Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878354
skydriller wrote:I heard it here and thought that yep, good idea...because I often think "what am I looking for?". Especially in France where F-xxxx could be a Microlight or Autogyro - in france they are not F-Mxxx, its a mix of letters - and Microlights and Autogyros often have a 500ft lower, smaller circuit than Aeroplanes. So you could be looking in the wrong place....


But you were talking about you doing it, not everyone else. :D
By PaulisHome
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878367
MikeW wrote:
PaulisHome wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote:
Such calls should be made on the published frequency to " (Name of airfield) Traffic": even better if calls are topped and tailed.

Peter. :wink:


Pet grievance of mine (sorry).

Why the last bit? I understand the argument for topping and tailing calls on Safetycom - it's not clear which airfield you're talking about otherwise. But for somewhere with a discrete frequency, it's just pointless verbiage. Use "(Name of airfield) Traffic" on the first call, then keep it short. (Nor do you need full callsigns.)

There's a basic principle in RT which is to say what you need to say in the shortest way possible.

Paul


Flying yesterday from Deanland, where the airfield frequency 129.725, is always used as a "traffic" call, I was clearly hearing calls to and from Peterborough Connington which uses the same frequency.
TBH this was unlikely to cause confusion at Deanland (Connington tower being clearly audible as well as aircraft), but if Connington traffic and tower were hearing unidentified Deanland calls it could cause confusion there.
So I wouldn't agree, it is worth topping and tailing "traffic" calls to an airfield frequency, not just safetycom.


No-one is suggesting topping and tailing transmissions when there's an ATSU, and if there's an overlap you won't always be able to hear the ground station. So this problem needs a different solution - better radio planning.

Paul
By PaulisHome
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1878369
Dave W wrote:I'd say the thing to do is what CAP413 requires and advises - don't individually make stuff up because it seems like a good idea.


My personal view is that CAP413 is deficient in this area. It conflates unattended aerodromes with Safetycom. They aren't the same.

Paul
Dave W, cotterpot liked this
By reubeno
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1891775
I am normally fairly relaxed about ppr, especially with the wet weather we’ve had, I don’t strongly object to a quick phone call to check the airfield is open and hard runways are available or the grass is useable.

So today I called up Sywell (having not seen this thread) they said the hard runway wasn’t available but the grass was good. Great :thumleft:

I was then told I’d need to complete a form for the ppr. I presumed this was an online form, so no problem ... but no, it’s a paper form that needs to be downloaded from the website, printed, completed and then returned via email.

I explained that I was at a farm strip, with no printing facilities but I’d be happy to put the same information as requested on the form in an email and to my surprise was told “no”. The form has to be printed, which is utterly ridiculous.

I’ve been into Sywell many times in the past, so I’ve no idea what’s behind these changes but I won’t be visiting again if it requires me to carry a printed form.

On the plus side, I decided to go to Spanhoe instead and happily paid the landing fee (despite the Flyer voucher) and couldn’t have received a warmer welcome. That was followed by a quick hop to Turweston for a Belgian bun and a coffee. Again a fantastic airfield which was extremely busy.

So what's behind the changes at Sywell?
Nick liked this
By JodelDavo
#1891792
reubeno wrote:So what's behind the changes at Sywell?


And the Aerodrome Manager left......

PPR by anything other than a telephone call is just bonkers.. I wish I did have an internet signal and printing/scanning facilities at any airstrip I may wish to send it from, but it's the UK innit..
AlanC liked this
#1891800
reubeno

I have had the same stupid PPR conversation as you have had with the very unfriendly lady at Sywell!
She insisted that PPR has to be on the offical Sywell PPR form, filled in,printed off and signed by me, then I would have to scan it and email it to them. Only then and after they have officially approved and countersigned it and emailed it back to me would it be possible for me to fly in to Sywell. No other method of obtaining PPR to fly in to Sywell I was told was now possible.
Like you I was not amused and went elsewhere..... :evil:
Nick liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1891849
This is sounding increasingly Pythonesque. I haven't been to Sywell recently, but quite a few times in the past and it was never like this.

Can't the Flyer team get on the case and find out what's really going on?
User avatar
By flyingeeza
#1891852
reubeno wrote:I am normally fairly relaxed about ppr...
On the plus side, I decided to go to Spanhoe instead and happily paid the landing fee (despite the Flyer voucher) and couldn’t have received a warmer welcome.

Spanhoe...great fun landing on that narrow-ish runway, and it's also the playground of the much loved lunatic that is Colin Furze. :thumright:
User avatar
By RisePilot
#1891855
Sywell is shambolic. In 15yrs of flying, they are the one airdrome that has compromised my safety directly.

Several years back (with their PPR bullshit), I had to land at a hotel nearby before going there (because no radio PPR). This put me too low on fuel to make the aerodrome and then had to land in a field and call for fuel to be brought to me.
User avatar
By flyingeeza
#1891862
RisePilot wrote:Sywell is shambolic. In 15yrs of flying, they are the one airdrome that has compromised my safety directly.

Several years back (with their PPR bullshit), I had to land at a hotel nearby before going there (because no radio PPR). This put me too low on fuel to make the aerodrome and then had to land in a field and call for fuel to be brought to me.

Why didn't you simply fly to a close-by alternate airfield? What if you'd turned up at Sywell even with proper PPR and some poor pilot had had an emergency landing and the airfield was closed for emergency services to attend the prang?
User avatar
By RisePilot
#1891873
I won't go into the details here.

In brief, an open/operational airport SHOULD allow aircraft to land by speaking to them on the radio. That's the purpose of radios in aircraft (to speak with ATC services) and also how most of the rest of the planet does it.

Also, I'm in a helicopter and don't need/require the runway anyhow.
By SteveX
#1891877
What a pathetic state of affairs. Like the recent ridicule of cafe prices elsewhere (£8 eggs on toast), I hope people spread the word and vote with their wallets/patience levels and go elsewhere. Make these places suffer due to their faults and failings, make them change and regret their inefficient and ridiculous practices both administratively and financially.

A form to 'apply' to land on this thing called an airfield. Utterly tragic and despite all the 'we must support' rhetoric out there, it would be good if Flyer and Pilot Mags both had the 'Villains' type of article every month to name and shame such absurd practices.
mick w, Aerials liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10