FRTOL and Air/Ground
An FRTOL should be the only CAA test that an A/G operator.
A section to remind them what they can and cannot do could be in the airfields flying order book.
I think the CAA are looking to make it law
The current situation is an "own goal" for the CAA who have totally mismanaged the radio licensing delegated to them by the useless OFCOM!
Mike
I do not disagree! What I was referring to was the internal legal advice within CAA.
Bingoboy
On your first point, I agree. As said before, it needs to be in addition to the CAA specifying the responsibilities of an AGCS operator.
Point 2 - An FRTOL, in my experience, is most certainly not a qualification to immediately work in AGCS. Operating communications on the ground and relating it to a changing airborne situation is a very different skill.
Point 3 - cross-referring to point 1. It needs to be specified by CAA, not be subject to local variations, and most importantly be clearly understood by pilots.
2 s
2 Sheds
If a criminal offence could be created by the stroke of a pen by an employee of a government agency I'd emigrate. The right to make law belongs rightly to Parliament.
CAA is not even part of the governemt of this country, they are an agency of DfT. Although they may draft the legislation, they cannnot and do not pass it.
If a criminal offence could be created by the stroke of a pen by an employee of a government agency I'd emigrate. The right to make law belongs rightly to Parliament.
CAA is not even part of the governemt of this country, they are an agency of DfT. Although they may draft the legislation, they cannnot and do not pass it.
Bingoboy
The concern I have is that it will do nothing for safety.
An FRTOL should be the only CAA test that an A/G operator.
A section to remind them what they can and cannot do could be in the airfields flying order book.
An FRTOL should be the only CAA test that an A/G operator.
A section to remind them what they can and cannot do could be in the airfields flying order book.
Point 2 - An FRTOL, in my experience, is most certainly not a qualification to immediately work in AGCS. Operating communications on the ground and relating it to a changing airborne situation is a very different skill.
Point 3 - cross-referring to point 1. It needs to be specified by CAA, not be subject to local variations, and most importantly be clearly understood by pilots.
2 s
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some interesting posts. It's a few years since I had any detailed involvement in this stuff but at that time the radio station licensee had an obligation (fully supported in law, through the WT Act as I recall) to ensure that operators of the station were competent. The CAA provided some standards to be followed by operators and a simple means to show who was deemed to be competent (the C of C). Someone who didn't hold a C of C was likely to be placing the radio station licensee in contravention of the law. The upshot of all this was that the CAA never had much control of who was operating the radio station.
The standards that the CAA set are often published as CAPs rather than explicitly in law. The law tends simply to say 'In order to do X you you have to satisfy the CAA' and the way to satisfy the CAA is set out in a CAP. It's a slightly unusual way (when compared to other States) to do things but it has worked quite well for many years. It has allowed the CAA considerable latitude to vary what it takes to satisfy them - whether this is a good or bad thing who knows, but it certainly enables unusual situations to be handled within the existing regulatory framework.
From what Whopity says, it sounds like the conditions attached to the radio station licence have changed. If there is no similar control in the current licensing regime then Jim is probably correct that absolutely anyone can operate an AGCS station.
I guess this might lead one to ask a few other questions. Like, will the proposed new legislation make any difference to anything? I’m guessing that most AGCS operators trying to do it properly had a C of C anyway so the new law just makes this mandatory.
It might be more interesting to ask what an AGCS actually is. Or what does a pilot think he/she is getting from XXX Radio. And if the CAA now has some law to control who is operating a radio station, will they do anything about how the station is being used so as to ensure that the pilot gets what he/she is expecting?
The standards that the CAA set are often published as CAPs rather than explicitly in law. The law tends simply to say 'In order to do X you you have to satisfy the CAA' and the way to satisfy the CAA is set out in a CAP. It's a slightly unusual way (when compared to other States) to do things but it has worked quite well for many years. It has allowed the CAA considerable latitude to vary what it takes to satisfy them - whether this is a good or bad thing who knows, but it certainly enables unusual situations to be handled within the existing regulatory framework.
From what Whopity says, it sounds like the conditions attached to the radio station licence have changed. If there is no similar control in the current licensing regime then Jim is probably correct that absolutely anyone can operate an AGCS station.
I guess this might lead one to ask a few other questions. Like, will the proposed new legislation make any difference to anything? I’m guessing that most AGCS operators trying to do it properly had a C of C anyway so the new law just makes this mandatory.
It might be more interesting to ask what an AGCS actually is. Or what does a pilot think he/she is getting from XXX Radio. And if the CAA now has some law to control who is operating a radio station, will they do anything about how the station is being used so as to ensure that the pilot gets what he/she is expecting?
The FRTOL was once included, along with a valid ATCO licence or RAF Certificate of Competence, as a qualification for the issue of an A/G Certificate rather than take the written and practical exams. This privilege was withdrawn about 2007. It is still up to the radio station licence holder to sign an individual's c of c before that person may use the radio as an A/G operator.
One of the pages in CAP 452 emphasises the differences in phraseology between A/G and FISO phraseology; I have witnessed A/G operators using FISO 'words' eg 'land at your discretion' which they are not entitled to use and it could lead to confusion for the pilot as to exactly what type of service is being provided, so this is possibly one of the reasons for the CAA to review the system.
One of the pages in CAP 452 emphasises the differences in phraseology between A/G and FISO phraseology; I have witnessed A/G operators using FISO 'words' eg 'land at your discretion' which they are not entitled to use and it could lead to confusion for the pilot as to exactly what type of service is being provided, so this is possibly one of the reasons for the CAA to review the system.
