ATC at airports in Class G

[Chilli Monster]

WR - you're missing the point.

If you're asked to remain below a level cap it's encumbent upon ATC to a) request it in the first place; and b) to tell you why. Once that cap is no longer required they should remove the requested "cap".

You shouldn't be "requesting" anything in that situation.

[High Wing Drifter]

ShyTorque,

So your terminology COULD then be "G-ABCD, Climbing, altitude 3000 feet", for example.

Or for example: "G-ABCD, ready to climb altitude 3000". It isn't a request, but it gives ATC a chance to tell you that, as far as they are concerned, it is clear.

[chevvron]

It always annoys me when RAF controllers phone up and say 'can you restrict your (squawk) not above XXXX ft?'; I reply 'it's on a FIS, so I can't restrict, I will REQUEST, but it's really up to the pilot'.
For my own RAS/RIS traffic against identified FIS I would say 'advise if you go above XXXX Ft; I'll be descending inbound traffic to 1000ft above you'. It's not an instruction but a reasonable (to my mind) request with safety in mind. If the FIS then decides to go above, I'll always have the bolthole of avoiding horizontally.

[cubflyer]

Back to the original question from DP. The first advice given by FFF is only correct for those airfields in class G which have an Air Traffic Control Service. These are perhaps a minority of airfields. Correct at these airfields you do have to have clearance to taxi, take-off and land.
However many airfields are either non radio or air to ground only. Here you do not need a clearance for anything. The airfield will have standard procedures which are probably published in the various flight guides or you can be told of if you phone up (some are PPR others are not) some will have standard overhead joins others will have diferent arrival procedures. The radio operator will probably only tell you the runway in use, circuit and QNH/QFE and then give you the wind when you are about to take-off/land. Seperation is up to you and consideration for other traffic.
There are often problems at these airfields with pilots who dont know what they are doing and ask for departure clearance or landing clearance which the controller cannot give them, they cannot even say "land at your discretion". You have to make your own decision. Air to ground airfields will use callsign "XXX Radio"

There is also the strange UK phenomenon of AFIS airfields, where the radio operator provides Flight information. This is similar to "air to ground in the air", but on the ground you are supposed to get a clearance to taxi. This type of service seems to provide even more confusion, especially as some of the radio operators tend to try to be controllers sometimes at some places.
They would be callsign "XXX info"

Someone asked what the point was of having an ATZ at somewhere where there was no ATC, just air to ground. This is obviously to "protect" the aircraft in the circuit, so they can go round the circuit without having to worry about tranist traffic. Without an ATZ anyone could fly through the middle of the circuit at 500ft. Also in an ATZ all turns must be in the same direction as the circuit which makes things a lot safer.

[FlyingForFun]

The first advice given by FFF is only correct for those airfields in class G which have an Air Traffic Control Service

Absolutely, cubflyer. That's because that's what dublinpilot asked about:

Not having trained in the UK, ATC at airports outside controlled airspace is not something I came across while training

FFF
------------------

[cubflyer]

Yes FFF you are correct, given the exact wording of the question. However given that a lot of pilots in the UK seem to be confused regarding the status of the person answering on the radio, treating Air/Ground and AFIS as "Air Traffic Control", I thought perhaps someone who has not flown much in the UK might equally be confused and be using ATC as a generic term.

[dublinpilot]

Thanks guys.

FFF had it right, my question did specifically relate to Air Traffic Control.

I do understand that a AFIS & an Air/Ground station are not ATC (we have both in Ireland too). But thanks all the same Cub, much appreciated

dp

[chevvron]

ICAO Doc 4444 Section 8.11 refers to the use of radar in the provision of FIS.
It specifically says that radar 'may be used to provide identified aircraft with:
a)Information regarding any aircraft observed to be on a conflicting path with the radar identified aircraft, and suggestions or advice regarding avoiding action.'
b) Weather info.
c) Information to assist the aircraft in its navigation.' (funny, I thought the pilot or another crew member did the navigation!)

There is also an implication that Radar Advisory Service may only be provided in class F airspace (sections 8.11 and 9.1.4)

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by chevvron

There is also an implication that Radar Advisory Service may only be provided in class F airspace (sections 8.11 and 9.1.4)

It says that an Air Traffic Advisory Service may be provided to IFR flights in class F airspace. It doesn't say "only". ICAO doesn't recognise the Radar Advisory Service as such -- I don't think the UK's RAS is intended to meet the ICAO definition of an Air Traffic Advisory Service.

[chevvron]

Re: ATC at airports in Class G

Bookworm; why do you have to split hairs like that? I SAID implication, I didn't say it was the rule!

[englishal]

Re: ATC at airports in Class G

Someone asked what the point was of having an ATZ at somewhere where there was no ATC, just air to ground. This is obviously to "protect" the aircraft in the circuit, so they can go round the circuit without having to worry about tranist traffic. Without an ATZ anyone could fly through the middle of the circuit at 500ft. Also in an ATZ all turns must be in the same direction as the circuit which makes things a lot safer.

Although I am not sure how this will "protect" other aircraft. As PIC in this situation it would be up to me how I join, what runway I use etc.....The radio operator can say "7 right hand" and I could look at the windsock and say "nah, think I'll do 25 right hand thanks". Also at a Radio field, in theory a pilot could just call up and say "XYZ radio, GABCD coming through your ATZ at 1000, good day" and there is not a lot the radio operator could do about it.

It is a complete waste of time having an ATZ around a radio or FISO field in my opinion.

[tmmorris]

Re: ATC at airports in Class G

englishal, I can see why you would think that, but in an ATZ

1. all traffic is known (radio contact or PPR by telephone)
2. all traffic is turning in the same direction
3. all traffic has to conform to the circuit pattern (including published circuit height)
4. all traffic has to conform to any other restrictions published in the AIP (yes, I know they probably haven't read it...)

Surely all these are worthwhile additions to safety?

Tim

[englishal]

Re: ATC at airports in Class G

all traffic is known (radio contact or PPR by telephone)
2. all traffic is turning in the same direction

I don't see why traffic has to turn in the same direction. If one pilot wants to do a LH circuit for 25 and I decide it is in my best interest to do a RH circuit for 7 (assuming this is allowable) then there easily could be a conflict anyway. The Radio operator has no authority to give directions, but can only offer advice and the PIC is responsible to the safety of the flight.

Its nice to have an operator to pass weather info etc.., but at the end of the day, it is the pilots decision how to proceed and therefore an ATZ is meaningless at an uncontrolled field - and probably just adds to confusion and a false sense of security. Unlicensed fields don't have them.

Either get rid of them, or give Radio / FISO operators the authority to issue "clearances" (and make them responsible) within their ATZ. I'd be happy with that.

cheers

[eharding]

Re: ATC at airports in Class G

Originally Posted by englishal

I don't see why traffic has to turn in the same direction. If one pilot wants to do a LH circuit for 25 and I decide it is in my best interest to do a RH circuit for 7 (assuming this is allowable) then there easily could be a conflict anyway. The Radio operator has no authority to give directions, but can only offer advice and the PIC is responsible to the safety of the flight.

I think you'd find that at most A/G places in the UK, your decision to
fly a RH circuit to rwy 07 knowing everyone else was flying LH for rwy 25
would get you and your a/c kicked off the field in short order, never
to return....in the best interests of *everybody*.

[Chilli Monster]

Re: ATC at airports in Class G

Originally Posted by englishal

I don't see why traffic has to turn in the same direction. If one pilot wants to do a LH circuit for 25 and I decide it is in my best interest to do a RH circuit for 7 (assuming this is allowable) then there easily could be a conflict anyway.

Rule 17 (5)

Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome

Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39, a flying machine, glider or airship while flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably to know to be an aerodrome or moving on an aerodrome, shall unless, in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:

(a) conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome, or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed; and

(b) make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.