View Full Version : Airmanship and a few random queries


strutless
31st Jul 2011, 12:18
I happened to be at a regional airfield today and saw a few things, one in particular, that raised some questions for me and others viewing.

- Simultaneous ops on runways 05 and 33
- Runway 05 is paved 900 metres
- Runway 33 is 500 metres gravel surface
- Wind is a 15 knot approximate direct 90 degree crosswind on 05, therefore almost straight down 33
- No duty runway as such, aircraft are using both runways, non-towered aerodrome

- Aircraft on 33 is a high speed homebuilt
- Aircraft on 05 is a Seneca
- Seneca joins 05 on downwind
- Homebuilt does a straight-in on 33
- Aircraft on final for both these runways simultaneously

- Who gives way?

Random question:

- What is the maximum number of passengers in a Seneca keeping in mind that some may be children and seat sharing etc is taken into consideration? (MTOW would not be an issue in this instance)

- Does one pilot have the right to force another pilot to provide his ARN number under any circumstances?



beat ups are fun
31st Jul 2011, 12:30
Well that's an easy answer. The aircraft doing the straight in approach must give way to aircraft in the circuit. Reference AIP ENR 1.1 48.6

Capt Fathom
31st Jul 2011, 12:31
It would seem the only thing missing here is good manners! A long lost art that is no longer taught in aviation (or society in general).

strutless
31st Jul 2011, 12:55
The aircraft doing the straight in approach must give way to aircraft in the circuit.

What about different circuits for different runways though? Both aircraft are on short final, so I don't see that the aircraft that did the circuit has any more rights.

How about the guy on 05 has to giveway to the aircraft on his right which is the one in 33 final? Just an afterthought that one.


It would seem the only thing missing here is good manners!

Absolutely.

beat ups are fun
31st Jul 2011, 13:23
It would seem the only thing missing here is good manners!

Couldn't agree with you more on that.

As far as the black and white stuff reads:-

(I can't copy/paste the AIP, and I cant be :mad: typing it all out) An aircraft shall give way to other aircraft in the circuit at the aerodrome. I think the key word is "aerodrome"

As far a which is the duty runway, it's the most into wind runway. However I can't see the Scenica getting in on 500 metres. AIP ENR 48.3

By the sounds of this aerodrome it sounds quite busy with traffic on both runways. I'd suggest that a straight-in might not be such a great idea.

LeadSled
31st Jul 2011, 16:46
As far a which is the duty runway, it's the most into wind runwayThe above is correct, I would suggest all of you posting on this thread read CAR 166, rather than rely on the AIP.

Are you really certain that the homebuilt really was doing a straight-in? That is not easy to establish, in a legal sense, strange as it may seem.

Having been involved in trying to sort more of this kind of allegation than I care to remember, it is more often than not impossible to reconcile the competing stories of the two pilots involved, without a full tape of the comms., witnesses statements almost always conflict, and even with a tape, you wind up with some wide interpretations, having related the timing to aircraft estimated position.

The types of aircraft are not relevant, same rules apply to all, especially "Regional" airlines.

In balance, the aircraft landing into wind probably had priority.

Who was demanding who's ARN, and no, you don't have to reveal it (identify yourself) to other than an authorized person.

Tootle pip!!

strutless
31st Jul 2011, 22:54
Thank you Leadsled.

Who was demanding who's ARN, and no, you don't have to reveal it (identify yourself) to other than an authorized person.

The Seneca pilot insisted on gathering this information. Not only that but also belittling the PPL and his lesser aircraft formed part of the abuse. (note that the homebuilt was much faster and more expensive than the dirty old Seneca)

The types of aircraft are not relevant, same rules apply to all, especially "Regional" airlines.


Perhaps the pilot of the Seneca felt he was in a regional airline with two engines.

In balance, the aircraft landing into wind probably had priority.

That's what I was thinking, but it does seem a little grey.

Are you really certain that the homebuilt really was doing a straight-in? That is not easy to establish, in a legal sense, strange as it may seem.

Yep.


The worst display of airmanship witnessed in 20 years based on the ensuing conversation instigated by the Seneca pilot.


How many passengers (total souls) can one carry in a Seneca assuming that some of them are low weight children?

Jabawocky
31st Jul 2011, 23:02
If you have the sneeka's rego, look up the registered operator and write to them. Point out the person flying that day has some serious behaviour issues and probably should not be flying such a prized high performance aeroplane.:}

If you feel that strongly about it.

Sunfish
31st Jul 2011, 23:10
CAR 166, I say knick both of them!

- The Seneca, not landing as close as possible to wind direction.

- The homebuilt - not giving way.

- Both of them for a complete lack of common sense!

Howard Hughes
1st Aug 2011, 00:26
How many passengers (total souls) can one carry in a Seneca assuming that some of them are low weight children?
I would guess 7 in club configuration, or 8 if the middle row faces forward!:ok:

strutless
1st Aug 2011, 00:29
So 8 would be too many then with two children sharing a seat?

Howard Hughes
1st Aug 2011, 00:37
Just having a quick read through CAO 20.16.3, seven if it is a six seater, or nine if it is a seven seater. I though there was a requirement for these seats not to be adjacent to an emergency exit, but can't seem to find the reference, other than for infants.

Cheers, HH.:ok:

PS: If you were witness to the incident and are concerned about it, report it.

Reference: CAO 20.16.3 (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/orders/cao20/201603.pdf), section 12 & 13 apply.

Capn Bloggs
1st Aug 2011, 00:59
Give way to the right.

strutless
1st Aug 2011, 02:10
Give way to the right.

In the end, that's what it comes to it would seem. Seneca gives way to other aircraft on his right.

slackie
1st Aug 2011, 02:43
Wmk2... I'd rather be in front of the accident than be caught up in it... unless they're a real d!ckhead and insist on going first, then I give them a wide berth, and often find an alternate route so that I still don't get caught in their lunacy!!:ok:

NIK320
1st Aug 2011, 07:40
I don't think manners are required any more.

The other day I witnessed a 182 jump pilot doing a straight in get 'cut off' by a PPL 172 doing a circuit. The 182 orbited then landed after the 172.

On the ground however the jump pilot was out of his aircraft almost before the prop stopped spinning, ran across the ramp straight under the wing of the PPL pilot, opened the ajar door and started laying into him.

I kept out of the argument but spoke to the 172 pilot afterwards and it turned out he had tuned CTAF on com 2 and forgot to select it as the active radio causing the incident.
Even tho it was the ppl pilots fault for not being on the right freq I don't see where the jump pilot acted appropriately by belittling the other pilot the way he did over a rookie mistake.

Dick Smyth
1st Aug 2011, 12:15
I believe CAR 166 dictates that the 172 actually had right of way.

bentleg
1st Aug 2011, 12:42
172 actually had right of way

Yep, the aircraft on a straight in gives way to one in the circuit. I would never force the issue, I'd just extend downwind and let the straight in land.

VH-XXX
1st Aug 2011, 12:52
I wish pilots would not rely on their radios, especially at non towered aerodromes!! It gives a false sense of security.

The 172 certainly did have right of way, no arguments there.

Andy_RR
1st Aug 2011, 14:00
What is the maximum number of passengers ...

Five on a PPL*, isn't it? 6POB? Or am I confusing JAR regulations?



*not saying Seneca pilot was a PPL

jas24zzk
1st Aug 2011, 14:34
Actually correct there, a Private Flight can have no more than 6 Person's on board.

Jas

Mimpe
1st Aug 2011, 14:40
If there is any risk of a traffic Conflict I dont care who gives away and have no qualms if its me.

A PPL cant carry more than 6 in the aircraft including pilot, with a TOW less than 5700 kg , with the appropriate endorsements. I think that would allow a nice little Pilateus PC12, with five passengers!

If the Seneca was already eatabished in the circuit I would happily give away, noting that , whilst not a legal requirement, it is a recommeneded practice to join via the circuit.

The speed of the aircraft is irrelevant, however it is good airmansip in Australia to always give way to RPT 's, and i would extend this coutesy to multiple passenger carrying charters as well.Similarly I would tend to allow an Rpt on a straight in to land, unlessit was obvious there would be no conflict. I do note
that if iwas on the circuit and clearly well ahead on ETA, i would expect some courtesy from the RPT.

One problem is the airfild with a long bactrack. I saw a small very slow Tiger
Moth who was just out for a sunday spin make a large REX RPT wait for 4 mins not that long ago in Taree, just so he coukd land and do his time consuming back track.

Thats my view, and its a good thing to be courteous and adaptive in busy airspace.

Lancair70
1st Aug 2011, 14:46
NIK320, the C172 pilot certainly had right of way no arguments there, however the aerodrome concerned is a CTAF R, with RPT ops and multiple aircraft operating at any one time including parachute drop operations within the CTAF, 2nm due south of the airport that had taken place in the preceeding 8 minutes to the jump plane having to orbit.
That, what so casually right off as a "rookie mistake" could of had dire consequences if the other 3 (in addition to the jump plane) aircraft in the circuit hadnt seen this C172, enter the CTAF, join the circuit, conduct a touch n go, complete another circuit and land, while parachutists were in the air ?? It seemed quite obvious the pilot of the C172 hadnt seen any of them ? Otherwise one would imagine that upon seeing aircraft in the circuit with you but not hearing them broadcast . . .mmmm . . is my radio on ? correct switches ?

I am the pilot of the jump plane.
The first I knew of the C172 was when I saw him on base, all other traffic was in a position that allowed my straight in approach and communiciation about such was made on the ctaf, had I known about he C172 in the circuit Id have adjusted my timing to fit the flow in the circuit. Prior to my dropping the parachutists I had made 4min and 2min broadcasts on the ctaf and area freq, had spoken with several aircraft re the drop on the ctaf. BNE CTR advised me of several "paints" in the circuit and I advised him I was in touch with several aircraft in the circuit and nearby area. I was given drop clearance and then satisfied myself that it was safe, allowed the parachutists to exit. I was operating under the presumption that anyone operating in the area was on the correct frequency and able to hear my calls. What if he had strayed off to the south on a B747 sized circuit ? What if he collided with a parachitist ?
Maybe my hurried path across the apron after landing was a tad dramatic (the prop had most definately stopped) but given the situation ? ? I can tell you that I recieved full support from the pilots of the other aircraft for my action in telling the C172 pilot off, and as the story spread around the airfield more tales of the same thing came out. Fer crying out loud, this isnt a game that we can hit the reset button on. The C172 pilots answer to you is exactly what I figured had happened, right freq, wrong comm selected. Does that come under airmanship ? ?

I was glad to see all your aircraft made it off the grass, any damage ? Bob Tait wasn't so lucky, he taxied off onto the soft grass a few months ago (again NOTAM issued) and tore a ligament in his leg trying to pull the aircraft out.
The current NOTAM
ALL GRASSED AREAS NOT AVBL
DUE SOFT WET SFC
FROM 07 270531 TO 08 030400 EST
Your group is lucky the fulltime groundsman had the day off, he'd have been over to tell you off quicker than I was.

I hope you all had a pleasant and safe trip home.

LeadSled
1st Aug 2011, 15:35
Give way to the right.
Bloggsie,
You know better than that, CAR 166 applies.
Private Flight can have no more than 6 Person's on board.
Folks,
Go recheck you regulations, the six maximum applies to the maximum number of people who can cost share on a private flight.
One example, Cessna 208 jump aircraft flown by a PPL, a lot more than five meatbombs there ---- this is legally a private operation.

There are many privately operated aircraft in Australia, flown by PPLs, with more than 5 pax seats, and they use them.

Tootle pip!!

eocvictim
1st Aug 2011, 18:42
VGX is operated privately too... Do a rego check, airliners has a few nice photos. Should well and truly put the 6pob limit BS to bed.

Lancair70... What a completely appropriate reaction over what, for all intents and purposes, could have been a comm failure. Not to condone the actions of the 172 pilot who is, as far as the current version of events, the individual at fault but if this was the case where did they go wrong? If you felt it was a serious breach of regs you should have filed a report. Personally, I don't have time to file a report for every idiot that doesn't/can't make appropriate calls. Providing there is no observable breach other than a failure to make calls, how could one file a report? If CASA have said comms are not required, how can anyone be critical of those who have otherwise done all that is required?

Or perhaps everyone is now saying that to not have comms is as to not have good airmanship? :E

VH-XXX
1st Aug 2011, 21:47
I was operating under the presumption that anyone operating in the area was on the correct frequency and able to hear my calls.

This is the part where your day went bad sorry.

You cannot afford to do this regardless of your operation and aircraft type.

mcgrath50
1st Aug 2011, 23:45
Sorry, what if a guy in ur ctaf has a comw failure? He could be screaming dont drop. In this case it wasnt but if u have never been on the wrong freq ill eat my hat! Mistakes happen, hopefully the guy will learn his lesson and thats all you can ask.

morno
2nd Aug 2011, 00:02
Sorry, what if a guy in ur ctaf has a comw failure? He could be screaming dont drop. In this case it wasnt but if u have never been on the wrong freq ill eat my hat! Mistakes happen, hopefully the guy will learn his lesson and thats all you can ask

So what do you propose this meatbomb pilot does? Fly's circles until the RAAF scours the airspace to ensure there's not one aircraft there that isn't communicating?

Sorry, but I'm mostly with Lance on this one. Having your radio turned all the way down and not noticing is a bad display of airmanship. We have beep back systems at most aerodromes these days.

morno

Ozzie Mozzie
2nd Aug 2011, 00:07
Even if the other bloke wasn't making the correct calls it is disgusting behaviour for a professional pilot to run over and start abusing another pilot. To have a chat with the bloke about what happened would be one thing but to start laying into him is quite another.

Yes it was poor airmanship to go charging into a busy CTAF without having the radios set up properly but, lancair, airmanship doesn't stop when the prop does.

Lancair70
2nd Aug 2011, 00:08
VH-XXX, so maybe we shouldnt drop meat bombs at all then ? How am I supposed to see all aircraft around the area from FL140 to ensure a safe drop ? If this aircraft had collided with a parachutist, who would be at fault ?

If there had been an DJ or JQ flight in the circuit what would have happened then ? They would definately submit a report, they have done so for lesser incidents. They nearly always conduct straight in approaches. Fair enough, they have TCAS and would have known about him earlier than I did.

The CTAF radio requirement hasnt been removed ? The R designator is replaced with CERT. which is on the YBNA ERSA page which means carriage and use of radio is mandatory. So if he had a genuine comms failure he was able to continue to land at YBNA but not do additional circuits. In a CTAF with no less than 4 airports and at least 10 pvt fields within the area, and at least 5 rpt movements per day, more most days, radio carriage and use is a sensible thing !

Im going to quit dropping meatbombs if Im potentially at fault if a collison should occur between a parachutist and a non radio equipped aircraft at a busy regional airport.
I also agree that relying on radios is dangerous, I saw the other aircraft in the circuit when I was at circuit height too and took the appropriate action to avoid a collision. I have done many times over 20yrs of flying but visually spotting this aircraft from FL140, who was 13000' below behind me at the time of drop, is next to impossible. Had there been no traffic I was aware of and BNE CTR reported a "paint" in the area, I would not have dropped until I had comms with the aircraft or it was well clear. In this incident, as I said, I was in comms with at least 3 aircraft prior to the drop and when BNE CTR advised multiple "paints" I was satisified those were the aircraft I was talking too. Next time I will delay the drop until I can verify I have comms with ALL the paints he is seeing. Ill ask CTR for the position of each and verify by radio before drop.

Again, as I said maybe my initial reaction was over the top but LIVES ARE AT RISK and I have the support of the other pilots who witnessed the incident. If the C172 had a comm failure he shouldnt have been doing circuits too.
No one died, this time.

Ozzie Mozzie, define "laying into" ? I didnt yell and scream, I didnt touch the guy, I didnt call him names or call him stupid, I used a raised voice for emphasis on the seriousness of the situation, yes.
Ive seen worse from a DJ pilot who had to go around due to an aircraft not using the radio, after landing he left his aircraft and proceeded to tell the pilot off in no uncertain terms.

ThePaperBoy
2nd Aug 2011, 00:38
Not knowing that CTAF-Rs haven't been used for over a year now and storming up to a rookie just to give him a piece of your mind shows an outstanding flying attitude. Well done :D

If you'd had a read of your AIPs/Jepps/Flight Safety Magazine etc you'd know that you're still required to make your precious radio calls at Ballina.

The C172 pilot stuffed up in the air. You stuffed up on the ground. Next time take a deep breath before telling another pilot off. I'm sure you've made numerous mistakes but most other pilots had the professionalism not to slam you afterwards.

Lancair70
2nd Aug 2011, 00:46
How the F#%@<hidden> did I stuff up on the ground ? ? ?

He needed to be told..

I did not abuse him, I did not call him names. I asked him what freq he was on and he couldnt answer me ? ? Then his wife or partner piped up that he made all his calls ? I told him there was skydiving going on as well as the 3 other aircraft plus me who had to take action to avoid him, did he see us ? NO was his answer. Had he said I have a complete radio failure, I wouldnt have continued, there was the answer, all is safe now, get it fixed before leaving or have other aircraft accompany him making broadcasts on his behalf to the nearest suitable place to have it repaired.

Why did other pilots in the group come over and talk to me later about it ? They seemed concerned for this guys airmanship/piloting ?

All these visting aircraft parked on the grass too, which as pointed out alrady is NOTAM'd U/S ? ? Not a capital offence, but if their a/c had been damaged ? Had the regular ground guy been there they'd have copped a bigger serve from him too.

Im not trying to sound all high an mighty professional here, but who flies to a destination over 50nm from the deptarture aerodrome, and doesnt check weather and notams ?

Who has poor skills ? ?

Yes Paper Boy, Ive made mistakes too, Ive been told off too. I learn from them. Lets hope this pilot does too. Maybe you should re-read my post about how CTAF R is now CERT and still requires carriage and use of radio ?
YBNA has an AFRU, I use it EVERYTIME I tune the radio to the CTAF freq, before each flights first taxi call (if I havent heard any other Tx) and on arriving back to the CTAF having been on other freq's.
I am not a rookie skydive pilot, nor am I a skygod, Ive been doing this for aprox 800hrs by choice.
Im sure we are all aware of developing an mental picture of the aircraft around us by monitoring the radio (situational awareness). During ALL of my flights Im listening on 2 freq's, CTAF and Area. I listen for conflicting traffic and plan ahead for it if they will be near the drop at the time. I will hold for aircraft transiting the area if they dont offer to track away, I can ask them too but not demand.
This situation has made me more aware of the radio failed a/c in the circuit scenario and as I said before will be more thorough on confirming the ID and intentions of a/c that BNE CTR advise me of. In this incident I was confident as I had spoken to at least 3 a/c re the drop. I was dropping again as members of the group departed and Im sure theyll agree, we discussed the drop cordially and professionally, we were all aware and going to be clear of the area. I conduct my ops in a professional and courteous manner. If this guy cant handle being told off for his mistake, thats his problem.

ThePaperBoy
2nd Aug 2011, 01:09
Hmm...


On the ground however the jump pilot was out of his aircraft almost before the prop stopped spinning, ran across the ramp straight under the wing of the PPL pilot, opened the ajar door and started laying into him.



There's no need for that.


Yes Paper Boy, Ive made mistakes too, Ive been told off too.


Most of us have. What is disgusting pilot behaviour is those who believe abusing the other (often more junior) pilot is to right thing to do. They can't wait to stop the engines and storm over.

Chances are the eyewitness account of your actions is a little exaggerated. I'm sure the event was frustrating as well. But next time how about you give the guy a few minutes to put the plane to bed before have a quiet, calm chat - it is usually more effective and by then your emotion has gone out of the argument.

Lancair, the following comment is in no way directed at you personally but referring to those who believe anger well above your actions is appropriate.

There are enough dick heads on the road who abuse people for the slightest mistake and create dangerous road rage. We don't need those people in the air. I knew of a PPL student on a solo cross country that made a slight mistake and was abused like you wouldn't believe by the field's local operator. The student was so rattled that it affected the rest of his flying to the point where navigation then airspace violation became an issue, further affecting him. There's a right way to let someone know they've stuffed up and a wrong way.

ThePaperBoy
2nd Aug 2011, 01:15
Maybe you should re-read my post about how CTAF R is now CERT and still requires carriage and use of radio ?


Maybe you shouldn't change your posts once you realise you look like a right knob.

Your orginal post, which mentioned nothing about CERT airfields and confusion about CTAF-R was posted at 9:08.

I posted at 9:38 saying CTAF-Rs haven't been around for a while.

You go back at 10:07 and change your post after I question your professionalism:

Last edited by Lancair70; 2nd Aug 2011 at 10:07

Then you change your reply to me saying Maybe you should re-read my post about how CTAF R is now CERT and still requires carriage and use of radio ?

Was starting to think I'd kicked over the wrong ant's nest and I was being harsh. Now I realised my initial thoughts about your are correct!

Anyway, time to take some of my own medicine and log off for a few hours before I say something really stupid. I'll read your reply later on.

Lancair70
2nd Aug 2011, 01:40
Paper Boy,
Im man enough to admit there was confusion on my part about the CTAF R. I admit, I didnt know the R bit was gone and replaced with CERT, but the basic requirement for carriage and use of radio hasnt changed.
I had not read your post at the time I changed mine, I was reading the AIP to find the correct answer for myself. So your questioning my professionalism is warranted given my intial post. I wasnt changing my post in any attempt to cover it up, Im admitting it now.
Ok so I shouldnt have replied to you like I intially did. I aplogise.

Time to take some your medicine and log off for a while.

Andrew

Howard Hughes
2nd Aug 2011, 02:18
Next time take a deep breath before telling another pilot off.
Great advice.:D
Time to take some your medicine and log off for a while.

Great advice also, you might want to listen to you own advice.;)

HomeJames
2nd Aug 2011, 02:21
Well this really has turned itself into an appendage measuring contest.

That poor little PPL pilot, couldn't use his comm properly (which freq was he broadcasting on, there's a good look), didn't read NOTAMs, but of course, let's all have a quiet word with him, asking him very politely not to do it again eh? Bollocks!!! If I was in Lancair's position, I would have done the same thing, with the addition of calling the groundskeeper about the parking on the grass. Would this be a different story if the 182 were a
SAAB or A320? Would there perhaps be and incident report? I think so.

So the fool who can't use his radios got a revving, so what? That is the least that could have happenned. Chances are he will remember that big mean jump pilot in future whenever he has more than one Comm. Pwecious widdle pwincess.

On the ground however the jump pilot was out of his aircraft almost before the prop stopped spinning, ran across the ramp straight under the wing of the PPL pilot, opened the ajar door and started laying into him.


I'm sure this is what Lancair did, in fact I'll bet he brought his cane and knuckle dusters so he could give the chap a jolly good thrashing. Was his white scarf flapping in the breeze behind him as he walked? Top points for poetic license there NIK320 old boy! I think a little bit of bruised pride has led to unhealthy amount of indignation.

Too often in life we allow incompetence to flourish by not speaking up.

Straight Home and don't spare the horses!

VH-XXX
2nd Aug 2011, 02:40
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, in that order.

Always assume there is an aircraft lingering around that you don't know about.

To blindly assume that everyone is on the same channel you with a working radio is a bold assumption that will one day cause you to come unstuck.

VH-XXX, so maybe we shouldnt drop meat bombs at all then ? How am I supposed to see all aircraft around the area from FL140 to ensure a safe drop ? If this aircraft had collided with a parachutist, who would be at fault ?

This wasn't the issue - this discussion came about because you abused someone for cutting in front of you when you were on a straight-in approach and he was in the circuit with right-of-way.


For the record, a PPL with endorsements can fly a C208 full of passengers if he/she is financing the flight and not cost sharing. I'm not sure why so many people get confused on this one.

Capt Fathom
2nd Aug 2011, 02:48
The thing that stands out here is that some pilots seem to think they own the home airport they operate from!

No doubt they know the area well. Know all the frequencies and procedures. And read the local notams!

But that doesn't give them the right to be judge, jury and executioner!

It can be frustrating when someone supposedly gets it wrong and creates a problem. But the last thing they need is the current gods gift to aviation giving them a public dressing down.

Offer them help with their baggage. A lift into town perhaps. By then everyone has calmed down and you can chat about the local procedures.

Some pilot's feel under-confident and intimidated when going to unfamilar airports. Despite doing their homework, they still get things wrong!

We all need to be aware of that!

ThePaperBoy
2nd Aug 2011, 02:49
Lancair,

Understood - I retract my statement questioning your lack of professionalism. Have a good day out at sunny BNA :ok:.


HomeJames,

Ok, next time I disagree with the wife, instead of trying to have a rational discussion (hard at times, I know), how about I just give her a black eye? That will teach her, that "pwecious widdle pwincess".

I don't retract any comments about treating other pilots with a bit more respect.

ThePaperBoy
2nd Aug 2011, 02:50
Capt Fathom - well said. :D

b_sta
2nd Aug 2011, 03:19
Agree with Wally. Everyone makes mistakes, including aviation god jump pilots, but is the best way to get the message across really to carry on like a child with abuse and a tantrum? People tend to respond better to suggestions and advice when you speak to them in a calm, reasonable manner, and you're more likely to get the effective result you're wanting by doing so (that is, the PPL doing the right thing next time!)

VH-XXX
2nd Aug 2011, 03:31
guy whom was Asian

Sorry Wal, however the politically correct wording is, "of Asian appearance."

HomeJames
2nd Aug 2011, 04:35
ThePaperBoy,

Using your logic, I am surprised you are capable of a rational thought process, let alone discussion.

Ok, next time I disagree with the wife, instead of trying to have a rational discussion (hard at times, I know), how about I just give her a black eye? That will teach her, that "pwecious widdle pwincess".


This argument is so deftly lacking in logic it is laughable. Domestic violence is somehow linked to a lack of airmanship? Smooth one there sport, an attempt to bring an emotive issue like that in, to cloud the arguments further.

Speaking of emotive issues, let's take another look at the things that NIK320 said:


On the ground however the jump pilot was out of his aircraft almost before the prop stopped spinning

Of course he was!


ran across the ramp

I'll bet he did!


opened the ajar door and started laying into him.


Full bottle too I'll bet!

All of which is quite inflammatory language and is only one side of the story.

Lancair actually wants to tell his side of the story but it would seem that none of you want a bar of it. By the sounds of it, the entire fly away group displayed their incredible professionalism and airmanship by parking on NOTAMed out grass. Charming. You guys must be right cos Lancair is a meatbomber and we all know they are dodgy, rule breaking cowboys that eat baby dolphins raw for breakfast.

I will re-iterate that this particular situation looks a great deal like BRUISED PRIDE = INDIGNATION = CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Lancair,

If you remember their rego, put in a report about them and get a copy of the CTAF tapes. In addition, call up the groundskeeper. I'm sure he'd be happy to send them the bill for any damage caused to the grassed areas. It is only then that they will see that a stern talking to was getting off lightly.

Straight Home and don't spare the horses.

Lancair70
2nd Aug 2011, 04:35
Again I stress, I did not throw a tantrum, did not belittle him or call him names. I didnt touch him or his aircraft. It wasnt because I was cut off on approach that I approached him, that was the start. I approached because of the lack of radio use when I had just been dropping skydivers !
I edit my posts for spelling etc and had been away from the PC for a bit when I returned, finished my editing then posted, after seeing comments that now didnt make sense I edited my posts. Im human too.

As Ive also said, I AM NO SKY GOD, I dont think I own the local airport, I dont think I know more than everyone else, thats the young dicks straight of school who come here and fly skydivers that are like that. I may have fitted the bill about 20yrs ago. ;)

I do remember the rego, but Im not going to file a report, hopefully he has learnt from this, as I have.
As I said before, Ill now be taking more notice of exactly how many "paints" BNE CTR observe and be 100% sure Ive spoken to all the aircraft before allowing a drop to proceed. These guys and girls jumping are my mates too. BUT whether they are mates or not, I dont EVER want an accident out of my aeroplane due to me or my lack of actions. This has scared me back to the reality of what we do and how many people one incident could affect.

Andrew

BTW, To the original poster about the incident, is that Bonanza VH-RMM available for pvt hire from somewhere in Redcliffe ? I regularly fly to Cobar and back and am looking for something faster, more economical per mile, than the jump ship.

maverick22
2nd Aug 2011, 05:20
Keep your shirts on fellas. Why can't there be more people like Wal out there. I remember on my second or third solo I caused the air ambo to go around (similar to the original post - I was doing ccts on the short grass strip into wind converging with the ambos who were using the main runway). Got a bit close for their comfort so they went around. They weren't med 1 but I was still highly embarrassed and was ready to get a right ear bashing on the ground. Instead the pilot came over and had a chat to me, gave me a few pointers and then gave me a tour of the hangar and the aircraft. I got a lot out of that, and have never cut anyone off since! What a gentleman:D

eocvictim
2nd Aug 2011, 05:20
Just to clarify if he had the comms as everyone is saying, he would have been fully aware of all the other traffic (including the meatbombs) and under the blind assumption everyone knew he was there. Correct frequency wrong comm means he can hear you, you can't hear him. Unless he asks someone else their ETA/exact position etc he would have no idea no one can hear him. Remember most PPL's are shit scared to do anything beyond the norm and most have not been taught to question fellow aviators or speak up if in trouble for fear of ridicule. Some are of the opinion that CPL's are the kings and their men so get out of their way, ATC are omnipotent and can see all and CASA are the gods that enforce the law by wielding an indiscriminate sabre of justice!

If he's hearing your calls and assuming you can hear his he probably just hoped you'd work it out and he wouldn't get in the way since you said nothing to him.

NIK320
2nd Aug 2011, 06:07
I never met the guy until that day and I agree flying into a cert aerodrome with your radio turned off is a hazard and he deserved a talking to, nor am I objecting to your airborne actions. Its the way you came straight under his wing that caused the concern. At least let him out of the aircraft before starting an argument.
It was seen as a similar act to getting out of your car at a red light to give another driver a stern talking to.

Apart from that I agreed with the rest of it including the parking choice. I was ignored on arrival acting as a pax at that point hence we ended up there. In hindsight I had a set of brakes at my feet and should have used them but didn't.

ThePaperBoy
2nd Aug 2011, 06:34
HomeJames,

Have a think and you'll realise all along my argument has been that there's no need for aggression to solve conflict in the everyday lives we take part of. My example was deliberately over the top (of course there's no link between airmanship and domestic violence!) in response to your statements which appeared to endorse aggression (don't read that as meaning domestic violence), including:

Chances are he will remember that big mean jump pilot in future whenever he has more than one Comm. Pwecious widdle pwincess.


Anyway, let's lay off one another to prevent the character assassination you speak of (have a last dig at me if you want to call it even) and thread drift.

Homesick-Angel
2nd Aug 2011, 09:18
Next time take a deep breath before telling another pilot off.


Telling off in an abusive manner maybe a no-no, but it sure as hell it sounds like a stern and straight conversation was required.Imagine the PPL'er had gone home none the wiser?

He needed to hear the danger he had placed several people in. If he heard it in a strong yet non abusive manner, then good. He needs to suck it up.

If too many people stay silent, and dont tell or "dob" in other pilots, then who knows how big the holes get in the "swiss cheese" over time..

I bet this pilot will never again transmit on the wrong freq..

VH-XXX
2nd Aug 2011, 10:03
He needed to hear the danger he had placed several people in.

I'm still struggling to see the issue here, what danger are you referring to?

Radios fail, pilots use the wrong frequency, volumes are turned down etc etc, get over that, fly your aircraft and look out the windows.

The 182 pilot saw the 172, did an orbit and landed, I dont see an issue!

Lancair70
2nd Aug 2011, 10:22
VH-XXX, the outcome was good in the end, to that point you are right.

I dont know how to do that quote thing for the relevant posts. Go back and re-read my posts and you'll see.
Ive also learnt from this and wont make the same mistake that has such dire potential.

Andrew

b_sta
2nd Aug 2011, 10:23
Not to mention the 172 had right of way. So who was placing who in danger?? :ugh: (lack of radio use, intentional or not, notwithstanding)

Lancair70
2nd Aug 2011, 10:50
b sta, read the whole thread properly before posting.

NIK320
2nd Aug 2011, 11:17
b_sta he did give way to the 172.

I think the danger bit is more the possibility the 172 could have flown a football field circuit, one of the jumpers could have drifted slightly to close to the field and both ending up in the same spot of sky.

BTW, To the original poster about the incident, is that Bonanza VH-RMM available for pvt hire from somewhere in Redcliffe ? I regularly fly to Cobar and back and am looking for something faster, more economical per mile, than the jump ship.
Lancair I sent you a PM
Nothing nasty :)

VH-XXX
2nd Aug 2011, 12:01
Airmanship is when Jaba delivered dozens of rolls of toilet paper to the flood victims in Qld and when a chap from my local field flew his mate 3 hours return by Chieftain to a remote island on a mercy mission to try and save his partners sick dog.

andrewr
2nd Aug 2011, 12:03
The last aircraft I encountered on the wrong frequency was the police helicopter, shortly after the CTAF frequency changed at BLT.

I didn't give them a stern talking to, but instead took it as a sign that even the best pilots can make errors.

currawong
2nd Aug 2011, 12:29
Back to the original post - did the two runways in use even intersect?

Curious and it is not stated.

strutless
2nd Aug 2011, 12:50
Yes the runways do intersect. The shorter runway 33 runs 200 metres past the end of 05, but it is at the end of 05 so they don't intersect midway if that makes sense.

In this instance the Seneca rolled through to the end and stopped short of 33. It looked like they deliberately ran to the end to prove a point rather than exit early but that is not something that can be proven.

Seems that the Seneca had too many passengers too if I counted correctly. This particular pilot should have known better :=