MIDWEST FLYER MAGAZINE

AERONAUTICS REPORT - WISCONSIN BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS

RCO? GCO? What's the difference? by Mike Kohrs

There is a fairly new development in options for communicating with Flight Service these days. The Ground Communications Outlet (GCO) is being added at airports around the Midwest. GCOs allow the pilot access to Flight Service via a radio to telephone link similar to a high frequency radio-telephone patch. When the radio is keyed, it causes a dialer to call the associated Flight Service Station. Michigan has several of these outlets. Here in Wisconsin, 11 airports have the GCO installed and four more are in the works. Understanding how the GCO works will enhance your communications experience with Flight Service.

First, we should review the Remote Communications Outlets (RCOs). RCOs are unmanned air/ground communications facilities. They are remotely controlled, as the name implies, and enable the Flight Service Station to extend their service coverage. This is important because without RCOs, we would need enough Flight Service Stations (FSS) to provide coverage to all the airspace in the United States. With VHF radios providing "line of sight" communications, that would be a lot of manpower. Green Bay FSS has 38 remotes besides their manned station. Princeton FSS in Minnesota has 40 RCOs.

RCOs are not listed on U.S. Government flight information publications in their terminal charts (instrument approach plates). They are listed on the VFR sectional and low altitude enroute charts. These are the frequencies on top of the communications boxes associated with VORs and at RCOs like Prairie du Chien, Wis. RCOs are also listed in the Airport/Facility Directory under ARTCC/FSS.

Making contact with Flight Service is described in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), Chapter 4, under Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques. Remember that a single FSS has all those transmitters, so be patient when using an RCO. A sample initial call like "Green Bay Radio, Centurion 100DB listening on 122.4," will let the specialist know what radio to talk with you on. He or she may already be working with someone else on a different frequency, so a slight delay is not uncommon. The advantage of the multitude of frequencies is that pilots are not stepping all over each other when talking to FSS.

In both Michigan and Wisconsin, there is only one frequency for all the GCOs - 121.725. Keying the microphone slowly four times, about once per second, alerts the dialer to connect to the appropriate ATC facility. The phone rings and (here in Wisconsin) a Green Bay FSS specialist will answer. Now you can speak just like you would in any other radio conversation. The GCO is different in that it is designed for use only on the ground. Using the GCO frequency in the air would cause each dialer in VHF reception range to dial FSS resulting in either a busy signal or multiple lines open to you.

Remember that although the specialist is talking on the phone, you are still taking over radio waves into a phone patch. After 60 seconds with no activity by your radio transmitter, the telephone will automatically hang up. This could happen if the specialist is giving you a full weather brief or a lengthy clearance. To prevent this hangup, you must key your microphone at least once a minute.

Currently, GCOs are listed in U.S. Government flight information publications in their terminal charts (instrument approach plates) and in the Airport/Facility Directory. The Wisconsin airports that have GCOs installed are: East Troy, Marshfield, Merrill, Boscobel, Menomonie, Eagle River, Sheboygan, Manitowish Waters, Medford, New Richmond, and Sparta/Fort McCoy. Being installed or in the approval stage are: Burlington, Land O'Lakes, Monroe, and Waupaca.

If you get the chance, take advantage of the new GCOs to open, close, or file your flight plans. It will make it easier to get into the IFR system. You can tell FSS at the end of the runway when you are ready to go and get your void time, rather than hurrying through a start sequence trying not to miss it. You can also use the GCO to close a VFR flight plan before you turn off the radio, so you don't have a chance to forget the telephone call to FSS.

Y2K Aviation Art Contest

The Year 2000 International Aviation Art Contest is now underway. The theme for this year's contest is "Flight Into The Future."

The contest is open to all children between the ages of 6 and 17 as of December 31, 1999. Artwork will be judged in three categories by age groups: ages 6-9, ages 10-13, and ages 14-17. A parent, guardian, or art teacher must certify authenticity of the art work. All artwork must be postmarked by February 4, 2000 and sent to your state's sponsor office. In Wisconsin mail to: Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Aeronautics, PO Box 7914, Madison, WI 53707-7914.

The Wisconsin state winner in each category will receive their choice of an airplane ride for themselves and two guests, or $50 worth of supplies from the "Dick Blick!" catalog. Winning entries will be forwarded to Washington, D.C., to participate in the national, and possible international, competition.

All artwork must be handmade using any of the following media: watercolor, acrylic or oil paints, indelible markers, colored pencils, felt tip pens, soft ballpoint pens, indelible ink, Crayola or similar mediums. NOT permitted are pencil, charcoal, or other non-permanent mediums, computer generated, or college work involving use of photocopies. Size of artwork should be 11 X 17 inches.

The 2000 Aviation Art Contest is sponsored by the National Aeronautic Association, National Association of State Aviation Officials, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI). The purpose of the contest is to motivate and encourage young people of FAI-member nations to become more familiar with and participate in aeronautics, engineering, and science.

For more information contact Gary Dikkers at 608-267-5018 or e-mail gary.dikkers@dot.state.wi.us, and have fun breaking out those art supplies!

WATA DIFFERENCE 

Wisconsin Aviation Trades Association Airport Support Through Education, Not Greater User Fees by Bruce Botterman, President

Absolutely the worst situation fixed base operators and aircraft owners can find themselves in is in conflict with their local airport manager over increasing fees, leases and rent due to rising, and oftentimes unnecessary airport costs. Instead, the airport manager should be working with their tenants to inform and educate local government as to the need to subsidize airports with tax dollars from the general fund.

In Wisconsin, members of the Wisconsin Aviation Trades Association (WATA) and Wisconsin Airport Management Association (WAMA) participate in an annual state conference, along with representatives of the Wisconsin Bureau of Aeronautics and Federal Aviation Administration, and local airport commission members. We spend a lot of time discussing current issues and we generally agree on what is in the best interest of our airports - be it to resurface a runway, acquire land to protect approaches, or to address federal issues and requirements. Probably the greatest area of disagreement is over lease agreements and the fees local municipalities charge operators/tenants to pay for expenditures which as fixed base operators, we feel we do not need and have not requested, or items which we feel should be paid through the general fund for the common good of the community.

We hear all too often as operators that we should simply pass these costs on to our customers, without first determining the need for such expenditures, and with no consideration to the budget constraints of local flyers. For the most part we are talking about individuals who use the airport like a road or a highway to fly small, single-engine or light twin aircraft for business, pleasure or for educational purposes, and not about large corporate flight department operating big equipment with unlimited operating budgets.

But try to get this across to local government officials who either look to their local airport primarily as a means to go from point A to point B via the airlines, or as a tax subsidized hobby for the rich, rather than as a viable "mode of transportation" deserving of equal treatment to roads and highways.

It is therefore the goal of many local officials to try and make the airport "pay for itself" without any consideration as to the full utility of that facility and its impact on the local economy. Add to this the growing bureaucracies of some airport management staffs, and their plans to build new, over-done facilities for themselves so they can justify their positions or the next larger airport job, and user costs tend to rise!

Fixed base operators and pilot/aircraft groups need to do a better job of communicating their concerns and needs to airport management and elected officials, and educating local officials on the importance of the airport to the community as a whole. Likewise, if airport management and local government have concerns or feel certain expenditures are justified, they need to communicate them to tenants and not make arbitrary decisions which only waste money, create hard feelings and do not give a real value back to the airport, and the community.

I think all too often the local airport manager is either pressured by his boss (the mayor or county board) to make the airport self-sufficient, and he doesn't work with tenants in the educational process just described. In addition, while new facilities are nice, they may not be necessary and users may not be willing to pay for them. When that is the case, if local government decides to go ahead with a project, it should be willing to support such projects with general tax dollars and not fees generated by aviation user groups. Afterall, the general public and local business directly benefit from having a safe and efficient airport.

Using local public capital improvement monies at the local airport has become more challenging today than ever before. The pie is only so big and there are many people looking for a chuck of that pie for their interests. We, the users, need to be sure the money is very well spent and a real value to us and the community.

The needs and desires of users, airport management and local government need to be discussed at state aviation conferences, local meetings, and openly with general public input. Likewise, our ability to pay for these expenditures have to be considered. That is the only way local communities can become educated and arrive at some sort of consensus on what is in the best interest - and financial means - of all concerned.