JasonC wrote:
(5) If there is no flight information centre at the aerodrome the commander must obtain information from the air/ground communication service to enable the flight to be conducted safely within the aerodrome traffic zone.
This does not explicitly state that the effective clearance to enter must be given directly to the pilot does it?
If for instance a pilot had picked up all that information that was being passed to another aircraft technically he would have received the information necessary to enable a safe flight to be conducted. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it doesn’t seem to be totally clear either way which is less than helpful.
I commonly make an initial call having listened out beforehand, indicating that I’m aware of the runway in use, circuit direction, pressure setting and any other relevant information by for example saying “understand runway 26, right hand, QNH 1012, joining downwind etc…”
This information has been obtained by listening out, not directly verbatim, saves airtime, and indicates that I have received the necessary information.
No reason not to proceed. No clearance required.
Off_Field wrote:
This does not explicitly state that the effective clearance to enter must be given directly to the pilot does it?If for instance a pilot had picked up all that information that was being passed to another aircraft technically he would have received the information necessary to enable a safe flight to be conducted. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it doesn’t seem to be totally clear either way which is less than helpful.
While I agree it is badly worded it is clearly being treated by the CAA as requiring a two way conversation. And to be fair, it has always be stated as such.
flybymike wrote:
This information has been obtained by listening out, not directly verbatim, saves airtime, and indicates that I have received the necessary information.No reason not to proceed. No clearance required.
That is clearly a very risky approach in the current environment.
That is clearly a very risky approach in the current environment.
Indeed, but evidently so are many other things.
The hook on which the UK CAA “team” likes to hang its coat is that a GA-CAT collision would be extremely serious and absolutely everything must be done to ensure the risk is reduced to zero.
This has led to the policy of suspending the pilot’s license on his 2nd or 3rd (depending on whether he got the warning letter on his initial “criminal offence”) infringement.
But look at the list of categories for which they are busting people
Why are ATZs in there?
Some of the others are zero GA-CAT risk also.
So the policy aim must be something else.
JasonC wrote:
While I agree it is badly worded it is clearly being treated by the CAA as requiring a two way conversation. And to be fair, it has always be stated as such.
But I’m guessing in the current CAA bust ’em environment is it not concerning that the CAA is trying to exercise power in excess of what the actual rules say?
I would think it self-evident that if you have an AFIS airport with an ATZ, you don’t enter it without established two-way radio contact with the AFISO (or with other prior arrangements.) Otherwise the whole point of having AFIS is lost.
Aren’t such an ATZ declared a RMZ in the UK?
Aren’t such an ATZ declared a RMZ in the UK?
This would effectively ban non radio aircraft landing at any such airfield.
flybymike wrote:
This would effectively ban non radio aircraft landing at any such airfield.
Of course, which is the whole point.
must obtain information
Means we have to listen and hear some information. It doesn’t mean we have to transmit anything at all – although that’s generally good airmanship.
It certainly does not mean “must obtain permission” or “must establish two-way communication”. If it meant “must obtain permission” it would say so, as it does for an ATZ with ATC.
It’s clearly sufficient to announce “Little Piddlington Radio, Cirrus 666 Fox Oscar, inbound from the west, copied airfield information and traffic, overhead for practice CAPS landing in one minute” – or whatever.
flybymike wrote:
This would effectively ban non radio aircraft landing at any such airfield.
It wouldn’t. SERA says “VFR flights operating in parts of Classes E, F or G airspace and IFR flights operating in parts of Classes F or G airspace designated as a radio mandatory zone (RMZ) by the competent authority shall maintain continuous air-ground voice communication watch and establish two-way communication, as necessary, on the appropriate communication channel, unless in compliance with alternative provisions prescribed for that particular airspace by the ANSP.” – SERA.6005(a)(1)
(Really, folks, you should read the regs you are criticising – not to mention that you are required to follow them! In particular SERA and part-NCO aren’t that bad.)
