Airborne_Again wrote:
Yes, certainly! By an AFIS/TWR combo is usually because traffic intensity varies. Having AFIS as the base service and upgrade to TWR twice a day for single commercial movements seems very odd to me — at least from a Swedish perspective as there is no requirement that CAT use controlled airports in Sweden and Arne said it was “common” here.
What I meant was the second alternative, Radio/ATC switch, is common in Sweden, but I was also told of AFIS/ATC during my training (can’t remember the airport exactly, but it seems Ireland has some).
I recognize a general pattern. GA pilots are seen as not knowing their stuff and thus endanger a commercial operation with professional pilots.
Makes me wonder. It is “GA pilot” in the case of Sarmellek or is it VFR. Would I be asked to hold as another IFR arrival?
But in any case I do see some negative bias against the skills of private pilots.
Stephan_Schwab wrote:
Makes me wonder. It is “GA pilot” in the case of Sarmellek or is it VFR. Would I be asked to hold as another IFR arrival?
I presume you would not be if you commence the apprach before the airliner. But if you come later, you would not only be asked to hold, but actually receive binding instructions from ATC to remain clear of the TIZ.
Of course the intent behind the VFR / IFR separation is to keep GA out of the way of big boys. Since in Hungary 98+% of light GA flights are VFR, this regulation achieves its goal.
Stephan I was actually happy to be VFR because as an IFR I would have had to have listened to the controller giving me vectors away from an IFR arrival (faster airplane). Usually when a conflict of time being very close. The controller (US) would ask about IAS and make a judgement call. So as a VFR flight I had much more latitude to provide my own spacing. Or so I thought.
To clear everyone away once Mr Big Sh*t starts to leave their crusing alt. is just total incompetence and stupidity. What would happen if by chance two such Gods of the sky decide to land at the same time period? You know what Im referring to, the major traffic jams at airports where all the airlines want to leave or arrive at 10 AM and 5PM.
While there may be incompetent VFR private pilots they are rare in my book. But judging from what Ive seen here there are vastly more incompetent airport managers who would drive any enterprise into bankruptcy.
So next time I will try to reason with them otherwise they wont even make the 405 Euros I spent with them. Either we are partners in aviation or adversaries.
JnsV wrote:
I presume you would not be if you commence the apprach before the airliner.
Ok so what do you define as commence the approach? Does leaving FL300 cruising altitude define beginning the approach? Or is it the IAF or the FAF?
As an IFR arrival that does a VFR approach I do not have to follow an instrument procedure which can add 15-20 mins to the approach. Its much more efficient as long as the weather is VFR.
This used to be rather commin in Sweden, less to today.JnsV wrote:
But if you come later, you would not only be asked to hold, but actually receive binding instructions from ATC to remain clear of the TIZ.
How can ATC issue binding instructions in class G?
Airborne_Again wrote:
How can ATC issue binding instructions in class G?
We had this before.
Regardless of airspace, you have to either avoid the vicinity of an airport or conform to the pattern of the traffic around it.
If the airport has ATC (i.e., tower) you have to follow their instructions while in that vicinity.
The “vicinity” has no clear definition. But it is safe to say that when you get close to the traffic pattern and are talking to them for landing, they can give you instructions which, as long as they are safe, you must follow.
An information unit (info, information, radio, etc.) can NOT give you instructions in the air, they can only give you information.
My feeling that flying IFR for as long as possible and then to do a visual approach as an IFR procedure solves most of the perceived problem. You are talking to real ATC until the last 3-5 minutes and are perceived differently by the others. That puts you on a more even playing field with the airliner and in the case at hand would probably enabled an immediate landing.
Cobalt wrote:
If the airport has ATC (i.e., tower) you have to follow their instructions
JnsV wrote:
LHSM Sármellék (Hévíz, Balaton etc) is AFIS when the airodrome is open and no service otherwise.
enough said?
Stephan I am not sure that is the case. I think they could very easily tell you to hold without switching you to info. (Non Tower). That is because the airline might have some deal worked out with ATC to clear all traffic for 20 miles around them.
A case in point is our trip back from Carcassonne. I was over Memmingen at FL090 enroute to Augsburg. I wanted to start a descent into EDMA. However the controller told me to maintain FL090 for traffic. It was CAVU by the time we flew out of Switzerland. I asked the controller for how long must I maintain FL090 he said 10 mins. Well that was not good since I was already past Memm. So I asked him what direction was the traffic and how far? Silence, for a while, then he fessed up it was over 40 miles out and we were nowhere in his way. But he still wanted me to maintain FL090 so I did what I had to do for my passengers and my pocket book I cancelled IFR and proceeded to descend. I was way past Memm when God (Ryanair) started the approach off my left wing at about 6 or 7 o’clock.
Whenever I communicate with Info they always say “runway is free” meaning “cleared to land” but since they can not say that because they are not a tower and therefore not authorized to say that. So with the runway “is free” it really means no obstructions and therefore the pilots responsibility to make the decision to land. At least that is what an English speaking mind would think.
