A/G operators above their station
Guest
Posts: n/a
A/G operators above their station
Here's one that annoys me.
- there are lots of pilots who do not understand the role of an A/G operator at an airfield - they keep requesting taxi clearance, take-off clearance, landing clearance, Flight Information Service etc. etc. etc.
I once saw a guy sit on the threshold of the rw at a busy airfield waiting for t/o clearance from the A/G operator he wasn't going to get, while inbounds were going around.
- there are lots of A/G operators who do not seem to understand the bounds of the service they can offer, and try to be an AFISO or even an ATCO!
I've had a several 'heated exchanges' with A/G operators who have tried to issue me with instructions (of course I'm aware of keeping the R/T clear). On the ground I usually let it pass as it doesn't do much harm, but I've also been issued instructions in the air! Not even AFISOs are allowed to do that!
No wonder AFISOs seem upset when you call them 'xxxxxx Radio, G-ABCD' on first contact. 'G-ABCD xxxxxx INFORMATION pass you message'.
I've already vented my spleen on this airfield in the landing fees thread, so I don't want this to seem like a vendetta, but 'London Lydd' is an offender.
There must be others. Discuss........
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
- there are lots of pilots who do not understand the role of an A/G operator at an airfield - they keep requesting taxi clearance, take-off clearance, landing clearance, Flight Information Service etc. etc. etc.
I once saw a guy sit on the threshold of the rw at a busy airfield waiting for t/o clearance from the A/G operator he wasn't going to get, while inbounds were going around.
- there are lots of A/G operators who do not seem to understand the bounds of the service they can offer, and try to be an AFISO or even an ATCO!
I've had a several 'heated exchanges' with A/G operators who have tried to issue me with instructions (of course I'm aware of keeping the R/T clear). On the ground I usually let it pass as it doesn't do much harm, but I've also been issued instructions in the air! Not even AFISOs are allowed to do that!
No wonder AFISOs seem upset when you call them 'xxxxxx Radio, G-ABCD' on first contact. 'G-ABCD xxxxxx INFORMATION pass you message'.
I've already vented my spleen on this airfield in the landing fees thread, so I don't want this to seem like a vendetta, but 'London Lydd' is an offender.
There must be others. Discuss........
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 15 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some time back I decided to train as an A/G operator at Sleap. The idea was you did 20 hours with the experienced radio operators - don't know if this is a legal requiremnt or just this airfield. Anyway, the first day was fine. The next weekend there was a different A/G operator. He DEMANDED that I tell aircraft to "report downwind" etc; he insisted I use the phrase "at your discretion" and got mad when I pointed out he wasn't supposed to do this - he'd been doing the job for 16 years and wasn't about to listen to anything I had to say. For the sake of peace I kept quiet - and never went back!
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a problem that rears its head time and time again. What I would say is this:
PILOTS - Learn the limitations of what each type of service can give you and, if it seems you're getting more than you should be listen to what the person is saying and use what is legal or helpful and ignore the rest if you feel it's wrong. One argument I've often heard made is "what if the A/G operator tells you to go around because there's something on the runway?". My answer to that is why do you need telling - operations at A/G airfields are VFR only so you should be looking out of the window in the first place - this goes for watching out for other traffic as well. It becomes a bit of a chicken and egg situation. The A/G operator wouldn't have to feel that they give instructions if everyone conducted themselves properly. Those that do insist on giving instructions when they're not meant to normally retreat back in their shell when I say "Just confirm this is ***** RADIO."
A/G OPS - Learn what you can say and learn what you can't. If you get caught being naughty you can be clobbered (ANO Art.94)
CM
PILOTS - Learn the limitations of what each type of service can give you and, if it seems you're getting more than you should be listen to what the person is saying and use what is legal or helpful and ignore the rest if you feel it's wrong. One argument I've often heard made is "what if the A/G operator tells you to go around because there's something on the runway?". My answer to that is why do you need telling - operations at A/G airfields are VFR only so you should be looking out of the window in the first place - this goes for watching out for other traffic as well. It becomes a bit of a chicken and egg situation. The A/G operator wouldn't have to feel that they give instructions if everyone conducted themselves properly. Those that do insist on giving instructions when they're not meant to normally retreat back in their shell when I say "Just confirm this is ***** RADIO."
A/G OPS - Learn what you can say and learn what you can't. If you get caught being naughty you can be clobbered (ANO Art.94)
CM
Guest
Posts: n/a
Similar thread a few weeks ago about FIS and RIS. Same principal applies a large number of PPL's, probably through poor groundschool, are not taught the differences between Air Traffic Services.....I feel that this is a potentially serious issue as the plonker referred to in foghorn's 1st post adequately demonstrates...how long did he sit there for?
Solution?...only establish ATZ's at airfields with AFIS (at the moment it's any licenced airfield) and give airfields with ATC a Class E Control Zone. AOPA types will moan about additional controlled airspace but Class E is perfect for GA..you don't even have to call if you don't want too under VFR! We'd all then be able to tell exactly the type of service we're likely to get just by looking at the map.
Incidentley...the easiest way to annoy a Controller...call hm *** Radio
Solution?...only establish ATZ's at airfields with AFIS (at the moment it's any licenced airfield) and give airfields with ATC a Class E Control Zone. AOPA types will moan about additional controlled airspace but Class E is perfect for GA..you don't even have to call if you don't want too under VFR! We'd all then be able to tell exactly the type of service we're likely to get just by looking at the map.
Incidentley...the easiest way to annoy a Controller...call hm *** Radio
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't find fault with anything that's been said so far, but would like to add that IMHO it is downright dangerous for AFISO / AG to exceed the rights of their licenses. I fly regularly around the London area and come across AG/AFISO who treat 'their' airfield as a mini Heathrow. They pass instructions to a/c in the air and hand out b*****kings on the frequncy and you can almost sense the complete brain dump that occurs on the part of some of the pilots who, you feel, would land upside down if the bossy git in the shed with big windows told them to. There is no airmanship employed, and on more than one occasion I have had to take avoiding action on some bloke who's belting down final with his thumb up his a**e and brain in neutral because the bloke who was telling him what to do has suddenly remembered that he shouldn't so has stopped. Trouble is, he hasn't informed anybody of the fact. Of course there is always the other side who asks for a downwind call but then doesn't use the info to pass traffic on the other guy who's joining base leg.. or who lets you approach with a 20kt crosswind at night and never once mentions the fact. When challenged: 'I only pass it to commercial flights'!! I know you could ask for the info, but a little bit of volunteering would have been nice.
The problem of the pilot expecting t/o or landing clearance has already been highlighted, so there are faults on both sides.
Then, of course, there are the Tower Controllers who try to apply standard separation between VFR aircraft in a visual circuit on a gin clear day and wonder why they and the frequency get overloaded.. but let's not start that one.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
The problem of the pilot expecting t/o or landing clearance has already been highlighted, so there are faults on both sides.
Then, of course, there are the Tower Controllers who try to apply standard separation between VFR aircraft in a visual circuit on a gin clear day and wonder why they and the frequency get overloaded.. but let's not start that one.
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"
Guest
Posts: n/a
matspart,
I didn't mention the full story of the plonker - how he got from the clubhouse to be lined up by constanly asking for clearances, obviously not getting them, but then doing things anyway.
'Request Taxy'
'Roger'
Pilot taxies to holding point
'Ready for departure'
'Roger'
Pilot backtracks and lines up
It had not yet dawned on the pratt that 'Roger' means 'I have received' and was all that the A/G operator could legally say! Then on the runway he must've woken up and realised that he hadn't heard the magic words 'cleared takeoff'... and so he sat there with traffic going around. Idiot.
btw this happened at Nottingham Tollerton where I have not yet heard the A/G operators step outside their legal powers. There were two go-arounds in the time it took for the A/G operator to explain to him how an uncontrolled airfield with an A/G radio worked. All credit to the A/G operator.
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 16 March 2001).]
I didn't mention the full story of the plonker - how he got from the clubhouse to be lined up by constanly asking for clearances, obviously not getting them, but then doing things anyway.
'Request Taxy'
'Roger'
Pilot taxies to holding point
'Ready for departure'
'Roger'
Pilot backtracks and lines up
It had not yet dawned on the pratt that 'Roger' means 'I have received' and was all that the A/G operator could legally say! Then on the runway he must've woken up and realised that he hadn't heard the magic words 'cleared takeoff'... and so he sat there with traffic going around. Idiot.
btw this happened at Nottingham Tollerton where I have not yet heard the A/G operators step outside their legal powers. There were two go-arounds in the time it took for the A/G operator to explain to him how an uncontrolled airfield with an A/G radio worked. All credit to the A/G operator.
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 16 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst on short finals, I was instructed by the A/G operator at our base airfield to go around to let one of 'their' Navajo's land! The pilot was stupid enough to get too close behind me in my Cub! Can a Navajo fly at 50Kts? Needless to say I didnt go around, and once I had composed myself sufficiently, went to the Tower (actually one end of the club bar/restaurant) to tell the W*"^er what I thought of his instructions.
Unfortunately it happens a lot, and not just at this airfield.
Unfortunately it happens a lot, and not just at this airfield.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think we're all getting a little heated here. If its an AG then we, as pilots, should take whatever we're told and act on it in a common sense way. I asked an AG over the weekend for taxi instructions. Unusually, because it was a grass strip, aircraft were doing take-offs and landings on the south side of the strip while taxiing aircraft were backtracking on the northern side. I asked what the procedures were and was told - no problem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
rightstuffer.
i think that there is a difference between asking the A/G operator what the standard procedure is for taxying and then voluntarily following it yourself (good airmanship and good use of the A/G service IMHO), and either expecting instructions (plonker pilot) or giving instructions (plonker A/G), which is unsafe in the former case, and illegal and unsafe in the latter.
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 17 March 2001).]
i think that there is a difference between asking the A/G operator what the standard procedure is for taxying and then voluntarily following it yourself (good airmanship and good use of the A/G service IMHO), and either expecting instructions (plonker pilot) or giving instructions (plonker A/G), which is unsafe in the former case, and illegal and unsafe in the latter.
[This message has been edited by foghorn (edited 17 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
If any one wants to see/hear GOOD ATC services then go to Fenland and talk/ listen to the fellow in the tower. He knows what he is doing, is VERY helpful, is VERY capable and VERY correct. Any pilot who is unsure should hsve the sense to ask (if only to confirm his uncertain knowledge)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Everyone has heard of CAP 413 but how many have heard of:
CAP452 Aeronautical Radio Station Operator's Guide and:
CAP410 Manual of Flight Information Services
Adherence to the appropriate manual would alleviate most of the comments above.How many A/G operators have a valid Certificate of Competence? i.e it is signed by the A/G Radio Station Licencee, the person who is responsible in law for the operation of the station.
CAP452 Aeronautical Radio Station Operator's Guide and:
CAP410 Manual of Flight Information Services
Adherence to the appropriate manual would alleviate most of the comments above.How many A/G operators have a valid Certificate of Competence? i.e it is signed by the A/G Radio Station Licencee, the person who is responsible in law for the operation of the station.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said Noggin.
If pilots had a better understanding of the limits of an A/G service, and A/G Operators had a better understanding of the rules within which they must operate, the situation would definitely improve.
However, as an Air/Ground Operator (I'm an occasional one), it's almost impossible to operate strictly within the rules as they are generally understood and applied. CAP 452 is well worth a read and, in my opinion, gives the A/G Operator more latitude in certain areas than is generally understood, whilst making it clear that he/she has no "control" function whatsoever and must actively avoid giving the impression that the service is anything other than A/G. Adherence to the rules as they are written, and in accordance with the spirit in which I believe they were intended, would improve the usefulness of A/G Operators without giving them any additional "power".
[This message has been edited by Riccarton (edited 17 March 2001).]
If pilots had a better understanding of the limits of an A/G service, and A/G Operators had a better understanding of the rules within which they must operate, the situation would definitely improve.
However, as an Air/Ground Operator (I'm an occasional one), it's almost impossible to operate strictly within the rules as they are generally understood and applied. CAP 452 is well worth a read and, in my opinion, gives the A/G Operator more latitude in certain areas than is generally understood, whilst making it clear that he/she has no "control" function whatsoever and must actively avoid giving the impression that the service is anything other than A/G. Adherence to the rules as they are written, and in accordance with the spirit in which I believe they were intended, would improve the usefulness of A/G Operators without giving them any additional "power".
[This message has been edited by Riccarton (edited 17 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good news the one at Gamston has gone now, But another wannabe has taken his place not quite as bad but getting there, the one at Netherthorpe can be a real plonker sometimes/ sorry all the time
[This message has been edited by 100LL (edited 19 March 2001).]
[This message has been edited by 100LL (edited 19 March 2001).]
