Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 15
#1769908
Stop it, stop it, stop it.

We had a nice role going of shared vitriole and near unanimity of hatred for FISOs... and now this FFS.

Back slapping, umpteen exceptions to the hatred, several 'and you're not really so bad Claude...' :roll:

To hell with it, I think I'll go flying tomorrow to blow out the smell of perfume.

Oh, all right, lots of FISO and A/G operators do know what they're about - but there are a few out there ...
flyingeeza liked this
#1769952
I would wager your right that many FISO's A/G's understand their service limitations, and that they have knowingly pushed the envelope to a degree it is the mess we have now because of a failure of the regulator and airfield managers to ensure compliance, it also doesn't help when students often hear their instructors calling for departure at an A/G field and there are many FI's I have heard asking for "Joining Instructions" at both
Talkdownman liked this
User avatar
By flybymike
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1769956
FISOs are supposed to MOR every pilot who lands without being given 'land at your discretion' irrespective of whether the runway is occupied or not.
I don't know how many of these MORs have been submitted nor am I aware what action the CAA would take when they get one.

So, after nine pages, is it now safe to assume that “take off/land at your discretion” are effectively compulsory clearances which must now be obtained before carrying out the relevant action, and that if the CAA were hitherto desperate to find some new and even more obscure grounds for ATZ prosecution material, we have successfully just provided them with it?
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1769957
No, just the opposite I'd say.

That was the implication of the OP, which I think has been shown to be unsupported by any published guidance or regulation.

It's also at variance with the limit of instructions available to AFISOs.
#1769970
Dave W wrote:No, just the opposite I'd say.

That was the implication of the OP, which I think has been shown to be unsupported by any published guidance or regulation.

It's also at variance with the limit of instructions available to AFISOs.

You're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. :twisted:
#1770102
Miscellaneous wrote:
chevvron wrote:You're entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine. :twisted:

Chevvron, it really is worrying that you choose to ignore all the evidence and persist with your opinion. Have you no desire to align you opinion with the truth? :?

I do not ignore the evidence. The landing/taking off without a clearance (as an ATCO) and without 'your discretion' (as a FISO) occurence has happened to me on many occasions but I've never treated it as an incident requiring an MOR, in fact I know how easily one can do it having done it myself. (Blackbushe about 1983; turning final I saw the yellow Rolls Royce of the then airport owner, Doug Arnold, heading towards the runway obviously intending to cross so I delayed my 'final' report and in fact forgot it.)
The problem is the refusal of some on this thread to accept that I was told by SARG (more than once) that FISOs should raise an MOR ; am I lying then? :wall:
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1770106
It doesn't matter a jot what an individual is told, regardless by whom.

What matters is what everybody is told.

Which means: What is written down and what is formally taught, consistent across the official publication set.

I ask again: In your opinion:
Is "LAYD" a de facto clearance. then? In that you should have been passed it before you can (legally?) land?

As the pilot, are you expected to go around if no "LAYD" received at short final?
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 15