[chevvron]

It may have been 'safe' in this instance but in my opinion it's bad airmanship.
The FISO could have been planning to cross an aircraft or vehicle at an intermediate taxiway whilst you were lining up and by commencing takeoff without warning, your pilot could have caused an incident.

AFISO either have the authority to control beyond the hold and give permission to take off, or they don't. And they don't.

Once an aircraft is beyond the hold at an 'Information' airfield the AFISO should consider the runway to belong to the aircraft. IMO it would be very poor "FISOship" indeed to plan to cross an aircraft or a vehicle in the way you describe.

In those circumstances the pilot would be blameless - the AFISO much less so.

Did I not say 'in my opinion'?
The 'report lined up' could have been due to an aircraft just landed which had not yet vacated and the FISO was planning to cross the aircraft/vehicle in the 'dead' period in order to maximise runway utilisation.

[Dave W]

You did, but you are an AFISO so you - more than any old pilot - should be expected to know the limits of the AFISO's ability to control on the ground.

The airmanship failure is NOT with the pilot under the scenario you described.

Motes and Beams come to mind.

[skydriller]

This was the case but over the years FISO's have been allowed to give instructions like "Report Lined up" "Hold Position" etc, I was in the RH seat on a flight where having lined up and waited what seemed too long, the P1 took off and as the wheels left the ground the FISO called to say we departed without permission, the P1 declined on our return to "have it out" with the FISO.

It may have been 'safe' in this instance but in my opinion it's bad airmanship.
The FISO could have been planning to cross an aircraft or vehicle at an intermediate taxiway whilst you were lining up and by commencing takeoff without warning, your pilot could have caused an incident.

Sorry, but no. This is the entire problem which spawned this thread and the other ATZ thread. The FISO would have caused the incident. He was wrong from the get go by instructing "Hold" after lining an aeroplane up on the runway. And if he were to instruct a vehicle to cross and active runway (with an aeroplane on it no less) he would be wrong again.

I learned it back when I did my PPL, has it changed? ATC control in the air and on the ground. AFIS & A/G dont control, but AFIS can pass on a clearance from someone authorised - the two Ive heard of are another ATC center or the aerodrome operator, which is where the authority on the ground bit comes from. Did I learn it wrong back then?

Regards, SD..

[Talkdownman]

All of which justifies my policy of always doing what UK controllers say

I considered the 'after the preceding landing cleared to land' procedure to be nothing short of a dubious fudge to maximise runway utilisation, runway sharing even. I consider the 'Land after' procedure to be only a slightly less dubious ATC procedure. I was never a fan of either for public transport. I believe that if the schedulers and flow controllers have done their jobs properly neither should be necessary. I think their use degrades customer service, and if either is necessary then somebody really hasn't provided quality spacing.

[malcolmfrost]

All of which justifies my policy of always doing what UK controllers say

I considered the 'after the landing' procedure to be nothing short of a dubious fudge to maximise runway utilisation, runway sharing even. I consider the 'Land after' procedure to be only a slightly less dubious ATC procedure. I was never a fan of either for public transport. I believe that if the schedulers and flow controllers have done their jobs properly neither should be necessary. I think their use degrades customer service, and if either is necessary then somebody really hasn't provided quality spacing.

I don't think any of us operating CAT have a problem with an "after the landing line up and wait" or "after the departing". Runway utilisation works well at LHR and LGW, we are almost always ready to go and lined up when the preceeding aircraft has either lifted off or vacated. I have never seen anyone get this wrong at either airport, and practically, if you start to roll by mistake the other aircraft is well down the runway giving time for a stop call.

[Talkdownman]

'report lined up'

I have never understood the point of this call. At the majority of places (yes, OK, I know Kemble etc..) the AFISO has full view out of the window and should be able to SEE what is going on provided they are looking. I really think UK AFIS has to back to the drawing board, either that or dispense with it completely. It has blown out of all proportion.

[Talkdownman]

I don't think any of us operating CAT have a problem with an "after the landing line up and wait" or "after the departing".

Different kettle of fish. They are 'conditional line-up' clearances. Flow rate would grind to a halt without them.

I was talking about the 'after the preceding landing cleared to land' procedure, and have edited my post to reflect that.

[Dave W]

It has blown out of all proportion.

As illustrated by chevvron's apparent views expressed in this thread.

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.

[Talkdownman]

Primary task of an AFISO is to pass pilots adequate traffic information in the known traffic environment of an ATZ in order that they may proceed safely at their own discretion (my words). There should be no need for a velvet hand in an iron glove (yes, I meant that..). Some aerodrome operators and certain individuals and and a certain organisation has built AFIS up into something it was never intended to be. It was originally intended to protect bottom-end public transport by passing the crews pertinent traffic information in order that they may proceed with safety. That was all there was to it. It has since got out of order. We have ended up with control-freak wannabee ATCOs who, on occasions, treat widely experienced pilots as idiots. AFIS needs a damn good shake-up one way or the other.

[Kemble Pitts]

This is fun isn't it (and I do mean it). We've all got an opportunity to get fretful about something that we all hate.

With all (any) due respect to any FISOs on here; as with rats, FISOs are difficult to like...

[David Wood]

It is curious that some apparently professional people executing their duties either have no idea what those duties are, or deliberately ignore them. There was a lady who on occasions operated the A/G at a well known but sadly now unused GA airfield. She was allegedly an ex-ATCer but either had no idea of the difference between full ATC and A/G or had simply decided off her own bat to blur the two into one.

I try on principle to avoid arguments with the deluded, but I’m ashamed to say that I had two with her after she started doing things that were frankly idiotic and on one occasion downright dangerous - and then threatened to 'report [me] to the CAA' for not meekly going along with her bizarre behaviour.

Takes all sorts, I suppose.....

The thing to remember is that as the PIC you are the captain of the aeroplane and are solely responsible for its safe operation. If you are sure of your ground in relation to an upitty-FISO or A/G then just do what you know to be right, and leave the loony raving.

All that said, >90% of the FISOs and A/Gs I’ve met have been great.

[Miscellaneous]

There was a lady who on occasions operated the A/G at a well known but sadly now unused GA airfield. She was allegedly an ex-ATCer but either had no idea of the difference between full ATC and A/G or had simply decided off her own bat to blur the two into one.

Could the error be in the expectation that a controller understands the differences. I'm sure it forms part of training, however if after 25yrs a controller decides to cover A/G as a weekend hobby how easy is it to differentiate.

I have been surprised in the past at how pilots of different flavours are unaware of the activities of other flavours. Or even how many PPLs have little knowledge of the permit world.

[Talkdownman]

if after 25yrs a controller decides to cover A/G as a weekend hobby how easy is it to differentiate

Dead easy

[Miscellaneous]

@Talkdownman for the majority, clearly , but for the small minority referenced.

[Talkdownman]

@Talkdownman for the majority, clearly , but for the small minority referenced.

I've always found the Wannabees to be the problem. ATCOs doing AFIS or A/G readily adapt to downgrading. I'm sure @vintage ATCO will agree.