It's always fascinating watching strongly-held but sometimes diametrically-opposed opinions being expressed by ostensibly very experienced aviators, without a single regulation being cited as authority for the opinion.
The ‘basic’ regulations for right of way and avoiding collisions at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes have been the same for decades. There’s been some fiddling around with how circuits must be joined and straight-in approaches and radio calls etc, but the ‘basic’ regs haven’t changed.
While it may be true to say that, as a general principle, a pilot can choose to operate on any runway available at a non-controlled aerodrome, there are some regulations that are relevant to that choice. One of those regulations is the one that makes it a criminal offence not to use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing. That offence is created by CASR 91.380(1).
Some might describe the most into wind runway at a non-controlled aerodrome as the ‘active runway’ or the ‘duty runway’ or ‘Stig The Wonder Llama Goes Quantity Surveying’ or whatever. That’s their choice. I choose to call it the ‘Rule 1 Runway’.
Rule 1 is simple: Use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing, or you commit an offence.
The safety basis for that rule can be found in any good BAK text and by chatting with pilots with experience in operations at non-controlled aerodromes where radios are either not mandatory or occasionally the subject of finger trouble.
However…
There are exceptions to most rules. Many of us have made many take-offs and landings using other than the most into wind runway, legally and safely.
CASR 91.380(2) says that CASR 91.380(1) does not apply if:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft allow the aircraft to land or take off downwind or crosswind; and
(b) the pilot is satisfied that traffic conditions at the [non-controlled] aerodrome enable such a landing or take‑off to be carried out safely.
But note well: The pilot bears the evidential burden in relation to (a) and (b). In other words, unless the pilot who chooses to land on or take-off from a runway other than the Rule 1 Runway establishes (a) and (b) to the requisite evidential standard (or one of the other ‘standard’ defences is made out), that landing or take-off is a criminal offence.
The stuff in (a) isn’t that hard to show, if – for example - the actual crosswind in which the pilot landed was not greater than the demonstrated crosswind in the aircraft paperwork. (Although the phrase “flight manual instructions” is perturbing. I can imagine hours of fun arguments about what the word “instructions” means in (a).)
The stuff in (b) is a little more complex. Note that (b) doesn’t say “weather” conditions or “wind” conditions or “runway” conditions. It says “traffic” conditions. That’s because of the very obvious point that other pilots may choose to, or may even be compelled to, use the Rule 1 Runway.
The pilot of the aircraft landing on or taking-off from other than the Rule 1 Runway must, if he or she is to avoid committing an offence, turn his or her mind to the traffic conditions, and be satisfied that those conditions enable the landing or take-off to be carried out safely. The onus is on the pilot using the non-Rule 1 Runway because that pilot will – or should – know that some or all of any other traffic in the vicinity is more likely to be using the Rule 1 Runway and the pilots of those other aircraft may not be aware that someone has chosen not to use the Rule 1 Runway. (Remember those no-radio and radio finger trouble ops out there…)
Of course, it gets a bit more complicated if there’s nil wind or a variable direction wind.
So bear this in mind when you next choose to use a runway other than the most into wind runway – if there is wind - for take-off or landing at a non-controlled aerodrome: If there’s some incident, you’d better be able establish the two elements of the defence in CASR 91.380(2).
Again, I’m not suggesting my point has any relevance to the tragedy the subject of this thread, but given the way in which the thread has been running, it may be of general interest.