Airmanship and mixed types in the circuit

[Genghis the Engineer]

All thoughts on this appreciated. I'm being honest about the position, but excluding some salient details so as not to point too clearly at anybody.


Scene was yesterday, I was out at a busy GA airfield somewhere in England. The task was flight testing a microlight, which for this sortie, I was doing solo. I'm familiar with the type (150 hours or so on an unmodified version of same), weather is perfect bar some slightly iffy viz (7-8km), wind minimal, I'm reasonably familiar with the airfield. The aircraft belongs to a (microlight) PPL Examiner based there.

Having finished my task for the day, I joined crosswind, flew a tight downwind (slow aeroplane therefore small circuit to avoid displacing everybody else), with one aircraft (A PA28) in front of me. Call downwind No.2, PA28 lands at roughly the same time as another PA28 calls joining downwind, and I turn base.

Couple of facts here. The type I was flying flies in the circuit at about 50kn, and finals about 40 kn. A PA28 flies in the circuit around 80kn, and finals about 65kn. A PA28 probably flies a visual approach about 5°-10°, a microlight about 30-45°.


Move forward a minute or so, I have turned (and called) finals, I've perhaps half a mile / 1 minute to run (flying a standard microlight glide approach, so steep but on the centreline), when the PA28 calls finals. Tower (AFIS) calls (to PA28) you are "No.2 to the microlight, which is slow moving, you may wish to orbit, the circuit is clear behind you". PA28 calls "understand circuit clear ahead". Tower repeats it's original call.

Things then happened rather quickly. My head at this point is on gimbals trying to work out how long I have to live and what evasive action I can or should take. At about 300ft, the PA28 appears about 2 wingspans on my stbd wingtip, and as it passes me transmits "orbiting for separation, unsure of the microlight's intentions". In relief I do admit to the thoroughly unprofessional transmission on my part of "at-least he turned right".

So, I continue, fly a normal landing, and am met by the aircraft's owner who saw this and is more than a little irate (he teaches people on this airfield and is clearly from his comments thinking how a low hour student would have reacted to this, also a suggestion that this isn't a first-offence). We both stroll up to the tower for a chat.

Tower says they they also thought it looked very poor airmanship (the F word was used on both sides of the conversation) and invite us to discuss it directly with the captain of the PA28 who has now landed. Owner and I agree that this would be appropriate and stroll over to find him.

In subsequent discussion with PA28 Captain (who is at-least twice my age, and three times that of the owner of the microlight I was flying), which is mildly heated and somewhat unconclusive several points come out:-

- PA28 captain has 20,000 hours (first thing he says in fact)
- PA28 captain had no idea what I was doing, despite the fact he'd heard me call finals. He denied any knowledge of how finals look in a microlight.
- I was totally unreasonable in feeling aggreived since it was his duty to take avoiding action as the overtaking aircraft and (in his opinion) this was done in good time.
- A disagreement on separation. My perception was about 2 wingspans (20 yards or so) his was 50-100 yards. So, Presumably the truth is somewhere between the two.
- The aircraft owner was quite unreasonable (in the PA28 Captain's opinion) in feeling that one of his students would have been badly disturbed by meeting a light aircraft on their wingtips whilst on finals.



So, thoughts...

- Should I have initiated an early go-around when it was clear the PA28 was unaware of my position and intentions?

- Should I file an Airprox (which was the opinion of the owner of the aircraft I was flying), a CHIRP report (my current opinion) or just stop fussing over nothing (the opinion of the PA28 captain) ?

- Is there a widespread problem with mixed traffic not understanding each other's modes of flying (certainly suggested by this and the near-tragedy at Barton last year). If so, what needs doing about this?


And if I sounds somewhat peeved about the whole thing, this is entirely intentional.

G

[Bluebeard2]

Its been a while since I was last in the circuit with a microlight - it was at Sywell. I was in a C150 and was no.2 on final to a microlight, who I could see very clearly. Guessed he was tootling along quite slowly so took an early decision to go around. No debate really, and if I wasn't able to see him I would have gone around anyway just to be sure. Can't see how your intentions would have been difficult to understand.:confused:

Not sure I would be bothered to go the extent of an airprox, but I would be tempted to do a CHIRP. Also find it hard to see how this can be a problem beyond application of common sense/good airmanship, but if it saves some lives then I'm all for better understanding of the topic.

[FlyingForFun]

Just reading that, I'm scared.

To answer your questions:

- Should you have gone around? Yes, in my opinion. I'd have got away from the centre-line as soon as realised the other guy didn't know what I was doing.

- Should you file an Airprox/CHIRP? Tough one. I'd say that if you felt safety was seriously compromised, then file an Airprox. CHIRP is intended to be confidential, I can't see any need for confidentiality in this one - not on your part, anyway, since you've clearly done nothing wrong. (I'm basing that not just one your account, but also on the fact that it seems that a qualified AFISO agrees that you've done nothing wrong.)

- Is there a problem with mixed-mode traffic? Well, I think there's lack of understanding, but it doesn't nee to be as unsafe as this. I didn't know that microlights fly as steep an approach as that until I read your post - but even without knowing that, the PA28-driver had enough information to be able to keep out of your way, but chose to ignore that information. I know the first time I shared a circuit with an airship I was very confused about what he was trying to do. But by keeping my eyes open and my options open, both me and the airship landed perfectly safely less than a minute apart. All it takes is a bit of intelligence.


Drivers are taught to "drive defensively" - in other words, assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot who's about to pull out in front of you, and decide before it happens what you're going to do about it. Pilots aren't generally taught that, because very few pilots are complete idiots. But there's always an exception to the rule.

Anyway, well done for getting everyone onto the ground safely, somehow!

FFF
----------------

[SATCO Biggin]

Genghis,

It isnt clear from your posting whether the FISO got a correct acknowledgement to his second attempt to get the PA28 driver to understand his information about your presence. If he did get a correct reply then the PA28 driver appears to have not really understood what was said or just plain didnt see you until it was too late.

Also from your posting it would appear the PA28 driver was of advancing years. Not wishing to run down our elder members but I do sometimes have concerns regarding old age pensioner pilots, particularly those who have had a lot of past flying experience. We are all going to get old one day and its a straight fact that you do not remain so mentally nimble as the years advance. You can rely a lot on your past experience to keep you out of trouble but when things start getting out of shape oldies are often slower to react. When they drive cars on public roads they normally drive more slowly than the youngsters so that they can assimilate the information they are receiving and still have time to react.

As for mixing different types....well there is a limit to what can be mixed. If you get some large machines flying around you have to allow for vortex wake as well as speed differences. This can totally disrupt a nice orderly circuit pattern.

Regards

TMC (getting older every day)

[Genghis the Engineer]

The PA28 overhauled me just after the AFISO made his second call, the PA28's response was calling (after passing me) that he was orbiting. There wasn't a readback to the AFISO's second call. All the exciting stuff probably happened within 20 seconds or so, so this last is understandable.


Just as an aside, I'm not quite sure in my own mind why I didn't initiate a go-around, probably the reasons are a combination of preferring to maintain a constant flight path so that, if the PA28 driver had seen me, he was less likely to fly into me that way (which in retrospect was probably true), and partly the assumption that the PA28 driver would have responded to the AFISO's call (which he didn't).

G

[GK430]

G t E,
Having read a few of your posts, one has to respect your aeronautical knowledge and presumably ability.

I personally consider microlights to be my worst nightmare at low level. No offence to those that take pleasure in them, but you are mighty exposed and not the most visible. I generally get tranxfixed trying to work out which direction you are going in, if your track is not actually crossing mine.

I was in a PA-34 last Sunday and to be honest the horizontal viz was so poor, I would never have seen a microlight cross country - makes you think.

In the instance you relate to, my hope would have been that the AFISO had tried to reiterate your position to the PA-28 and would have appreciated the speed differentials and had his head out looking to see the PA-28 closing on you.

I remember being at the hold at SEN last year cursing that I was waiting to line up behind a microlight that had been on finals into a 15 kt headwind for what seemed like an age. A B.58 had been crosswind and was right up the chuff of the Microlight on finals in a very shortspace of time - the TWR told the Baron to go-around.

Would loved to have seen the expreesion on your face when the Cherokee came abeam you!

[Ludwig]

Genghis,

Flying in mixed performance circuits is a real pain in the bum, especially if you are the faster a/c., but it need not be dangerous if everyone is is in control and cooperating. I flew for a number of years at an airfield with a busy microlight school, a major R22 dealersip and school with opposite circuits 200 feet lower than the f/w circuit, and generally it works most of the time. The real problem is a/c on final. My aircraft has a stall speed which is greater than the circuit flying speed of some microlights! so get behind one on a 2 mile final and it is a nightmare, especially if as was the case, the bomber command circuits flown by many takes you over a town. This is a big no no in a pfa a/c.

The other problem is joining traffic. If one joins over the numbers at 1000 feet, it is quite possible to meet either a slow moving but steep climbing microlight at 1000 feet, or a high performance aircraft at the same point.

My pleas would be for people to fly sensible circuits sizes ie tight in, so that the faster a/c can overtake without leaving the atz, a bit more co-operation, (the aforesaid microligt school was very good at saying G whatever can take number one to us if he wants) and get rid of the stupidly long final.

Ideally ban everything that cannot maintain at least 120 knts to the threshold:D

As far a filing an airmiss is concerned, if the other guy makes the right noises, and I felt that he was fully situationally aware and everything was cool, but close, I wouldn't bother: life's too short for hassle. If on the other hand he was an arsehole, and clearly had a attitude which made him tempermentally unsuitable to be incommand of a guided missile, I would report, cuz twats should be groundbased. People who just make a mistake are, well, human.:cool:

[Dufwer]

I disagree with FFF on this one. In my opinion continuing the approach was the best course of action. I'm sure that if Genghis had turned in the same direction as his PA-28 'friend' then in a few months time we'd be reading AAIB reports on the unfortunate occurance. Genghis changing direction/flight path in any way would have increased the risk. I get the impression that the PA-28 pilot did have the microlight in sight and he did take avoiding action. No need to complicate the situation further.

What I see as the problem here is the PA-28 creating the situation in the first place. As the chap was obviously not agreeable on the fact that Genghis felt he had been put in a dangerous situation, somebody needs to apply a bit a presure on him. Submit an airprox and get the CAA (or whichever body looks at these things) on your side. Don't let him use his hours or his age to bully his way out of the situation. If he was at fault he needs to be told. :mad:

D

[Monocock]

G the E

Surely because you were in front the PA28 driver should have apologised profusely and had it been me I would have been embarrassed to tell you how many hours I had after being such a plonker.

I regularly fly in to Popham in my PA28 (I wasn't up yesterday!!!!) and I accept that it is predominantly microlights in the air so make way for them. It isn't difficult to judge the timings of a circuit and I work on the basis that an a/c travelling at twice the speed should fly a circuit twice the size to keep everything running smoothly.

I have never been in a microlight (would love to) but can imagine it's quite daunting feeling rather exposed when other GA a/c are buzzing about especially at weekends.

I still think half the problem is the unspoken snobbery that some PPL (A) pilots have about flying. Most of the time these PPL (A) pilots don't own the a/c they are flying whereas the "mike" pilot does. Therefore, where's the room for snobbery there? Some might think it takes more skill to fly a Piper than a Pegasus, I doubt it.

There are a lot of airfields that don't allow microlights to visit.
All PPL(A) pilots know this so should therefore respect that fact when they visit a place like Popham where microlighting is the "base" activity. I'm not having a go at fellow PPL(A) bretheren but I think the whole arrogance that some flyers adopt should be turned round into a "Live and let Live" one.

[pondlife]

I used to fly a flexwing microlight and these days instruct in mainly PA28s.
In my opinion there's no reason why the two shouldn't co-exist quite happily and safely.
The speed difference can be taken care of quite easily by flying different size circuits so that the timing around the circuit remains similar - just like you might have to do for a fast conventional aeroplane compared to, say, a C150.
There's a bit of argument over how steep a PA28 approach should be on this newsgroup and others from time to time, but the typical teaching in the UK is to fly the approach with power a bit shallower than you suggest at about 3 or 4 degrees. Microlight approaches are typically flown without power and so are rather steeper - but probably not as steep as your post suggests unless the microlight has the glide qualities similar to a brick.

Anyway..., the point I'm trying to make (badly) is that all these differences are not really so different and one can experience similar sorts of differences between types and piloting styles of conventional aeroplanes in the same circuit anyway.

In this case, if the facts are as reported, then the PA28 pilot made a mistake and excercised bad judgement. It's hard to believe that a good forward thinking pilot should make this mistake but people do make mistakes and there's no point pretending otherwise.
Given that you both survived his mistake, the remaining unresolved problem as reported is that the pilot is sufficiently arrogant as not to acknowledge his mistake and so not to learn from it - I consider that to be unforgiveable and you shouldn't feel any guilt at all in pushing the matter. It's just possible that you'll save someone elses life by doing so.
I would suggest that you file the airprox.
Also, you infered that this wasn't an isolated incident at the airfield - is it a general problem or is it the same offender each time. If it's the same offender then I would suggest that you make sure that the airfield operator is aware of the incident so that they can, if they choose, either get the pilot concerned to think a bit more or to fly from somewhere else. A fatal accident could be really bad for the airfield operator's business.

[LowNSlow]

Genghis I think you were correct to continue with the approach as at least one of you was where they were supposed to be. I also agree with Dufwer that turning away when unsure of the location of the PA-28 could have been a turn into him.

I had a similar problem flying into Cranfield last year. I was carved up by a Tomahawk whilst on final in an Auster. I would have thought I would have been easy to see as I was slightly above him when he turned onto finals 100' in front of me. If I had been in a low wing type I wouldn't have seen him at all.

When I flew a Cub, I routinely flew as tight a circuit as possible (within published noise abatement etc procedures of course) and then carefully slotted myself in on the base leg amongst the C150s etc which were imitating Vulcans :D :D I felt it was better that students in the circuit didn't have to think about how to avoid the slow yellow thing in front of them and I felt a whole lot safer too. :D :D

Best of all was the red Hunter which came whistling up from the South coast of a certain island to do a low pass over a certain airfield there. Not a problem as I could see him coming after hearing him call the A/G operator. I would have not been concerned at all but, after calling the said A/G Op and telling him of my position, the A/G Op told the Hunter driver that there was no traffic in front of him. Yoiks:suspect: The Hunter passed 100' below and 2-300 yds to my right. As I was silhouetted against the sky from his viewpoint, I'm sure the Hunter bod saw me..........

[sennadog]

For the first part of your question, I'd say that you did the correct thing and continued with final with my understanding being that the "overtaking" aircraft doesn't have right of way - especially in this situation.

At Redhill, I get the impression that there is a bit of an anti -microlight attitude in Tower which can lead to irritating problems on the RT. I had a situation the other day where I was catching up with one of the Shadows ahead of me and was given the optioin of orbiting from the Tower, I declined and had a bit of practice in slow flight instead which worked a treat.

I appreciate that your approach speed is pretty much a given but I can't for the life of me see why other pilots can't regulate their speed. I understand you may have more of a problem in a fast twin (or whatever) but why not make circuits more interesting and get some slow flying in as well.

[Ludwig]

Mmmmm, not sure a busy circuit is the place to practice flight near Vs or VMCA

[GK430]

Ludwig,

160 to 4 and no complaints - but come on, 120 over the Thr!!
Some runways aren't long enough and if they were, I really don't think Microlights should be in there mixing it:(

[FlyingForFun]

GK430, not sure I understand your last post - are you saying that microlights shouldn't use long runways???

Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of watching a gyro-coptor take off from Exeter International in front of me. (Well, I say "watching" but he departed off an intersection at least a mile and a half from the end of the runway, where I was lined up in turn - I'd have needed binoculars to get a good view!) Didn't cause any problems, and there's no reason why it should have done.

I seem to be in the minority regarding Genghis's decision to go around or not. I agree that he had right of way, and was not obliged to go around. But I was always taught that if something isn't right, go around first and ask questions later. The only good reason I can see for not going around in this case is, as Dufwer suggests, the possibility of him turning into the path of the PA28. But the steep approach path of the microlight would have meant that Genghis would have been above the PA28 already - going around would have put him even higher, so vertical seperation should have been assured. I will certainly agree that there is room for debate, though - I can see the merits of the arguments that landing was the correct thing to do.

FFF
-------------

[Genghis the Engineer]

My morning has been spent writing the report - not on the incident but on the actual test flight preceding it. I thought my voice recorder (plumbed into the intercom) would have run out of tape before rejoining, but it actually ran out just after I vacated the runway. So, for those interested, here's the transcript - I started the stopwatch on this transcript as I called join, and the runway is N-Easterly (rather not give the actual number to keep this semi-anonymous).

I've used the callsigns "G-Me" and G-Him" in the transcript, neither is correct. The Cherokee I refer to is another one, in front of me".


0:00 G-ME: G-ME joining 0X Right crosswind over the numbers

0:05 AFISO:G-ME Roger

1:20 G-ME: G-ME downwind to land, contact one Cherokee on final
AFISO: G-ME Roger, Report Final

2:20 G-HIM: G-HIM downwind
AFISO: G-HIM report final, two reported ahead
G-HIM: G-HIM two ahead

2:40 AFIS: (callsign unclear) Land at your discretion, surface
wing 080 / 7kn

3:30 G-ME, voice tape only I'll fly this approach 50 since it's fairly gusty, on a calmer day I could get away with less, I see no justification for it. OK, the Cherokee has just turned off the runway.

4:05 G-ME: G-ME Final to land
AFIS: G-ME land at your discretion, surface wind 070/12 kn

4:20 G-HIM: "IM" On finals over the (unclear)
AFIS: G-HIM roger, one ahead, surface wind 080 / 10kn
G-HIM: Copy

4:35 AFIS: G-HIM, do you wish to orbit for spacing, there's nothing reported behind you and (unclear) on finals
G-HIM: G-HIM understand nothing ahead
AFIS: There is one ahead but he's very slow

5:10 G-ME: (After being overhauled by G-HIM) (Uncertain whether this was transmitted or on voice tape only) Well, at-least he turned right.

5:15 G-HIM: G-HIM is orbiting on final, not sure what his
intention are
AFIS: Station transmitting, say again your callsign
G-HIM: G-HIM, I'm orbiting to the right three-sixty, ahhh,
not sure he's set out his intentions. G-HIM

5:40 G-ME (voice tape only) It's quite gusty, going up to 55.

5:50 G-ME (voice tape only) 50, 45,

6:05 G-HIM: G-HIM on Finals
AFIS: G-HIM Surface wind 070/8kn

6:15: G-ME (voice tape only) Touch down at 35 full stall landing

6:25 AFIS: G-HIM Land at your discretion, 080/5kn


Interesting how things all happened rather slower than my perception.

G

[redbar1]

FFF,
I think you can count me into your minority, and for the same reasons you so splendidly put forward!

I am absolutely not implying that Genghis did something wrong in any way, only reflecting my personal preferences, and not indicating this is the "one and only truth". Just the fact that Genghis is still posting proves his option was not wrong!

What I think we really are discussing here is the very complex process of being in command of a craft, taking inputs, knowing your options and making decisions based on this. Very often in aviation, the speeds involved forces us to accept the "good enough" solutions, because we do not have the time to calculate the "perfect" solution.

Just some toughts in between work....

Cheers,

[Keef]

My biggest dread is the aircraft behind me that I can't see (we have no rear view mirror). I get paranoid when I hear someone call final when I'm on final and can't see him/her. I think I'd carry on in a very straight line and have an urgent word on the radio.

I reckon G did exactly the right thing in keeping on - but I think I'd have been more vocal on the RT. I'd file an airprox, too, if I were on final and had called it, and then got "overtaken".

I don't like mixing it with microlights - had a scare at Popham last year when one cut in front of me doing a very tight base and final.

[Whirlybird]

Sounds like a definite lack of communication here. :eek:

Go around or continue? Impossible to be sure, unless you know where the other aircraft is, and what his intentions are...and you didn't. I think I'd have asked the chap in the PA 28 if he could see me, and taken it from there.

As for what you should do now, I'd file an airprox and CHIRP it too; it can't do any harm, and might do some good. The PA28 pilot is dangerous...and I don't care how many hours he's got; he obviously hasn't learned anything from them. If it's true... I can say I've got 20,00 hours too, if I feel like it, and who'd know any different without seeing my log book. And I don't see what his age has got to do with it, one way or the other; in fact, I don't see why you mentioned everyone's age anyway; it's completely irrelevant to anything.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You know me well enough Whirly to know that age ain't all that relevant to me, but you should have seen the chap's face when my colleague, probably younger than some of the PA28 pilot's grandchildren said "erm, I'm actually one of the instructors here". Probably the same expression that was on mine when I found myself being overtaken on late finals :p

G

[bluskis]

I also think Ghengis was correct in continuing his approach. Had he done anything else, without knowing the position or intentions of the other aircraft, the added confusion could have been fatal.

While from what has been described the PA28 pilot either needed a new radio fit, or a deaf aid, the only thing an airprox would achieve would probably not include an attitude change by the PA28 pilot.

However, the question I have is why do microlights have to land on runways, can't they land on short parallel pistes, rather like helicopters do at mixed bases.

As far as differences in circuit speed is concerned, I am quicker than C150's, and enter patterns ready to overshoot if necessary.

I have long since stopped worrying about the fuel cost of an overshoot.

Likewise I have come down the glide path at 150 kts when asked to expedite to avoid holding up a jet.

What Ghengis appears to have encountered is a pilot with an attitude prblem.

[Fly Stimulator]

Browsing through the 'GA Feedback' pamphlet which came with my copy of GASIL today, I noticed the following:

We are all the same, whether we are new boys or very experienced, only as good as our last landing, and whilst I have about 20,000 hours and over 40 years experience, I am just as likely to make a mistake as anyone else. In fact, due to my age, I am probably more likely to err than young, skilful pilots.

I think it is safe to assume that this is not the same chap as Genghis encountered.

I must say I would have done the same as Genghis, simply on the basis that since I couldn't see the other aircraft the safest thing would be to stick to my existing trajectory. Anything else would seem just as likely to take me into his path as out of it.

[Airbedane]

Genghis,

I feel for you, you've obviously had a scare and fortunately, you've lived to tell the tale. In the air, there is never enough time or information to make the correct decision, one has to do the best one can with limited information and based on one's experience. 50-50 hindsight is all very well, but it has the advantage of more time, more information and less distraction - one is not trying to fly at the same time!

I believe you were correct not to go-around. In cases such as this, I believe it's best to stay predictable and keep doing what you said you would do. After all, what would have happened if you started a go-around and just as you did so, G-HIM did the same.......

Your incident deserves all the publicity it can get. File both an Airprox and a CHIRP. The latter will reach all GA pilot's eventually and the former will get to a wider audience.

Finally, be aware that the Airprox system does not allocate blame. All it does is analyse, report and publicise - which should help prevent the same incident from having a more catastrophic ending next time. Keep your tape - I'm sure you have anyway - it'll provide good evidence.

A

[Whirlybird]

Thinking longer term... perhaps mixed types in the circuit are not a good idea. It SHOULD be OK; we're all sensible, we all have eyes, we all have radios. But I know from flying a helicopter that many people just don't seem to realise that helicopters slow down before they land.:eek: And not all of us are perfect all of the time, and some probably shouldn't be allowed to fly!!! Now, while whirly things definitely don't need runways, a proportion of A/G operators and FISOs want everyone in the same circuit and using the same runway. In a similar situation, in a helicopter, I'd say damn the guy in the tower and what he wants, and I'd pull off well to the side and get out of the way...but microlights aren't quite that manoeuverable. So perhaps it would be sensible to have separate parallel grass runways for microlights and other slower aircraft. There's enough room to do it at practically every airfield I can think of, apart from very small ones that probably don't have the traffic to need to anyway. So...why isn't it happening?

[bookworm]

I wasn't present at your conversation with the PA-28 pilot, Genghis, but I don't think you should read too much into the attitude shown.

Presumably he'd not long since landed, may have got something of a shock close to the end of the flight, and may have been feeling somewhat embarrassed. He was then approached and confronted by two strangers who... well I don't know exactly how you phrased it but I read into your comments that you were assertive if not overtly confrontational.

In an ideal world of course, you'd all have analyzed what had happened rationally, with perfect recall as to the facts. In the real world, people tend to take entrenched positions, particularly when accusations start flying. You may be quite right to be aggrieved, but in the long run you may find that taking a magnanimous attitude to the perceived transgression reduces stress levels for everyone, including yourself.

[Whirlybird]

bookworm,

If someone had tried to kill me, I think I'd be annoyed, and I think I'd expect the other guy to apologise at least. Certainly if I'd inadvertantly misunderstood a simple radio call and not seen a microlight in front of me on final, I'm absolutely sure that I'd apologise.

Take a magnanimous attitude? I think you'd need to be a bloody saint to do so. And I think if it were me I'd find it far less stressful to get thoroughly and extremely annoyed. In fact, I can think of a lot of other things I might say and do to the other person to reduce the stress too...but maybe I shouldn't write them on here. :)

[englishal]

Sounds like a lack of communication to me.....

This may sound controversial , but I think having services like 'Radio' and 'Information' tend to exaserbate problems like this. If there was a Unicom frequency where pilots talked directly to each other rather than a third party, then communications would be smoother and clearer. In the US many 'uncontrolled' airfields are Unicom airfields, pilots provide Pireps, weather, prefered runway etc., to other pilots. In the circuit all aircraft chat directly, eg. 'N12354 short final'....'N12354 have you in sight'.....whatever. Even approaching the airfield, 'N12345 20 miles south of XXX at 4500 inbound for landing, request any airfield info'

In Gengisis case, he could have liased directly with the PA28 pilot, for example 'Do you have me in sight, now on short final'.......'ok going around, making a turn to the left' etc....Maybe the 20,000 hr PA28 pilot was treating the AFISO as a full ATC facility, and waiting to be told to orbit / go around.

Just my view.
Cheers
EA:D

[Final 3 Greens]

Genghis

Firstly, I'm pleased that you survived to tell the tale, it must have been a very scary experience.

Rather belatedly (have been away for some days) I'd like to comment about filing an airprox.

I've only filed one and that was because I didn't understand how the incident had happened - even though there was rather more separation than you experienced. (about 600m, but the other a/c was flying in the opposite direction when I was cleared to continue approach on a 2.5 mile final and we would have collided if I had n't taking avoiding action.)

In the subsequent report, a gap was found in the visibility from the a/p tower and recommendations made to deal with this.

In my case, filing an airprox was a win-win and I guess that you need to figure out what filing one would do for you - maybe give you a sense of closure, if nothing else?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks everybody for the feedback, which I've found very useful. I think my view remains that the correct approach is to file a CHIRP rather than airprox report. This is partly because having discussed it with the pilot of the other aircraft at the time, notwithstanding that I wasn't hugely impressed by his attitude towards the whole thing, not having expressed an intention to do so, it would arguably be seen as a somewhat vindictive action. Also, CHIRP reports get read by many more people anyway.

I've once before filed an Airprox (strangely, I was flying the same type, as was the other pilot, although little else was common to the circumstances) which was about 5 years ago whilst flying in Scotland. I was impressed by the thoroughness of the process, but don't feel it's the way ahead here.


A few further thoughts of my own. I don't believe that I and the aircraft owner were at-all confrontational in our discussions with the PA28 pilot, but it's hard for anybody - whether in the right or wrong - not to become defensive when somebody comes and wants to discuss your flying judgement, which is inevitably what we did. The fact that we were both clearly a lot younger than him probably didn't help in his mind at-least.

Regarding liaison with the other pilot on RT, I don't personally think that would have been appropriate given that the AFISO was already trying to tell him that somebody was in front of him and that he should orbit; in my opinion another voice would have added to the other pilots workload and probably increased rather than decreased the risk of something going wrong.

Finally my own view on mixed types in the circuit. I fly from Popham quite regularly (which isn't where the incident happened) where we routinely mix from retract-twins and Yaks, to single seat microlights, without incident. This works so long as the faster aircraft fly a wider circuit and the slower aircraft a tighter circuit, and nobody overtakes on circuit position, so that we're all taking about the same time around - it works at Popham and at Boscombe Down we used to share Air-Cadet mtorogliders and fast jets by a similar method, just requires good spacial awareness and airmanship. I did fly for a while at an airfield that had a separate (parallel) microlight landing strip, and it was a blasted nuisance. It meant that we couldn't fly proper circuits or touch-and-goes, some types you weren't sure which bit of grass they were lined up on because they were calling "XX-final" regardless; all things considered a nice idea that just didn't work in practice.

G


N.B. I wasn't scared, probably because I was too busy being annoyed.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think Genghis did the right thing in not manouvering or going around when on final - the PA28 had him in sight and any movement on Genghis's part could have taken him into the PA28's path.

Personally, I'd file the airprox, too.

SSD

[Thrifty van Rental]

More support for G.

A faster aircraft in the circuit has to space himself according to common sense and the speed of the traffic in front. Very slow traffic in a circuit (which G was by any measure), has a duty to keep it tight, so long as that can be achieved safely.

If you are being overtaken in contravention of the rules of the air on final, then you hold your course. A go around would have been a bad move and would have risked blurring who was wrong and who was right. The only time this goes out of the window is when you need to avoid a collision.

It is very true that over the last few weeks, the vis has been getting gradually worse, and this will contribute to a Microlight becoming almost invisible on final. It is worth sparing a thought for the pilots of much faster machines than PA28s. We find it very hard to spot Microlighters, and it is amazing how often they show up on or close to the instrument approaches near busy airports. It happens more in France than in the UK.

On the Airprox/CHIRP subject, by all means file both. An Airprox clearly occurred, and it will be down to the board to determine whose fault it was and whether a genuine risk of collision occurred. On the basis of your side of the story, the PA28 driver and the FISO risk getting their knuckles slapped - by my reading of the story - There are always 2 sides though.

CHIRP is a great channel to make a wider audience aware of a problem. Yours is not a new problem though, and similar things happen in circuits all over the UK on any sunny day in summer. I guess the questions I would be asking would be:

What specific new learning points would my CHIRP convey that would differentiate it from all the other occasions that somebody gets cut up in a circuit?

If it matters so much, and nobody's livelihood is involved, why does the incident need to be reported secretly?

Just my 2 Euros worth.

[FlyingForFun]

TvR,The PA28 driver and the FISO risk getting their knuckles slappedWhat has the FISO done to deserve a knuckle-slapping? He's not responsible for aircraft in the air, he passed all the information he could reasonably be expected to, it's just that the PA28-driver either didn't hear him correctly or chose to ignore him.

FFF
----------

[Thrifty van Rental]

Since neither of us were there, we can only take G's transcript at face value.

My assessment was based on the events around G's timing point 4:35, in which it is established that G-HIM has misheard/misunderstood the traffic position ahead of him. The FISO correctly acts to re-state the true position of the traffic, but then does nothing when the transmission is not acknoweldged by G-HIM. 25 seconds elapse before the incident, during which time the FISO will (one assumes) have observed the aircraft getting closer than one would hope and yet says nothing.

Whilst a FISO cannot instruct an aircraft in the air, more information could conceivably have been passed to avoid the risk that the situation gave rise to. The FISO could have been more pro-active in ensuring that G-HIM really did appreciate the position of other traffic in the circuit.

Once again though, we were not there, and I am basing these comments purely on what G has been good enough to share with us.

[FlyingForFun]

TvR, thanks - fair point.

FFF
-------------

[Finals19]

Genghis - his issue is this simple

He was the lower a/c on approach and the PA28 driver had the onus on him to maintain seperation....which he clearly didnt otherwise Genghis wouldn't be posting this...

Fast / Slow a/c in the circuit can be quite tough...esp if you are the faster a/c in a busy circuit. Wide circuits are fine if you dont infringe noise abatement. Personally where I fly if I think I am getting too close to the slower a/c in front, I just take early flap down wind - at any rate (safe) slow flight is always good practice isnt it? I fly a PA34 which has a circuit speed downwind of about 120mph clean, so the flaps always come down midpoint whatever...dont rely on ATC to seperate you either....I've come unstuck like that before.

[Dusty_B]

He was the lower a/c on approach and the PA28 driver had the onus on him to maintain seperation....

That's not necessarily true. Weight-shift microlights have a very high rate of decent for approaches. Although a microlight may clearly be Number One, he probably won't be above a fast fixed wing a/c for the same time period before landing.

This really muddies the issues at an uncontrolled airfield, as the rules of the air state that the lower aircraft has priority - not the one who was establish first - even if they are gliding in!

[Thrifty van Rental]

Dusty_B

I don't think that the water is particularly muddy on this point. In the UK, Rule 17 5(a) makes it pretty clear that an aircraft is required to conform with the traffic pattern at the field. This means that when two aircraft are on final, overtaking is not permitted, irrespective of the relative altitudes of the aircraft.

Or have I misread something?

[Airbedane]

G,

Have you decided what to do yet?

I still believe it warrents both an 'Airprox' and a CHIRP, but if I had to settle for one, then the latter would do.

VBW,
A

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've not yet written it up, but I'm going to CHIRP it, but not file an airprox. I'll include the tape transcript in my CHIRP report.

My reasons for the latter is that I discussed it with the other pilot, he didn't particularly accept that somebody was wrong, and it's unlikely that a call from the Airprox board will change that just create ill-feeling. CHIRP goes to a wider audience, is more thoroughly anonymous, and I hope that way some wisdom will get out there in a way that, I don't think an Airprox report would generate in this instance.

G

[Airbedane]

Good decision G, I'll look forward to reading it.

A