Airfield Briefings
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airfield Briefings
I visited an airfield recently for the first time. In order that I knew what to expect on arrival, I sought information from two sources.
1. Pooleys - which stated "GA aircraft are to join overhead at 1500ft QFE......"
2. UK AIP Specific Aerodrome Information - which stated "There are no overhead joins" and later "It is therefore essential that pilots obtain a briefing prior to departure..... "
I decided to phone up to gain the required PPR and for a briefing and I got a very short response saying they were busy and to look in Pooleys (which it transpired is incorrect for this airfield) and then the phone was put down.
Am I being a bit sensitive here, or is the AFISO having a bad day? Also if the UK AIP says "It is essential that a briefing is obtained is there or, more importantly, should there be an expectation that this is possible given the controller workload i.e. maybe the tower should have two people minimum on watch or is this unrealistic.
I haven't mentioned the airfield because it doesn't matter, it is just an example to highlight a general question.
Any advice warmly welcomed
Barney
1. Pooleys - which stated "GA aircraft are to join overhead at 1500ft QFE......"
2. UK AIP Specific Aerodrome Information - which stated "There are no overhead joins" and later "It is therefore essential that pilots obtain a briefing prior to departure..... "
I decided to phone up to gain the required PPR and for a briefing and I got a very short response saying they were busy and to look in Pooleys (which it transpired is incorrect for this airfield) and then the phone was put down.
Am I being a bit sensitive here, or is the AFISO having a bad day? Also if the UK AIP says "It is essential that a briefing is obtained is there or, more importantly, should there be an expectation that this is possible given the controller workload i.e. maybe the tower should have two people minimum on watch or is this unrealistic.
I haven't mentioned the airfield because it doesn't matter, it is just an example to highlight a general question.
Any advice warmly welcomed
Barney
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SVFR
In the words of a famous politician...."You might like to think so but, for myself, I couldn't possibly comment."
It doesn't matter where it was particularly, I was just interested to understand a bit more about it e.g. am I expecting too much from the airfield to give a briefing when they might have 30 other inbounds? Should I be making more efforts to research the information myself? On a busy day they might need to have a pre-recorded telephone message to deal with the briefings.
Barney
In the words of a famous politician...."You might like to think so but, for myself, I couldn't possibly comment."
It doesn't matter where it was particularly, I was just interested to understand a bit more about it e.g. am I expecting too much from the airfield to give a briefing when they might have 30 other inbounds? Should I be making more efforts to research the information myself? On a busy day they might need to have a pre-recorded telephone message to deal with the briefings.
Barney
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BG
No, you are not asking too much. It is the age old problem of One Man and His Dog (only the dog wasn't there) trying to answer the radio, answer the telephone, speak to the fire crew, take a landing fee, make the tea, etc. It really is up to IWM to provide more people.
Doesn't help when info is wrong in Pooleys, does it.
No, you are not asking too much. It is the age old problem of One Man and His Dog (only the dog wasn't there) trying to answer the radio, answer the telephone, speak to the fire crew, take a landing fee, make the tea, etc. It really is up to IWM to provide more people.
Doesn't help when info is wrong in Pooleys, does it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Pooleys (shamefully out of date at 1 Dec 00) says in bold type "Caution: High performance aircraft carry out circuits in both directions. Therefore there is No deadside and No overhead joins are permitted."
Is yours even older than mine BG?
No overhead joins does not of course mean you can't overfly. It just means you can't let down into the circuit from overhead. If you haven't been before and want to check it out it's perfectly OK to overfly above 2000 ft aal to have a look, turn on to a suitable heading, remaining above 2000 ft until beyond the ATZ before descending and turning to join the circuit.
AIP is of course the authoritative source in case of discrepancy.
I wouldn't get too upset that the guy on duty couldn't give you the attention you wanted. He probably had circuit traffic that required attention and it's unreasonable to expect IWM to overman on the basis that it might get busy. We did after all get discount!
And wasn't it a fine day out to boot?
Mike
PS We weren't relying on my out of date Pooleys. Rustle, who is much more organised, had printed out the AIP info.
Is yours even older than mine BG?
No overhead joins does not of course mean you can't overfly. It just means you can't let down into the circuit from overhead. If you haven't been before and want to check it out it's perfectly OK to overfly above 2000 ft aal to have a look, turn on to a suitable heading, remaining above 2000 ft until beyond the ATZ before descending and turning to join the circuit.
AIP is of course the authoritative source in case of discrepancy.
I wouldn't get too upset that the guy on duty couldn't give you the attention you wanted. He probably had circuit traffic that required attention and it's unreasonable to expect IWM to overman on the basis that it might get busy. We did after all get discount!
And wasn't it a fine day out to boot?
Mike
PS We weren't relying on my out of date Pooleys. Rustle, who is much more organised, had printed out the AIP info.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pooleys
Pooleys is frequently incorrect but I suspect it is not entirley their fault. No doubt they rely upon infirmation from the airfields themselves and I wouldn't be surprised if many simply couldn't be bothered to update their own info.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the info Mike. My Pooleys is 2003 bought just two weeks ago. Nowadays it states:
Caution:High performance aircraft often join via 'run and break' manoeuvre. GA aircraft are to join overhead at 1500ft QFE before turning and descending downwind to a circuit height of 1000ft QFE
Your point about the overfly is very good and I hadn't thought of that. I will make that the lesson learned for this occasion.
Please don't think I was having a go at any A/D in particular. I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday and would go again without a second thought. I was interested to know what other folks thought about conflicting information that pilots get sometimes.
Like Rustle, I printed the same AIP info and used that as the authority.
For the record Duxford FISO did an excellent job IMHO, certainly when I arrived it was busy but well organised and safe.
I do wonder whether the AIP ought not to say "essential" because it means to me that if something were to go wrong and there was an accident (God forbid) then when I am before the court (or worse at the pearly gates) the barrister prosecuting on behalf of the CAA might ask
"Mr Gumble, did you obtain your essential briefing before departure, as stated in the AIP?"
to which I might say "No!"
and would then perhaps be left with the remark "So you were not sure as PIC that the flight could be undertaken safely then?" to chew on
My point being that if manning levels do not allow the essential briefing to be available throughout the hours of operation it should not be stated as essential. Or conversely if the briefing really is essential then manning levels should be set accordingly or maybe a pre-recorded telephone briefing line might be a good idea. This could be set up as a premium rate line and the revenue generated could be used to help preserve the fantastic aircraft collection they have.
Anyway, I don't want to detract from what was an absolutely excellent day out for all PPRuNers.
Cheers
Barney
Edited by BG because I can't spell!!
Caution:High performance aircraft often join via 'run and break' manoeuvre. GA aircraft are to join overhead at 1500ft QFE before turning and descending downwind to a circuit height of 1000ft QFE
Your point about the overfly is very good and I hadn't thought of that. I will make that the lesson learned for this occasion.
Please don't think I was having a go at any A/D in particular. I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday and would go again without a second thought. I was interested to know what other folks thought about conflicting information that pilots get sometimes.
Like Rustle, I printed the same AIP info and used that as the authority.
For the record Duxford FISO did an excellent job IMHO, certainly when I arrived it was busy but well organised and safe.
I do wonder whether the AIP ought not to say "essential" because it means to me that if something were to go wrong and there was an accident (God forbid) then when I am before the court (or worse at the pearly gates) the barrister prosecuting on behalf of the CAA might ask
"Mr Gumble, did you obtain your essential briefing before departure, as stated in the AIP?"
to which I might say "No!"
and would then perhaps be left with the remark "So you were not sure as PIC that the flight could be undertaken safely then?" to chew on
My point being that if manning levels do not allow the essential briefing to be available throughout the hours of operation it should not be stated as essential. Or conversely if the briefing really is essential then manning levels should be set accordingly or maybe a pre-recorded telephone briefing line might be a good idea. This could be set up as a premium rate line and the revenue generated could be used to help preserve the fantastic aircraft collection they have.
Anyway, I don't want to detract from what was an absolutely excellent day out for all PPRuNers.
Cheers
Barney
Edited by BG because I can't spell!!
Last edited by Barney_Gumble; 7th Apr 2003 at 03:59.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pooleys is not the only guide to be incorrect on the subject of Duxford. the pocket flight guide has it wrong too.
On the occasions that I have flown over for various airshows, it always seems to me to be very well run. The only run-in I have ever had was a little while back with a lady FISO and I don't know whether she is still around.
They do need to sort out their parallel runway usage though. Sounds to me like somebody has mis-applied CAP168. Would be interested in any informed comment, perhaps in a PM...
On the occasions that I have flown over for various airshows, it always seems to me to be very well run. The only run-in I have ever had was a little while back with a lady FISO and I don't know whether she is still around.
They do need to sort out their parallel runway usage though. Sounds to me like somebody has mis-applied CAP168. Would be interested in any informed comment, perhaps in a PM...
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pooleys is frequently incorrect but I suspect it is not entirley their fault. No doubt they rely upon infirmation from the airfields themselves and I wouldn't be surprised if many simply couldn't be bothered to update their own info.
It is not the responsibility of airfields to keep third party documentation up to date. Their only responsibility is to the UK AIP, the third parties get their information from that although I guess some airfields do try and help. I have in the past, contacted some BIG third party documentation suppliers pointing out the error of their ways, and sent NOTAMs correcting their info.
If Joe Blogg Publications Inc comes along and decides to publish a guide then airfields cannot be held responsible for the information it contains.
Vintage ATCO.
Although what you say is quite correct it does surprise me that airfields don't take greater care to publish flight safety info. I know for a fact that 'another flight guide' than the one previously mentioned posts out to all the airfields they cover annually. Considering the fact that they then have time to send info in and the means to return it at no cost to themselves you'd be amazed at the number that don't bother. There is one regional airport that actually asks for payment for providing info! I should add that this was done as a back-up to amendments gleaned from the usual authoritative source.
Spiney
Although what you say is quite correct it does surprise me that airfields don't take greater care to publish flight safety info. I know for a fact that 'another flight guide' than the one previously mentioned posts out to all the airfields they cover annually. Considering the fact that they then have time to send info in and the means to return it at no cost to themselves you'd be amazed at the number that don't bother. There is one regional airport that actually asks for payment for providing info! I should add that this was done as a back-up to amendments gleaned from the usual authoritative source.
Spiney
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VA
Agree with what you say but if the AIP says "get a briefing" and when he does so the AFISO tells BG to "look it up in Pooleys" then BG has played it right. (assuming this is a fair account of what happened)
BG should not of course enter the ATZ without permission so it shouldn't result in any a problem either way.
Odd that Pooleys should change its tune between 2000 & 2003. Makes you wonder if the AIP had changed as well.
The AIP entry is dated 26 December 2002 (do they really work on Boxing Day?) so if it was a change it could have missed Pooleys press day (and if it did has there been an amendment?)
Mike
Agree with what you say but if the AIP says "get a briefing" and when he does so the AFISO tells BG to "look it up in Pooleys" then BG has played it right. (assuming this is a fair account of what happened)
BG should not of course enter the ATZ without permission so it shouldn't result in any a problem either way.
Odd that Pooleys should change its tune between 2000 & 2003. Makes you wonder if the AIP had changed as well.
The AIP entry is dated 26 December 2002 (do they really work on Boxing Day?) so if it was a change it could have missed Pooleys press day (and if it did has there been an amendment?)
Mike
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be misunderstanding what you are asking Aiglon.
It seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect an airport to respond to requests for information from any number of commercial flight guides - all of whom want the information to sell at a profit.
The flight guides simply need to ensure that the information they publish is in accordance with the AIP and they won't go too far wrong.
If an airport fails to keep its AIP entry up-to-date, then that is another question. There are some offenders in Britain, many in France
It seems to me that it is unreasonable to expect an airport to respond to requests for information from any number of commercial flight guides - all of whom want the information to sell at a profit.
The flight guides simply need to ensure that the information they publish is in accordance with the AIP and they won't go too far wrong.
If an airport fails to keep its AIP entry up-to-date, then that is another question. There are some offenders in Britain, many in France
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Spiney Norman
I am sure airfields do great care to publish Flight Safety Information but that only extends to the UK AIP, as required by the aerodrome licence. At the airfield I was involved in, we never sent info to third party suppliers, it was picked up from the AIP. How on earth could we know every third party documentation supplier?
Aiglon
I am not aware of third party suppliers sending out info to airfields to be checked, maybe they do to some. But you need to understand that airfields are not responsible to check this information. A licenced airfield's only responsibility is to the UK AIP.
I am sure airfields do great care to publish Flight Safety Information but that only extends to the UK AIP, as required by the aerodrome licence. At the airfield I was involved in, we never sent info to third party suppliers, it was picked up from the AIP. How on earth could we know every third party documentation supplier?
Aiglon
I am not aware of third party suppliers sending out info to airfields to be checked, maybe they do to some. But you need to understand that airfields are not responsible to check this information. A licenced airfield's only responsibility is to the UK AIP.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too had the same problem on Saturday - didn't get an answer at all - it just rung out and diverted to the answer-machine then promptly cut me off (I went through the museum switchboard to get there because the number in pooleys seemed to be a fax).
Inbound I ended up orbiting to the north for a couple of minutes because I either couldn't get a word in or there was no reply when I did.
No complaints of the ATCO - he was, I'm sure, doing his best on a busy day. Ironically, when I called into the tower at about 2pm, there were 2 chaps on duty but virtually no traffic. Having one guy working the radio, answering the phone, taking payments and coordinating the fuel truck is unrealistic on a sunny weekend when they know they are expecting at least 25 additional aircraft. The landing fee isn't the cheapest around either.
As a newly qualified PPL who's not been anywhere that busy before I'm not sure if that's the norm, or was it an exception?
Anyway, didn't detract from a very enjoyable day, and I will be visiting them again soon (hopefully on a weekday).
P.S. Pooleys clearly states "Simultaneous runway operations not authorised". AIP says similar. Someone better tell Duxford that, because when I asked on final which runway was in use I was told "either, your discresion", very abruptly.
Inbound I ended up orbiting to the north for a couple of minutes because I either couldn't get a word in or there was no reply when I did.
No complaints of the ATCO - he was, I'm sure, doing his best on a busy day. Ironically, when I called into the tower at about 2pm, there were 2 chaps on duty but virtually no traffic. Having one guy working the radio, answering the phone, taking payments and coordinating the fuel truck is unrealistic on a sunny weekend when they know they are expecting at least 25 additional aircraft. The landing fee isn't the cheapest around either.
As a newly qualified PPL who's not been anywhere that busy before I'm not sure if that's the norm, or was it an exception?
Anyway, didn't detract from a very enjoyable day, and I will be visiting them again soon (hopefully on a weekday).
P.S. Pooleys clearly states "Simultaneous runway operations not authorised". AIP says similar. Someone better tell Duxford that, because when I asked on final which runway was in use I was told "either, your discresion", very abruptly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Cross, Sir
Are you suggesting for a single nano-second, Sir, that my account could in some way be less than 100% fair? 
Regards
Andy
P.S. This posting is an attempt, albeit probably a poor attempt, at humour
P.P.S Knobbygb, I had a similar thing happen to me when I asked which runway. I declared my intention clearly to use the asphalt to avoid any miss-understandings. The chap behind me was close(ish) and decided to use the grass and I said I would hold short when exiting the ashphalt for him to land but was informed this was not permissable due to the combined nature of the r/w. Like you I am low hours (100 odd) and I think this posting probably represents us new pilots on a learning curve.
assuming this is a fair account of what happened
Regards
Andy
P.S. This posting is an attempt, albeit probably a poor attempt, at humour
P.P.S Knobbygb, I had a similar thing happen to me when I asked which runway. I declared my intention clearly to use the asphalt to avoid any miss-understandings. The chap behind me was close(ish) and decided to use the grass and I said I would hold short when exiting the ashphalt for him to land but was informed this was not permissable due to the combined nature of the r/w. Like you I am low hours (100 odd) and I think this posting probably represents us new pilots on a learning curve.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
knobbygb:
Simultaneous operations means two acft at the same time. If you were no. 1 and the only one then clearly the option was yours to make, at your discretion.
As for the 'ATCO' in the tower, he was a FISO. You need to understand the difference.
P.S. Pooleys clearly states "Simultaneous runway operations not authorised". AIP says similar. Someone better tell Duxford that, because when I asked on final which runway was in use I was told "either, your discresion", very abruptly.
As for the 'ATCO' in the tower, he was a FISO. You need to understand the difference.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes vintage ATCO, fair point. I admit to not being sure exactly what simultaneous operations meant - as Barney implies, we're all at different points on the learning curve. That was one of the questions I would have asked if I could have contacted them by phone beforehand. We have paralell grass and tarmac at my home field but they are much stricter about switching between the two - guess that's what confused me. Just re-read the AIP and it says "treat both as one runway" - makes sense now 
I assure you I do understand the differences between an A/G, FIS and full ATC service, though. Just a case of me using the wrong acronym, honest Respect to you ATC'ers for coping with us lowtimers. I wasn't trying to rubbish the FISO, just pointing out that when it gets busy, communications can be less than ideal.
I assure you I do understand the differences between an A/G, FIS and full ATC service, though. Just a case of me using the wrong acronym, honest
Respect to you ATC'ers for coping with us lowtimers. I wasn't trying to rubbish the FISO, just pointing out that when it gets busy, communications can be less than ideal.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Knobbygb, I think there is a degree of puzzlement over the way the runways are operated at Duxford and I hope that can be resolved soon.
I operate A/G, FISO and ATC, unfortunately many pilots don't understand the difference.
Take care out there!
I operate A/G, FISO and ATC, unfortunately many pilots don't understand the difference.
Take care out there!