[Talkdownman]

And similarly, just be cause you aren't obliged to activate a flight plan for an aeroplane contacting you (because its good airmanship to do so) because you have an AIP, it doesnt make it good, what, ATCOship (?)

'Airmanship' should apply equally to Air Traffic Services operatives as it would to Aircrew.

ATCOs do not have a limitless supply of capacity and time

...as with aircrew.

[Dave Phillips]

Quoting Some Bloke:

"Airmanship is the consistent use of good judgment and well-developed skills to accomplish flight objectives. This consistency is founded on a cornerstone of uncompromising flight discipline and is developed through systematic skill acquisition and proficiency. A high state of situational awareness completes the airmanship picture and is obtained through knowledge of one’s self, aircraft, environment, team and risk."

[Talkdownman]

"....team...."

[leiafee]

Saying "It's a factor" is not the same as saying "and therefore the guy was blamess and there was no problem with his airmanship at all"

Equally,

Saying "the airmanship could have been better" is not the same as saying "the lack of AFPEX was irrelevant"

I have a real aversion to dismissing incidents with a cause of "the human should just have Been Better" because it doesn't solve anything.

You can't fix anything or improve decision making just by sayging Be Better - as all the infrigement stuff shows!

Saying "yesh AFPEX was a factor" allows you to do something meaningful like create a specific reminder for people that the IAP is nearby and you might want to think about where you go to activate your flight plan.

Saying "It was his fault he just should have been better" risks becoming an excuse for not changing anything.

[Paul_Sengupta]

ATCOs do not have a limitless supply of capacity and time, they do not always have the opportunity to commit themselves to these peripheral tasks.

If NATS didn't charge for Afpex, the controllers wouldn't need to be asked to perform these peripheral tasks. Just sayin'...

Surely its far better that pilots stick to the procedure identified in the AIP and that way, no ones expectations will fail to be met.

What, you mean call London Info for opening a flight plan? That worked out well...

[GAFlyer4Fun]

I am one of those that call London Info to activate a flight plan.

(not based anywhere near Exeter so not one of their unknowns that often make their commercial traffic do extra circles in the sky)

[Paul_Sengupta]

I am one of those that call London Info to activate a flight plan.

Since the cows at the strip have never had Afpex, this is also my method of operation.

[Moli]

ATCOs do not have a limitless supply of capacity and time, they do not always have the opportunity to commit themselves to these peripheral tasks.

Surely its far better that pilots stick to the procedure identified in the AIP and that way, no ones expectations will fail to be met.

What, you mean call London Info for opening a flight plan? That worked out well... ;-)

Paul
That is not what the AIP states, London Info is only to be called in exceptional circumstances.
See below which can be found at ENR 1-10 1.8.2

Where there is no ATSU at the departure aerodrome, the pilot is responsible for ensuring that the departure time is passed to the Parent AFTN Unit or AFPEx Helpdesk, so as to activate the FPL and to enable the DEP message to be sent to the appropriate addressees. Arrangements should be made for a 'responsible person' on the ground to telephone the departure time to the Helpdesk. Failure to pass the departure time will result in the FPL remaining inactive. Consequently, this could result in the destination aerodrome not being aware that the aircraft is airborne and any necessary alerting action may not then be taken.
1.8.3 Exceptionally, the Flight Information Region (FIR) Controller at the ACC will accept departure times on RTF from pilots who have departed from aerodromes where there is no ATSU, or it is outside the hours of operation. The pilot is to request the Controller to pass the departure time to the AFPEx Helpdesk. However, controller workload may cause a delay in forwarding such departure messages.

HTH
Moli

[PaulB]

How does SkyDemon (other types of nav prove with similar functionality are available) manage FPLs? Could a similar system not be set up for sending DEP messages. AFPEx is both costly and incredibly clunky

[johnm]

That entry was clearly written by a Jobsworth with no interest in the practicalities.

If I were leaving from a strip having read that I'd call from my mobile phone with a DEP time and then start up and go.

If anyone in NATS management had more than one brain cell we'd be replacing AfPex for small fields with SMS so that pilots can send a text message with call sign and DEP time. We have already replaced it for filing the plans.

[Skybluepink]

Moli wrote

Where there is no ATSU at the departure aerodrome, the pilot is responsible for ensuring that the departure time is passed to the Parent AFTN Unit or AFPEx Helpdesk, so as to activate the FPL and to enable the DEP message to be sent to the appropriate addressees. Arrangements should be made for a 'responsible person' on the ground to telephone the departure time to the Helpdesk. Failure to pass the departure time will result in the FPL remaining inactive. Consequently, this could result in the destination aerodrome not being aware that the aircraft is airborne and any necessary alerting action may not then be taken.

And so we go nearly full circle.
As with many small airfields ( then without benefit of broadband) we used to receive flight plan information by fax and activated flight plans by phone.
Very simple. We knew and passed details on who had departed and knew who was to arrive and when so that we could look out for them.
It worked.
We were then told, quite rudely sometimes, that we were no longer allowed to phone through departures and had to use AFPEx online system whether we had adequate internet facilities or not - and that faxes would no longer be sent. So we had no choice but to require outgoing flights to activate their own flight plans once airborne
Now we no longer have AFPEx it seems that we are again allowed to phone departures through which is welcome.
With respect to alerting action taken by the destination aerodrome, it is difficult to see quite how we do this if there is no mechanism for us to know when or if a flight has departed or even if the flight exists unless the pilot is vigilant in updating the airfield. Many are not noted for this and, to be fair, do not realise they have to inform anybody else if they file, delay or cancel a flight plan.
Filing a flight plan used to ensure a level of oversight and enhanced safety for those undertaking the flight which was what the service was for ( from our point of view anyway) and was the single point of contact to relay any information.
I wonder how many still imagine that filing a flight plan into a non AFPEx airfield means that their flight will be automatically safeguarded and overdue action will be taken as it once was?

[malcolmfrost]

How does SkyDemon (other types of nav prove with similar functionality are available) manage FPLs? Could a similar system not be set up for sending DEP messages. AFPEx is both costly and incredibly clunky

I suggested that SD could be armed to send a DEP message when flight logging started with appropriate warnings if there was no 3G signal. Tim responded but I can't remeber where we got to.
I feel quite sorry for the Mooney pilot, he had previously called Exeter and they sent a DEP for him. He calls another time, and although they were happy for him to fly through their IAP were too busy to do it for him and tell him to call Info. The next time he calls Info first and can't get a word in. He then makes an attempt to avoid the IAP.
Rock and hard place, his capacity bucket must have been properly overflowing by then.

[Talkdownman]

Some CAT-generating aerodromes in Class G seem to want it both ways...

[Moli]

I get that what we have is not the solution most of would want for situations such as this but... If he had complied with the AIP and asked Dunkeswell Radio to be his "responsible person" his capacity would have been enhanced and I don't believe this would have happened.

Moli

[James Chan]

The procedure as quoted in the AIP deserves review.