LeSving wrote:
Show me a reference where it say ATIS is mandatory please (AIP preferably).
Didn’t I quote the relevant phrase of the Austrian AIP already (about three pages up on this thread…)?
But really, if you think that listening to the ATIS before calling the approach controller is unnecessary, just don’t do it. It is not one of these requirements that will fetch you a fine for not doing. The only thing is that it will clutter a (busy) frequency – as most approach frequencies are – with unnecessary talking of the controller who will have to read to you all the stuff that you didn’t bother to get yourself, thereby creating a big nuisance for all other users of that airspace. Entirely up to you.
what_next wrote:
The only thing is that it will clutter a (busy) frequency – as most approach frequencies are – with unnecessary talking of the controller who will have to read to you all the stuff that you didn’t bother to get yourself, thereby creating a big nuisance for all other users of that airspace. Entirely up to you.
I am sorry, but this is pure nonsense. There is no need for all the information in the ATIS. I have the QNH already, double from the METAR and information. I am only going to land, and I am already in the air, I know the clouds, the visibility, the ceiling, the winds. If you are coming from 35k, overcast, and have no idea what it’s like down there, it’s a different story of course. It’s just that when coming from 35k you don’t listen to ATIS, it’s all digital messages.
This is how it goes, a typical trip back from the “bush” with no FP. I take off, get high enough to contact information in G airspace, and when I do I get transponder code, QNH of the arrival airport + all other known (to information) activity. I can ask information for anything. Then information tells me to contact the approach, and I do, and immediately get updated QNH, and any other info necessary to land (usually nothing). I have the transponder code, the approach know who I am, and where I am going, and they see me on their screen. Yet I haven’t cluttered the frequency with anything whatsoever. Then when close, approach tells me to contact CTR and it’s business as usual. It’s the same everywhere.
Now, instead of contacting information, which is purely voluntarily, I could just listen to ATIS and contact the approach when getting close. Then the (busy, in your words) approach would have to fiddle around to get me the transponder code, they have to get me in the line etc. Lots of more work for the approach controller and at least one additional and unnecessary conversation when getting the transponder code.
I could do both, contact information and listen to the ATIS. The only question is why? The only reason I can come up with is because I’m bored or something.
LeSving wrote:
This is how it goes, a typical trip back from the “bush” with no FP.
Boys’n girls, keep in mind that Værnes ENVA is just another bush airport. I wonder why they bother to have an ATIS at all. Probably so that lowly foreigners don’t get confused by the absence of it. Oh never mind. They do not have ATIS. 
It is actually quite refreshing to fly in Norway. It makes you forget all the rules that are imposed upon you south of N 55° and east of W 02° .Too bad Gro Har lem Brundtland f…ed it all up and outlawed landing on lakes and in mountains.
I know the clouds, the visibility, the ceiling, the winds.
How do you know the wind on the runway? Or even the current runway (so you can position yourself appropriately for the right join)?
Except for flying between non-radio strips (where you need to get close enough to the overhead to inspect the windsock, etc) none of this makes any sense to me, relative to my 16 years of flying.
keep in mind that Værnes ENVA is just another bush airport
Yeah, that explains it. They must have stripped off the concrete. Is that what “runway grooved” means?
This is how it goes, a typical trip back from the “bush” with no FP.
Ah! Now I understand why we disagree so much… You talk about VFR flying and the thread starter (and I) about IFR, which have somewhat different radio procedures.
@Peter re:grooved runway
These runways, alas there are not enough of them!, have grooves milled across the concrete. This way, even in strong precipitation, no standing water can form. For commercial operation this makes a big difference because grooved runways can only become damp which can be treated like “dry” when calculating landing distance. Standing water makes a runway “wet” which means an additional factor has to be applied and many fields become too short for landing.
LeSving wrote:
This is how it goes, a typical trip back from the “bush” with no FP. I take off, get high enough to contact information in G airspace, and when I do I get transponder code, QNH of the arrival airport + all other known (to information) activity. I can ask information for anything. Then information tells me to contact the approach, and I do, and immediately get updated QNH, and any other info necessary to land (usually nothing). I have the transponder code, the approach know who I am, and where I am going, and they see me on their screen. Yet I haven’t cluttered the frequency with anything whatsoever. Then when close, approach tells me to contact CTR and it’s business as usual. It’s the same everywhere.
That’s basically IFR in all but flight conditions. In the US and many other places, for VFR operations, that complex procedure would only apply for landing at airports in Class C or B airspace. Under VFR, landing at ATC controlled airports in Class D or below would generally mean making one call to the tower inbound with the ATIS, with no prior ATC contact and no assigned squawk code. For that reason I try to avoid airports in Class C or above!
LeSving wrote:
This is how it goes, a typical trip back from the “bush” with no FP. I take off, get high enough to contact information in G airspace, and when I do I get transponder code, QNH of the arrival airport + all other known (to information) activity.
In UK for this you don’t need radio at all so why to bother listening any radio, especially ATIS.
Aviathor wrote:
Boys’n girls, keep in mind that Værnes ENVA is just another bush airport
Ha ha. It’s not exactly Heathrow in any way, but it got some 61k movements per year, 4.5M passengers per year. About the average size of any European non-main hub.
Peter wrote:
How do you know the wind on the runway? Or even the current runway (so you can position yourself appropriately for the right join)?Except for flying between non-radio strips (where you need to get close enough to the overhead to inspect the windsock, etc) none of this makes any sense to me, relative to my 16 years of flying.
There is no need to, not VFR. Coming from the south, via a couple of dedicated points on the boundary of the CTR, you are directed to downwind leg south of the field either 27 or 09. From the north it’s the same, but downwind leg north of the field either 27 or 09. Sometimes you are directed directly to final. The same principle is used everywhere at controlled fields. Before they closed the cross runway, you could simply request it at any time. There are plans now to build another, but shorter, parallel runway to the north. IFR I don’t know, but they have separate routes from VFR, and separate alt, also for visual approaches which all the Boeings seems to prefer (when weather allows). That way IFR and VFR do not interfere with each other, it is very smooth indeed (most of the time), you should try it some day
Silvaire wrote:
That’s basically IFR in all but flight conditions. In the US and many other places, for VFR operations, that complex procedure would only apply for landing at airports in Class C or B airspace. Under VFR, landing at ATC controlled airports in Class D or below would generally mean making one call to the tower inbound with the ATIS, with no prior ATC contact and no assigned squawk code. For that reason I try to avoid airports in Class C or above!
ENVA is class C airspace. I could also fly in G in total radio silence all the way to the CTR zone a few NM from the airport, some do (while listening to ATIS ) I prefer the other way, much more relaxing when going straight in to land anyway. Transponder is not strictly mandatory in Norway for light airplanes, not even in C airspace, but if equipped with a transponder, it is mandatory to use it (at all times, also in G). All airplanes stationed at controlled airfields have transponders, “requested” by the ATC.
LeSving wrote:
I prefer the other way, much more relaxing when going straight in to land anyway.
Do you actually use the runway, or do you land in the grass next to the aeroclub?
I think the importance of the ATIS is being a bit overstated here, with people saying “how do you know the wind” and so on as if there is no other alternative. When in practice a large proportion of fields don’t have ATIS anyway, and the FISO or whatever gives you the runway in use.
If the airfield is “busy” you will know the runway and wind anyway, as you will hear it given to other aircraft. A 29 minute old wind is not that useful anyway if close to limits, an instant wind given to another aircraft on final is much better.
If the airfield is not busy, then no big hassle for the controller to give you the required info.
IFR, where you need to be certain of the runway/approach in use from X miles out, the conditions vs minima, etc is a totally different thing of course.
But for any kind of VFR flying, the ATIS is really not super useful.
