Airfield Briefings
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In America, when you want to fly to an airfield, you fly there, call them on the radio, and get told where to go. Being airfields, they are organised and prepared for that sort of thing.
In the UK, you look up the airfield, and are almost invariably told it's PPR. Now, you ask, does that mean phone in advance, or call them on the radio when you're approaching? Often it'll say "PPR by phone", so you call, and get told casually that it's fine to fly in, and no-one wants to know who you are anyway. Sometimes, as with Duxford, you phone, and can't get through...and we tried three times, eventually leaving an ansafone message. Now, I've left an ansafone message at another airfield once, and got thoroughly told off when I arrived, since I hadn't actually been given permission. Yet, some airfields say they're PPR, and everyone knows it's fine to just fly in, and call up on the radio as you approach.
If you fly helicopters, it's even more confusing. In the US, circuits are almost always to one side for f/w, to the other for rotary. In the UK, sometimes they want us to follow the f/w circuit, sometimes go the other side, sometimes be at a different height, sometimes approach low level, sometimes they have no idea what to do with us and hope we can tell them what we want to do. Sometimes it's in Pooleys or the AIP, sometimes not.
It's all very confusing, and emigrating across the pond might be easier. And I've got news for all you low hours pilots. It doesn't get any clearer...well, not for those of us with around 500 hours anyway, after that I don't know.
In the UK, you look up the airfield, and are almost invariably told it's PPR. Now, you ask, does that mean phone in advance, or call them on the radio when you're approaching? Often it'll say "PPR by phone", so you call, and get told casually that it's fine to fly in, and no-one wants to know who you are anyway. Sometimes, as with Duxford, you phone, and can't get through...and we tried three times, eventually leaving an ansafone message. Now, I've left an ansafone message at another airfield once, and got thoroughly told off when I arrived, since I hadn't actually been given permission. Yet, some airfields say they're PPR, and everyone knows it's fine to just fly in, and call up on the radio as you approach.
If you fly helicopters, it's even more confusing. In the US, circuits are almost always to one side for f/w, to the other for rotary. In the UK, sometimes they want us to follow the f/w circuit, sometimes go the other side, sometimes be at a different height, sometimes approach low level, sometimes they have no idea what to do with us and hope we can tell them what we want to do. Sometimes it's in Pooleys or the AIP, sometimes not.
It's all very confusing, and emigrating across the pond might be easier. And I've got news for all you low hours pilots. It doesn't get any clearer...well, not for those of us with around 500 hours anyway, after that I don't know.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is frustrating the Duxford don't want to chat when you phone for PPR, but the concept isn't really so confusing, Shirly?
Phone up and get permission before you take-off. If the briefing is unimpressive or they don't want/need your details, then you were still in the right.
If they won't/can't pick up the phone, leave a message and have a diversion plan in mind, if all else fails.
No big deal. Try landing at certain strips in the US without Permission:-)
Phone up and get permission before you take-off. If the briefing is unimpressive or they don't want/need your details, then you were still in the right.
If they won't/can't pick up the phone, leave a message and have a diversion plan in mind, if all else fails.
No big deal. Try landing at certain strips in the US without Permission:-)
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Whirly, it usually works like that in the USA. But with all those unmanned (should that be "unpersonned"?) ones, you just announce what you're doing and get on with it (just as in France).
If the book says "PPR", I always phone first. Once, I got a shirty response and the phone put down on me (a certain North London airfield). I took that as "Don't bother me, and you have permission." When I arrived, the FISO was as friendly as could be and we all had a great afternoon.
The budding PPL I took then is now an RAF fast jet instructor at Valley, so you know how long ago that was!
If the book says "PPR", I always phone first. Once, I got a shirty response and the phone put down on me (a certain North London airfield). I took that as "Don't bother me, and you have permission." When I arrived, the FISO was as friendly as could be and we all had a great afternoon.
The budding PPL I took then is now an RAF fast jet instructor at Valley, so you know how long ago that was!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Returning back to the issue of briefing , I have said in other forums it is a real bug bear of mine that a number of GA pilots fail to brief themselves properly and thus end up infringing zones or are unaware of standard VFR arrival procedures.
But it would seem the shoe is back on the other foot now. If the AIP and VFR Flight Guides or Pooleys guides say ring up to pre brief then surely you should be given a proper briefing not told to "look us up in Pooleys".
I understand the difficulties of single manning when busy, but if the AFISOs find they cannot accept the telephone briefings then it is up to them to inform there management and either sort a staffing issue out or make an amendment to the AIP.
Making amendments is not difficult I am currently spending a great deal of my time doing just that .
As an aside it was an eye opener to me as an ATCO to listen in to various frequencies en route. A few empire builders on the air/ground frequencies, I would never ever dream of talking to pilots in the way some of these people do it was astonishing and quite frankly blatently rude.
I would have willingly punched one air/ground person on the nose, sorry you guys have to put up with such behaviour
But it would seem the shoe is back on the other foot now. If the AIP and VFR Flight Guides or Pooleys guides say ring up to pre brief then surely you should be given a proper briefing not told to "look us up in Pooleys".
I understand the difficulties of single manning when busy, but if the AFISOs find they cannot accept the telephone briefings then it is up to them to inform there management and either sort a staffing issue out or make an amendment to the AIP.
Making amendments is not difficult I am currently spending a great deal of my time doing just that .
As an aside it was an eye opener to me as an ATCO to listen in to various frequencies en route. A few empire builders on the air/ground frequencies, I would never ever dream of talking to pilots in the way some of these people do it was astonishing and quite frankly blatently rude.
I would have willingly punched one air/ground person on the nose, sorry you guys have to put up with such behaviour
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should come to France if you want poor radio practices from FISOs. Ours are not even properly licensed and many of them think that they are controllers.
Pilots too need to learn proper RT in a FISO environment. There is no point in requesting clearances and asking how you should join the circuit. Such things actually encourage the FISO to take control of the situation. This often happens with low-hours pilots.
Pilots too need to learn proper RT in a FISO environment. There is no point in requesting clearances and asking how you should join the circuit. Such things actually encourage the FISO to take control of the situation. This often happens with low-hours pilots.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Folks,
Well I did and got a reply today by e-mail from the editor's office.
The airfield details were revised by the airfield Manager in June 2001. When I [Pooleys] first received his amendments, I queried the overhead joins as I was very much aware of the high-speed run and break manoeuvres having visited the airfield on more than one occasion.
He was very adamant that we publish his amendments as applied. Thus, a revised page was issued with Airnote 3/01 dated 12 July 2001.
Pooleys go on to state that when they were updating for 2002 no significant changes were notified, but during updates for 2003 there was a change in airfield management. During this time, somehow, the information did not end up in the print run for whatever reason; whether not returned by airfield or not printed I will not offer comment.
Suffice it to say that Pooleys finish the e-mail by saying …[The] page has been revised and is slotted to be issued with the next amendment Airnote.
There is another thread going now about updates to the 2003 guide. That is another story. I might reply to the e-mail and ask when the updates are due out.
Anyway, I learned from this that commercial flight guides are a useful aide-memoire in the cockpit, but should be checked for validity with the AIP as part of flight planning….just in case.
Barney
I will send a little note to Pooleys
The airfield details were revised by the airfield Manager in June 2001. When I [Pooleys] first received his amendments, I queried the overhead joins as I was very much aware of the high-speed run and break manoeuvres having visited the airfield on more than one occasion.
He was very adamant that we publish his amendments as applied. Thus, a revised page was issued with Airnote 3/01 dated 12 July 2001.
Pooleys go on to state that when they were updating for 2002 no significant changes were notified, but during updates for 2003 there was a change in airfield management. During this time, somehow, the information did not end up in the print run for whatever reason; whether not returned by airfield or not printed I will not offer comment.
Suffice it to say that Pooleys finish the e-mail by saying …[The] page has been revised and is slotted to be issued with the next amendment Airnote.
There is another thread going now about updates to the 2003 guide. That is another story. I might reply to the e-mail and ask when the updates are due out.
Anyway, I learned from this that commercial flight guides are a useful aide-memoire in the cockpit, but should be checked for validity with the AIP as part of flight planning….just in case.
Barney
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bristol and Forest of Dean
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I’m gonna say my bit then scuttle back off into the shadows,
This post relates to this, and the other Duxford bashing thread.
Many posters are being very negative about Duxford 'Information' I think that this is very unfair. It took me at least 10 minutes to pay my landing fee because the poor guy in the tower was rushed off his feet - he was doing it all.. Taking the landing fees, answering the phone and trying to deal with many arrivals all at once.
The 'hangar' list was faxed to Duxford the day before for PPR so I took that as no need to phone. We called at 10miles and got the QFE and active. We then called field in sight, and in due course, lobbed overhead at 1500' (no we didn't enter the deadside) and slotted ourselves in late down wind. We flew the circuit and landed. All with no drama what so ever.
I must say that I was a little disappointed that many were expecting joining instructions - It took about 30seconds to realize that Mr Duxford info wasn't in the business of 'playing' full ATC and it was up to visiting pilots to slot themselves in - what's wrong with that?? Frankly, building up your own situational awareness by monitoring r/t from other traffic and looking out of the window is all you need.
It was also interesting to monitor r/t from the resident warbirds - they stated their intentions when airborne rather than asking a FISO if it's OK... I think that this is the norm at the field and is just how it should be.
On the ground however, the FISO CAN give instructions that should be followed - this is only sensible with often priceless machines with limited forward vision being operated.
I had no problems with Duxford information at all and thought they did a great job in the circumstances.
Kingy
This post relates to this, and the other Duxford bashing thread.
Many posters are being very negative about Duxford 'Information' I think that this is very unfair. It took me at least 10 minutes to pay my landing fee because the poor guy in the tower was rushed off his feet - he was doing it all.. Taking the landing fees, answering the phone and trying to deal with many arrivals all at once.
The 'hangar' list was faxed to Duxford the day before for PPR so I took that as no need to phone. We called at 10miles and got the QFE and active. We then called field in sight, and in due course, lobbed overhead at 1500' (no we didn't enter the deadside) and slotted ourselves in late down wind. We flew the circuit and landed. All with no drama what so ever.
I must say that I was a little disappointed that many were expecting joining instructions - It took about 30seconds to realize that Mr Duxford info wasn't in the business of 'playing' full ATC and it was up to visiting pilots to slot themselves in - what's wrong with that?? Frankly, building up your own situational awareness by monitoring r/t from other traffic and looking out of the window is all you need.
It was also interesting to monitor r/t from the resident warbirds - they stated their intentions when airborne rather than asking a FISO if it's OK... I think that this is the norm at the field and is just how it should be.
On the ground however, the FISO CAN give instructions that should be followed - this is only sensible with often priceless machines with limited forward vision being operated.
I had no problems with Duxford information at all and thought they did a great job in the circumstances.
Kingy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Valuable points Kingy. I started the thread but didn't name the airfield on purpose because it was irrelavant to the initial subject. I was naive to think it wouldn't be mentioned and any negative points.....well, they should not be aimed at the AFISOs, they do the job to the best of their ability that's for sure. I had no problem with Duxford on the approach and landing at all and as you say others did, I sated my intentions and just got on with it.
I guess the original thread was highligting the fog of information, what is incorrect or correct etc and how private pilots should best filter and make sure info was correct anywhere we fly.
Best just to let the thread pass into the archive.
Barney
I guess the original thread was highligting the fog of information, what is incorrect or correct etc and how private pilots should best filter and make sure info was correct anywhere we fly.
Best just to let the thread pass into the archive.
Barney
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in passing the advice in Pooleys is to join overhead and descend downwind, this is NOT the same as an "overhead join" which implies descending on the deadside, which does not exist at Duxford. So I believe that Pooleys does not conflict with the AIP.
I have visited Duxford several times and have always found the AFIS to be helpful.
I have visited Duxford several times and have always found the AFIS to be helpful.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Moe's Tavern, Springfield
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWW,
I think I understand what you mean. Is it similar to Redhill where there is also no deadside?
and
Fixed-wing aircraft join at 1300ft QFE. If required to join overhead - enter the ATZ on runway QDM reamaining within the fixed wing circuit area. When instructed, descend to circuit height and join the visual circuit pattern
So applying that at Duxford an aircraft could join fly along the QDM at 1500ft and turn x-wind and then descend or indeed descend whilst flying along the r/w QDM.
I was letting this thread fade to the archive but there is still value here WWW please confirm this is what you mean Sir.
I think I understand what you mean. Is it similar to Redhill where there is also no deadside?
and
Fixed-wing aircraft join at 1300ft QFE. If required to join overhead - enter the ATZ on runway QDM reamaining within the fixed wing circuit area. When instructed, descend to circuit height and join the visual circuit pattern
So applying that at Duxford an aircraft could join fly along the QDM at 1500ft and turn x-wind and then descend or indeed descend whilst flying along the r/w QDM.
I was letting this thread fade to the archive but there is still value here WWW please confirm this is what you mean Sir.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B_G
I believe the reason that there is no deadside at Duxford is because of a potential conflict with nearby Fowlmere, in fact the ATZs overlap. From memory, the reason that there is no deadside at Redhill is that they have helicopters operating opposite direction ccts to fixed wing.
No deadside so no overhead join possible, as the standard overhead join requires a deadside letdown. But that doesn't prevent arriving above the airfield (in the "overhead") at a safe height above the circuit and letting down into the circuit, in the case of Duxford on the downwind leg. Personally, when I've visited Duxford I've either joined downwind at circuit height or straight in, depending on the r/w in use. The AFISO will advise on any known conflicting traffic.
Hope this helps.
WWW
I believe the reason that there is no deadside at Duxford is because of a potential conflict with nearby Fowlmere, in fact the ATZs overlap. From memory, the reason that there is no deadside at Redhill is that they have helicopters operating opposite direction ccts to fixed wing.
No deadside so no overhead join possible, as the standard overhead join requires a deadside letdown. But that doesn't prevent arriving above the airfield (in the "overhead") at a safe height above the circuit and letting down into the circuit, in the case of Duxford on the downwind leg. Personally, when I've visited Duxford I've either joined downwind at circuit height or straight in, depending on the r/w in use. The AFISO will advise on any known conflicting traffic.
Hope this helps.
WWW
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overhead joins are still possible where there is no deadside, you just need a published procedure which deals with this: i.e. its no longer a "standard" overhead join, but a local procedure which must be followed if using such field.
Take for example Wycombe: gliders one side, fixed wing the other, and helicopters under that... so no "dead" side, but there's still a perfectly good overhead join procedure, oftenb used whne circuit is a bit full, much along the lines of that described above for Redhill.
So they might implement something like that at Duxford I suppose if they chose to, unless there's some sort of other traffic (like "run and break" or other high energy joins) which make this impractical perhaps? But anyway, perhaps that just not busy enough often enough to justify the need for this...
Whatever
Andy
Take for example Wycombe: gliders one side, fixed wing the other, and helicopters under that... so no "dead" side, but there's still a perfectly good overhead join procedure, oftenb used whne circuit is a bit full, much along the lines of that described above for Redhill.
So they might implement something like that at Duxford I suppose if they chose to, unless there's some sort of other traffic (like "run and break" or other high energy joins) which make this impractical perhaps? But anyway, perhaps that just not busy enough often enough to justify the need for this...
Whatever
Andy
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Biggleswade
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been out of action for a week and have just spotted this thread - apologies for joining late with a comment that relates to the first page, but it has to be said....
Pooley's certainly do send to their airfields every year and ask for updated info. At least, they ask the question of Old Warden every year.
So, for GA airfield's, such as OW, there is no reason why the info should not be up to date, provided, of course, that the operator actions the return.
A
Pooley's certainly do send to their airfields every year and ask for updated info. At least, they ask the question of Old Warden every year.
So, for GA airfield's, such as OW, there is no reason why the info should not be up to date, provided, of course, that the operator actions the return.
A
