|
Post by BrenMac on Aug 17, 2016 15:25:38 GMT
If anyone from the tower is reading this, there are bad problems with the 122.3 microphone. The quality is really BAD - probably a loose connection on the mic. Time to bin it and get a new one.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm on Aug 17, 2016 21:49:09 GMT
If anyone from the tower is reading this, there are bad problems with the 122.3 microphone. The quality is really BAD - probably a loose connection on the mic. Time to bin it and get a new one. Nooooo!! Let's go SafetyCom only...!!!
|
|
|
Post by flyboy on Aug 18, 2016 16:32:33 GMT
In my day when inspections were taking place we were told that we should be looking at an Aerodrome service due to the amount of traffic being handled and the jet traffic using the airfield. In no way would down grading to SafetyCom have been accepted. Stuart.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Aug 18, 2016 17:32:04 GMT
It sounds like it has all been working fine today, no visitors heard but lots of local traffic. Rob
|
|
|
Post by BrenMac on Aug 18, 2016 18:06:09 GMT
What amazes me is the number of pilots who say nothing! They and the FISOs are like machines: "Readability 5" even to the chap who flies with Aerobility who is totally unintelligent on the R/T!
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm on Aug 18, 2016 19:10:48 GMT
In my day when inspections were taking place we were told that we should be looking at an Aerodrome service due to the amount of traffic being handled and the jet traffic using the airfield I don't think it is anywhere near as busy as that now. A recent shortage of FISOs at Blackbushe has meant frequent downgrading to A/G. The NOTAMs reflect that. The AFIS is often suspended, particularly at lunchtimes. Nowadays there seem to very few movements at Blackbushe which actually require AFIS as a minimum service. When BCA took over, did CAA direct AFIS to be provided, or did BCA elect to provide it?
|
|
|
Post by flyboy on Aug 18, 2016 21:37:22 GMT
Malcolm & BrenMac, Re the above: I really don't recall what the R/T service was when BCA took over but I think we continued with the service being provided at the time. AFIS I think. At later inspections it was a requirement that we didn't downgrade the service and the suggestion was quite strongly made by them that we should upgrade. However as explained to them cost would have been prohibitive (licensed controllers etc ! ) So we continued with the AFIS. I think it is wrong to suggest that it was busier when we took over as BCA than it is today. Mr D Arnold as I recall had reduced the number of aircraft based at the time BCA took over (late 1984) and we gradually built up numbers again over a couple of years after that. In those early BCA days it was certainly nothing like as busy as today and numbers of 'jet' aircraft were much lower than more recently since Blink started operations. So far as the radio is concerned we used to keep a box full of spare microphones in the tower which could be changed as required and the u/s one would then be passed to the engineer for repair. You can't afford in these cash strapped times just to throw things out unless of course the engineer reports it as a write off. I don't know what the situation is today but I presume it would be the same. The pilot on read-back or the fire crew or indeed a pilot in the air would be the only persons who would alert the tower to a problem and I think that is what should be the case today. Easy to quickly change a mic if the tower operative knows about it at the time. The Aerobility pilot you mention might well have an injury and/or a speech impediment and is doing his best under the circumstances of his disability, I wouldn't know as I don't monitor the frequency, but he would have had to pass his R/T test before using the radio I believe. Stuart.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm on Aug 19, 2016 6:44:18 GMT
the suggestion was quite strongly made by them that we should upgrade I vaguely recall that 'invitation' to upgrade to control, which I find odd. The type of traffic determines the minimum level of ATS required, so there should never have been an 'option'. An aerodrome operator would not normally opt to incur the costs of providing a service over and above that which is necessary, yet, without public transport movements, it seems to be happening now, otherwise the downgrade to A/G would not be permitted. The inconsistency of the service provision causes confusion amongst users. Things might change if Farnborough gets the controlled airspace it seeks. Regarding the Tx quality of 122.3 transmissions, it seems to be an on-going issue which is not being addressed, and I agree with Bren's observations.
|
|
|
Post by rocky14 on Aug 19, 2016 7:39:02 GMT
If anyone from the tower is reading this, there are bad problems with the 122.3 microphone. The quality is really BAD - probably a loose connection on the mic. Time to bin it and get a new one. Thank you BrenMac for initiating the above discussion; it has virtually answered my question, posed some time ago, about the function of the Bushe's tower.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm on Aug 19, 2016 9:56:40 GMT
the function of the Bushe's tower In that case, Rocky, you might (?) be interested in this (!): The Air Navigation (General) Regulations 2006 Section 3 Part 4 If the 'Bushe does not host the types of flight in Para 1 it does not need to provide AFIS, in which case the AGCS it provides is sufficient.
|
|