Landing direction at non towered aerodromes

[student_downunder]

Hi guys, recently on a flight i encountered an aircraft that was performing touch and goes with a tailwind (around 15 knots) :ugh:at a non-towered aerodrome. After i arrived overhead and made the required calls on the local CTAF i stated that i would continue circling 500 ft above the circuit height until he departed or landed as i would require to land in the opposite direction due to wind. After circling for approximately 20 min (aircraft was continuing to perform touch and goes with a tailwind) and issuing a call every now and then i decieded to give up and fly to my alternate as i needed to refuel. At this stage there was a further 2 aircraft circling with me wanting to land. Just interested to know what other people would do in this situation

[Jabawocky]

Well, you could assume he is traing like that for a reason, and ask him kindly to hold for a moment while you land.

Some folk need a fair amount of slapping about the head before any sense dribbles out one ear.

Where, when and who? :ooh:

Maybe somebody will know them and have a quiet word.

You do get the patience award my friend because I reckon after a while I would have had some serious landing lights pointed at him from the other end of the field to wake the fecker up!:ugh:

[VH-XXX]

He wouldn't last long at my local.

He would be told in no-uncertain terms to p-off. If he didn't conform, Jaba's treatment of landing lights would soon follow. You could follow up with paperwork, but there's nothing like a public jousting followed by a call to the flying school to bring him into line.

[Capn Bloggs]

You're joking?! He had no right to stop you landing immediately on the "duty" ie into-wind runway. What he did (or not do) was ridiculous, arrogant and against the rules. I'd have demanded he move out of your way; if he did not, give his callsign to CASA. And post it on Prune so we can "keep an eye on him/her".

Don't take any nonsense from bullies like this: they display bad airmanship and are an embarrassment and also threaten flight-safety by unsettling others. Either that or they are a total moron who shouldn't be in the sky. In both cases, bad training/flight etiquette.

[VH-XXX]

I would declare a mayday on his behalf. He obviously has a serious issue, so you'd be doing him a favour. Watch him scream then.

I once watched a gun-ho instructor from Moorabbin at a regional field cutting downwind circuits in the George-Jetson Sportstar, oblivous to the 20 knot tail wind on a 500 metre runway. The fact that he was touching down over half way down it should have made him realise... it didn't :ugh:

[Trent 972]

AIP ENR - Gen Rules & Proc's- Ops in Class G - LDG Manouvres - Circuit Entry

48.3 The runway to be used for landing should be:
a. the most closely aligned into‐wind runway; or
b. when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take‐off traffic using the most into‐wind runway


The A/C doing the D/W circuits was not compliant with the rules.
You had the 'Right of Way'.
I would have told him to F off until I'd landed.

[Lasiorhinus]

Hang on a minute, what exactly did the other pilot do that upset you?

The way I read your post, you turned up at an airfield where someone else was already there, flying circuits for their own purposes. Before you arrived, the only aircraft in the vicinity was the one flying downwind circuits.

You then stated to them that you were going to wait until they had completed their flight before you would descend to circuit height.

You then got sick of waiting politely, and went somewhere else.

Did you at any stage ask the other pilot to let you use the reciprocal runway?
Did you possibly consider joining the circuit along with the other aircraft, and making a landing yourself, downwind?

The way I read it, all you said to them was that you were happy to hold for as long as they were still doing circuits, and then you got annoyed that they continued flying circuits.


Trent: We have nothing to suggest they didnt have operational reasons justifying downwind circuits. Perhaps giving a student exposure to downwind landings?
There is also nothing in the original post that suggested anyone was actually using the into-wind runway - merely that he wanted to use it.

[Sunfish]

Penalties for such stupid behaviour exist:


CASR 91.360:

The pilot must, to the extent practicable, land and take off into the wind


Strict liability as well.

Remind me to try driving on the Right hand side of the road, other drivers can just get out of my way.

If there are "operational reasons" such as training, then by definition the person performing the downwind circuits must cease and desist once another aircraft arrives and wants to land.

To put it another way, you can't require that someone else conforms to your stupid idea just because you got their first.

[Trent 972]

Las, what Sunfish says except I would add
If there are "operational reasons" such as training, then by definition the person performing the downwind circuits must cease and desist once nother aircraft arrives and wants to land on the 'in to wind, runway'.

[VH-XXX]

If there are "operational reasons" such as training, then by definition the person performing the downwind circuits must cease and desist once another aircraft arrives and wants to land.

Don't want to nit pick Sunfish, but "desist" is not appropriate here.

"Desist" = to not take up the activity again later

However, he is entitled to do this at his own discretion, provided he doesn't interfere with others.

[Capn Bloggs]

Lasiorhinus, you are joking, aren't you? Any halfwit doing 15kt downwind landings would say to himself "err, 'nother 'plane in circuit, I s'pose he wants to land into wind, I'll get out of his way".

As I said, arrogant or moronic.

[Stikybeke]

Aircraft type???

Stiky
:}

[b_sta]

I'd hazard a guess that any pilot as dopey as that guy probably didn't realise he was landing downwind anyway.

[Howard Hughes]

Port Macquarie is one airport that springs to mind where this situation exists quite often, with turboprops/jets landing 03, mixing it with circuit traffic on 21. It is however fairly easy to resolve if you just talk to the other person!

It is also easier if you are able to conduct a straight in approach, that way you can keep the other aircraft in view at all times. Otherwise, position yourself to join downwind as the other aircraft touches down, then conduct a normal circuit, if it gets tight ask the other aircraft to extend on downwind. You will more than likley find that this can be completed without either aircraft being hindered.:ok:

Disclaimer: Of course this technique will not work if one runway has RH circuits!;)

[Arm out the window]

The training excuse doesn't really cut it in this case either.

Crosswind training, fair enough; downwind - no point, and puts you in a worse position in the engine failure case too, not to mention unneccessarily hammering the tyres for no good reason.

Still, it would have made good sense to just ask him to hold while you landed rather than wait until you were forced to divert.

[Ultralights]

YWOL by any chance?
not uncommon to have wind from 080 at 15 kts, and still people doing circuits on 16/34, wehn you have runway 08 at your disposal. just get on the radio, problem solved. mae your intentions clear, PIC on the non duty runway if you can call it that should be polite enough to hold, or manouver so you can get in on the duty runway, or runway that is "operationally required"

[Wallsofchina]

Wouldn't mind a dollar for every RPT flight that pushes in and lands downwind

[Capn Bloggs]

Wouldn't mind a dollar for every RPT flight that pushes in and lands downwind
No problem landing downwind; it can save a lot of fuel, money and time and improve safety by getting/keeping out of the way of others. Pushing-in though is not acceptable.

[mcgrath50]

Wouldn't mind a dollar for every RPT flight that pushes in and lands downwind

How much does it cost you to extend downwind/do an orbit? How much would it cost an RPT aircraft to delay the same amount of time?

I'll always offer to work around the RPT flights, but do get my nose out of joint a bit when they act as if it's their right to have right of way.

[cstleon]

After i arrived overhead and made the required calls on the local CTAF i stated that i would continue circling 500 ft above the circuit height until he departed or landed as i would require to land in the opposite direction due to wind.

Student,

Apologies if I missed it, but was the offending pilot making any radio transmissions?

[LeadSled]

Folks,

I must be going soft in my old age, I am forced to agree with the several posts by Bloggsie on this thread.

Seriously, the below is the current rule, the proposed equivalent for Part 91 is essentially the same.

As to 15 kts down wind, what type, and was it approved for that downwind component? Very few aircraft are!

For those who think "training" is a justification, please read carefully, regardless any aircraft operating out of wind, or not on the runway nearest to into wind, must give way to all other traffic.

Please note the penalties and the strict liability offenses.

The wording in the AIP has to be interpreted in terms of CAR 166 complete.

In my various current activities, I find general deficiencies in the knowledge of CURRENT rules for operations "in the vicinity" of airfields in Glass G, regardless of license type.

One well known large "Regional" has quite recently sent an extensive briefing to all its pilots, reminding them of the rules, and of the fact that being RPT gives them precisely no priority.

Tootle pip!!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subdivision 2 Operating on and in the vicinity of non‑controlled aerodromes
166 Definitions for Subdivision 2
(1) In this Subdivision:
in the vicinity of, in relation to a non-controlled aerodrome, has the meaning given by subregulation (2).
radiotelephone qualification includes a certificate, relating to the operation of radiotelephone equipment, issued by any of the following organisations in accordance with the organisation’s operations manual:
(a) Australian Ballooning Federation Incorporated;
(b) Australian Sport Rotorcraft Association Incorporated;
(c) The Gliding Federation of Australia Incorporated;
(d) Hang Gliding Federation of Australia Incorporated;
(e) Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated.
(2) An aircraft is in the vicinity of a non‑controlled aerodrome if it is within:
(a) airspace other than controlled airspace; and
(b) 10 miles from the aerodrome; and
(c) a height above the aerodrome that could result in conflict with operations at the aerodrome.
(3) For paragraphs (2) (b) and (c), if an aerodrome reference point for the aerodrome is published in the AIP, the distance or height must be measured from that point.

166A General requirements for aircraft on the manoeuvring area or in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) the aircraft is being operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non‑controlled aerodrome; and
(b) the pilot engages in conduct; and
(c) the conduct results in the contravention of a rule set out in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) The rules are the following:
(a) the pilot must maintain a lookout for other aircraft that are being operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, the aerodrome to avoid collision;
(b) the pilot must ensure that the aircraft does not cause a danger to other aircraft that are being operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, the aerodrome;
(c) if the pilot is flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome, the pilot must:
(i) jointhe circuit pattern for the aerodrome; or
(ii) avoid the circuit pattern for the aerodrome;
(d) if the pilot joins the circuit pattern for the aerodrome for a landing at the aerodrome, the pilot must, after joining the circuit pattern, make all turns in accordance with subregulation (3);
(e) if the pilot takes off from the aerodrome, the pilot must, after taking off, make all turns in accordance with subregulation (3) while the aircraft is flying in the circuit pattern for the aerodrome;
(f) subject to subregulation (4), if the pilot takes off from the aerodrome, the pilot must maintain the same track from the take‑off until the aircraft is 500 feet above the terrain;
(g) the pilot must not:
(i) take off from a part of the aerodrome that is outside the landing area of the aerodrome; or
(ii) land the aircraft on a part of the aerodrome that is outside the landing area of the aerodrome;
(h) if the pilot takes off from, or lands at, the aerodrome, the pilot must take off or land into the wind if, at the time of the take-off or landing:
(i) the pilot is not permitted under subregulation (5) to take off or land downwind; and
(ii) it is practicable to take off or land into the wind.
(3) For paragraphs (2) (d) and (e), the turns must be made:
(a) if CASA has, under subregulation 92 (2), directed that all turns at the aerodrome be made in a particular direction —in accordance with CASA’s directions; or
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and visual signals are displayed at the aerodrome indicating a direction to make all turns — in accordance with the visual signals; or
(c) in any other case — to the pilot’s left.
Note Directions under subregulation 92 (2) are published in the AIP.
(4) The rule in paragraph (2) (f) does not apply if a change to the track is necessary to avoid the terrain.
(5) For subparagraph (2) (h) (i), the pilot in command of an aircraft may take off or land downwind at a non-controlled aerodrome if:
(a) the aircraft’s flight manual allows the aircraft to take off or land downwind; and
(b) after considering any other aircraft that are being operated on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, the aerodrome, the pilot believes that it is safe to do so.
(6) An offence against subregulation (1) in relation to any of paragraphs (2) (a) to (g) is an offence of strict liability.
Note The pilot in command of an aircraft must comply with the flight manual, or other equivalent document for the aircraft, as required by regulation 138.

166B Carrying out a straight-in approach
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) the pilot carries out a straight‑in approach to land at a non‑controlled aerodrome; and
(b) the pilot engages in conduct; and
(c) the conduct results in the contravention of a rule set out in subregulation (2).
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) The rules are the following:
(a) before starting the approach, the pilot must determine:
(i) the wind direction at the aerodrome; and
(ii) the runways in use at the aerodrome;
(b) the pilot must give way to any other aircraft flying in the circuit pattern for the aerodrome;
(c) subject to subregulation (3), the pilot must carry out all manoeuvring, to establish the aircraft on final approach, at least 3 miles from the threshold of the runway that the pilot intends to use for landing.
(3) The rule in paragraph (2) (c) does not apply to the pilot if he or she is carrying out the approach:
(a) using an instrument approach procedure; and
(b) in IMC.
(4) An offence against subregulation (1) in relation to paragraph (2) (a) or (b) is an offence of strict liability.

166C Responsibility for broadcasting on VHF radio
(1) If:
(a) an aircraft is operating on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome; and
(b) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and
(c) the pilot in command of the aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification;
the pilot is responsible for making a broadcast on the VHF frequency in use for the aerodrome in accordance with subregulation (2).
(2) The pilot must make a broadcast that includes the following information whenever it is reasonably necessary to do so to avoid a collision, or the risk of a collision, with another aircraft:
(a) the name of the aerodrome;
(b) the aircraft’s type and call sign;
(c) the position of the aircraft and the pilot’s intentions.
Note 1 See the AIP for the recommended format for broadcasting the information mentioned in this regulation.
Note 2 For the requirement to maintain a listening watch, see regulation 243.

166D Designation of non-controlled aerodromes
(1) For paragraph 98 (5A) (a) of the Act, CASA may issue a legislative instrument that states that a specified non‑controlled aerodrome is a designated non‑controlled aerodrome.
(2) CASA must ensure that details of the designation of an aerodrome under subregulation (1) are published in AIP or NOTAMS.
166E Requirements for operating on or in the vicinity of certified, military, registered or designated non-controlled aerodromes
(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft commits an offence if:
(a) he or she operates the aircraft on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome that is:
(i) a certified aerodrome; or
(ii) a military aerodrome; or
(iii) a registered aerodrome; or
(iv) specified as a designated non-controlled aerodrome in a legislative instrument issued by CASA under regulation 166D; and
(b) he or she is not permitted to do so by subregulation (2), (3) or (4).
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
Note 1 For the definitions of certified aerodrome and registered aerodrome, see the CASR Dictionary.
Note 2 For the definition of military aerodrome, see subregulation 2 (1).
Aircraft with serviceable radio and pilot with radiotelephone qualification
(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft may operate the aircraft on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) if:
(a) the aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and
(b) the pilot holds a radiotelephone qualification.
Flight in VMC during the day and in company
(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft may operate the aircraft on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) if:
(a) either:
(i) the aircraft is not carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; or
(ii) the pilot does not hold a radiotelephone qualification; and
(b) the aircraft is being operated for a flight:
(i) that is in VMC; and
(ii) that is not a night flight; and
(iii) that is undertaken in company with another aircraft; and
(c) the other aircraft is carrying a serviceable aircraft VHF radio; and
(d) the pilot in command of the other aircraft holds a radiotelephone qualification.
Unserviceable radio
(4) The pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying an unserviceable aircraft VHF radio may operate the aircraft on the manoeuvring area of, or in the vicinity of, a non-controlled aerodrome mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) if:
(a) either:
(i) the radio became unserviceable during the flight; or
(ii) the purpose of the flight is to take the radio to a place where it can be repaired; and
(b) for an aircraft that is flying in the vicinity of the aerodrome — the pilot ensures that each of the following are switched on:
(i) the aircraft’s landing lights (if any);
(ii) the aircraft’s anti-collision lights (if any);
(iii) the aircraft’s secondary surveillance radar transponder (if any); and
(c) for an aircraft arriving at the aerodrome — the pilot joins the circuit pattern for the aerodrome on the cross‑wind leg of the circuit pattern.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability

[student_downunder]

Let me rephrase, after making my initial radio call and after i let him know that i was overhead and would wait for him he stated that he would be done shortly. After each circuit he flew i 'reminded' him that i was still there (so did the two other aircraft that have come in the mean time)

I was in a C172 but the aircraft landing with a tailwind was a duchess, not sure of the operator but it is a regular at bankstown. Don't want to start a hate thread or anything against forign students but he sounded like he didn't have a strong comprienhension of english.

[NIK320]

I wouldn't want to explain that 20mins holding and diversion.

Best bet has already been mentioned, time it to be abeam the threshold as he is just getting airborne then there should be enough time for you to land on the reciprocal assuming both are standard left circuits. Given the duchess v 172 could even go to the extent of low level circuit to keep it quick and ask him to extend downwind if it was really tight.

[PPbash]

LeadSled, thanks for the lesson in airlaw. :8


NIK320, exactly. Just land the damn aeroplane. With two in the circuit, you can pretty much do what you like with plenty of separation.

The old instructor in me still thinks that the student made atleast one good decision. Not completely happy with the situation so he bugged out. I always briefed my not so strong students to get out of there if they couldn't handle it. This guy cleary couldn't sort it out.

[Track5milefinal]

Don't want to start a hate thread or anything against forign students but he sounded like he didn't have a strong comprienhension of english.

Neither do you by the looks!:}

In all seriousness, I am a firm believer in the "name and shame" principle... :E

[Xcel]

Funny^^

who is giving advice about timing his circuit and doing a circuit low level head on into him?? Are you nuts??

seriously -
tell him once ok
tell him twice it's a phone call to the aircraft operator
tell him 3 times letter to Casa

have to divert - name and shame!!

Seriously though what did the other aircraft do?
What on earth is the point of practicing 15 kt tailwinds? Unless your in png with "rocks in your socks" just use the other direction practice xwinds fair enough but any downwind = headwind if you go the other way - who teaches this ****e...

[bankrunner]

Wouldn't mind a dollar for every RPT flight that pushes in and lands downwind

Seen a Saab 340 get very close to the end of RWY 06 at Griffith with a 15 knot tailwind once or twice :E

[Sunfish]

Just checked my PA28R POH - takeoff distance charts show a tailwind component of up to 5 knots. A maximum isn't stated.

I just realised that climb angle and distance to 50 ft are going to be compromised - maybe more of an issue than runway length?

[Xcel]

If you don't have performance figures for it then you become the test pilot...

I have worked for operators who will not fly when the temp gets over 38 because the book doesn't have peromance figures for any higher (fine by me I prefer the aircon)

Which basically means when the **** hits the fan you better have a bloody good reason for being there. The problem then comes back to, as I said before, if you try land with 15kt tail wind and kill someone and they start looking to you asking why? Something better than "I cbf flying a circuit" had better come out of your mouth - pretty simple concept. Any tailwind on any runway = headwind on the recipricol runway it's that easy.

It I also the reason why max xwind is now written as a "demonstrated max" you can "demonstrate" something higher than the book figure - you just better have a bloody good reason why...

Cheers

[Wallsofchina]

Bankrunner it's systemic, the inbound radio call usually says it all, doesn't matter how many are on the into wind circuit.

[MikeTangoEcho]

Doesn't a tailwind of UP TO 5kt, mean the maximum is 5kt? Even more so that it's on the charts?

[NIK320]

who is giving advice about timing his circuit and doing a circuit low level head on into him?? Are you nuts??Its not head on in to him.. You start flying parallel, You time it to turn base when he turns crosswind out to the dead side of your circuit. Now you are effectively following him, then parallel again with your final and his downwind.

The only time its head on is while your on the runway and he turns final. Simple solution to that is fly a low level and make it a quick circuit or ask him to extend downwind. Then your taxiing away from the runway while he turns final.

At no point are the 2 aircraft flying head on

[Howard Hughes]

I have worked for operators who will not fly when the temp gets over 38 because the book doesn't have peromance figures for any higher (fine by me I prefer the aircon)
You sure that's not ISA +38?;)

[Mainframe]

Xcel,

Some good input, but !

If a maximum crosswind limit applies to the aircraft, it will be in Sect 2, Limitations, of the AFM.

It is NOT the trend now to express Crosswind Limits as Demonstrated Crosswind.

For structural or handling reasons some GA aircraft have such limitations in the AFM,
e.g. PA34, 12 Kts, structural limit because the main landing gear is attached to the main spar.

DEMONSTRATED CROSSWIND

All Cessna AFM's list definitions in section 1 of the AFM. Cessna defines Demonstrated Crosswind as follows:

Demonstrated Crosswind Velocity is the velocity of the crosswind component for which adequate control
of the airplane during take off and landing was actually demonstrated during certification tests. The value shown is not considered limiting.

FAR 23 and 25 have different criteria and transport category aircraft will have a maximum crosswind limit determined by test flying to establish that limit.

If a GA aircraft does not have a structural or handling limit imposed by the manufacturer it will have a "Demonstrated" crosswind that merely reflects
the crosswind that existed on the day of certification.

It simply means that the manufacturer, under the certification rules, did not need to establish a limit,
but merely had to demonstrate adequate control on the day of certification in the prevailing conditions.

I do not advocate exceeding the demonstrated crosswind in such aircraft, in fact some pilots experience difficulty with 10 kts xw, some can handle 15 kts,
and if 20 kts, as listed for the C208, a lot of experience and correct technique would be needed.

In fact the Shrike (AC50) lists a demonstrated crosswind of 25 kts, certainly not for the inexperienced or faint hearted.

MF

[Capn Bloggs]

Best bet has already been mentioned, time it to be abeam the threshold as he is just getting airborne then there should be enough time for you to land on the reciprocal assuming both are standard left circuits. Given the duchess v 172 could even go to the extent of low level circuit to keep it quick and ask him to extend downwind if it was really tight.
Pardon the French, but that's a silly idea IMO. Dogfighting in the circuit is asking for trouble. The other guy's an inconsiderate pr1ck (or totally dumb); he could do anything as you try to squeeze in, opposite direction.

[Xcel]

Howard Hughes - nope was ISA +22 the chart stopped (or somewhere around there - been few years) for the grob so china southern out at merriden had many a summer day with cancelled flying whilst I was there.

Mainframe - exactly my point... And yes we are talking about ga aircraft here right? But then again we are talking about tailwind and not xwind now...

Bottom line is the guy is a douche tell him to park up and wait for you to land not the other way round if he wants to do dumb ****. Their are limits and rules and frankly he was operating outside of both - goodluck to him. Genuine mistakes happen with wind but this doesn't sound like one of them...

[Jabawocky]

If comprehension of English was his problem maybe he thought the windsock was pointing the direction to land rather than the wind direction :ooh:

[LeadSled]

Mainframe ( and Sunfish),

Many FAR 25 aircraft (meaning all but one of the one's I have flown, and that one was certified to SFAR 422b, which morphed into FAR 25) have the crosswind for manual flight expressed as maximum demonstrated crosswind, with hard limits for autolands.

Re. the Duchess, have a look in "limitations" for the downwind limit. It is probably 5 kts.

Clearly, operating in a tailwind over the limit is a breach of CAR 138, as well as the matter of CAR 166.

One thing that is cropping up in more and more CASA publications is the emphasis on compliance with CAR 138, which means compliance with the AFM/POH in its entirety, a message lost on many FOIs, who still feel they are at liberty to demand changes to Operations manuals that contradict the AFM.

Tootle pip!!

PPbash,
Maybe you do know the air law, but it is clear that many do not or do know and ignore it.

Circuit joining procedure is almost as old as aviation, and the basic rules have changed very little over the years, what does it say about many "modern" pilots that Australia now needs something as longwinded as the present CAR 166, which is about twice as long as the previous, and, in the "good old days" hardly existed as a regulation at all.

[Jabawocky]

Circuit joining procedure is almost as old as aviation, and the basic rules have changed very little over the years, what does it say about many "modern" pilots that Australia now needs something as longwinded as the present CAR 166, which is about twice as long as the previous, and, in the "good old days" hardly existed as a regulation at all.

You know the answer....Lawyers and public servants building empires to justify their existance.

I never needed a massive pile of CAR's to teach me how circuits should work...its not that complicated.:ugh:

[Captain Sand Dune]

I'll always offer to work around the RPT flights, but do get my nose out of joint a bit when they act as if it's their right to have right of way.
Like QL at Wagga, perchance?

[Howard Hughes]

At Orange one night, I was asked to hold at the holding point while an RPT aircraft who in their words was "approaching 15 miles", landed!:eek:

I might add it was CAVOK...:rolleyes:

[Capt Claret]

I sent a very nervous older gent for his first solo many moons ago at Bundy, RWY14.

He wasn't happy, and I was most displeased that despite e traffic knowing it was a first solo, the Shed driver from Gladstone was most happy to push in and land downwind on the non-duty runway.

Poor student had to do a missed approach on his first solo when he found himself on final for 14 with a Shed on short final for 32! :ouch:

[Jabawocky]

from Gladstone and on 32? must be dumb, thats the long way:ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

To defend the RPT guys, at 15 miles they are often still doing 250 KIAS (or barbers pole in a Turboprop usually 240+) and will slow up to 200 by 10 and approach speed by 5.

This means they will be established on final in 3 or so minutes if they are tracking for a straight in approach.

It gets very busy in a transport category aircraft. You may think having twice as many Pilots means half the work. It actually means twice the work as you need to repeat everything to each other and discuss separation. Along with this you have checklists, configuration challenges and responses and standard calls.

Help them out if you can, after all, the Captain could have his hands full dealing with a 300 hour cadet :cool:

[Wallsofchina]

Help them out to fly illegally?

This "Captain" could be about to spear into two 30 hour students, also straining to get everything done correctly.

If this only happened in the occasional emergency it wouldn't be an issue, but repeated cost cutting has an inevitable conclusion

[The Green Goblin]

Help them out to fly illegally?

This "Captain" could be about to spear into two 30 hour students, also straining to get everything done correctly.

If this only happened in the occasional emergency it wouldn't be an issue, but repeated cost cutting has an inevitable conclusion

Exactly my point.

Imagine being the skipper on that RPT aeroplane flying into a CTAF with a low time FO and 30 hour non native English students fumbling their way around the circuit.....

You politely want to tell them to get out the way! If that means asking them to wait at the holding point, then so be it. I've been the charter Pilot giggling to myself at the RPT guys asking me what I had for breakfast. In fact we'd all pull the piss out of them over beers after work.

After being that Captain going into places like Kununurra with bungles
departures or arrivals in full swing, let me tell you, it's a pain in the arse!

[Howard Hughes]

Help them out if you can, after all, the Captain could have his hands full dealing with a 300 hour cadet
Hopefully the F/O is flying, with the Captain organising separation!:ok:
You politely want to tell them to get out the way! If that means asking them to wait at the holding point, then so be it.
What if the pilot is not a student and operating an aircraft with equal performance to that of the RPT? You're are saying I should wait for an aircraft that is on a 15 (possibly more) mile final?

To revert back to my example, I backtracked, departed and passed over the inbound aircraft at 10 miles, 8500 above them! :rolleyes:

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Help them out if you can, after all, the Captain could have his hands full dealing with a 300 hour cadet
Hopefully the F/O is flying, with the Captain organising separation!
Quote:
You politely want to tell them to get out the way! If that means asking them to wait at the holding point, then so be it.
What if the pilot is not a student and operating an aircraft with equal performance to that of the RPT? You're are saying I should wait for an aircraft that is on a 15 (possibly more) mile final?

To revert back to my example, I backtracked, departed and passed over the inbound aircraft at 10 miles, 8500 above them!

Then polite radio work will usually work a treat.

"I understand your request, if it's okay with you, I'm going to backtrack line up and roll, depart to the xxx, climb above your level, then intercept the xxx track and climb to FLXX"

Once they know they are dealing with someone who is not going to do something famously stupid, they are happy.

Remember also, a landing aeroplane has right of way over an aeroplane who is taking off :ok:

[Jabawocky]

... From 15 miles out:D

I think we all agree on cooperation works most of the time but if I had an RPT wanting a straight in which also had a large tailwind component and was being a bit stupid, a not so subtle question about his d/w limits for all to hear. At most ctaf's I go to the RPT folk are pretty good, must be a lot of cowboys south of the border.:p

[LeadSled]

----- must be a lot of cowboys south of the border.:pJaba,
If you mean the NSW/QLD. border, the answer is: "there are !!", but QLD is not short of them either, usually flying small turbo-props.
At Roma, I have sat and watched the same guy, three times in the same day, arrive in a Kingair, against the traffic, wind was 15-20 tail, well beyond the AFM limit for the aeroplane. His "attitude" on the radio was commensurate with his observed operation.
Other airport users were told to "bugger off", quite literally, until he landed.
What a wonderful example to aspiring professional pilots, training there at the time.
Tootle pip!!

[Wallsofchina]

And all condoned by CASA?

[Going Nowhere]

LeadSled,

Might be the same KingAir I saw one night try to taxi between the terminal and a Metro parked on the bay at EML! Some frantic waving from our crew stopped him hitting the wing tip, but we had to walk him through as he'd already gone too far! :suspect:

[Jabawocky]

Leadie, you sat there all day:eek: we don't call it the Roma coma for nothing;) but that is some test of patience. Did you go and educate the silly sod with both barrels ?

Clearly he was paying for fuel and not brakes.

Probably covering up a lack of skill....as flying a circuit with other traffic is too hard :rolleyes:

[The Green Goblin]

Hey Jaba,

I was not referring to landing with a tailwind. I was trying to give you bugsmashers some info from the other side of the fence. Fortunately I have the balanced perspective of having being on both sides of the fence at one time.

As for landing with a tailwind, you'll generally find the RTOW/WAT charts for transport aeroplanes only go to 10 knots. Most ops manuals also stipulate this as a limitation.

[Orion Delta]

Airmanship should come from both sides of the fence. The local pilots should try to help accommodate a busy RPT (with only a 25 min turn around at port) into the circuit. I know rules are rules but why doesn't everyone just try a little more initiative and help one another out. But going back to post 1>> If communication broke down using standard phraseology, why don't you try talking to them in standard English ? I say the above with all respect :ok:

[Capt Claret]

from Gladstone and on 32? must be dumb, thats the long way


Back in those days, late 80's 32 was the quickest from GLA. No straight in approaches then, 14 required overfly & backtrack, whereas 32 was join downwind, roll through.

I can't recall if the FSU was still in operation.

[Howard Hughes]

Remember also, a landing aeroplane has right of way over an aeroplane who is taking off
No problems with that, but I don't need to give way to an aircraft that is still 'enroute'!;)

PS: Just having a flick through the AIP. Enroute 40.1.8 is an interesting read and somewhat relevant to the discussion from both sides...:ok:

[bentleg]

Enroute 40.1.8 is an interesting read and somewhat relevant to the discussion from both sides

Indeed. ..

[Jabawocky]

Back in those days, late 80's 32 was the quickest from GLA.

Sorry Clarrie....I did not realise you were that old :E

[Capt Claret]

That's alright Jaba, I was a teenager while you were still in nappies. :p