The name "Fisk Approach"

Printable View

07-31-2011, 01:13 PM
FSMP

The name "Fisk Approach"

It is a small detail, but a number of people I have spoken to have also commented on the naming of the VFR Arrival Controllers at Fisk as "FISK APPROACH''.

Typically, APPROACH is a Radar Controlling Position, which clearly the controllers at Fisk are not.

( Do they even have a remote Radar feed there - or would that be more of a distraction !!)

There is very big difference between Milwaukee Approach, and the services provided by the VFR Controllers at Fisk.

Would not a better name for them be say "FISK CONTROL" ?

Yes, I know everyone should read the Notams, and there it explains what "120.70 Fisk Approach" is, but then again, they are not called Fisk Tower, which technically would be a far better description of the type of Visual Controlling they are doing.

When I call an "Approach" controller, I expect certain services and procedures - when I call a "Tower" I expect a different set of services and procedures.

When I "listen" to the controllers at Fisk, I receive a very different "CONTROLLING" service, so I am suggesting that LOGICALLY, they are called something other than "APPROACH".

Just my 2 cents..

Geoff

BTW. They do a great job -- but thats just one week out of the year. The other 51 weeks, they certainly have the skill set to be excellent Autioneers :)
07-31-2011, 03:13 PM
Greg Bockelman

It is what it is. It has been that way forever. No, they don't have radar. It would be useless with that many targets. They use the analog Mark I Eyeball, and so far it has worked very well. And it IS an approach control, if you think about it.
08-01-2011, 11:34 AM
Janet Davidson

"so I am suggesting that LOGICALLY, they are called something other than "APPROACH"

"A fantastic bunch of folks who cope with a very extraordinary, challenging & exciting arrival procedure"? ;)
08-01-2011, 03:37 PM
FSMP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman

It is what it is. It has been that way forever.

Them I guess we have "Mr Gene Simmons" to thank for that , as well as an "interesting" Friday :)

Geoff
08-02-2011, 08:12 AM
roncachamp

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSMP

There is very big difference between Milwaukee Approach, and the services provided by the VFR Controllers at Fisk.

How would you describe the services provided by Milwaukee Approach?
08-02-2011, 03:47 PM
FSMP

Quote:

Originally Posted by roncachamp

How would you describe the services provided by Milwaukee Approach?

Milwaukee Approach is a typical, radar supported APPROACH Controller.

I think you just make my point !!!

Did you mean what is currently called "FISK 'approach' " ?

FISK provided non-positive Control for VFR aircraft, without Radar assistance.
That is so different from APPROACH Controlling, that my point was, it should be called something different, to make it clearer what services they are providing.

ie "Fisk CONTROL"

We could also open this discussion up to the Liability involved with the current system of Fisk Controlling.

At this point, I am not claiming what is Right or Wrong, just opeing up a dialogue for a constructive discussion.

Would be intereted in the opinions of any FAA Controllers reading this post.

As I type this post, I am taking to one over MSN, and he has some very strong concerns about the procedures at Fisk.

Ron: As an "Air Traffic Controller", how would YOU describe the Control Function at Fisk ?

Geoff
08-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Fred Stadler

Geoff,
The AIM defines "Approach Control Facility" as "a terminal ATC facility that provides approach control service in a terminal area" (note that RADAR is not mentioned). That sounds like Fisk to me. Even the definition of "RADAR Apporach Control Facility" indicates use of "RADAR and non-RADAR capabilities." I have flown into Approach Control Facilities that had no RADAR capability, although I'll admit that was quite a while ago.
The Fisk ATC controllers actually use something more powerful than RADAR - they use eyeballs. What some pilots may not realize is that Fisk ATC controllers can generally see aircraft on the whole route from Ripon to Fisk, whether or not the aircraft have transponders. The controllers have an unusually good view of the traffic and use their own skill to assist the safe mixing of traffic in a particularly challenging environment. That's something that simply couldn't be done as well from a darkened RADAR room. When I fly in to AirVenture, I know I'm responsible for my VFR separation, but I'm grateful to have help from the extra eyes at Fisk.
08-02-2011, 04:29 PM
roncachamp

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSMP

Milwaukee Approach is a typical, radar supported APPROACH Controller.

Actually, as radar approach control facilities go, Milwaukee approach is rather atypical. It's the culture there, rigid adherence to cumbersome, unnecessary procedures that preclude the provision of good ATC service.

Quote:

I think you just make my point !!!

How so?

Quote:

Did you mean what is currently called "FISK 'approach' " ?

No, I meant Milwaukee approach. You wrote, "There is very big difference between Milwaukee Approach, and the services provided by the VFR Controllers at Fisk." That implies you've experienced the services provided by Milwaukee approach.

Quote:

FISK provided non-positive Control for VFR aircraft, without Radar assistance.
That is so different from APPROACH Controlling, that my point was, it should be called something different, to make it clearer what services they are providing.

ie "Fisk CONTROL"

Well, positive control of VFR aircraft would require establishing Class B airspace, that aint gonna happen.

Quote:

We could also open this discussion up to the Liability involved with the current system of Fisk Controlling.

I'm game, I don't see it as an issue.

Quote:

Would be intereted in the opinions of any FAA Controllers reading this post.

As I type this post, I am taking to one over MSN, and he has some very strong concerns about the procedures at Fisk.

Ron: As an "Air Traffic Controller", how would YOU describe the Control Function at Fisk ?

I would describe it as superior to the situation that preceded it, and I have yet to hear a superior alternative to it.