Redhill - do they want any flying?
HAVING FLOWN OUT OF REDHILL FOR A GOOD FEW YEARS I HAVE FOUND THAT GENERALLY, ONCE THE CONTROLLERS KNOW YOU THE RELATIONSHIP TENDS TO MELLOW, HOWEVER THIS IS NOT GUARANTEED- YOU CAN STILL GET A BOLLOCKING. IF IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE THE LEAST BIT UNFAMILIAR WITH THE PROCEDURES THE PRESSURE IS KEPT ON YOU. QUITE COMMON TO GET A BOLLOCKING OVER THE RADIO, NO SYMPATHY FOR LOW TIME SOLO PILOTS OR VISITORS!!! 
.
.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: england
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you get ripped into by the atc tell them that you are filing an ASR due their nature been a hazard to flight safety. I did it not so long ago about that terrible service you get from southampton ("stay clear of the zone... commercial traffic expected next week.) The controller was just been rude and agressive. They are there for your use.... we could happily fly without them but they would have no job without us.. 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Aeropig1- Yes I have guessed your identity from your handle. Remember me? I tought you to fly!!!
Somebody on this thread was wondering how long it would be before someone from Redhill ATC would respond. I wouldn't hold your breath!
However as someone who at Redhill full time
perhaps I can update you on the state of play.
A new SATCO has now been employed but I believe that it will be some time before he has completed his training and is let lose on his own.( probably just in time for the airfield closures due to flooded runways!)
I can understand MOST of the comments that have been put forward mostly by one-off visitors from the sounds of it. Can you imagine what it is like for the people who have to fly there on a daily basis?
Anyway lets hope that with the introduction of the new SATCO the staffing problems will soon be resolved and possibly a change of attitude particularly towards student pilots who dont need the extra pressure of an ATC bollocking on air.As for all of you qualified pilots that are whineing about the bollockings that you have received-STOP SCREWING UP!!
Look forward to doing your IMC renewal next week AEROPIG1. See you then.
Somebody on this thread was wondering how long it would be before someone from Redhill ATC would respond. I wouldn't hold your breath!
However as someone who at Redhill full time
perhaps I can update you on the state of play.
A new SATCO has now been employed but I believe that it will be some time before he has completed his training and is let lose on his own.( probably just in time for the airfield closures due to flooded runways!)
I can understand MOST of the comments that have been put forward mostly by one-off visitors from the sounds of it. Can you imagine what it is like for the people who have to fly there on a daily basis?
Anyway lets hope that with the introduction of the new SATCO the staffing problems will soon be resolved and possibly a change of attitude particularly towards student pilots who dont need the extra pressure of an ATC bollocking on air.As for all of you qualified pilots that are whineing about the bollockings that you have received-STOP SCREWING UP!!
Look forward to doing your IMC renewal next week AEROPIG1. See you then.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If rude shouty people on the radio are having a negative effect on flight safety, as may happen, then you could send a CHIRP. See http://www.chirp.co.uk/
This is of course only to be done when there's a serious concern, not just when a tired and overworked ATCO or FISO gets a bit tetchy when one of us does or says something stupid.
This is of course only to be done when there's a serious concern, not just when a tired and overworked ATCO or FISO gets a bit tetchy when one of us does or says something stupid.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Europe
Age: 56
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told to hold the other day until I was visual with departing traffic. Then the departing traffic called that he had me in sight and one of the controllers cleared me in to rejoin. ANOTHER controller, the first I think, then changed it again and told me to hold until I had him insight. I picked him up and was then cleared in.
That is shows poor communication. Very poor service indeed. Then they have the nerve to bo||ock us at every opportunity.
Deffinately not on my Christmas card list
That is shows poor communication. Very poor service indeed. Then they have the nerve to bo||ock us at every opportunity.
Deffinately not on my Christmas card list
It all sounds like a chronic case of overcontrolling. Redhill isn't hugely busy, neither is it the only GA airfield close to a busy international airport. A complete contrast would be White Waltham, which operates under the same apparent constraints as Redhill and is probably busier, yet this overcontrolling culture doesn't seem to exist.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be fascinated for somebody to explain why.
G
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be fascinated for somebody to explain why.
G
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to fight the radio operator at North Weald last week when I informed him that I would be taking off on their downhill runway (02)in a Jet Provost with full fuel, an oat of 28C and no wind. He told me that the circuit was 20 (uphill with 50' trees just off the end) and that the airfield manager wouldn't allow "mixed circuits".
Having departed on my chosen runway, he then announced that he was changing the circuit to 02. Now I was to land on the downhill runway! Does this sound like a radio operator acting like ATC? The bottom line is that had I done as he suggested I would have crashed on take-off and almost certainly would have over-run on landing. Arse!
PS
upon landing I was presented with an official written complaint from said arse which had been forwarded to the airfield manager. Arse!
Having departed on my chosen runway, he then announced that he was changing the circuit to 02. Now I was to land on the downhill runway! Does this sound like a radio operator acting like ATC? The bottom line is that had I done as he suggested I would have crashed on take-off and almost certainly would have over-run on landing. Arse!
PS
upon landing I was presented with an official written complaint from said arse which had been forwarded to the airfield manager. Arse!
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
PruneUk,
I posted a question about this on a different thread, but never got a reply. At White Waltham, the Flying Order Book states that no one is allowed to use a runway other than the runway in use, except for instructors giving cross-wind training. I asked what sanctions could, in theory, be taken if I chose to ignore the Flying Order Book, but didn't get a reply.
FFF
-----------
I posted a question about this on a different thread, but never got a reply. At White Waltham, the Flying Order Book states that no one is allowed to use a runway other than the runway in use, except for instructors giving cross-wind training. I asked what sanctions could, in theory, be taken if I chose to ignore the Flying Order Book, but didn't get a reply.
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
Genghis, good point. Although I have only been flying out of Waltham for the last 9 months or so, I have been struck by how smoothly the joining and circuit procedures work, despite the very high level of activity at the field and the proximity of Heathrow, whilst the a/g is run in a very low key way and never pretends to be anything other than a/g. Only once saw a potential nasty when an aircraft which appeared to be operating non-radio carved someone up on final.
This brings me to FFF's point. It does seem surprising that you should not be able to use your discretion to take the runway most favoured by wind, sun position etc, but I suppose that if aircraft are operating non radio, as some of the Waltham aircraft do, then the fact that you have announced to everyone that you are taking runway xx instead of runway yy may not assist the bloke in the non-radio biplane, and neither of you may have seen the other as you position for conflicting approaches.
This brings me to FFF's point. It does seem surprising that you should not be able to use your discretion to take the runway most favoured by wind, sun position etc, but I suppose that if aircraft are operating non radio, as some of the Waltham aircraft do, then the fact that you have announced to everyone that you are taking runway xx instead of runway yy may not assist the bloke in the non-radio biplane, and neither of you may have seen the other as you position for conflicting approaches.
Surely with a non-radio departure you have ample opportunity to discuss it with Ops before walking to the a/c.
Inbound, I quote Pooleys entry for White Waltham "Non-radio aircraft require telephone briefing from operations prior to each flight". I fly into OS fairly often which has a similar requirement.
If this is adhered to, surely any problems with inappropriate runways, etc. can be dealt with on the ground - which is the right time and place to do so. By and large, the pilot of a an aircraft that should have a problem should do this anyway, regardless of whether he or she is using RT?
G
Inbound, I quote Pooleys entry for White Waltham "Non-radio aircraft require telephone briefing from operations prior to each flight". I fly into OS fairly often which has a similar requirement.
If this is adhered to, surely any problems with inappropriate runways, etc. can be dealt with on the ground - which is the right time and place to do so. By and large, the pilot of a an aircraft that should have a problem should do this anyway, regardless of whether he or she is using RT?
G
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Expat Kiwi living in London
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apruneuk
Not surprised to hear of your "discussion" with said Air/Ground operator. I am sure you have noticed a few changes around the airfield during recent months - some are unannounced changes to previously accepted procedures or practice. It can be annoying to get rebuked for doing something that is safe (eg your example) or no longer apparently acceptable to the airfield management but has not been publically and clearly promulgated.
Having said that, when 02/20 is in use but the wind is straight down 31 (not uncommon ), providing the circuit is quiet (also not uncommon), NW Radio has often been very accomodating to requests to use 31 for single take-offs / landings for my taildragger. It allows me to co-exist with guys like you who find 13/31 a "little" short...
So some swings and roundabouts perhaps. Overall it is still a great place to fly from but sometimes one needs to be firm in discussions with NW Radio.
Not surprised to hear of your "discussion" with said Air/Ground operator. I am sure you have noticed a few changes around the airfield during recent months - some are unannounced changes to previously accepted procedures or practice. It can be annoying to get rebuked for doing something that is safe (eg your example) or no longer apparently acceptable to the airfield management but has not been publically and clearly promulgated.
Having said that, when 02/20 is in use but the wind is straight down 31 (not uncommon
), providing the circuit is quiet (also not uncommon), NW Radio has often been very accomodating to requests to use 31 for single take-offs / landings for my taildragger. It allows me to co-exist with guys like you who find 13/31 a "little" short... So some swings and roundabouts perhaps. Overall it is still a great place to fly from but sometimes one needs to be firm in discussions with NW Radio.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, agreed, but consider this scenario:-
Aircraft A is a radio-equipped Tiger Moth inbound to Waltham. As the Moth arrives overhead, the pilot sees from the windsock that the wind has changed and now exposes the active runway to a crosswind which exceeds the limits of aircraft and/or pilot.
In Ops, they have not yet decided to change runways. Perhaps they are busy and distracted and have not noticed the wind indicator. Perhaps they have not yet heard from an instructor in the (unusually quiet) circuit that the wind has changed.
The pilot of Aircraft A tells Waltham Radio that he intends to use the runway which is now into wind. What does Waltham say in reply? Whatever is said, they can't stop him. He begins to position for his preferred runway.
Aircraft B is a non-radio Yak also inbound, having received a telephone briefing before setting off. Arriving in the overhead shortly after the Tiger Moth, the Yak pilot sees the signal square, with the T indicating the runway which he was briefed for. He also sees the windsock but knows the indicated crosswind to be safely within his capabilities and his aircraft's limitations. He starts to position for the signalled active runway.
The circuit is otherwise empty, but neither aircraft has seen the other. The radio operator, on his own in Ops, is distracted by an irate birthday trial-lesson punter complaining about the fact that no-one told him he'd have to go in a scary aeroplane with only one engine, and has therefore not noticed the Yak.
What happens next?
NB nothing said above implies criticism of any of the notional participants in this scenario, which is in any event taking place in a parallel universe that does not exist. I'm genuinely curious, and would welcome responses from Genghis, others using WW and similar fields, and any instructors or a/g people reading this.
Should maybe be in the a/g operators thread, but follows on from postings above.
Aircraft A is a radio-equipped Tiger Moth inbound to Waltham. As the Moth arrives overhead, the pilot sees from the windsock that the wind has changed and now exposes the active runway to a crosswind which exceeds the limits of aircraft and/or pilot.
In Ops, they have not yet decided to change runways. Perhaps they are busy and distracted and have not noticed the wind indicator. Perhaps they have not yet heard from an instructor in the (unusually quiet) circuit that the wind has changed.
The pilot of Aircraft A tells Waltham Radio that he intends to use the runway which is now into wind. What does Waltham say in reply? Whatever is said, they can't stop him. He begins to position for his preferred runway.
Aircraft B is a non-radio Yak also inbound, having received a telephone briefing before setting off. Arriving in the overhead shortly after the Tiger Moth, the Yak pilot sees the signal square, with the T indicating the runway which he was briefed for. He also sees the windsock but knows the indicated crosswind to be safely within his capabilities and his aircraft's limitations. He starts to position for the signalled active runway.
The circuit is otherwise empty, but neither aircraft has seen the other. The radio operator, on his own in Ops, is distracted by an irate birthday trial-lesson punter complaining about the fact that no-one told him he'd have to go in a scary aeroplane with only one engine, and has therefore not noticed the Yak.
What happens next?
NB nothing said above implies criticism of any of the notional participants in this scenario, which is in any event taking place in a parallel universe that does not exist. I'm genuinely curious, and would welcome responses from Genghis, others using WW and similar fields, and any instructors or a/g people reading this.
Should maybe be in the a/g operators thread, but follows on from postings above.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southern Cross,
I take your point, but radio operators at an unlicensed field such as NW should only be responding to pilots' requests for information, not giving instructions or establishing active runways. These guys (of which I happen to be one)are not trained on the operational requirements of different types of aircraft, and could cause an accident if they attempt to force pilots to operate as they see fit.
There is one particular a/g operator at NW who regularly acts as an ATC and this is the chap I had words with. Nevertheless, it is the pilot's responsibility to inform the radio operator of their intentions, not to respond to instructions. Obviously the pilot should, wherever possible fit in with what everyone else is up to - I think they call that Airmanship, don't they?
I take your point, but radio operators at an unlicensed field such as NW should only be responding to pilots' requests for information, not giving instructions or establishing active runways. These guys (of which I happen to be one)are not trained on the operational requirements of different types of aircraft, and could cause an accident if they attempt to force pilots to operate as they see fit.
There is one particular a/g operator at NW who regularly acts as an ATC and this is the chap I had words with. Nevertheless, it is the pilot's responsibility to inform the radio operator of their intentions, not to respond to instructions. Obviously the pilot should, wherever possible fit in with what everyone else is up to - I think they call that Airmanship, don't they?
FNG - another possible cause for the 'carving up' that some consider goes on might be caused by the totally ridiculously huge circuit which some people seem to use at WW. I was there a month or so ago and was astonished at the cross-country exercise that some people fly in the circuit. So if you were a non-radio joining as briefed, you might indeed not notice someone on a 4 mile final.......
But as for Redhill, what possible excuse can there be for such behaviour as has been reported here?
But as for Redhill, what possible excuse can there be for such behaviour as has been reported here?
Being glib FNG, I might say that the Tiger lands on the numbers, stops well before the intersection, and then watches with a Yak-50 land in front of him quite safely....
A few months ago I was flying at Culdrose in something roughly Tiger sized (an X'Air if you know it), I joined left base and was told that I was No.2 to a Hawk with a fuel emergency. I did an orbit, watched him land and was then told that I was No.2 to a Jetstream. I briefly considered the wake-vortex picture of a 450kg X'Air behind a 6,000kg Jetstream and asked for safe separation. The Navy solution was to ask me to use the crosswind runway, which I did, landing on the numbers with a 10kn crosswind and stopping well before the intersection to watch 2 Jetstreams and another Hawk land in front of me before I taxiied across the active.
Second scenario, I fly from a place called Chilbolton in Hampshire. It's non-radio with a well defined join procedure (one of the reasons we're strictly PPR). Yesterday, I turned up, joined overhead, saw a 90° crosswind and because I was in a relatively slippery aircraft decided to use 06 which has no approach obstructions and allowed me to come in low. A few minutes after I landed somebody else turned up in a Thruster (glide ratio of a brick !), flew the same join procedure but selected 24. Had we arrived at the same time, because we both flew the same procudure which is designed to ensure that you see anything on finals for the wrong runway, we would have sorted ourselves out.
Anybody who flies from Popham during the May microlight show will be familiar with the use of 26 for light aircraft and 21 for microlights. Most of the microlights and a few of the light aircraft are non-radio. Procudures are published, and stuck to - the only near accident I've seen (and I've been there every year for the last 5, there are generally about 1000-2000 movements over the weekend) was a C150 taking off without checking around for microlight activity.
The bottom line I think is that in VFR airfield operations, radio or non-radio everybody needs to be utterly aware of what's going on throughout the circuit. There is no substitute to this - not the signal square, AFIS, ATC, whatever. If competent pilots behave well within this principle, then quite frankly an AFIS operator, etc. is a useful airfield facility - but he or she isn't, and shouldn't be, essential.
G
A few months ago I was flying at Culdrose in something roughly Tiger sized (an X'Air if you know it), I joined left base and was told that I was No.2 to a Hawk with a fuel emergency. I did an orbit, watched him land and was then told that I was No.2 to a Jetstream. I briefly considered the wake-vortex picture of a 450kg X'Air behind a 6,000kg Jetstream and asked for safe separation. The Navy solution was to ask me to use the crosswind runway, which I did, landing on the numbers with a 10kn crosswind and stopping well before the intersection to watch 2 Jetstreams and another Hawk land in front of me before I taxiied across the active.
Second scenario, I fly from a place called Chilbolton in Hampshire. It's non-radio with a well defined join procedure (one of the reasons we're strictly PPR). Yesterday, I turned up, joined overhead, saw a 90° crosswind and because I was in a relatively slippery aircraft decided to use 06 which has no approach obstructions and allowed me to come in low. A few minutes after I landed somebody else turned up in a Thruster (glide ratio of a brick !), flew the same join procedure but selected 24. Had we arrived at the same time, because we both flew the same procudure which is designed to ensure that you see anything on finals for the wrong runway, we would have sorted ourselves out.
Anybody who flies from Popham during the May microlight show will be familiar with the use of 26 for light aircraft and 21 for microlights. Most of the microlights and a few of the light aircraft are non-radio. Procudures are published, and stuck to - the only near accident I've seen (and I've been there every year for the last 5, there are generally about 1000-2000 movements over the weekend) was a C150 taking off without checking around for microlight activity.
The bottom line I think is that in VFR airfield operations, radio or non-radio everybody needs to be utterly aware of what's going on throughout the circuit. There is no substitute to this - not the signal square, AFIS, ATC, whatever. If competent pilots behave well within this principle, then quite frankly an AFIS operator, etc. is a useful airfield facility - but he or she isn't, and shouldn't be, essential.
G
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, Waltham is not as nimbified as some places but does face some pressures from its neighbours and has set up some rather large and in some cases irregularly shaped circuit patterns in an endeavour to minimise noise complaints. Some of these patterns seem odd to me as it is possible to fly close-in circuits over the green bits, avoiding villages and posh houses whilst keeping safely close to the airfield, but here we are back with the discussion that comes up so often about the way in which ppls are taught big square circuits.
Genghis, agreed again. I would only add that, not being an ex-test pilot, I would not fancy a 10 knot crosswind in a Tiger Moth or similar, so I had better keep my eyes open for that Yak.
Genghis, agreed again. I would only add that, not being an ex-test pilot, I would not fancy a 10 knot crosswind in a Tiger Moth or similar, so I had better keep my eyes open for that Yak.
