'They're down there because we're up here'.
 

PPPPP's post on the Manch LLR got me thinking that maybe some PPLs, especially those trained relatively recently, are perhaps too in awe of 'the man in the tower' and inclined to beleive that the radio is a primary flight control with ATC's hand on it.

As an illustration, our departure for Barton from a well known airfield in the south of England on Saturday was extended by an AFISO who decided to demote us from no. 2 to no. 3 (and I think would have gone on to further demote us to no. 4) in the take-off queue simply because numers 3 and 4 were 'local based and therefore take priority over visitors' (his words!).

For the return journey (I'd been P1 for the journey down from Barton) my friend, who is younger and relatively recently trained as a PPL, was P1. He sat there and was just letting it happen. I don't like being peed around like that without some reasonable explanation - it's arrogant at best - so I took over the RT to ask the reason for the T/O order change.

This was met with stupified silence to start with (perhaps this guy was not used to being challenged by mere pilots?). Then there was a repeat to hold position, to which I answered that we were so doing, and repeated my demand for the reason for the order change. More silence, then that lame explanation. Our demotion then ceased and we were cleared to go no. 3.

I was tempted to say that we treat our visitors rather better than that up north, but this exchange had gone on long enough and I relinquished the RT to the P1.

If more pilots were a tad more assertive with some of these guys (almost always the non-professional ATCers in my experience), it would maybe be for the greater good of GA - IHMO of course.

SSD

Don't you lot start becoming argumentative otherwise I'll have to get my big stick out. . . . . :D :ok: :D

I am with SSD. The youth of today :cool: seem to think that the wings will fall off when you reach for the radio off switch.

Hello SP (vA) are you 'doing' Duxford on your days off then? Still remember the Court line days eh!

Spiney

I can only agree with a fellow Yak pilot :p

Perhaps there is something particularly English about this though. I often think that in England, you give your pilots a moving map GPS, an IMC rating and a radar information service, and he thinks he is driving an airliner, and becomes dependent on an airliner-style Air Traffic Control Service, without the training or the airspace to support it.

In France, our pilots cannot fly IFR until they have an instrument rating, a qualification which very few of them ever get. We have FIS-based Flight Information Services which do not want to talk to you, and our flying clubs do not go for long range touring. Most priviate flights are just circuits, or visits to nearby aerodromes for coffee and a chat.

As a result, we don't suffer so much from this disease. Perhaps this is why so many of us get confused and violate your controlled airspace when we visit :D

Shaggy,

Not fair to call us weekend AFISO's 'non-professional' we try our best! Try Shobdon one weekend - always guaranteed to be treated 'in turn'

pharty

Hi SN, no, I don't 'do' Duxford but somewhere slightly further west.

I agree with all that's been said but it doesn't help when pilots, inbound to an A/G or FIS field 'request joining instructions' or ask 'can I join straight in?', etc . . . .

. . . and conversely, when I use to do Luton Approach/Radar call me 'Luton Radio'!! :confused: What have they been taught?

Some of my best friends are non-radio! :D:D


--------------------
vintage ATCO
www.stevelevien.com

Must admit I've never been given treatment like SSD had at Duxford. I know about "the first shall be last", but wasn't aware it applied to takeoff clearances.

I wonder if it's Duxford "policy" or a FISO looking after his friends. Perhaps we should ask...

If every ATCO, FISO, and AG operator did exactly what they were supposed to do, newer pilots wouldn't be confused, and the rest of us would play it by the book. BUT...

A certain AG operator in a certain well known airfield regularly insists on telling pilots how to join the circuit, when they can depart, taxi etc, and gets very annoyed if they don't do it his way. It's safer and easier to allow him his delusions of grandeur. Actually, I can think of TWO airfields like that.

Another airfield, recently upgraded to full ATC, had at least one ATCO who didn't seem to have realised this. Having given me joining instructions, he then ignored me. I twice asked hm if I was actually cleared to land, on a clear grass area reserved for helicopters, and was ignored. I started to wonder if coming to a hover was legally "landing" (it isn't, but I wasn't sure then, and anyway most ATCOs don't know this) when he finally realised why I wouldn't leave him alone, and remembered that what had been legal a week earlier...

Some airfields who have a different service during the week and at weekends have people on the radio who seem to forget that this means more than just their having a different name for the service.

I could go on, as these are not isolated cases. So yes, I do ask small airfields how they'd like me to join. It's much easier than my telling them, and then getting into an argument about it.

Personally, I'd always land next to a B-17. . . . . . :D :D :D :D

Personally I believe this problem began with the introduction of the AFISO level some years ago. I'm sure the CAA meant well in requiring a greater standard of 'control' at busier airfields. What they forgot was that as you introduce more levels of service you run into the problem that, 1. The power crazed or ill informed will imagine they are qualified ATCO's. Or 2. Pilots will be confused by the level of service they're getting. The constant posts on this subject show this is a recurring problem. Perhaps it's time the CAA had a look at reducing the ATC levels of service to ATCO & A.N. Other. Myself, I'd be quite happy with Air to Ground.

Spiney.

I don't suppose it's correct procedure, but I always ask A/G for "arrival information" and usually get runway in use, QFE or QNH, and wind info.

Sometimes, if they report no other traffic and we're close to runway heading, I'll ask "Do you mind if we join direct on final?". Some have gone so far as to say "We'd be glad if you did, as it keeps down the noise complaints." Others say they prefer overhead joins, so we do.

As long as we both know that this is "airfield operator's preference" rather than ATC clearance, it seems OK to me.

As long as we both know that this is "airfield operator's preference" rather than ATC clearance, it seems OK to me.

Well said, Keef

Often do the same thing at home (EGLK/Info) - helps them, helps me. No problem :cool:

Edit: Forgot to say that I thought the FISO(s) at Duxford did a splendid job.

On first contact, he knew who we were, how many POB he expected and departure aerodrome - obviously he'd bothered to read the fax I sent. He even had time/inclination to explain to me that a C421 isn't an Aztec ;) When we paid he explained departure procs and couldn't have been more helpful.

On departure, the (different) FISO was as helpful as we could have wanted as well.

The European Harmonisation (due this Nov) was suppose to simplify matters but am wondering if the CAA will give up the FISO method. I agree with you, SN, that A/G is often the best way.

Whirly, if you keep asking how places want you to join when you don't have to then it will just perpetuate the problem. It won't ever go away.

Off to work now for a bit of control! Just what I need. . . :D

Va.
I went to an SRG presentation recently in which the new EU 'harmonised licences' were introduced. You may be right. However the new ATCO licence's and endorsements were so complex we all left unsure of what we were qualified to do!! So it might get worse yet!

Spiney.

Lots of sensible comments here. As for the airfield's preferred joining method, I think the phone is the best way to ask for this (although granted that Duxford weren't too good at answering the phone last weekend). But having established what the preferred method is, I'll always follow it unless I think it's unsafe.

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

Maybe asking for joining "instructions" isn't a legal requirement but surely it helps if everyone joins in the same manner. I know my home airfield always ask/insist on overhead joins and those who say they are joining straight in are asked to join overhead (and they usually comply). In open FIR it's each to their own but at a busy airfield this could get very messy with people joining at all corners of the circuit.

I don't see a problem asking for "instructions". Granted the word "information" might be technically more correct.

(although granted that Duxford weren't too good at answering the phone last weekend).

Too right. I tried to phone several times before deparure from Barton. All I got was either the engaged tone or the fax (presumably it defaults to fax if no-one asnwers - both are same number).

Eventually I left a voicemail on the number given in Pooleys for the airfield manager. Would have been nice to get a briefing and a weather check, though.

SSD

There are a number of finer points here which haven't been addressed.

The airfield has an owner and we use it with his consent. The radio operator, acting in his capacity as representing the owner is within his rights to issue whatever directions he wishes with regard to your use of his facilities. If he wants to prioritise departures he's within his rights. However this can give rise to safety implications as prolonged holds are not good for engines.

This bit is surely legally a civil matter.

With his ATCO/AFISO/a/g operators hat on he has additional powers in law. The AIP in
AIP 2.7.2 calls up Rule 39 which makes it illegal to enter, land or take off within the ATZ wouthout the PERMISSION of the ATCU if one exists. If there is no ATC Unit then you are required to obtain INFORMATION from the AFIS or A/G operator to allow the flight to be conducted safely.


Mike

SSD

Could not make SU this weekend for family reasons and am a bit surprised to read about your bad experience. Been a fair few times and have never come across this sort of thing before.

I dont know if it is their rules but if it is you can only suck it. I do have to point though that I am slightly surprised by it. If it is not in their rules it was just bad manners. Surely to let an agile Chippy disappear can not unduly delay the operations at Duxford I would have thought.

If you want to experience some longer ATC delays you can always try some of the other big training fields.

;)

FD