Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 15
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840550
How much truck to we give to the actual regulations though, and how much do we do what the CAA would like us to do, maybe for an easy life? After all, we know that the regulations don't say that two way radio contact has to be established before entering an ATZ at a FISO or A/G airfield, but we all know the "Barton interpretation".

The CAA have deemed AFISOs to be pseudo controllers. We have established a pseudo control code:

Report lined up = line up and wait
Take off and your discretion = cleared for take off
Land at your discretion = cleared to land
etc.

We all know that this isn't the case in the regulations, but if the CAA have requested MORs if people don't comply with the above, then should we just go along with it or should we find some way of re-establishing the "old ways"? How are we dealing with the "Barton interpretation"?
Hawkwind, flybymike liked this
#1840622
JodelDavo wrote:AFISO is another of those typically British solutions to a non-problem...

Aerodrome FISOs are used in several countries eg Norway, Saudi Arabia where scheduled traffic is deemed to be 'light'; there was even a plan to use them in Spain at airfields with very few scheduled flights.
#1840684
Paul_Sengupta wrote:The CAA have deemed AFISOs to be pseudo controllers. We have established a pseudo control code:

Report lined up = line up and wait
Take off and your discretion = cleared for take off
Land at your discretion = cleared to land
etc.

I don't agree with the "report lined up" - that implies you will wait for an instruction.

I vividly recall a strip fly-in that had a controller from a local ATC on A/G - we were all doing our own thing and I had just lined up to take off; this guy says "Charlie Delta Hold" but then said nothing more although now I could not see behind me. All I could do was to manoeuvre off the narrow strip to check behind and go when I could. There was just one other aircraft in the overhead (which presumably was what the chap saw) but I had a couple behind me waiting to take off.

Ever since then I have made sure (with A/G or FISO) that I will not line up until I am ready to go, when I call "lining up and taking off" after checking the approach. That means I don't give them the chance of confusion.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840688
MichaelP wrote:Straight answers are at the forumite’s discretion.

Indeed they are. It does highlight who wants a serious discussion on efficient and safe ops, and who is just stirring or bashing gums.
Gas Guzzler liked this
#1840693
Dominie wrote:I don't agree with the "report lined up" - that implies you will wait for an instruction.

It is meant for the situation where the runway is temporarily blocked either by another aircraft or by a vehicle and gets you onto the runway ready for an expeditious departure when the FISO sees it is safe.
On some runways, the landing area may have a 'hump' so that an aircaft at the holding point or lined up cannot see whether the runway is clear; in other cases the phrase may be used so the FISO has a 'gap' in which to cross a vehicle, aircraft or helicopter and in all cases, 'quality' traffic information should be passed eg 'the runway is occupied, report lined up'.
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840697
@chevvron, to re-post a comment I made on 15 May last year:
Dave W wrote:...I would be very concerned indeed if I thought AFISOs believed - between me entering the runway from the hold and lining up - that they could instruct aircraft and vehicles to use that same runway.

I would consider that a significant hazard introduced directly by the AFISO, who after all is supposedly there to mitigate against such hazards.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 15