Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
#1844652
Exactly. At the same time scrap everything to do with AG and FISO stuff and have something based purely on number of movements. A kind of 'ATC light', but nothing onerous on those wanting to gain such a qualification. There should be either full ATC, or ATC light or nothing/unicom/safetycom.

Those 'light' should be able to give instructions to those in the air when necessary aslo. Bizarre how currently they can instruct on the ground like a car park but not for those in the air which is where I believe aircraft are designed to be.

All on a figure to be decided that is an average of annual movements. On quiet days perhaps simply revert to no reply=unicom. And ATZs for those airfields with this radio, nothing to do with licensed or not.
#1844660
Those 'light' should be able to give instructions to those in the air when necessary aslo.


Do you really want someone giving you instructions when you’re airborne? Particularly when that person has done ‘nothing too onerous to gain such a qualification.’!

Because I certainly don’t! I respect the ‘onerousness’ of my own qualification a little too much for that, and I’m the only one of us with my life at stake!
FlarePath, flybymike, gaznav liked this
#1844664
Where I was coming from on that was things like join downwind, go around, report final. So things that are not merely a request but things that should be done because there is good reason to at that time.

But beyond that then yes, flexibility eg. not telling you to stay at 1500ft or whatever.
#1844672
Instructions in the air is ATC.

ATC light already exists with FISO.

If the airfield is busy enough to justify it (or perhaps has some commercial movements) then it’s full fat ATC.

If it’s not then nothing… unicom/safety com.

Personally I can’t think that there’s really any predominantly GA airfield in the UK* that, bar a particular set of circumstances (thinking possibly of the likes of Redhill), could not exist quite happily on a unicom type operation.

Some of the FISO operations seem to exist just so that they can pretend they are full fat ATC, when in reality the airfield would probably exist quite happily with a unicom type operation.

* working on the principle that full fat ATC is not required for instrument approaches outside CAS.
flybymike, ls8pilot liked this
#1844681
Mike Tango wrote:...Some of the FISO operations seem to exist just so that they can pretend they are full fat ATC, when in reality the airfield would probably exist quite happily with a unicom type operation....


Was that not an issue with Booker? But the CAA mandated it for some reason (my memory is not as good as it was once).
#1844682
@Mike Tango

You missed out Air Ground Radio Operator (AGRO) that can give an Air Ground Radio Communications Service (AGCS). To get the Radio Operators’ Certificate of Competence (ROCC) is a couple of days of training, costs a couple of hundred quid, and is valid for life - although the owner of the Wireless Telegraphy (WT) Licence at the airfield you plan to give an AGCS needs to sign your ROCC to say they are happy for you to do so.

The only ‘clearance’ that is allowed to be given by an AGRO is a relayed airways joining clearance from Air Traffic Control. Other than that, all they can do is give the information of the airfield, which on calling for join is runway in use, circuit direction and QFE/QNH. It really is “Air Traffic Light” in that they only give information and the Pilot decides what is sensible and safe after receiving that information. The AGRO may offer known safety information, like number on the radio in the circuit if known, and other such like, but shall not give instructions - they are expressly forbidden to do so. In my opinion it is so much better than SAFETYCOM/Unicom as you get an answer and also the latest information when you first start up or join having left the circuit. Of course, if the AGRO is not on the radio then the “XXXX Radio” callsign can be changed to “XXXX Traffic” for times when the Aerodrome frequency is unmanned and if the Aerodrome operator is content for operations to continue.

That, to me, is the best for small light GA airfields - even busy ones. I used to give an AGCS at a grass Aerodrome with over 150 movements a day - no problem. :thumright:
#1844683
Half of the angst about FISOs seems to come from ATCOs who have some sort of cultural issue with anyone who isn’t a full ATCO speaking to aircraft and the other half comes from pilots who can’t seem to cope with the scope of the service concept. Going to places like Blackbushe, Goodwood, Kemble and Wellesbourne is a great experience with really well run operations, I really can’t see the issue - it seems proportionate and effective to me.
gaznav, HansGruber liked this
#1844695
MattL wrote:Half of the angst about FISOs seems to come from ATCOs who have some sort of cultural issue with anyone who isn’t a full ATCO speaking to aircraft and the other half comes from pilots who can’t seem to cope with the scope of the service concept. Going to places like Blackbushe, Goodwood, Kemble and Wellesbourne is a great experience with really well run operations, I really can’t see the issue - it seems proportionate and effective to me.


I have no cultural angst whatsoever, I just post from my past personal experience of GA flying in the UK and the States and then forming an opinion of which operations seemed to run the most smoothly.
#1844699
Rob L wrote:
Mike Tango wrote:...Some of the FISO operations seem to exist just so that they can pretend they are full fat ATC, when in reality the airfield would probably exist quite happily with a unicom type operation....


Was that not an issue with Booker? But the CAA mandated it for some reason (my memory is not as good as it was once).

I seem to recall that the CAA mandated full ATC at Booker following a mid air collision over the duty runway. There was no criticism of the service provided by Wycombe at the time but it was felt by the powers that be that, due to the numbers of aircraft operating from the airfield and the complexity of traffic, safety would be improved by a full control service.
#1844733
Sooo, the LAA airfield have Pilotaware based ATOM GRID which isn't used for traffic advice but DID assist a successful Airprox resolution?
That's good right? GREAT! Receives FLARM, Mode S with position, PAw and ADSB. Gave a heads up for SA, used sensibly and reduced risk.
Fit one in every GA field! They're what, £300? [edit] Pay£400 then for every 3 installs, you get an off-site base on a local hill for over the horizon [/edit]
The price of a coffee machine. AND they share data, that's like over-the-horizon radar.
Even @gaznav would like over the horizon radar, and at that price point? What are we waiting for?

Or
Keep schtum and let the chips fall - it's all about the liability.

Nice job in the Tower at Turweston. I owe you an (off duty) pint
Last edited by AeroDyn on Mon May 03, 2021 10:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9