[rikur_]

We seem to be viewed by those writing this bollox as bears of little brain.

Perhaps they read some of the threads on this forum first

[Talkdownman]

We seem to be viewed by those writing this bollox as bears of little brain.

Perhaps they read some of the threads on this forum first

I think some of them are on this forum...

[Paul_Sengupta]

Do you think they all go insane in the end and after some time in the job always end up with little harmless 'trigger' expression or action from a pilot that always sends them over the edge? - never the same trigger, just something personal to them.

What have you done to upset Chris then?

I wish they would use "pass your message" on first contact so I can build up awareness of other traffic that may be in bound rather that just replying with runway and QFE.

I tell 'em/broadcast it anyway. "Runway 26, QFE 1013, and I'm 5 miles to the south inbound for landing, G-GG"

I only really need to know the winds, nothing more.

If this role was replaced by something automatically measuring and providing the winds like AWOS or ASOS in the USA then fair enough.

Um, well, yeah, not all the time. Sometimes the wind can be exactly between two runways, or it can be light and variable.

I will merely assume he is the one assailed with confusion and continue to operate in the manner required at an A/G field.

I was once told off at an A/G field after announcing and entering the runway. I was told that I should have asked first. I did think of sarcastically replying with "xxx information" but I'm too nice for that.

[chevvron]

I try to guess how many minutes until he gives up pretending to be an A/G operator and reverts to issuing landing clearances. We recently had an experienced ATCO acting as A/G operator for a fly-in associated with an airshow .... after about 15 minutes I was definitely hearing 'G-CD, land 24' and later in the day 'G-CD, take off, 24' ..... only omitting the words 'cleared to'. Too hard to break the habit of controlling, particularly when everything out the window looks like chaos.

Only thing I did when I started FISO training after 34 odd years of ATC was when one aircraft was just touching down and another reported final, the words 'continue approach' (instruction) just slipped off my tongue where I should have said 'the runway is occupied'.(advice).
When I did the PFA Rally at Cranfield however, it was not uncommon for us controllers who all worked at different places to use a variety of callsigns such as 'Aberdeen', 'Jersey' or Farnborough'. (the CAA didn't approve any of the regular Cranfield controllers to do the rally)

[chevvron]

Many threads seem to digress into the pros/cons/limitations of an A/G service - thought I'd ask a few questions in its own thread

1) Do you find A/G adds any value?
2) How pedantic do you think A/G operators be - i.e. if someone asks and AGS for 'joining instructions' would you expect to be ignored, or provided with 'joining information' prefixed as such;

(and before anyone says CAP413/452 - I am very familiar with both, and have a ROCC - the question was more about reality than theory - I'd like to consider myself as both a pragmatic and legal AG operator - generally with a 'less is best' approach - particularly with resident pilots who are comfortable with A/A - they don't generally want 'G-XX, roger' on each position report. When I'm flying with other regulars, A/A works just fine as we know how to coordinate amongst ourselves, but there are times when I think A/G helps)

As all A/G Examiners will be aware, the CAA is about to embark on an exercise to revise and re-structure CAP 452. SARG are familiar with this forum so they may have already seen the contents of this particular thread.

[Rob P]

Just in passing...

Why is the word "What" in brackets in the thread title? It's not optional as the title makes no sense without it.

Rob P

[Charles Hunt]

I'd definitely go for the (cock up) theory.

[James33]

Flying mainly in France, A/G is something entirely alien to me, as we either have full tower control, AFIS, or nothing at all.

In my limited UK flying experience, I have found A/G useful when used to provide information only.

Where it becomes a problem is when an over-zealous operator essentially tries to behave like a "real" controller within the limited remit that A/G provides, i.e. treating the provision of wind/traffic information as de facto take-off/land/hold short clearances.

That said, on days with high traffic levels and pilots who don't always play by the book, I can see how it must be frustrating not to be able to do more to manage movements.

[James Chan]

. Sometimes the wind can be exactly between two runways, or it can be light and variable.

So if that were the case and there was no other traffic in the circuit, I'll pick my own runway?

when a load of sheep enter the airfield and are loose near the runway, would you like to be told if your in the circuit, so you can make a decision?

I'm indifferent about this as I've been to various farm strips with no A/G. I find doing a low fly-by and go-around is generally good enough for me to work out the situation on before deciding on a full stop landing.

[Kremen]

As all A/G Examiners will be aware, the CAA is about to embark on an exercise to revise and re-structure CAP 452. SARG are familiar with this forum so they may have already seen the contents of this particular thread.

They have been doing this for the past decade in one form or another ... don't hold your breath!!

[Irv Lee]

Do you think they all go insane in the end and after some time in the job always end up with little harmless 'trigger' expression or action from a pilot that always sends them over the edge? - never the same trigger, just something personal to them.

What have you done to upset Chris then?

Well I wouldn't say he's gone insane, he cut down his hours to one day, presumably to delay it! However, as you mention him, although I was thinking of others historically, ask him 'what he hates pilots saying'
edit: just realised, saying that is going to make you ask him, and he will tell you, then you will publish it and everyone will say it.... and he'll go insane.

[Talkdownman]

Where it becomes a problem is when an over-zealous operator essentially tries to behave like a "real" controller within the limited remit that A/G provides, i.e. treating the provision of wind/traffic information as de facto take-off/land/hold short clearances.

It's nearly always the unqualified 'wannabees' who go over the top rather than ATCOs/FISOs providing A/G. The ATCOs/FISOs are already within the industry and are only too aware of the differences in service levels and the consequences of failing to adhere. The ROCC is not a licence, and AGCS is not regulated like ATC or AFIS. It is up to the radio installation licence holder to ensure that his/her operators do not operate outside their remit.

That said, on days with high traffic levels and pilots who don't always play by the book, I can see how it must be frustrating not to be able to do more to manage movements.

If the traffic levels are too high and / or movements have to be 'managed' then A/G will be inadequate, in which case the aerodrome management and the CAA should jointly consider upgrading to an appropriate level of service.

[rikur_]

As all A/G Examiners will be aware, the CAA is about to embark on an exercise to revise and re-structure CAP 452. SARG are familiar with this forum so they may have already seen the contents of this particular thread.

I wasn't aware. If they are reading, I think my overwhelming feedback would be to remember that an A/G service can be many different things, and try to retain the flexibility to allow it to be as such.
At the two airfields I cover, one is from a portacabin with limited view of the airfield; mostly with resident aircraft; who generally just want a radio check, runway in use, and in inbound a QFE/QNH. The other airfield has a proper tower, it's mostly visiting aircraft, and they really want something as close to a FISO service as an A/G operator can provide, (wind checks, traffic information, parking information, etc). On a fly-in, the A/G operator role becomes a proper art to facilitating awareness in an uncontrolled environment, particularly when many visitors are less familiar with self-coordinating.

So if that were the case and there was no other traffic in the circuit, I'll pick my own runway?

We get this issue when we're operating A/A .... there may be several of us flying, all using easterlies (we favour easterlies in light wind/cross winds to spread runway wear) .... we potter away from the circuit to do our own thing, so no one answers the radio, only to come back and discover someone has decided to join the circuit on westerlies. Not a disaster, and we can work around it - but it would have been preferable to have had A/G to keep consistency.

Why is the word "What" in brackets in the thread title? It's not optional as the title makes no sense without it.

Ah .... last minute half-c0cked change of subject line .... originally it was 'do you want an A/G service' ... but then changed my mind and.... now it's about as coherent as some of the RT it's discussing.

[Talkdownman]

ask him 'what he hates pilots saying'

That "the operating position is NOT 'ATC' ! " ??

[rikur_]

If the traffic levels are too high and / or movements have to be 'managed' then A/G will be inadequate, in which case the aerodrome management and the CAA should jointly consider upgrading to an appropriate level of service.

How feasible is it to upgrade from A/G to something 'better' for one day of the year? The scenario I've seen in several places is an airfield that works just fine with A/G 364 days a year, and just for a one day fly-in needs something more controlled.
I helped at a fly-in where an ATCO was doing the A/G for a fly-in, but despite his day job and experience in fly-ins and airshows, the perception was that it was all too difficult to get whatever permission was required for it to be anything other than A/G.