Flight Information at Aerodromes and whats the point?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Information at Aerodromes and whats the point?
After recent events that have happened, I decided to surf through these Forums to see what people thought of Flight information and i must say the views I have come across are of a mixed variety and one of something that makes interesting reading. Especially One post made by Shaggy Sheep Driver. Before I carry on, please can I make myself clear that i am not having ago at any one person here, but only expressing my personal view over flight information (as a FISO), with its benefits and its disadvantages.
Here is what I noticed..
Ok we all know most pilots don’t like ATC in what ever form it comes, whether its A/G, FIS, or full ATC. I can only assume its because its another thing that you must do and only gets in your way?
Why is this though? What is it we all seem to have against any ATSU?
SSD, in an old Post you made sometime last year, you said that at where you fly its continuous R/T chatter? And you cant understand why? - Have you ever considered that the field you fly from is one that’s very busy, with pilots like yourself flying out in the open space of Class G airspace? and with every pilot that flies, there is bound to be R/T transmissions? (With every movement there is approx 7 necessary calls). It appears to me that you have some sort of grudge against the people who man your tower? - is this just because they stop you from taking off when you want to? or what? i would be interested to know, assuming you still read these forums.
SSD, please don’t think I am having ago at you, its just yours seems to stand out from most of the threads I have read.
I will however ask you one question, Have you ever thought about the benefits these people provide you!? And yes they do.
You will find that most people who provide Flight information at small aerodromes do it to earn a crust, just like you do in your own way, and are people who are very dedicated in doing their job well and efficient They are people who have put themselves through the necessary training, and who have sat the relevant examinations, in order to sit in their ''tower'' day in and day out (often poorly paid for what they do), in order to help relieve the pilot from some of the extra stress they don’t need. Whether its choosing a suitable runway, or pointing out that one piece of traffic that GXXXX Clearly hasn’t seen, OR (and god forbid) is the one who ''will pick up the pieces'' when something does go wrong.
From reading a large selection of threads, I also get the feeling that some of you out there feel FISO's are just "wannabe" ATCO's and are using their job as a stepping stone to getting there, and in some cases may not do a ''proper'' job. For this i would like to say one thing, We too like you pilots are regulated, and do, like you pilots, have to have Frequent Comp Checks, in order to show that we are doing our job in the correct, sensible and above all safe Manner.
One final thing I would like to express on this matter is, when can there be too much R/T Chatter? - Ok I will admit on some stations, and even at the one I work at, there can be some FISOs who give un-necessarily calls, but on the other-hand maybe that one call, it the one that ''flicks that switch'' and saves your life, or your pride!?!
So ppruners, please feel free to reply to this, I would like feedback on what i have said. Be you a fellow FISO, or a Pilot yourself.
I shall leave you all in piece now, but if you ever do wonder what does go on in that "big bad tower", then why not pop up and pay us a visit? We would be more than welcome to see you, and no don’t worry we don’t bite
P.s this is also posted in the ATC issues section, as well as Private flying one!
Here is what I noticed..
Ok we all know most pilots don’t like ATC in what ever form it comes, whether its A/G, FIS, or full ATC. I can only assume its because its another thing that you must do and only gets in your way?
Why is this though? What is it we all seem to have against any ATSU?
SSD, in an old Post you made sometime last year, you said that at where you fly its continuous R/T chatter? And you cant understand why? - Have you ever considered that the field you fly from is one that’s very busy, with pilots like yourself flying out in the open space of Class G airspace? and with every pilot that flies, there is bound to be R/T transmissions? (With every movement there is approx 7 necessary calls). It appears to me that you have some sort of grudge against the people who man your tower? - is this just because they stop you from taking off when you want to? or what? i would be interested to know, assuming you still read these forums.
SSD, please don’t think I am having ago at you, its just yours seems to stand out from most of the threads I have read.
I will however ask you one question, Have you ever thought about the benefits these people provide you!? And yes they do.
You will find that most people who provide Flight information at small aerodromes do it to earn a crust, just like you do in your own way, and are people who are very dedicated in doing their job well and efficient They are people who have put themselves through the necessary training, and who have sat the relevant examinations, in order to sit in their ''tower'' day in and day out (often poorly paid for what they do), in order to help relieve the pilot from some of the extra stress they don’t need. Whether its choosing a suitable runway, or pointing out that one piece of traffic that GXXXX Clearly hasn’t seen, OR (and god forbid) is the one who ''will pick up the pieces'' when something does go wrong.
From reading a large selection of threads, I also get the feeling that some of you out there feel FISO's are just "wannabe" ATCO's and are using their job as a stepping stone to getting there, and in some cases may not do a ''proper'' job. For this i would like to say one thing, We too like you pilots are regulated, and do, like you pilots, have to have Frequent Comp Checks, in order to show that we are doing our job in the correct, sensible and above all safe Manner.
One final thing I would like to express on this matter is, when can there be too much R/T Chatter? - Ok I will admit on some stations, and even at the one I work at, there can be some FISOs who give un-necessarily calls, but on the other-hand maybe that one call, it the one that ''flicks that switch'' and saves your life, or your pride!?!
So ppruners, please feel free to reply to this, I would like feedback on what i have said. Be you a fellow FISO, or a Pilot yourself.
I shall leave you all in piece now, but if you ever do wonder what does go on in that "big bad tower", then why not pop up and pay us a visit? We would be more than welcome to see you, and no don’t worry we don’t bite
P.s this is also posted in the ATC issues section, as well as Private flying one!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can there be too much RT chatter?
Yes, there can. I've heard some very odd exchanges between ground stations on A/G frequencies. Some A/G frequencies tend to be very 'relaxed'.
For myself, I welcome a higher standard of ATC at busier fields, such as might have an FISO. In the right place, I think Flight Information is a good compromise.
For myself, I welcome a higher standard of ATC at busier fields, such as might have an FISO. In the right place, I think Flight Information is a good compromise.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Most pilots don't like ATC". Huh? I think you'd have to search quite hard to find people commenting other than in very favourable terms about the ATC and FIS services provided to GA pilots. Shaggy Sheep Driver and others, myself included, occasionally observe that some pilots appear slightly too dependent on the radio and on ATC, but no one slags off the ATCOS or FISOs. There was a thread a few weeks ago about this but it disappeared.
If this thread is meant to say: "FISOs can be very helpful ", I agree.
If this thread is meant to say: "FISOs can be very helpful ", I agree.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with FNG on this one.
I personally believe that it's not the A/G, Information or ATC that is the problem. The MAIN problem is how many pilots cannot identify between them and what they can do for them.
You can almost work out where people have been trained these days by the way they speak on the radio. For example at Popham last week I heard
"G-** Ready for departure"
(No answer)
"G-** Ready for departure"
(No answer)
"Blind call for all a/c in circuit, this is G-** ready for departure, currently by the holding point with two on board, shortly to be lining up"
"G-** Lining up"
"G-** Rolling"
And would you believe it..."G-** airborne!
None of these transmissions were met with a response (as is often the case with Popham's A/G. I believe he was heading for somewhere like Shoreham.
Similarly, you often see pilots at somehwere like Gloucester who start up, start taxying get to the hold and then mutter their intentions to the Tower.
Some airfelds have flashy towers with mirrored glass and all singing and dancing masts and aerials above them who only provide an A/G service. Others have a run down shed that is held together with chewing gum and they are providing full ATC.
It is the pilots responsibility to know what he should expect when he presses the PTT switch. Blaming the man in the tower for something is very easy.
So is looking in Pooleys to know who you are dealing with.
I personally believe that it's not the A/G, Information or ATC that is the problem. The MAIN problem is how many pilots cannot identify between them and what they can do for them.
You can almost work out where people have been trained these days by the way they speak on the radio. For example at Popham last week I heard
"G-** Ready for departure"
(No answer)
"G-** Ready for departure"
(No answer)
"Blind call for all a/c in circuit, this is G-** ready for departure, currently by the holding point with two on board, shortly to be lining up"
"G-** Lining up"
"G-** Rolling"
And would you believe it..."G-** airborne!
None of these transmissions were met with a response (as is often the case with Popham's A/G. I believe he was heading for somewhere like Shoreham.
Similarly, you often see pilots at somehwere like Gloucester who start up, start taxying get to the hold and then mutter their intentions to the Tower.
Some airfelds have flashy towers with mirrored glass and all singing and dancing masts and aerials above them who only provide an A/G service. Others have a run down shed that is held together with chewing gum and they are providing full ATC.
It is the pilots responsibility to know what he should expect when he presses the PTT switch. Blaming the man in the tower for something is very easy.
So is looking in Pooleys to know who you are dealing with.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I like full ATC, or, as an alternative, an airfield where not a lot is happening.
Otherwise, flying a plane which is slightly faster in the circuit than the average, one has to do a lot of go-arounds if it's a nice day. I don't know of a way to get around that, other than ATC getting people organised, or perhaps running a field where everybody is properly trained in the local procedures and no visitors are allowed
I like the comment about Popham v. Shoreham I think Shoreham has the best ATC of all the "GA" fields - very professional and helpful.
Once I flew into Eaglescott. I called up
E. G-xxxx
no reply
E. G-xxxx
no reply, heard some chatter about Fred going for a beer
(5 mins later)
E. G-xxxx
"Listen, mate, just make the right calls in the right planes and don't expect any response!!!"
OK, that's the extreme example perhaps... but one does get a lot more rude people in non-ATC fields. One also gets some "controllers" who like people to do the overhead join just for their enjoyment - a waste of everyone's time.
It has to be said that most PPL students find radio operation (while flying the plane, navigating etc) one of the hardest things. So it's not suprising many don't like to do much radio. But it's a great asset and should be used whenever there is a benefit i.e. not a lot of point in calling up London Info Often a listening watch is the best thing.
I think another aspect of the problem is that many PPL instructors over-do the radio. They get students to call up London Info every 5 minutes, pointlessly increasing the workload. I reckon the system turns out a lot of pilots who are afraid of using the radio.
Otherwise, flying a plane which is slightly faster in the circuit than the average, one has to do a lot of go-arounds if it's a nice day. I don't know of a way to get around that, other than ATC getting people organised, or perhaps running a field where everybody is properly trained in the local procedures and no visitors are allowed
I like the comment about Popham v. Shoreham
I think Shoreham has the best ATC of all the "GA" fields - very professional and helpful.Once I flew into Eaglescott. I called up
E. G-xxxx
no reply
E. G-xxxx
no reply, heard some chatter about Fred going for a beer
(5 mins later)
E. G-xxxx
"Listen, mate, just make the right calls in the right planes and don't expect any response!!!"
OK, that's the extreme example perhaps... but one does get a lot more rude people in non-ATC fields. One also gets some "controllers" who like people to do the overhead join just for their enjoyment - a waste of everyone's time.
It has to be said that most PPL students find radio operation (while flying the plane, navigating etc) one of the hardest things. So it's not suprising many don't like to do much radio. But it's a great asset and should be used whenever there is a benefit i.e. not a lot of point in calling up London Info
Often a listening watch is the best thing.I think another aspect of the problem is that many PPL instructors over-do the radio. They get students to call up London Info every 5 minutes, pointlessly increasing the workload. I reckon the system turns out a lot of pilots who are afraid of using the radio.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/G can be fine. It can also be a pain in the ar$e when it's busy and you've had to go around twice because someone has lined up five seconds after you've called short final. In that situation a FIS is a real benefit, and IMHO strikes the right balance between keeping some order on the ground and allowing you to do what you think is best in the air.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold27, I’m not sure that I would agree that Pilots, and I imagine you are talking here about GA rather than the big boys, dislike the tower people. At most places I have visited everybody does their bit for the aviation activities whether it’s flying, talking, or whatever. There are some places which stick out as being less user friendly I agree, and there are a few A/G operators who think they should be honorary ATCOs, but I would say that most of the really really crap RT comes from Pilots, often at A/G airfields where no one is actually n any type of control even in the looses sense.
From a GA Pilot view point my general observations on the Tower versus the Pilot debate would be:
• Very busy airfields with A/G I think are dangerous, especially when a some of the locals randomly use any one of a selection of runways regardless of wind.
• There are a small minority of A/G operators who well over step their authority. At one grass strip I have visited, the A/G man gives take-off clearances, followed by instructions to route via this that and the other climbing not above this and reporting level at this!
• The larger airfields which amass great swathes of airspace who unhelpfully on first contact say something like, remain clear of controlled airspace and change to on another frequency, goodbye. Stanstead is one of the worst for this.
• And the biggest problems in the RT environment of all, are often the pilots. So often you hear people rabbiting on about completely irrelevant stuff, using very very non standard RT phrases, have not thought at all about what they want or why they are talking; stepping on other peoples transmissions because they don’t listen before they press the PTT; the worst example I have heard for a long time was last Saturday on Rochester’s frequency; the poor chap in the tower was at his wits end with people stepping on other transmissions – crap airmanship, and so rude.
Perhaps it’s time for a compulsory RT re-test every now and again.
Some Tower chap and chappess are an absolute delight to work. Again this Saturday, the guy in the tower at Lydd was fantastic, so friendly
From a GA Pilot view point my general observations on the Tower versus the Pilot debate would be:
• Very busy airfields with A/G I think are dangerous, especially when a some of the locals randomly use any one of a selection of runways regardless of wind.
• There are a small minority of A/G operators who well over step their authority. At one grass strip I have visited, the A/G man gives take-off clearances, followed by instructions to route via this that and the other climbing not above this and reporting level at this!
• The larger airfields which amass great swathes of airspace who unhelpfully on first contact say something like, remain clear of controlled airspace and change to on another frequency, goodbye. Stanstead is one of the worst for this.
• And the biggest problems in the RT environment of all, are often the pilots. So often you hear people rabbiting on about completely irrelevant stuff, using very very non standard RT phrases, have not thought at all about what they want or why they are talking; stepping on other peoples transmissions because they don’t listen before they press the PTT; the worst example I have heard for a long time was last Saturday on Rochester’s frequency; the poor chap in the tower was at his wits end with people stepping on other transmissions – crap airmanship, and so rude.
Perhaps it’s time for a compulsory RT re-test every now and again.
Some Tower chap and chappess are an absolute delight to work. Again this Saturday, the guy in the tower at Lydd was fantastic, so friendly
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will second that evo, no more is needed at barton (for example) there seems to be just the right balance. FIS works well although alot of people think it is actually air ground, some even respond on the radio as if its full ATC, it would be nice if people began to read into FIS and tried to grasp a greater knowlage of what the service actually is.
Talking about wasted |RT time.... One thing i hate, is hearing people asking for radio check on 122.70 on initial call up, this is a huge waste of RT time. i think about 11/12 hours a year is spent on the radio in total asking that (quick estimate of 2 seconds a call 20,000 call ups?!), if the pilot was not on 122.70 in the first place they would know it. They wouldnt get a respone from the ATC unit in question, and basically if the radio is crappy enough, i think the pilot would be told regardless to weather he/she asked for a radio check!
W9
Talking about wasted |RT time.... One thing i hate, is hearing people asking for radio check on 122.70 on initial call up, this is a huge waste of RT time. i think about 11/12 hours a year is spent on the radio in total asking that (quick estimate of 2 seconds a call 20,000 call ups?!), if the pilot was not on 122.70 in the first place they would know it. They wouldnt get a respone from the ATC unit in question, and basically if the radio is crappy enough, i think the pilot would be told regardless to weather he/she asked for a radio check!
W9
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
I totally agree with comments about the excellent service ATC provides.
But I still can't help wondering what the point of an AFISO is. That's not intended as a negative comment on the people who do the job, but on the people who created the position in the first place.
I have yet to meet a pilot who can not negotiate his way around a (usually) small airport without bumping into someone else on the way. On the other hand, it is practically impossible for us to visually spot every other pilot in the air - even when we know (through traffic information from ATC, or from the pilots' position reports) where they are. Yet here we are, given an AFIS service, where the poor AFISO is allowed to give us instructions on the ground where we really don't need them, but not in the air where, arguably, we do
I have, in the past, received some excellent service from AFISOs. In my experience, although they can not give instructions to us in the air, the information they provide is invariably helpful. They generally seem to do a very good job within the nonsensical limitations their role imposes on them.
FFF
----------------
But I still can't help wondering what the point of an AFISO is. That's not intended as a negative comment on the people who do the job, but on the people who created the position in the first place.
I have yet to meet a pilot who can not negotiate his way around a (usually) small airport without bumping into someone else on the way. On the other hand, it is practically impossible for us to visually spot every other pilot in the air - even when we know (through traffic information from ATC, or from the pilots' position reports) where they are. Yet here we are, given an AFIS service, where the poor AFISO is allowed to give us instructions on the ground where we really don't need them, but not in the air where, arguably, we do
I have, in the past, received some excellent service from AFISOs. In my experience, although they can not give instructions to us in the air, the information they provide is invariably helpful. They generally seem to do a very good job within the nonsensical limitations their role imposes on them.
FFF
----------------
FFF
Good points. I think the important aspect about the AFISO is that there's guaranteed to be someone on watch, following the traffic in the circuit. Why they let AFISO's control traffic on the ground is a mystery to me.
Good points. I think the important aspect about the AFISO is that there's guaranteed to be someone on watch, following the traffic in the circuit. Why they let AFISO's control traffic on the ground is a mystery to me.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one thing that gets right up my nose is (and this seems to happen more often on A/G radio) you turn final and want to make that call, and then some charlie sparks up on the radio with his full life story - knowing full well that they're not going to get any kind of response.
I would say that any issues are not the fault of the ATSU, FIS, or A/G radio but just that pilots don't know how to use the different services effectively, efficiently, and succinctly.
I have to say that I also feel sorry for the controllers at Farnborough. They seem to get tom, dick, and harry calling them up. Using Benson (if you are north of Farnborough) can be much better as they are usually much quieter - reduces your stress levels significantly, and helps reduce the workload on the F'boro ATSU as well.
I would say that any issues are not the fault of the ATSU, FIS, or A/G radio but just that pilots don't know how to use the different services effectively, efficiently, and succinctly.
I have to say that I also feel sorry for the controllers at Farnborough. They seem to get tom, dick, and harry calling them up. Using Benson (if you are north of Farnborough) can be much better as they are usually much quieter - reduces your stress levels significantly, and helps reduce the workload on the F'boro ATSU as well.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The orginal question did not differentiate between FIS being provided by an AFISO at an aerodrome and FIS being provided by a controller elsewhere.
Personally I will call for FIS if I need it, e.g. to get the QNH.
If I call for some other service, e.g. an airspace transit then I will normally expect FIS unless I have specifically asked for something else, if they offer more then it's a bonus.
If I intend to fly within an ATZ then the Rules of the Air Regulations are absolutely specific about what I should do. If anyone need a refresher they are here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF
The problems appear to arise where either the pilot or the ground based radio operator does not understand the rules.
For example Rule 35 says you can't taxi without permission of the person in charge (whether he's ATC, FISO, a/g or whatever)
Rule 39 requires permission to fly within the ATZ if it's ATC or the obtaining of information to allow the flight to be conducted safely if it's AFISO or a/g. Therefore ATC can refuse entry but AFISO or A/G cannot.
It follows that AFISO's and a/g operators can both DIRECT the movement of aircraft on the ground, they connot however direct the movement of aircraft in the air.
ATC can DIRECT the movement of aircraft on the ground and in the ATZ if it is "notified for the pupose of rule 39" (which most are).
There is of course the usual get-out that makes the Commander entirely reponsible and allows him to disobey an instruction if it dangerous to comply.
Friction arises when the Pilot dislikes what the other guy says, which might be because he is overstepping his authority or because the pilot doesn't understand that he has the authority.
The above is the legal position WRT the flying rules. It is of course entirely legitimate for an aerodrome operator to devise procedures for joining, departure or noise abatement and make adherence to those procedures a condition of using his aerodrome. Persistent offenders tend to get banned.
Mike
Bookworm said
I refer m\'learned friend to Rule 35 
Personally I will call for FIS if I need it, e.g. to get the QNH.
If I call for some other service, e.g. an airspace transit then I will normally expect FIS unless I have specifically asked for something else, if they offer more then it's a bonus.
If I intend to fly within an ATZ then the Rules of the Air Regulations are absolutely specific about what I should do. If anyone need a refresher they are here http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF
The problems appear to arise where either the pilot or the ground based radio operator does not understand the rules.
For example Rule 35 says you can't taxi without permission of the person in charge (whether he's ATC, FISO, a/g or whatever)
Rule 39 requires permission to fly within the ATZ if it's ATC or the obtaining of information to allow the flight to be conducted safely if it's AFISO or a/g. Therefore ATC can refuse entry but AFISO or A/G cannot.
It follows that AFISO's and a/g operators can both DIRECT the movement of aircraft on the ground, they connot however direct the movement of aircraft in the air.
ATC can DIRECT the movement of aircraft on the ground and in the ATZ if it is "notified for the pupose of rule 39" (which most are).
There is of course the usual get-out that makes the Commander entirely reponsible and allows him to disobey an instruction if it dangerous to comply.
Friction arises when the Pilot dislikes what the other guy says, which might be because he is overstepping his authority or because the pilot doesn't understand that he has the authority.
The above is the legal position WRT the flying rules. It is of course entirely legitimate for an aerodrome operator to devise procedures for joining, departure or noise abatement and make adherence to those procedures a condition of using his aerodrome. Persistent offenders tend to get banned.
Mike
Bookworm said
Why they let AFISO\'s control traffic on the ground is a mystery to me.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
again
Did we not so long agao talk of this same critisism for FISO personel and agree that some times it is very good and sometimes it is not
I find out discussions here
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=87009
I find out discussions here
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=87009
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
windsock9, can I remind you of the following from CAP413 regarding the radio check :
While it might be your personal hate, people who specify the frequency in a radio check are in fact using the correct phraseology.
Regards
Stoney X
1.15.1 Test transmissions should take the following form:
a) the identification of the aeronautical station being called;
b) the aircraft identification;
c) the words ‘RADIO CHECK’;
d) the frequency being used.
a) the identification of the aeronautical station being called;
b) the aircraft identification;
c) the words ‘RADIO CHECK’;
d) the frequency being used.
Regards
Stoney X
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
Mike,
I thought the thread title of "Flight Information at Aerodromes and whats the point?" rather gave the game away on that point??? 
FFF
-----------
The orginal question did not differentiate between FIS being provided by an AFISO at an aerodrome and FIS being provided by a controller elsewhere
FFF
-----------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding the Radio Checks: I agree, if the station name is in the call then why? However, I prefer to do things by the book unless there are official requests not to. One example is Blackbushe FISOs don't like taxi requests. Does beg the question why FISO (as said above) but then with helicopters, jets, turboprops and light a/c it probably does pay to have them full-time (as also pointed out above).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF
You are of course correct
Just desirous of pointing up the differences between FIS and the person providing it, who can be an ATCO, or a FISO. If it's at an aerodrome he's more correctly referred to as an AFISO I believe.
Mike
You are of course correct
Just desirous of pointing up the differences between FIS and the person providing it, who can be an ATCO, or a FISO. If it's at an aerodrome he's more correctly referred to as an AFISO I believe.
Mike
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wishing to sound stupid... but....
I thought a 'flight information service' was given to an aircraft in flight by an ATC unit, and a FISO gives an 'information service'. Indeed, I have heard a student ask for a FIS at a full ATC field only to be told curtly one would not be available until he was airbourne...!
Kingy (confused by all this RT business)
I thought a 'flight information service' was given to an aircraft in flight by an ATC unit, and a FISO gives an 'information service'. Indeed, I have heard a student ask for a FIS at a full ATC field only to be told curtly one would not be available until he was airbourne...!
Kingy (confused by all this RT business)
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The term AFISO was dropped some time ago, Mike. Now just FISO.
Radio checks . . . why bother? Yes, I know it says so in CAP413 but if you call for taxi clearance and your radio is no good the ATCO/FISO/bloke on the end of the radio is going to tell you, I hope. One less call when you're busy.
Radio checks . . . why bother? Yes, I know it says so in CAP413 but if you call for taxi clearance and your radio is no good the ATCO/FISO/bloke on the end of the radio is going to tell you, I hope. One less call when you're busy.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoney X, The point was not about using the frequency for a test transmission. The points that you made were perfectly valid about the correct way to do a "test transmission" - hence: stating the frequency to increase the RT time for a better listen to the radio from the other side (atc).
But when calling up an airfield for the purpose of flight. You do not need to ask for a radio check on "one - two - three - decimal - four - five, just ask for a radio check if thats what you want! Stating the frequency is a waste of RT time and could be cut out of your initial callup. If there is no response - radio IS faulty or your on the wrong one....
Could you imagine a BA captain on a long haul to somewhere sunny departing from Manchester or Heathrow asking for a radio check on the ground/delivery freq stating all the numbers of the freq he is using? as well as his departure and taxi instructions? I just dont think its right and i know alot of people which share this annoyance
But when calling up an airfield for the purpose of flight. You do not need to ask for a radio check on "one - two - three - decimal - four - five, just ask for a radio check if thats what you want! Stating the frequency is a waste of RT time and could be cut out of your initial callup. If there is no response - radio IS faulty or your on the wrong one....
Could you imagine a BA captain on a long haul to somewhere sunny departing from Manchester or Heathrow asking for a radio check on the ground/delivery freq stating all the numbers of the freq he is using? as well as his departure and taxi instructions? I just dont think its right and i know alot of people which share this annoyance