Hello Everyone!
I am one who loves realism, don’t get me wrong. And before you continue to read, this ATIS remark would be enforced within IFATC to be used sparingly.
Recently, with busy traffic occurring with the 22.4 update, we radar controllers are once again reminded of the issues we see on the expert server. At airport like KMIA or WSSS, we see other airport which sit within a close proximity of the hub airport. In busy conditions, radar controllers are establishing a flow 50nm out, with with aircraft spawning 20 miles away, it presents a new challenge. In light traffic, no issue, but these local flyers often takeoff, climb at a crazy rate right into the well established arrivals.
We are trained not to report right away unless absolutely needed. When this local flyer contact us, we must deny them, then I try and give a vector if they don’t listen. Sometimes this pilot doesn’t listen, so we begin to warn. All in all, this is a long, frustrating process just to deny someone. It draws our attention away and time and time again we see controllers forget about another crucial part of intercept or other traffic since we now have a serious concern of a separation bust occurring.
How can we fix this?
TFRs take time to establish and honestly aren’t always needed. Traffic conditions might allow local flying one minute then deny them another. And for some, flying light aircraft in local distances or replicating repo flights can be a fun sense of realism. We don’t want to take that experience away. But in times of heavy traffic, we need a way to stop local flying from disrupting a set flow and creating separation hazards with other aircraft. With this being a traffic related issue, I’ve proposed the plan of having a remark available in the ATIS. Pilot would be expected to check the D-ATIS prior to local flying to see if it is allowed and the distance they must be.
What it would look like
First, under the remarks section of ATIS, we would have a button that says “No Local Flying.” In the broadcasted ATIS, it would read “No local flying within __nm.” Then down below, under STARs and SIDs, the controller could set a distance. The options would be 10, 25, 50 or something in that ballpark. The other day, I would have asked my tower controller to add the remark with a distance of 50 due to the issues the airport 20 miles away was presenting.
Enforcement
Luckily, a report function is already available. We’d expect the pilot to check D-ATIS as I mentioned above. With this in mind, controllers can report for “Not following procedures broadcast on ATIS,” a current reportable reason.
Important Points
- Practice Flights! As a pilot in training, we tend to depart an airport, do some maneuvers, then come back. This would be accepted and not included in the local flying portion, but doesn’t mean in a busy environment that you will be denied radar patterns if local patterns are also not allowed
- Benefiting Pilot Experience. Once a controller has to deal with local flying, your service as a pilot deteriorates. You might experience a bust or see the controller has lost focus on you portion of flight. This remark would help pilots deal with this issue.
- Used sparingly. If implemented, I’d like to see a rewrite of the controlling manual. This is only to be used in busy environments when radar is present or has just left and a clear flow is still in place. Supervisors, trainers, and other controllers could help the controllers figure out when this is appropriate.
Please let me know of any feedback or ways we would implement this further! Thanks Y’all.