Planning for the Flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planning for the Flight
Weather at the airfield Vis >3000m Cloud Few 1-200ft OVC 400ft. Airfield strictly PPR. Un-notified light aircraft calls declaring they're inbound... but unable to make a Instrument Approach.
One incident, but it is repeated again and again each year. What ever happened to Flight Planning? (only hint of forward planning/common sense was the subsequent diversion)
One incident, but it is repeated again and again each year. What ever happened to Flight Planning? (only hint of forward planning/common sense was the subsequent diversion)
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And your point is!?
Your posts consistently seem to give the impression that you've an axe to grind... what's your problem?
Who knows what the story was on this occasion: caught out by bad weather? Low-hrs student PPL getting into trouble? Whatever...
Or we could go witgh Pierre's impllied message perhaps: "the world is full of amateurs getting in the way of my job"!?
Get a life mate,
Andy
Who knows what the story was on this occasion: caught out by bad weather? Low-hrs student PPL getting into trouble? Whatever...
Or we could go witgh Pierre's impllied message perhaps: "the world is full of amateurs getting in the way of my job"!?
Get a life mate,
Andy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Pierre has a point
Yes we sometimes get caught out by a sudden and unexpected change in the weather. But to my knowledge some pilots scimp on the wx part of flight planning, assuming that the weather will stay the same as it was when they left.
Yes we sometimes get caught out by a sudden and unexpected change in the weather. But to my knowledge some pilots scimp on the wx part of flight planning, assuming that the weather will stay the same as it was when they left.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More, better and focused weather/ Met training in the PPL would add lost to flight planning and safety.
See sep. thread on Compl. GS for PPLs to avoid repartition
h-r
See sep. thread on Compl. GS for PPLs to avoid repartition
h-r
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your posts consistently seem to give the impression that you've an axe to grind ......
Who knows what the story was on this occasion: caught out by bad weather? Low-hrs student PPL getting into trouble? Whatever...
Surely it's no secret that a few pilots are incompetent / reckless fools, or that virtually all pilots occasionally do silly things. But the same thing could be said of essentially any group, no matter how highly trained or skilled (hands up anyone who has witnessed a controller make a mistake?). Nothing is gained by whinging.
Pierre's impllied message perhaps: "the world is full of amateurs getting in the way of my job"!?
Cheers,
MLS
P.S. Whilst I appreciate the strength of Andy's feelings, personal attacks (e.g. "what's your problem?" and "Get a life mate") are rarely warranted, or helpful. Either: (1) Pierre is expressing a sincere opinion, which should be treated with due respect whether one agrees with it or not, or (2) Pierre is simply 'trolling', and should not be rewarded.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLS-12D thank you...
Aussie Andy
Im sorry if you read this topic as me having an axe to grind... I don't think I have, and believe I am personally generally very supportive of GA traffic and the rights of the private pilot... but with rights comes responsibility and I admit to being irritated when that responsibility isn't taken seriously?
Regarding previous posts... I didn't realise I had a "postings stalker"? I enjoy reading the diversity of answers/responses to posts I make made, and they have (often) helped me to see both sides of an arguement... a broadening experience. I admit and accept the sort of incident reported here is the action of the minority, but feel that by asking such questions (and perhaps braving the odd personal dig in the process) I might inspire debate and perhaps draw the attention of a one or two of those in that minority that might just make them question the wisdom of what they do?
Aussie Andy
Im sorry if you read this topic as me having an axe to grind... I don't think I have, and believe I am personally generally very supportive of GA traffic and the rights of the private pilot... but with rights comes responsibility and I admit to being irritated when that responsibility isn't taken seriously?
Regarding previous posts... I didn't realise I had a "postings stalker"? I enjoy reading the diversity of answers/responses to posts I make made, and they have (often) helped me to see both sides of an arguement... a broadening experience. I admit and accept the sort of incident reported here is the action of the minority, but feel that by asking such questions (and perhaps braving the odd personal dig in the process) I might inspire debate and perhaps draw the attention of a one or two of those in that minority that might just make them question the wisdom of what they do?
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 3rd Aug 2005 at 22:46.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P,
You may have a valid point but without any further information it is difficult to comment really.
Where was this and what were the circumstances?
You can use ICAO or IATA codes or plain text (as far as I am concerned; others may have a different opinion!)
You may have a valid point but without any further information it is difficult to comment really.
Where was this and what were the circumstances?
You can use ICAO or IATA codes or plain text (as far as I am concerned; others may have a different opinion!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Pierre
If you worded your questions in a positive manner, it would be much more helpful and would lead to a better response.
As it is, I just feel that you made a vague and generalized statement that sounds like point scoring and your assertion that you support GA comes across very much as "he who denieth too strongly."
Okay, let's try to explain this ...... Airfield strictly PPR.
So un-notified traffic now becomes notified by r/t. (you did not say PPR by telephone.)
Pilot communicates clearly by establishing the limits of his licence privileges - weather was okay when he planned flight and departed, but now he has listened in on frequency or to ATIS and realises he might have a problem. (You did not give a weather trend/history for this field and the area, or where the inbound pilot had come from )
He talks with ATCO, confirms situation and then implements excellent contingency plan, diverting as planned. (You said that the diversion was well planned)
See the problem? You give so little information that the data can be manipulated very easily.
Maybe it would be a good idea to think through what you are trying to achieve before you post next time, since there is probably a good topic to discuss here, if raised properly.
If you worded your questions in a positive manner, it would be much more helpful and would lead to a better response.
As it is, I just feel that you made a vague and generalized statement that sounds like point scoring and your assertion that you support GA comes across very much as "he who denieth too strongly."
Airfield strictly PPR. Un-notified light aircraft calls declaring they're inbound... but unable to make a Instrument Approach.
So un-notified traffic now becomes notified by r/t. (you did not say PPR by telephone.)
Pilot communicates clearly by establishing the limits of his licence privileges - weather was okay when he planned flight and departed, but now he has listened in on frequency or to ATIS and realises he might have a problem. (You did not give a weather trend/history for this field and the area, or where the inbound pilot had come from )
He talks with ATCO, confirms situation and then implements excellent contingency plan, diverting as planned. (You said that the diversion was well planned)
See the problem? You give so little information that the data can be manipulated very easily.
Maybe it would be a good idea to think through what you are trying to achieve before you post next time, since there is probably a good topic to discuss here, if raised properly.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I don't quite understand the attacks on Pierre. But then, I'm not a "postings stalker" (nice term!). I've had one or two stalkers myself, and been told, "Whirly, you ALWAYS do this, this, and this", to which my usual thoughts are, "I do; you expect me to remember all my posts!" So maybe post stalkers should get a life and criticise the post not the person.
Having got that out of my system , my immediate feeling in this case was that we didn't have enough info to comment. This could have been someone wanting a weather diversion - unforecast weather, low hours pilot, too overloaded to come out with all the right words, but wants to get on the ground ASAP...and so would I in weather like that! Or it might not. But we can't tell.
So, Pierre, if you think this is a good example of something which is common amongst PPLs, please give us more evidence. I for one disagree that it's usual, and will be prepared to spend lots of time and bandwidth discussing it with you.
Having got that out of my system
, my immediate feeling in this case was that we didn't have enough info to comment. This could have been someone wanting a weather diversion - unforecast weather, low hours pilot, too overloaded to come out with all the right words, but wants to get on the ground ASAP...and so would I in weather like that! Or it might not. But we can't tell.So, Pierre, if you think this is a good example of something which is common amongst PPLs, please give us more evidence. I for one disagree that it's usual, and will be prepared to spend lots of time and bandwidth discussing it with you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Guys.... thanks for the above comments, which are noted... all of them! So, trying to be a bit more cooperative, but whilst maintaining anonimity (for all concerned). The light aircraft in question departed from an airfield in the southern UK, the trip top destination was at least 250nms... and may have been the final leg of a longer, possibly International flight. (i.e. not a short hop).
On initial call, 7nms E of the airfield, the crew (two voices on the radio) did not mention a request to come in... simply stated it was their intention. PPR means, in my experience, PRIOR Permission Required... i.e acceptance is obtained before flight, by telephone call, standing agreement, previous arrangement or Flight Plan, and not airborne booking (see below). The PPR requirement at this airfield is clearly published as by telephone call to XXXX
The airfield is medium intensity, operating a complex mixture of traffic, hence although located in Class G airspace, the fact that instrument approaches may be mandatory is published. The flight arrived mid-afternoon, the weather in the area had been bad all day, and at the airfield was deteriorating iaw the forecast. The flight was not a diversion, nor was there any hint of a problem either on initial call or whilst discussing the fact that the weather was not fit for a visual approach.
Flights frequently arrive at this airfield without PPR (hence my post... which has perhaps a touch of "last straw..." about it?), and when able, these flights will generally be accepted. Perhaps there's a point to discuss in itself... does co-operation encourage bad habits?
I sense hints of paranoia in some of the replies... but would like to apologise again if my original tone offended anyone. It was not my intent to slate GA in general, nor "witch-hunt" this particular pilot. As I said in my second post on this thread, I was simply trying to provoke a "flight safety" discussion. I accept, and fully acknowledge, that such negligence (at the risk of accusation of pre-judgment) is not common-place... but don't believe debate on this forum need be constrained to the activities of the majority ... and you only have to look around other forums for proof of that!
If anyone wishes to pick up these points I would be honoured, but grateful if the above could be borne in mind, and we continued in general terms (if that's possible?). Thank you.
On initial call, 7nms E of the airfield, the crew (two voices on the radio) did not mention a request to come in... simply stated it was their intention. PPR means, in my experience, PRIOR Permission Required... i.e acceptance is obtained before flight, by telephone call, standing agreement, previous arrangement or Flight Plan, and not airborne booking (see below). The PPR requirement at this airfield is clearly published as by telephone call to XXXX
The airfield is medium intensity, operating a complex mixture of traffic, hence although located in Class G airspace, the fact that instrument approaches may be mandatory is published. The flight arrived mid-afternoon, the weather in the area had been bad all day, and at the airfield was deteriorating iaw the forecast. The flight was not a diversion, nor was there any hint of a problem either on initial call or whilst discussing the fact that the weather was not fit for a visual approach.
Flights frequently arrive at this airfield without PPR (hence my post... which has perhaps a touch of "last straw..." about it?), and when able, these flights will generally be accepted. Perhaps there's a point to discuss in itself... does co-operation encourage bad habits?
I sense hints of paranoia in some of the replies... but would like to apologise again if my original tone offended anyone. It was not my intent to slate GA in general, nor "witch-hunt" this particular pilot. As I said in my second post on this thread, I was simply trying to provoke a "flight safety" discussion. I accept, and fully acknowledge, that such negligence (at the risk of accusation of pre-judgment) is not common-place... but don't believe debate on this forum need be constrained to the activities of the majority ... and you only have to look around other forums for proof of that!
If anyone wishes to pick up these points I would be honoured, but grateful if the above could be borne in mind, and we continued in general terms (if that's possible?). Thank you.
Last edited by Pierre Argh; 4th Aug 2005 at 09:26.
Guest
Posts: n/a
With more data, this does not look like a clever piece of airmanship and I can understand your frustration - although these people are also potential punters for your field, so there's perhaps a balance between frustration and income stream
You mention that the flight may have originated from abroad - does this imply foreign crew under the licence of another authority? (I am assuming not, but it is worth asking.)
PPR, to me, means exactly what it says. It may or may not require a prior telephone call. I can think of several airfields close to me where you can call up 10 mins out and they're very pleased to see you - Southend certainly used to, but I haven't flown in there for a couple of years, others such as Conington and Fenland were known to be friendly too.
Having said that, I'd usually telephone before the flight, if nothing else, just to check any differences since last time. I'd also check my Bottlang and if it said PPR by phone or telephone briefing required, then I would comply.
One of the airfields that I used to fly out of suffered constantly from aicraft landing without PPR, especially with the a/g station was unmanned. This was a noise sensitive area and sensitive to movement volumes, so they used to become frustrated too.
In fact I remember one berk taking off on the taxi (90 degrees across), whilst I was on very short final for the runway, turned out he was talking to another airfield completely!
So, there are examples of bad airmanship out there, but then again I could recall a number of issues I have had with controllers, including one where I was cleared to land with conflicting traffic, resulting in an Airprox and investigation.
Thus I suspect, that aviation is similar to America - you can look for whatever you wish to find and expect to find it with a high level of confidence
I'll leave Whirly and others, who see more pilots than me, to comment on the general standards.
You mention that the flight may have originated from abroad - does this imply foreign crew under the licence of another authority? (I am assuming not, but it is worth asking.)
PPR, to me, means exactly what it says. It may or may not require a prior telephone call. I can think of several airfields close to me where you can call up 10 mins out and they're very pleased to see you - Southend certainly used to, but I haven't flown in there for a couple of years, others such as Conington and Fenland were known to be friendly too.
Having said that, I'd usually telephone before the flight, if nothing else, just to check any differences since last time. I'd also check my Bottlang and if it said PPR by phone or telephone briefing required, then I would comply.
One of the airfields that I used to fly out of suffered constantly from aicraft landing without PPR, especially with the a/g station was unmanned. This was a noise sensitive area and sensitive to movement volumes, so they used to become frustrated too.
In fact I remember one berk taking off on the taxi (90 degrees across), whilst I was on very short final for the runway, turned out he was talking to another airfield completely!
So, there are examples of bad airmanship out there, but then again I could recall a number of issues I have had with controllers, including one where I was cleared to land with conflicting traffic, resulting in an Airprox and investigation.
Thus I suspect, that aviation is similar to America - you can look for whatever you wish to find and expect to find it with a high level of confidence
I'll leave Whirly and others, who see more pilots than me, to comment on the general standards.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPR can mean not just by telephone, but if your entry states PPR by phone and folks do not comply with that, then this is bad form.
Filing a Flight Plan is not the same as PPR.
People setting off without (apparently) obtaining the weather is similarly bad form.
Sadly enough some of the airmanship displayed is so bad that we can, in this case, say that at least they did not do an instrument approach in likely below minimums conditions.
The problem with posts along the lines of: 'I saw this, don't you all think it is terrible' is that the information provided can be limited and onesided, making it difficult to give a meaningful comment.
Filing a Flight Plan is not the same as PPR.
People setting off without (apparently) obtaining the weather is similarly bad form.
Sadly enough some of the airmanship displayed is so bad that we can, in this case, say that at least they did not do an instrument approach in likely below minimums conditions.
The problem with posts along the lines of: 'I saw this, don't you all think it is terrible' is that the information provided can be limited and onesided, making it difficult to give a meaningful comment.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See sep. thread on Compl. GS for PPLs to avoid repartition.
See separate thread on abbreviations, to avoid repetition.
See separate thread on abbreviations, to avoid repetition.
Dublin Pilot, I should stress that my first sentence was in fact spoken in colloquial Klingon
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helicopter-redeye,
Well, I suppose as long as you're speaking klingon, you won't be giving away anymore of the Harry Potter tale!!
I can't believe that you actually said, on the other thread, who's old text book Harry was using!!! I hadn't got that far yet!!!!!
dp
Well, I suppose as long as you're speaking klingon, you won't be giving away anymore of the Harry Potter tale!!
I can't believe that you actually said, on the other thread, who's old text book Harry was using!!! I hadn't got that far yet!!!!!
dp
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A curse of "expeliamous" upon thee sir!
That was book two and now, mostly, we are reading book six.
h-r
(NB: 100 points from Gryffindor)
That was book two and now, mostly, we are reading book six.
h-r
(NB: 100 points from Gryffindor)
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we have more info, sounds like bad airmanship to me. 
Of course they should have checked the wx, and if your airfield says PPR by phone, that's what it means. PPR by itself is confusing; it shouldn't be, but I started a thread on this once, and some people thought it meant phone first, some thought calling on the radio was OK. Whoever's right, that sounds like confusion to me.
I now always call ahead, if I can. You can check the weather, find out if the airfield's suddenly closed for some reason, or whatever.
I don't think this sort of behaviour is general in GA, but how would I know? And in aviation, as in everything else, you do get some people who think the rules just don't apply to them.
Of course they should have checked the wx, and if your airfield says PPR by phone, that's what it means. PPR by itself is confusing; it shouldn't be, but I started a thread on this once, and some people thought it meant phone first, some thought calling on the radio was OK. Whoever's right, that sounds like confusion to me.
I now always call ahead, if I can. You can check the weather, find out if the airfield's suddenly closed for some reason, or whatever.
I don't think this sort of behaviour is general in GA, but how would I know? And in aviation, as in everything else, you do get some people who think the rules just don't apply to them.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And in aviation, as in everything else, you do get some people who think the rules just don't apply to them.