from Waltham are required to read and sign on a regular basis:
In other words, the airfield decide the runway in use. They set the signal square to indicate the runway in use. Everyone must follow this. It works, and it works well, even during the busiest periods, despite a mix of helicoptors, microlights, airships and aeroplanes of a wide range of speeds, many of them with no radio. There is no need for ATC or AFISO just because an airfield is busy. I find it scary that pilots are operating in a less-than-safe way, and that some people feel this requires intervention - but even without ATC, an airfield owner or operator can intervene to instruct pilots to operate safely.
FFF
---------------
3.2 The selection of Runway Direction is the responsibility of the Duty Operations Controller in consultation with the Duty Instructor. The Signals Square is to be adjusted before a runway change is introduced.
3.4 It is a requirement for pilots of WLAC aircraft to comply with all ATC signals and instructions unless it would be dangerous to do so.
3.4 It is a requirement for pilots of WLAC aircraft to comply with all ATC signals and instructions unless it would be dangerous to do so.
FFF
---------------
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I be the first to congratulate FFF on his three thousand three hundred and thirty third post.
Wandering slightly off the specifics of the thread, I politely disagree with bose-x's suggested polarisation of debate on topics such as this as taking place between two neatly demarcated camps: on the one side, pilots who embrace all aspects of technology (by implication, safe pilots) and on the other hand, luddites (by implication, dangerous pilots...blimey: they probably think that aircraft can be made out of wood and tea-towels as well!).
Venturing the opinion that reaching to agencies outside the cockpit and/or to technology may not in every case be the answer to a problem which appears to be based on airmanship, or the lack thereof (whether the problem is how not to get lost in the open FIR or how not to get rammed in the circuit) should not automatically consign the author of that opinion to the dangerous grandad category. Few if any would deny that GPS, radio, and people on the ground to talk to can make positive contributions to safety, so as long as we remind ourselves that they can't and don't guarantee our safety or excuse us from making our own decisions.
Speaking for myself, I love yakking away on the radio: hey, it's one thing in flying which is easy, and some passengers love all that Golf India Tango blah blah niner one niner stuff, not least as it distracts their attention from the fact that I'm about to crash into a ...what is that? oh... a radio mast.
Wandering slightly off the specifics of the thread, I politely disagree with bose-x's suggested polarisation of debate on topics such as this as taking place between two neatly demarcated camps: on the one side, pilots who embrace all aspects of technology (by implication, safe pilots) and on the other hand, luddites (by implication, dangerous pilots...blimey: they probably think that aircraft can be made out of wood and tea-towels as well!).
Venturing the opinion that reaching to agencies outside the cockpit and/or to technology may not in every case be the answer to a problem which appears to be based on airmanship, or the lack thereof (whether the problem is how not to get lost in the open FIR or how not to get rammed in the circuit) should not automatically consign the author of that opinion to the dangerous grandad category. Few if any would deny that GPS, radio, and people on the ground to talk to can make positive contributions to safety, so as long as we remind ourselves that they can't and don't guarantee our safety or excuse us from making our own decisions.
Speaking for myself, I love yakking away on the radio: hey, it's one thing in flying which is easy, and some passengers love all that Golf India Tango blah blah niner one niner stuff, not least as it distracts their attention from the fact that I'm about to crash into a ...what is that? oh... a radio mast.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bose x
Apologies for raising your hackles.
The description of the situation was fairly horrendous, which is what made me think it might be a wind-up. However you have confirmed idependently that it is bad, an "accident waiting to happen".
If it as bad as you say then action is required now. The only way that will happen is if you, Ludwig, or someone else do something to bring it to the attention of those who can do something about it. The quickest, best and most effective way of doing it is by filing an MOR.
We had a complaint a little while ago at Popham where an aircraft at the 26 hold was overflown at low level by a landing aircraft. (Popham has an offset approach to 26)
I believe the pilot of the holding aircraft filed an MOR, as a result of which the CAA had discussions with the aerodrome operator and the 26 hold was moved further back to prevent a recurrence.
So the system does work. The CAA has an Aerodrome Safety Department, who do have teeth and will take action. It's not a matter of prosecution, just of making sure that rules are in place for safe operation and that they are adhered to.
The Aerodrome Safety Department will be happy to discuss the problem with you.
Putting an AFISO in place may well alleviate the problem but it would take much longer to achieve an effect. The AFISO would be an employee of the aerodrome operator, which might make his position difficult.
Spitoon has suggested using the MOR system. I believe he is an ATCO by profession. I agree with him.
Mike
Apologies for raising your hackles.
The description of the situation was fairly horrendous, which is what made me think it might be a wind-up. However you have confirmed idependently that it is bad, an "accident waiting to happen".
If it as bad as you say then action is required now. The only way that will happen is if you, Ludwig, or someone else do something to bring it to the attention of those who can do something about it. The quickest, best and most effective way of doing it is by filing an MOR.
We had a complaint a little while ago at Popham where an aircraft at the 26 hold was overflown at low level by a landing aircraft. (Popham has an offset approach to 26)
I believe the pilot of the holding aircraft filed an MOR, as a result of which the CAA had discussions with the aerodrome operator and the 26 hold was moved further back to prevent a recurrence.
So the system does work. The CAA has an Aerodrome Safety Department, who do have teeth and will take action. It's not a matter of prosecution, just of making sure that rules are in place for safe operation and that they are adhered to.
The Aerodrome Safety Department will be happy to discuss the problem with you.
Putting an AFISO in place may well alleviate the problem but it would take much longer to achieve an effect. The AFISO would be an employee of the aerodrome operator, which might make his position difficult.
Spitoon has suggested using the MOR system. I believe he is an ATCO by profession. I agree with him.
Mike
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Smurph Castle
Age: 45
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think I agree with bose-x on the whole. I don't really see why it is assumed that introducing AFIS or ATC is going to automatically lure everyone into a false sense of security and make them feel they don't need to be alert or responsible in their flying. Sounds from Ludwig's description like certain flyers at this place think they're indestructible anyway!
I and another pilot I was out flying with were recently stopped from putting our aircraft into a potentially dangerous position on the ground by a controller intervening. It had been a genuine misunderstanding and we were both very grateful for her intervention. Probably was bad airmanship, in retrospect, and I'll pay more attention next time.
Citing FFF's example, White Waltham does work well, but their A/G is operated by people who don't look at the airfield except when someone makes a call, as they are incredibly busy running around performing all the other ops duties. Clearly in this setup, the situation I was in might have turned out differently, which is why the field I was at had ATC.
As aerodromes change with time, so should the way they are run be - whether it's upgrading a radio service or management deciding they need to impose firmer rules and penalties for breaking them.
I and another pilot I was out flying with were recently stopped from putting our aircraft into a potentially dangerous position on the ground by a controller intervening. It had been a genuine misunderstanding and we were both very grateful for her intervention. Probably was bad airmanship, in retrospect, and I'll pay more attention next time.
Citing FFF's example, White Waltham does work well, but their A/G is operated by people who don't look at the airfield except when someone makes a call, as they are incredibly busy running around performing all the other ops duties. Clearly in this setup, the situation I was in might have turned out differently, which is why the field I was at had ATC.
As aerodromes change with time, so should the way they are run be - whether it's upgrading a radio service or management deciding they need to impose firmer rules and penalties for breaking them.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly from an airfield with 3 hard and 3 grass runways with an Air to ground service. It might be the same one??!!
However, where I fly I find the a/g service works just fine and the standard of airmanship is generally good. I fly a slow aircraft sometimes non radio and also a fast aircraft which has a radio. In the fast aircraft I sometimes have to extend the circuit to keep behind slower aircraft, but so what I'm flying for the fun of it anyway.
We have aerobatics overhead, but they dont get in anyones way
We join overhead, descend on the deadside of the main runway in use, but are still able to use the in to wind runway if necessary as long as we respect the circuit traffic on the other runways. Yes sometimes there is a problem that the in to wind runway is the short runway that some of the larger aircraft might prefer not to use, but it works out very well and good airmanship is usually shown.
As with all airfields there are sometimes people who dont quite get it right, but they usually get told, whether they were the microlight that cut someone up on final the other day, or the Cessna that reported "long finals" and expected everyone else in the circuit to join in behind him, rather than him joining overhead.
Ive also flown from some AFIS airfields and I find these a real pain sometimes, with the AFIS operators often going beyond their remit and pilots equally expecting to be cleared to do anything, when the AFIS operator has no authority to clear them. Often far too much radio chatter and long waits at the holding point, because the aircraft in front dont know what to do without being told.
A/G works very well at a lot of busy airfields and of course is used almost everywhere in the USA, mostly with no one on the ground except a receptionist who can order fuel for you!
The airfield I fly from(only moved there this year) is one of the friendliest Ive ever been to has a great atmosphere and I would say a lot of good pilots who can cope well with the varied traffic. Most people seem to be very happy with the way things run. I hope if this is the same place that we never get AFIS or full ATC- for a start I dont want to pay for it and then the next thing someone will say you cant fly if they are not there!! Air Traffic has its place and I use their very good services every day at work, but it is totally un-necessary where I fly for fun.
There are plenty of airfields around with full air traffic, if that is really what you want you could always go and fly at one of these airfields.
happy flying!!
However, where I fly I find the a/g service works just fine and the standard of airmanship is generally good. I fly a slow aircraft sometimes non radio and also a fast aircraft which has a radio. In the fast aircraft I sometimes have to extend the circuit to keep behind slower aircraft, but so what I'm flying for the fun of it anyway.
We have aerobatics overhead, but they dont get in anyones way
We join overhead, descend on the deadside of the main runway in use, but are still able to use the in to wind runway if necessary as long as we respect the circuit traffic on the other runways. Yes sometimes there is a problem that the in to wind runway is the short runway that some of the larger aircraft might prefer not to use, but it works out very well and good airmanship is usually shown.
As with all airfields there are sometimes people who dont quite get it right, but they usually get told, whether they were the microlight that cut someone up on final the other day, or the Cessna that reported "long finals" and expected everyone else in the circuit to join in behind him, rather than him joining overhead.
Ive also flown from some AFIS airfields and I find these a real pain sometimes, with the AFIS operators often going beyond their remit and pilots equally expecting to be cleared to do anything, when the AFIS operator has no authority to clear them. Often far too much radio chatter and long waits at the holding point, because the aircraft in front dont know what to do without being told.
A/G works very well at a lot of busy airfields and of course is used almost everywhere in the USA, mostly with no one on the ground except a receptionist who can order fuel for you!
The airfield I fly from(only moved there this year) is one of the friendliest Ive ever been to has a great atmosphere and I would say a lot of good pilots who can cope well with the varied traffic. Most people seem to be very happy with the way things run. I hope if this is the same place that we never get AFIS or full ATC- for a start I dont want to pay for it and then the next thing someone will say you cant fly if they are not there!! Air Traffic has its place and I use their very good services every day at work, but it is totally un-necessary where I fly for fun.
There are plenty of airfields around with full air traffic, if that is really what you want you could always go and fly at one of these airfields.
happy flying!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cubflyer, Burgiss Hill is a very long way from the airfield in question.
I think that you are right A/G does work well at a lot of airfields, but I suspect that the attitudes at those other airfields displayed by the Instructors and flyers are probably quite different!
I flew a good number of hours in the USA doing my CPL/IR and found that the standards of airmanship was significantly higher at A/G airfields, but then also found that most things aviation were handled much better in the USA anyway!
The airfield in question quite often has a free for all culture rather than one of pilots acting as professionals.
I think that you are right A/G does work well at a lot of airfields, but I suspect that the attitudes at those other airfields displayed by the Instructors and flyers are probably quite different!
I flew a good number of hours in the USA doing my CPL/IR and found that the standards of airmanship was significantly higher at A/G airfields, but then also found that most things aviation were handled much better in the USA anyway!
The airfield in question quite often has a free for all culture rather than one of pilots acting as professionals.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well FFF
A rarity it may be, but I fully agree with you. Waltham is reasonably busy airfield touching the edge of the Heathrow zone (for those who don't know). It has a large variety of flying machines operating on using air ground. The vast
majority of the time it works very well. Why?
I believe it is due to having a simple set of rules to work by. We all know the standard join, we obey the rules of the air and we keep a bloody good lookout. The rules are administered well and when it goes wrong a cup of tea and a chat in the bar sorts it out and we learn more.
IO-540. There are a number of non radio-non electrical vintage aircraft flying there. There pilots never feel it for there human rights, rather than a desire to operate their aircraft in original condition. In reality these enthusiasts are far more situationally aware than those who have more capable (possibly distracting machines). If you want proof, see what types of aircraft have infringed the London zone more. Non radio-minimal instruments aircraft or pilots who are heads in using inappropriately set radio/GPS aids! I would be interested to see the final results of the Lynham infringements at the PFA. With consideration and understanding GA flying can still be many things to many people safely.
Ludwig to answer you question. ATC whilst increasing safety would probably less efficient than a simple A/G with a good airfield operator using simple robust rules. The only thing we have to sort out is ourselves -the pilots. Come down (or up) to Waltham read the simple Joining procedures beforehand and have a tea (new caterers this year VG*). IO-540 come as well slot in between FFF's Europa and the non radio 1938 Chilton racer. (She will see you as there is hardly anything inside the cockpit to look at.) The first solo will wait for you.
100 years of Pilots. I'm looking forward to the next 100.
Happy understanding Flying to all.
Regards
Wide
A rarity it may be, but I fully agree with you. Waltham is reasonably busy airfield touching the edge of the Heathrow zone (for those who don't know). It has a large variety of flying machines operating on using air ground. The vast
majority of the time it works very well. Why?
I believe it is due to having a simple set of rules to work by. We all know the standard join, we obey the rules of the air and we keep a bloody good lookout. The rules are administered well and when it goes wrong a cup of tea and a chat in the bar sorts it out and we learn more.
IO-540. There are a number of non radio-non electrical vintage aircraft flying there. There pilots never feel it for there human rights, rather than a desire to operate their aircraft in original condition. In reality these enthusiasts are far more situationally aware than those who have more capable (possibly distracting machines). If you want proof, see what types of aircraft have infringed the London zone more. Non radio-minimal instruments aircraft or pilots who are heads in using inappropriately set radio/GPS aids! I would be interested to see the final results of the Lynham infringements at the PFA. With consideration and understanding GA flying can still be many things to many people safely.
Ludwig to answer you question. ATC whilst increasing safety would probably less efficient than a simple A/G with a good airfield operator using simple robust rules. The only thing we have to sort out is ourselves -the pilots. Come down (or up) to Waltham read the simple Joining procedures beforehand and have a tea (new caterers this year VG*). IO-540 come as well slot in between FFF's Europa and the non radio 1938 Chilton racer. (She will see you as there is hardly anything inside the cockpit to look at.) The first solo will wait for you.
100 years of Pilots. I'm looking forward to the next 100.
Happy understanding Flying to all.
Regards
Wide
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my view...
I'd like to get rid of AFIS and replace it with an AWOS (Automated weather) and Unicom or full ATC.....
My reasoning behind this is that being the PIC I'd rather be able to talk to other pilots in the circuit and on the ground myself and co-ordinate accordingly. I do think AFIS can be a waste of time and doesn't really do much good, and sometimes the operator tends to act like ATC which no doubt some pilots take literally. At the end of the day safety is the PICs responsibility, even choosing which runway to land or take off on.
Its much easier to start announcing your own position, then when you're in the circuit, if you're unsure of anyones position you just ask them.
EA
My reasoning behind this is that being the PIC I'd rather be able to talk to other pilots in the circuit and on the ground myself and co-ordinate accordingly. I do think AFIS can be a waste of time and doesn't really do much good, and sometimes the operator tends to act like ATC which no doubt some pilots take literally. At the end of the day safety is the PICs responsibility, even choosing which runway to land or take off on.
Its much easier to start announcing your own position, then when you're in the circuit, if you're unsure of anyones position you just ask them.
EA
AFIS, A/G, ATC, whatever. If I have a need to talk to another pilot then I do. If the radio operator/ATC object then tough. It's my neck, not theirs. If they get really shirty ask if they'd prefer a Air Safety Report instead.
It's very rare in CTA that I need to talk directely - done it a few times - but rather more common on the OCTA radio freq.
AFIS & A/G are NOT controllers. Take whatever information they offer then use it in association with your other data to choose what YOU think is correct & sensible.
It's very rare in CTA that I need to talk directely - done it a few times - but rather more common on the OCTA radio freq.
AFIS & A/G are NOT controllers. Take whatever information they offer then use it in association with your other data to choose what YOU think is correct & sensible.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Burgess Hill, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X, yes you are right Burgess Hill is a long way from the airfield in question! I used to live in Burges Hill, but moved to the midlands earlier this year- havent got around to figuring out how to change the profile yet!
Wanted to fly there today, but too windy for the old Cub.
You guys are right about White Waltham, ive been in there quite a few times a/g works great there, just as it does at my home base. Pity about the bumpy runways though!
Wanted to fly there today, but too windy for the old Cub.
You guys are right about White Waltham, ive been in there quite a few times a/g works great there, just as it does at my home base. Pity about the bumpy runways though!
