This should be should be trivial, but I have not found any concrete information on this topic. Yesterday I did a cross-country flight around the Bükk mountains and en route try to stay as low as legally alowed to have some nice views. I passed two airports within a few miles, 800 – 1200 ft above their pattern altitude. I was in continuous radio contact with Budapest Info and in one case even my position was verified due to an arriving aircraft into the nearby airfield, but was not asked to switched to their freqency. Both are small grass fields (LHER Eger and LHMC Miskolc) with a designated info frequency, but mostly used for a/a communications, an a/g operator being present only rarely. Would it have been good practice to ask FIC for a temporary frequency change and announce my intentions on the local frequency also? If yes, what are the distance / altitude requirements to do this? Again, these are small airfields with no TIZ or anything like that marked around them.
Also, in case of these airfields in the airfield “rules of operation” (a locally produced document, often not accessible easily to outside pilots and usually not published in the AIP or as a NOTAM) one can often find restrictions like this: FORBIDDEN to fly over Eger below 1970ft AGL. Are they binding for pilots simply flying nearby and not operating from the airfield? I understand that the airfield operators want to limit the noise exposure of nearby residents to a certain level, and I am happy to comply with reasonable restrictions, but doubling the normal minimum height seems to be a bit too much.
Airmanship basically if there’s no ATZ. Do you have 2 comm boxes? I normally call an airfield on box 2 if I am passing near enough to it that I think aircraft joining/leaving or flying at that airfield may affect me (or me them). I have in the past also told the unit I am currently talking to that I am switching for 5 minutes or so.
As far as local rules go, if its something that the airfield publishes locally but not officially then technically you don’t need to abide by it because as you said yourself, to someone that is not local they have no access to this document and therefore can’t know about any rule. If it is important enough it will be in the AIP or such (and then still not read by most passing pilots 
). Of course if you know about it it is always good to try and keep everyone happy. Of course you still need to comply with land clear rules etc etc.
but was not asked to switched to their freqency.
Sounds a bit like you expected FIS to make that decision for you. Please don’t. FIS is not your copilot. YOU have to decide what makes the most sense at any moment.
Personally, I prefer to be on the airfield frequency, since the information you will get from that is normally more specific. But actually, if the visibility is good, then I wouldn’t be concerned too much about which frequency I am on. Just keep a sharp lookout for traffic. Look for gliders on the runway. They might be up with you at 1000 or 2000 feet a few seconds later…paradrop aircraft that are several thousand feet above may be with you a few seconds later as well…
Sounds a bit like you expected FIS to make that decision for you. Please don’t. FIS is not your copilot. YOU have to decide what makes the most sense at any moment.
I would not read JNSV’s post like that at all. I am sure he knows FIS is not his copilot.
One reason why enroute (especially radar) ATC will not ask you to switch to some small airfield’s frequency is because “everybody” knows there is no point in taking to anybody unless they can deliver a useful service, which generally means a radar service, probably with traffic info.
Budapest Info probably have radar (most FIS around Europe has radar, with the UK FIS having to pretend they don’t) and most likely they could see there was no local traffic of relevance.
Also a radar controller will prefer to hang onto a pilot rather than hand him over to some other place, especially briefly, because it all helps in maintaining a known traffic environment for everybody else.
Pirho wrote:
Airmanship basically if there’s no ATZ.
Thanks. It’s good to know that I have not missed any obvious clear rule.
Do you have 2 comm boxes?
No, unfortunately not.
If it is important enough it will be in the AIP or such (and then still not read by most passing pilots)
Is it enough to publish it in the AIP AD section, or would there have to be a formal restricted airspace declared?
This is e.g. from the Hungarian AIP AD LHDC 2.21:
Flying with (sic) below 2 000 FT AGL over Debrecen is PROHIBITED except when following a take-off or landing procedure.
boscomantico wrote:
Sounds a bit like you expected FIS to make that decision for you. Please don’t. FIS is not your copilot. YOU have to decide what makes the most sense at any moment.
No, I never thought that they would make any decisions for me. I just thought that the FISO would have commented on the situation had he been concerned about it, especially since he verified my position when another a/c about 10 mi S had announced their intention to land at the nearby airfield and requested a frequency change.
Personally, I prefer to be on the airfield frequency, since the information you will get from that is normally more specific.
If you can get any information, yes. But at most such airfields, there is no ground radio operator and pilots self-report in an interesting manner, if they bother to talk on the radio at all. I have had some very bad experience with airfields like that in the past even though I used Hungarian over the radio.
But actually, if the visibility is good, then I wouldn’t be concerned too much about which frequency I am on. Just keep a sharp lookout for traffic.
It was a CAVOK day, so I had been doing that continuously.
Peter wrote:
Budapest Info probably have radar (most FIS around Europe has radar, with the UK FIS having to pretend they don’t) and most likely they could see there was no local traffic of relevance.
They have radar and openly use it, but it may only be secondary radar. I do not presently have a transponder, so I have to report my position every 15 minutes. Also, at the second airfield I noticed after passing that there was some other traffic (a glider flying at some ridiculously low altitude over nearby houses and then fields, plus a glider on tow almost at my altitude), which was not called out by Info, even though they normally call out traffic much further away. The towplane was certainly at an altitude where it would be visible on radar.
(Again, of course I knew that I could not rely on FIS for traffic calls and I had been looking.)
I would contact blind on the airfield frequency and ask for the traffic situation. At ENOP (un-towered in G) there are lots of helicopter traffic higher up. They often call the tow plane or the parachute plane directly to ask about the traffic.
In general I guess this is kind of cultural and dependent on where you are. In Norway we either listen to the common VFR frequency (123.5) or information or when in vicinity of an airfield, the airfield frequency when flying in G.
FIS is an information service. They are only there to give you information. Certainly not to give you instructions, nor clearances, they are not authorised for that. They could offer suggestions, I have known them to do so, here in BE) but you should never count on it.
Whether to tune into a small airfield’s frequency is, as has been stated, up to the pilot to decide. I would do it IF they might have any activity that might concern me at my altitude – such as gliding or paradrop; and IF there is a reasonable hope they would reply. The best though, is to avoid them, either vertically or laterally. Why seek out danger?
PS forget about “radar controllers” and such, that is UK only terminology.
forget about “radar controllers” and such, that is UK only stuff
Not correct.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
PS forget about “radar controllers” and such, that is UK only terminology.
It isn’t. Control of aircraft can be done using radar or it can be procedural. It might be that the exact term “radar controller” is only officially used in the UK, but the distinction between controllers who have access to radar and those that have not is very real.
Of course it is unusual with non-radar ATC in Europe.
Sorry guys, I say again: IN UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE THERE CAN BE NO CONTROLLER. That is a contradictio in terminis. There is of course no discussion that FIS operators can and mostly do have radar available. Only I am not sure it will be much use to T/S, who stated flying transponderless.
