Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
#1841994
Ibra wrote:On AG operator power, a friend of mine was flying out of AG, I was on his pax seat, 2km visibility was reported at Stansted but North Weald has no weather, on first call AG mentioned that airfield did not have enough visbility to depart, we still decided to taxi to the departing point to eyeball it, but we decided to listen to the voice of the wise man in the tower and we flew the next day

I was flying to another AG place with another pilot, he landed while another aircraft was just about to turn to vacate, flared as the other went off the line but stopped way before and seemed on top of it tbh, the AG ranted for an hour that the pilot should gone around and the pilot took it personal, I was looking to buy 1/3 share that day and decided it's not for me :D

Sometimes it's how you are "told off" and "informed" matters, we are humans as well, maybe LAYD falls under that


Ibra, could you have a fresh look at your spelling and grammar in your post? It's very confusing for me as an English language speaker.

Rob
User avatar
By foxmoth
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1842000
So breaking the rules in a limited and specific way is fine?


So where is this breaking the rules, an AFISO does not give a clearance :- from CAP413
An AFISO provides advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights in the Aerodrome Traffic Zone. From the information received pilots will be able to decide the appropriate course of action to be taken to ensure the safety of flight.


If you decide to land or not it is YOUR decision - but you can’t land on an occupied runway because
* Aircraft are not permitted to land on an occupied runway (ANO Section 2: Schedule 1: Section 4: 14 (2) Landing and take-off
Cub liked this
#1842001
Human Factor wrote:
That was something which happened to me at a large U.K. regional airport some years ago. We were all (about four of us) sent to the holds so negotiated between ourselves and made approaches and landed in order of fuel state.


I guess tower and approach were in the same building and both disappeared?

It was interesting that at my last unit, where the approach control was seventy or so miles away from the tower so unlikely both tower and approach out at same time, following one evacuation event at the tower a number of years ago where two or three aircraft did land after the evacuation*, approach were effectively instructed that aircraft must not land if tower vacates.

Fine in theory, albeit in worst case scenario I expect the approach controllers would quite justifiably fall back on “However, nothing in this manual prevents controllers from using their own discretion and initiative in response to unusual circumstances, which may not be covered by the procedures herein.”

* it was all a bit messy.
#1842008
flybymike wrote:
Ibra, could you have a fresh look at your spelling and grammar in your post? It's very confusing for me as an English language speaker.


I think English may not be Ibra’s first language.


That was my suspicion, and no harm or offence intended from me: I just could not understand the post!

Rob
flybymike liked this
#1842445
JAFO wrote:
townleyc wrote:Item facit aliis linguis antiquis.

However for a fluent speaker, many translations are a little strange!

KE


Heading off on a massive tangent here but I love reading instructions for items which have clearly been written in a foreign language and then run through a translator.

My first motorbike was a 1963 Honda 50; the instruction book needed a 'great deal' of guesswork and interpretation!
JAFO liked this
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15