When is a/g no longer safe?

[Ludwig]

I fly from a very busy GA airport with only intermittant A/G and the general standard of airmanship around the airfield is low and standard of R/t is utter ****e. The instructors from the resident school are some of the worst offenders, regularly jumping in on final when someone else is already on final. They seem to have absolutely no regard to other people whatsoever and ifappraoched just bang on about the heroc miltary flying careers so how dare anyone question them. How the hell the pupils ever manage at a controlled airfield is beyond me!

The place has three tarmac and three grass runways (no names no pack drill!) all of which can be in use at the same time with a/c using opposing runways because someone is trying some low or slow flying stunt, whilst perhaps a twin is using the longest runway and someone in a microlight is using the into wind runway and aeros going on in the overhead. If one questions the wisdom of this the one is shot down as a kill joy but it is only a matter of time before some flys into some else. There is actually no deadside but people descend deadside to a particular runway and it is impossible to know what the hell is going on elsewhere.

Do fellow ppruners think that there should be a free for all with fortune favouring the brave?

Is the a point in terms of movements when the CAA look to upgrade at least to AFIS?

[IO540]

I've been to such airfields, found a similar sort of thing and thought much the same as you.

But the counter argument of the locals (who in effect "own" the place) is that full ATC (which is the only legal way to stop people carving you up on the inside when you are turning base, etc) costs a lot and the landing fees will go up, etc.

Also there are great many people, some simply "macho men", some are people who hate using the radio, and some who fly planes without an electrical system, and all of these are against what they regard as an infringement of their civil liberties and personal freedoms :O

[FNG]

Ludwig, if it's as bad as you say, you might send in a CHIRP. It sounds as though the problems you describe derive more from the culture of the place than from anything inherent in operating air/ground radio only. To offer a contrast to the situation which you describe, very busy airfelds such as White Waltham operate successfully with the correct (and minimal) use of air to ground radio. I am not sure that adopting a Flight Info Service would necessarily solve the problems. It could even make things worse, as I've noticed that FIS sometimes encourages radio operators to start behaving like Controllers when they are not and sometimes encourages pilots to start behaving as though they are flying within a magic shield, held aloft and saved from crashing into anyone by the kindly radio waves. Incidentally, the same can sometimes be said of the effects of ATC, salutary though they may be in general: the bloke in the Tower can help to prevent the circumstances arising in which you get carved up or smacked into, but can't actually stop it from happening. Anyway, it sounds to me as if the problems at your place start and finish somewhere other than the radio room.

[Spitoon]

If it's dangerous then never mind CHIRP - put in an MOR. That's what the system is there for.

[Zlin526]

An A/G service should not affect the safety of an airfield. Pilots should make their own decisions, have impeccable airmanship and not resort to the MS Flight Simulator type of flying in the circuit. There's enough road rage on the roads.

Aviation will always attract W:mad:ers, but I think we've covered this thread before.

Speak to Air Traffic Services Dept at the CAA and they will advise.


IO540,

Also there are great many people, some simply "macho men", some are people who hate using the radio, and some who fly planes without an electrical system, and all of these are against what they regard as an infringement of their civil liberties and personal freedoms

Most of the people that choose not to use a radio do so because of the very reasons mentioned at the start of this thread. I personally don't like using a radio, even when I have one in the aeroplane, but I don't consider myself 'Macho', just a pilot who likes to exercise the privalege of flying without being told what to do by somebody on the ground, and to make MY own decisions regarding MY own safety. Civil Liberties don't come into it at all. Besides, I can never see the dials on the modern radios:sad:


....that full ATC (which is the only legal way to stop people carving you up on the inside when you are turning base, etc)

Legality is not an issue here. People will cut you up whatever ATC service you have. I've had a airline Shorts 330 cut me up whilst I was head down on a practice ILS approach into an extremely busy airport in the South West before. Just as well my instructor had his eyes peeled.. The airport in question had full TWR/APP in use, yet the 330 pilot still managed it.

Poor airmanship, poor lookout and not being aware of what's happening in the circuit are almost certainly the main causes.

I fly from a busy airfield with an A/G service and there is GA flying, parachuting, helicopter flying, aerobatics overhead, ballooning, the occasional glider dropping in and large model flying. We all fly there in perfect harmony, and safely because all of us respect and know what the other pilots are doing. Most of the time without even talking on the radio..

[gasax]

Sounds more like the operators need to instil some basic rules regading airmanship.

Some simple rules like observing the signal square instructions or else would stop most of this stuff.

Upgrading the radio service is an option and these days oh so popular - but an expensive and probably for the majority of the time an unnecessary one.

Look at airfields that have truly high traffic rates - Kemble, Sun 'n Fun etc. A rigid set of rules and effectively no radio. It worked when aircraft didn't have radios and it still does.

Radio is a shambles might bring a bit of order - or it might just make it seem like there is some order.

Basic operational rules are the real requirement here!

[IO540]

Zlin526

I think that if you have full ATC, they can then take steps against pilots who persistently do the sort of things you describe.

But I don't think ATC is a good solution for most GA airfields; too expensive for a start.

I often don't use the radio en-route (when all that is available is a non-radar service like London Info, there is little point) but to not use it in the circuit is bound to be detrimental to safety simply because a pilot does not have a perfect field of view.

[Mike Cross]

Ludwig

This is not particularly an ATC issue.

What is being described are breaches of the ANO and/or the Rules of the Air Regulations (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.PDF) .

If the operators of the airfield are knowingly permitting or condoning breaches of the law then they may well find themselves liable under Common Law and could have their license withdrawn by the CAA which would prevent the local flying school from carrying out ab-initio training.

If you feel that your safety has been infringed then file an MOR (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP382.pdf) , that's what it's there for.

So if I have this right:-
You are a witness and complain of dangerous practices.
You have the means at your disposal to do something about it.
You are not prepared to do something about it.

You think the way to deal with this situation is for the CAA to require the aerodrome operator to employ a licensed AFISO or ATCO so that he in turn can witness what you allege is going on and file the MOR that you yourself are unwilling to file.

I sense a wind-up here.

Mike

[S-Works]

Why is it when someone raises a question on these forums that they don't like the look off or they think that there answer is the only answer does the question automatically become a "wind-up"??

The question was not one of when to report someone it was one of if upgrading from A/G to AFIS or even ATC would provide a greater level of control and thus a greater level of safety.

I am very familiar with the airfield in question and quite agree that the standard of airmanship shown there frequently is sub standard. Bad enough to file an MOR maybe at times, bad enough to file a CHIRP same again and I know one or two have been filed.

Personally I think an upgrade to AFIS would go a long way to solving some of the problems. Traffic movements on the ground would be controlled with runways in use being decided by the duty controller. This would help to prevent some of the multiple runway use events. I think a FISO would also encourage better standards of RT. The A/G operators in question do a good job but at the end of the day they have no formal training ( I hold an A/G certificate). A/G operators have no power to control ground movements and this is often where things start to go wrong.

There are other areas that do need addressing, certain of the instructors attitudes certainly need a readjustment but this was not the subject of the thread!

People who still think that carrying a radio is an infringement of there civil liberty still amaze me. They are the same people that think the GPS is evil (as being discussed in another thread) or these new fangled electrical systems will never catch on. These are the same people that unless they change will ultimately cause the death of our sport.

There is no doubt that a radio aids flight safety along with good airmanship. I never fly without a radio, even aircraft with no electrical system I carry an Icom A22, gives me something to plug my BOSE into!

If A/G was sufficient to deal with everything at a busy airfield then why do we have FISO and ATC?

[FlyingForFun]

Since FNG gave White Waltham as an example of somewhere where A/G works well, here are some extracts from the West London Aero Club Flying Order Book, which all pilots flying from Waltham are required to read and sign on a regular basis:3.2 The selection of Runway Direction is the responsibility of the Duty Operations Controller in consultation with the Duty Instructor. The Signals Square is to be adjusted before a runway change is introduced.

3.4 It is a requirement for pilots of WLAC aircraft to comply with all ATC signals and instructions unless it would be dangerous to do so.In other words, the airfield decide the runway in use. They set the signal square to indicate the runway in use. Everyone must follow this. It works, and it works well, even during the busiest periods, despite a mix of helicoptors, microlights, airships and aeroplanes of a wide range of speeds, many of them with no radio. There is no need for ATC or AFISO just because an airfield is busy. I find it scary that pilots are operating in a less-than-safe way, and that some people feel this requires intervention - but even without ATC, an airfield owner or operator can intervene to instruct pilots to operate safely.

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

[FNG]

May I be the first to congratulate FFF on his three thousand three hundred and thirty third post.

Wandering slightly off the specifics of the thread, I politely disagree with bose-x's suggested polarisation of debate on topics such as this as taking place between two neatly demarcated camps: on the one side, pilots who embrace all aspects of technology (by implication, safe pilots) and on the other hand, luddites (by implication, dangerous pilots...blimey: they probably think that aircraft can be made out of wood and tea-towels as well!).

Venturing the opinion that reaching to agencies outside the cockpit and/or to technology may not in every case be the answer to a problem which appears to be based on airmanship, or the lack thereof (whether the problem is how not to get lost in the open FIR or how not to get rammed in the circuit) should not automatically consign the author of that opinion to the dangerous grandad category. Few if any would deny that GPS, radio, and people on the ground to talk to can make positive contributions to safety, so as long as we remind ourselves that they can't and don't guarantee our safety or excuse us from making our own decisions.

Speaking for myself, I love yakking away on the radio: hey, it's one thing in flying which is easy, and some passengers love all that Golf India Tango blah blah niner one niner stuff, not least as it distracts their attention from the fact that I'm about to crash into a ...what is that? oh... a radio mast.

[Mike Cross]

bose x

Apologies for raising your hackles.

The description of the situation was fairly horrendous, which is what made me think it might be a wind-up. However you have confirmed idependently that it is bad, an "accident waiting to happen".

If it as bad as you say then action is required now. The only way that will happen is if you, Ludwig, or someone else do something to bring it to the attention of those who can do something about it. The quickest, best and most effective way of doing it is by filing an MOR.

We had a complaint a little while ago at Popham where an aircraft at the 26 hold was overflown at low level by a landing aircraft. (Popham has an offset approach to 26)

I believe the pilot of the holding aircraft filed an MOR, as a result of which the CAA had discussions with the aerodrome operator and the 26 hold was moved further back to prevent a recurrence.

So the system does work. The CAA has an Aerodrome Safety Department, who do have teeth and will take action. It's not a matter of prosecution, just of making sure that rules are in place for safe operation and that they are adhered to.

The Aerodrome Safety Department will be happy to discuss the problem with you.

Putting an AFISO in place may well alleviate the problem but it would take much longer to achieve an effect. The AFISO would be an employee of the aerodrome operator, which might make his position difficult.

Spitoon has suggested using the MOR system. I believe he is an ATCO by profession. I agree with him.

Mike

[Penguina]

Think I agree with bose-x on the whole. I don't really see why it is assumed that introducing AFIS or ATC is going to automatically lure everyone into a false sense of security and make them feel they don't need to be alert or responsible in their flying. Sounds from Ludwig's description like certain flyers at this place think they're indestructible anyway!

I and another pilot I was out flying with were recently stopped from putting our aircraft into a potentially dangerous position on the ground by a controller intervening. It had been a genuine misunderstanding and we were both very grateful for her intervention. Probably was bad airmanship, in retrospect, and I'll pay more attention next time.

Citing FFF's example, White Waltham does work well, but their A/G is operated by people who don't look at the airfield except when someone makes a call, as they are incredibly busy running around performing all the other ops duties. Clearly in this setup, the situation I was in might have turned out differently, which is why the field I was at had ATC.

As aerodromes change with time, so should the way they are run be - whether it's upgrading a radio service or management deciding they need to impose firmer rules and penalties for breaking them.

[cubflyer]

I fly from an airfield with 3 hard and 3 grass runways with an Air to ground service. It might be the same one??!!
However, where I fly I find the a/g service works just fine and the standard of airmanship is generally good. I fly a slow aircraft sometimes non radio and also a fast aircraft which has a radio. In the fast aircraft I sometimes have to extend the circuit to keep behind slower aircraft, but so what I'm flying for the fun of it anyway.
We have aerobatics overhead, but they dont get in anyones way
We join overhead, descend on the deadside of the main runway in use, but are still able to use the in to wind runway if necessary as long as we respect the circuit traffic on the other runways. Yes sometimes there is a problem that the in to wind runway is the short runway that some of the larger aircraft might prefer not to use, but it works out very well and good airmanship is usually shown.
As with all airfields there are sometimes people who dont quite get it right, but they usually get told, whether they were the microlight that cut someone up on final the other day, or the Cessna that reported "long finals" and expected everyone else in the circuit to join in behind him, rather than him joining overhead.

Ive also flown from some AFIS airfields and I find these a real pain sometimes, with the AFIS operators often going beyond their remit and pilots equally expecting to be cleared to do anything, when the AFIS operator has no authority to clear them. Often far too much radio chatter and long waits at the holding point, because the aircraft in front dont know what to do without being told.

A/G works very well at a lot of busy airfields and of course is used almost everywhere in the USA, mostly with no one on the ground except a receptionist who can order fuel for you!

The airfield I fly from(only moved there this year) is one of the friendliest Ive ever been to has a great atmosphere and I would say a lot of good pilots who can cope well with the varied traffic. Most people seem to be very happy with the way things run. I hope if this is the same place that we never get AFIS or full ATC- for a start I dont want to pay for it and then the next thing someone will say you cant fly if they are not there!! Air Traffic has its place and I use their very good services every day at work, but it is totally un-necessary where I fly for fun.
There are plenty of airfields around with full air traffic, if that is really what you want you could always go and fly at one of these airfields.

happy flying!!

[S-Works]

cubflyer, Burgiss Hill is a very long way from the airfield in question.

I think that you are right A/G does work well at a lot of airfields, but I suspect that the attitudes at those other airfields displayed by the Instructors and flyers are probably quite different!

I flew a good number of hours in the USA doing my CPL/IR and found that the standards of airmanship was significantly higher at A/G airfields, but then also found that most things aviation were handled much better in the USA anyway!

The airfield in question quite often has a free for all culture rather than one of pilots acting as professionals.

[Wide-Body]

Well FFF

A rarity it may be, but I fully agree with you. Waltham is reasonably busy airfield touching the edge of the Heathrow zone (for those who don't know). It has a large variety of flying machines operating on using air ground. The vast
majority of the time it works very well. Why?

I believe it is due to having a simple set of rules to work by. We all know the standard join, we obey the rules of the air and we keep a bloody good lookout. The rules are administered well and when it goes wrong a cup of tea and a chat in the bar sorts it out and we learn more.

IO-540. There are a number of non radio-non electrical vintage aircraft flying there. There pilots never feel it for there human rights, rather than a desire to operate their aircraft in original condition. In reality these enthusiasts are far more situationally aware than those who have more capable (possibly distracting machines). If you want proof, see what types of aircraft have infringed the London zone more. Non radio-minimal instruments aircraft or pilots who are heads in using inappropriately set radio/GPS aids! I would be interested to see the final results of the Lynham infringements at the PFA. With consideration and understanding GA flying can still be many things to many people safely.

Ludwig to answer you question. ATC whilst increasing safety would probably less efficient than a simple A/G with a good airfield operator using simple robust rules. The only thing we have to sort out is ourselves -the pilots. Come down (or up) to Waltham read the simple Joining procedures beforehand and have a tea (new caterers this year VG*). IO-540 come as well slot in between FFF's Europa and the non radio 1938 Chilton racer. (She will see you as there is hardly anything inside the cockpit to look at.) The first solo will wait for you. :D

100 years of Pilots. I'm looking forward to the next 100. :ok:

Happy understanding Flying to all.

Regards


Wide

[englishal]

I'd like to get rid of AFIS and replace it with an AWOS (Automated weather) and Unicom or full ATC.....

My reasoning behind this is that being the PIC I'd rather be able to talk to other pilots in the circuit and on the ground myself and co-ordinate accordingly. I do think AFIS can be a waste of time and doesn't really do much good, and sometimes the operator tends to act like ATC which no doubt some pilots take literally. At the end of the day safety is the PICs responsibility, even choosing which runway to land or take off on.

Its much easier to start announcing your own position, then when you're in the circuit, if you're unsure of anyones position you just ask them.

EA

[Tinstaafl]

AFIS, A/G, ATC, whatever. If I have a need to talk to another pilot then I do. If the radio operator/ATC object then tough. It's my neck, not theirs. If they get really shirty ask if they'd prefer a Air Safety Report instead.

It's very rare in CTA that I need to talk directely - done it a few times - but rather more common on the OCTA radio freq.

AFIS & A/G are NOT controllers. Take whatever information they offer then use it in association with your other data to choose what YOU think is correct & sensible.

[cubflyer]

Bose-X, yes you are right Burgess Hill is a long way from the airfield in question! I used to live in Burges Hill, but moved to the midlands earlier this year- havent got around to figuring out how to change the profile yet!
Wanted to fly there today, but too windy for the old Cub.
You guys are right about White Waltham, ive been in there quite a few times a/g works great there, just as it does at my home base. Pity about the bumpy runways though!

[Evo]

ah - I was wondering where the "airfield with 3 hard and 3 grass runways with an Air to ground service" near Burgess Hill was :)

[S-Works]

Cubflyer, then I guess you are flying out of the midlands airfield in question. Spend some time watching the behaviour of some of the inconsiderates when it is busy and you will understand better what we are talking about.

I did find it a little windy today but nothing too bad, the windshear was the main problem, 30kts at 100ft dropping off quite suddenly..


Are you by chance the flyer of the nice yellow cub?

[IO540]

As a general comment (I have no idea what this airfield with 3 runways is) what I find the biggest problem is aircraft cutting me up on downwind/base.

I fly downwind at maybe 110kt initially, slowing down to 90kt as the gear comes down and 10deg flaps and turn final at 90kt, slowing (when on final) to 80kt with 40deg flaps and trimming back to 75kt, flaring down to 70kt or so. I have been to airfields where I make all the right radio calls and still somebody cuts me up and turns final, forcing me to G/A. Then it happens again. Once I had to do it 3 times in a row (that was Wellesbourne I think). It makes me wonder if some of these people (which appear to be instructors in some cases) have a PPL. I have always been taught that one should follow the aircraft in front and not cut it up - is this wrong?

Doubtless the people that do this think they will get away with it because they see a big gap between them and me, but they fail to realise that I am also going to fly the base leg and final a bit quicker than their C150, or whatever.

But there is no way I am going to fly downwind with 40deg flaps and 70kt - it is simply not safe to turn base and final if the stall speed in that config is 59kt.

People who fly twins must have a lot of fun getting into some of these fields.

Most likely, if you know your local field then you can fly a tighter circuit that someone who is struggling to spot the grass runway against a surround of very similar looking fields. Some grass fields I've been to are very hard to see. But the locals are also in a better position to behave correctly, for the same reason.

[Wide-Body]

Hi IO-540

I don’t want to appear patronizing, but the biggest key to success at our airfield is pilots flexibility. Everything from non radio homebuilts, to turboprop twins operates on the same circuit. My partner and myself operate aircraft with final App speeds between 45-80kts. Circuit speeds of up to 100 (book figures). It works because of our overhead join and ability of pilots to project Plane and path. It helps eliminates go arounds. Sometimes a yak or a pits will give you a radio call and fly a tighter circuit (with your approval). It works because of aware and flexible pilots. The main problem being visitors who deviate from our published circuit pattern and have 2-3 mile finals. But everybody has to learn.

Please feel free to come down to WW fly with one of our excellent instructors or any of our experienced club members. I’m sure FFF will take you up in his slippery Europa or PM me. And if you get cut up, there is always a log fire and real ale in which to destress

Safe and considerate flying


Wide

[Final 3 Greens]

IO540

The same thing happened to me when I first started flying a PA32 not so long after getting my PPL.

It seemed like a 'hot ship' to me with my low hours and I was flying the famous 'tri-county' circuits, wondering why people where cutting me up.

Then the penny dropped and I realised that I was extended downwind beyond their visual range ;) (or at least they weren't looking for me where I was!)

Fortunately practice converted my perception of the hot ship into the docile friend and I became a better pilot, flew tighter circuits and didn't get cut up so much. (Still never let the asi get under 9okts until final though.)

Of course, this tale may have zero relevance to you, but it seemed worth recalling.

[FlyingForFun]

Wide,

Yes, I'll quite hapilly take anyone for a blast around the WW circuit in my aircraft, or else the club will supply you with an instructor free of charge to show you the circuits in your own aircraft.

But I don't think that's the point. You or I could show any one individual how the WW circuits operate. If it's busy enough, we can show that individual how to fit in with other aircraft with, possibly, very different speeds. But that won't stop that individual from being cut up back at his home airfield. In order to stop that, we'd need to educate everyone who regularly flies from the airfield in question. And that's something which only the management at that airfield can arrange.

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

[no sig]

As has been said many times before on this forum, file an MOR, and speak with the CAA Aerodrome Standards at Gatwick. The rules of the air are rules and if they are being breached then safety is likely to be compromised.

AFIS can indeed contribute to a safer operating environment, if for no other reason then they have the SOP's and the weight of the CAA and the aerodrome operator on their side. AFIS is also a means to monitor aerodrome operating standards and may, as a representitive of the aerodrome operator take action against offenders by refusing them approval to operate from the aerodrome.

If things are that bad then you are obliged to take action and I suggest the above.

and Tinstaafl, be careful when offering advice like that when in an ATC/AFIS environment. Of course a pilot must act to ensure the safety of his aircraft and by all means if an immediate dangerous situation can be resolved by speaking directly to another aircraft or broadcast then do so, but remember it may also lead to confusion. You should preface that post with a 'where available and if time permits always route your call though the local ATC/FISO'. And I am sure any ATCO/FIS is happy to entertain an MOR/ASR if a dangerous situation occurs.

[Tinstaafl]

Beg to differ. Why on earth should I 'be careful' with that advice? It's through being careful that I've had cause to use it.

As long as it's MY & MY passengers necks then I & I alone have the final responsibility to make the decisions that affect my flight. Not A/G. Not FISO. Not ATC. That's why the term pilot-in-command is used. IF I consider that the safety of MY flight is compromised by routing comms through ATC/FISO/AG then I WILL bypass ATC/FISO/AG. That's my job. ATC are more than welcome to submit an MOR/ASR if they get upset. Fine. I'll happily defend my decisions later.

If they still get their nose out of joint & I consider the situation warrants then I'll start using terms like 'require', 'pan' & 'mayday'. NO ATC has the authority to compromise my flight's safety. I can guarantee that I will take whatever action I consider necessary to protect my & passenger's necks.

You seem to have forgotten that ATC instructions & procedures are to be followed AS LONG AS the PIC believes they will not adversely affect the safety of the flight.

And that's the crux of it.

[Wide-Body]

Hi No Sig

I know there is a place for the official reports, but these should be a very last resort. There would also be a tendency to minimize their effectiveness if too many reports are received. I have a personal problem with AFISO; the standard is just too variable. The majority are excellent and facilitate safe flight, but there are some whose god like attitude are a positive detriment to safety.

The UK full ATC service is the best in the world. (No I am not an ATCO).

FFF. Twice on this thread I have to agree with you (My street cred will be going down the PAN). However, I think if Pilots set examples to there base airfield management, then good things can only come out of it. (See I still have faith in humanity) In fact the more we as pilots can do this the less need for regulation. If we keep cocking up (Controlled airspace infringements etc), then we can expect the CAA to come down on us. So (again a personal opinion) if all pilots can be flexible, aware, considerate and perhaps professional (with a small p) then long term we will be far better off. FFF see you at WW wed?

Cubflyer. How dare you be so correct about the state of Waltham green and pleasant land:D

Regards to all

Wide

PS: Heard a disgraceful display of airmanship the other day on Farnborough Radar. A light aircraft pilot arguing with a very calm Irish ATCO. I will get round to starting a thread on that one. A/C without clearance was 2 miles east of Ascot @2000 for those who know the local.:\ Now that was a case for paperwork ( I hope).

Tinstaafl

There are time where a quick curt call a fellow aviator is an appropriate response to a problem. I would question this when dealing with full ATC. They are aviation Professionals (with a big P this time). Have used both PAN and Mayday for real, I trust you would not abuse the rights and responsibilities that go with them. No ATC unit would ever deliberately compromise your flight safety, they will always attempt to improve the safety integrity of your operation


I used to get a little stressed sometime with the actions of others. Then I thought that I don’t get it right all of the time. So for the benefit of me and my passengers necks I chill. That is not a bad thought whether you are flying a 152 or a 747!

Relaxed flying to all

Wide

[IO540]

Wide body & Final 3 Greens

I would not regard any answer as patronising; we all learn all the time and my question was basically whether people are supposed to follow the aircraft in front of them. I am pretty sure this is the case - even if the one in front appears to be flying an unusually wide circuit.

The issue about them not seeing the aircraft in front... well the cases I refer to are radio-equipped aircraft, and if you have a radio you should be listening to it, or have an instructor with you doing so. Then if you hear "G-xxxx late downwind" or "G-xxx turning base" you will know there is somebody about to do what you are thinking of doing. So WHY do it?

I suspect a major part of the reason for this behaviour is that an extra 5 minutes is an extra £7 or so. An overhead join is an extra £5. A large % of PPLs are skint. Which is why I see a lot of people get stupidly impatient on the ground... but then at my airfield everybody pays brakes off to brakes on.

[Wide-Body]

Hi Io540

Yep I agree with all you say(all this agreeing with people :uhoh: ). I think its called Situational Awareness (some great terms these days to replace airmanship). A radio (if you have one) does help ESP if you have to ask a pilot of VP retract if you can cut inside ;)

I would love to have a good short reply to your last paragraph. But sadly you have hit a Major problem with GA. And that sir is another Thread.

Off to bed

Night night

Wide

:zzz:

[Tinstaafl]

I'm well aware that ATC are professionals. Some of my friends are one... :p

But the final call is mine. If I decide I need to talk directly, I do.

Of course I would not abuse Pan & Mayday. I know what they're there for. MY safety.

[FlyingForFun]

Wide,FFF. Twice on this thread I have to agree with youWell, I figured that if I post enough times, eventually I'd have to post something that someone would agree with:DSee you at WW wed?Sadly not - I'll be at work. I will be there in spirit, though, if not in body.

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

[cubflyer]

Seems like a lot of agreement lately on this thread, that must be a good thing!
Do we have to follow aircraft around the circuit, I think that probably is in the rules, but it is also probably in the rules that aircraft should comply with the circuit pattern.
So when some slow aircraft extends downwind a mile or so, with no one infront, are they still in the circuit??!! I often leave the circuit from the downwind if Im going that way and haev seen others doing similar. If its a fast aircraft then you might wait for them to be a bit further out to see if they are going to turn base, before turning base yourself. But in general if fast aircraft are flying the circuit correctly it will be fairly obvious what they are doing and although they will maybe fly a wider circuit, it shouldnt actually take them any longer to get to the threshold. I also fly an RV-6 which usually ends up downwind slowing from 120kt towards 90kt by abeam the threshold, then slowing to 75 on final, but if I get it right I can still fly the same circuit as a well flown Cessna 150.
There is some bad airmanship of too large circuits being flown and there is some bad airmanship of people cutting in when they shouldnt, both need to learn.
Similarly people need to learn when they can line up infront of an aircraft on approach. If they are going to do a rolling take-off, then that is a lot different to if they are gonig to sit on the runway adjusting the DI, reading their checklist and whatever else people find to do! before eventually putting the power on and going. And people on finals need to realise that people might be lining up infront of them and thats all right as long as they are airborne before you need to land!
Ive regularly only been cleared to land at 100-200ft as the aircraft infront rotates, at a full ATC commericial airfield flying at their speeds but still landing at 120kt, no problems there. Occasionally there is a go-around, but most of the time it works and thats the only way to cope with the traffic flows.
Ive heard someone moaning that someone was cleared to line up and take-off infront of them at a GA airfield with full ATC. It was tight, but they could easily have landed behind after the aircraft had taken off and of course could have gone around if they didnt like it.

The early part of this thread seemed to be promoting the use of MORs to report to the CAA anything you didnt like. I dont see any real dangers here, maybe some poor airmanship but nothing that shouldnt be able to be sorted out by talking to those involved.
I rember an earlier thread on here where someone was being berated for filing an MOR regarding low level aerobatics taking place on a busy airfield with non radio arrivals.
A bit of double standards here, maybe different people and a different situation. But lets think before we get the CAA involved. After all I think a lot of this is just inconvenience (even if caused by poor airmanship) rather than real flight safety

Happy flying!!

[FNG]

Wide Body makes good points about situational awareness based on a mixture of looking out, and (if radio equipped) listening to what others announce, and making judgments by reference to that. You can to some extent provide your own ATC if you switch on your mental radar screen plotting where people are in the circuit or making joins. We can't all carry in our heads a full list of likely downwind, base and approach speeds for other GA types, but we can make judgments on the basis of "that other aircraft is likely to be much faster/much slower/about the same as me" and "that is an old aircraft with reduced forward visibility when landing which will likely fly a tight circuit and a curved/slipped approach". Flying downwind in an aircraft a little faster than the average, it’s not too much of a chore to maintain spacing by setting up in the base leg configuration. Conversely, it’s no big deal to keep your speed up to give the guy behind a chance, if you know the aircraft well enough to get rid of the speed further along.

Of course, none of this helps if people have got into a habit of flying like selfish yobs.

[Zlin526]

Whilst not condoning the practice, I'm sure that one of the reasons for a 'cut up situation' to develop on finals is the size of the circuits people fly these days.

Flying a Cub in the circuit (80mph downwind) on Sunday, A/G service and I am able to land back on the airfield if the engine quits. No extraneous chat on the R/T, just position calls. As I turn crosswind, an aircraft (C150) calls downwind. As I turn downwind, I see it......about 2 miles in my 3 o'clock (LH circuit).

Why do Pilots need to fly such wide circuits? Do they need a long time to set up finals in such a complex and slippery type such as the C150?

Anyway, my point is that I was on the ground and taxying back to the hangar before the other aircraft had even landed. A small bit of decision making as I was flying kept generous separation at all times, and all without the intervention of the guy in the A/G shack.

Maybe if my smaller circuit had been misjudged and was allowed to get in the way of the other aircraft, who was technically No.1 in the circuit, then that maybe could be the cause of a cut-up.

Maybe I should have just followed the C150 and done a 20 min circuit instead of a 5 minute one, the circuit gradually growing in size as the day went on?

At our airfield, it's all about integrating with all the other operators, from Vintage types to fast Twins and even faster warbirds..It all works without any bad feelings....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Why do Pilots need to fly such wide circuits? Do they need a long time to set up finals in such a complex and slippery type such as the C150? Ah, well, you see, this is down to instructors who teach that you shouldn't turn downwind until you've reached circuit height ...

[Tinstaafl]

Yes. Never understood that method of placing the turn onto downwind.

To be fair a large circuit can be needed by students in the early stages of their training when they're still rather slow to comprehend & react to what's happening. That's self limiting though once they've learned to cope.

[rodan]

I know what they're there for. MY safety.

That seems to be a recurring theme in your posts on this thread, Tinstaafl. In the real world, it's not all about 'you' though, is it? I'm sure you've considered that by blocking a busy ATC freq you could be causing safety implications for other pilots that are relying on ATC for their separation.

[FlyingForFun]

Zlin,

While you were flying your circuit inside of the C150, did you communicate with him?

On a frequency with AFIS in that situation, I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of "G-CD, could I ask the C150 on downwind if he'd mind me cutting inside him." You say the airfield had A/G, in which case I'd either use similar phrasing as with AFIS, or else just ask the pilot directly, depending on how "involved" the A/G station liked to be at the airfield in question.

(Absolutely nothing wrong with cutting in front of him in that scenario as far as I'm concerned, by the way - as long as you are sure you will be clear in time, which you obviously were.)

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

[Tinstaafl]

Well of course it's all about me AND my passengers. They're the people I'm particularly charged with keeping safe. As you're charged with keeping YOUR passengers safe. At greater & greater remove are other people affected by my flight. But convenience doesn't get a look in at the expense of safety.

To argue otherwise would negate such things as imposing radio silence for a MAYDAY, transferring priority to the one in difficulty.

Are you trying to tell me you would accept compromising your & your passenger's safety if it meant inconveniencing some one? Or not talking directly to another aircraft?

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between your safety obligations towards your passengers and, when that is not an issue, all of OUR desires to act co-operatively. Notice the difference. At every point I've stated that when I think it necessary for the safety of my flight etc etc...

I'm sure that in the - hopefully never - accident investigation you don't really think that the convenience of other persons is considered justifiable for not taking what ever actions are appropriate to maintain the safety of your flight?

[IO540]

In the situation I described where I got cut up repeatedly I was definitely not flying 2 miles extra downwind.

Normally I fly downwind to a point where the end of the runway is about 45 degrees behind me; this is pretty standard. This places one maybe 1 mile past the end of the runway.

If I was to fly a tight circuit such as some describe, I would need to do a virtual glide approach (assuming 1000ft agl circuit height) from the end of the downwind leg. This means cutting the engine almost completely - not exactly a good idea but probably acceptable to some people who don't pay for their own maintenance :O There is no point in flying such tight circuits; in a faster plane they require very good judgement and leave little margin for adjusting for wind etc.

It is much safer to operate an aircraft such that there is always leeway; e.g. a reasonable final leg allows you to get it set up and trimmed exactly right. And that's before one gets to right-hand circuits - the pilot has little or no visibility.

I've seen aerobatic pilots fly incredibly tight circuits but they've had the training, and their planes can land in 100-200m.

[Final 3 Greens]

IO540

If you need to tighten up ever, have you considered slipping as a method of adding drag and allowing the engine to be handled with tlc?

[IO540]

F3G

Sure that helps a bit, as does rolling aggressively alternatively left to right (if too high on final). But that's not the #1 problem - it is simply safer to use up a bit more room and set up the final approach from further back. Especially if it's a RH circuit.

[Zlin526]

Flying for Fun,

On a frequency with AFIS in that situation, I'd be tempted to say something along the lines of "G-CD, could I ask the C150 on downwind if he'd mind me cutting inside him." You say the airfield had A/G, in which case I'd either use similar phrasing as with AFIS, or else just ask the pilot directly, depending on how "involved" the A/G station liked to be at the airfield in question.

No need for chat on the R/T, the C150 was way behind me, and with no confliction.

I'm a great believer in keeping R/T to a minimum, especially when it's not needed. At an uncontrolled airfield, it gets a bit like CB radio. "Two sugars in my tea, Eric"

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/biggles.gif

[FlyingForFun]

Good point, Zlin. I think that, in general, if the radio is too busy to have a polite word with the person you're going to cut inside, then the circuit is probably too busy to cut inside him safely - but of course each case is different. If you were in front of the guy to start with, though, then it's not appropriate at all.

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

[DubTrub]

I'm slightly at a loss as to why some folk on this thread are referring to flying a circuit inside of a C152 as "cutting up".

"Cutting up" is in my book inconsiderate action occurring on final approach.

I regularly fly (from the same airfield as Cubdriver) and I choose to fly my circuit inside other faster, wider-circuit aircraft because
a) if I follow them, I will most likely at my speed hold up a big queue behing me
b) many of the other circuit traffic actually flies outside of the ATZ
c) I am not legally permitted to fly over the built-up areas in these wider circuits that they are flying
d) if my old engine fails, I want to land back on the field.

It is my opinion that conducting circuit training outside the ATZ is dangerous and exhibits poor airmanship. The circular ATZ is circular for a reason: in the old days of circular aerodromes, circuits were conducted into wind,; the ATZ (or training area) reflected this. If the training establishments of today wish to conduct larger rectangular "circuits" due to changes in circuit custom & practice, they should apply for a larger chunk of "controlled" airspace, instead of blundering outside the ATZ where they might conflict with traffic in the open FIR.

So I fly a tighter circuit than most, but do not consider myself to be "cutting up" anyone, and indeed the pilots of the other circuit traffic have never had any problem with that.

Ludwig, if said airfield were to have AFIS, nothing would change, due to the nature of the limits of the responsibility of the FISO, who cannot instruct aircraft "beyond the [runway] holding point and in the case of aircraft landing, not until the landing roll is completed" (SSL22, CAP410, CAP413, CAP452 refer).

I also disagree with your statement "How the hell the pupils ever manage at a controlled airfield is beyond me!". The students at your quoted airfield do not have many problems at controlled airports...usually it is visitors who do not understand the differences between ATC, FIS and ATC who are perplexed by the lack of clearances and instructions offerred!

Happy flying, everyone, and a Merry Christmas to all.

[Mike Cross]

Funnily enough it happened to me yesterday.

Robin and I were on our way back to Popham from Old Warden in the Luscombe and joined downwind.

We had something Cubbish flying closer in than us and a Beagle Pup outside us, both ahead of us and so called downwind with contact two ahead.

Having turned and called final we saw a microfright inside us who then slotted in between us and the one in front. Normally this would not cause us any great aggro but............

Final was in to a very low sun and although we could see him when he was inside us the forward vis was appalling so we couldn't see him once he got in front. It must have been just the same for him.

When we got close to the ground there he was on the runway where he fannied around for long enough to cause us to go around, although if he'd got his act together he could have cleared in time.

No objection to someone slotting in in front of us but on this occaison there was insufficient room for him in the gap he was squeezing in to and the viz was poor enough to give us a very reall worry that we might catch him up without seeing him (slow as we are).

He'd had plenty of time while downwind to eyeball the traffic ahead and it would have been a lot safer either to go behind us if there was a gap or climb and overshoot to the dead side if there was not.

This procedure is not one I've seen in any textbooks. If you have two circuits and are downwind on the innner one then you have traffic outside you which is going to turn across your front and then turn again on to final. If you can't find a gap in the stream to slot into then perhaps an early decision to climb and overshoot on base is called for.

In this particular case it was RH circuits . Rule 17 (6)(b) prohibits anyone from joining final in front of an aircraft already on final, but where should he go?

You're in the microlight on right base. Ahead of you and to your left is an aircraft crossing left to right who is already on final and who therefore has right of way.

Behind him there are other aircraft on base and downwind which are to your left and behind you so you can't turn left. Turning right will send you the wrong way on the live side of the circuit so you've got yourself into a hole. If you spotted the problem while downwind at circuit height you could climb, turn base and pass above circuit height over the finals traffic to the deadside in relative safety. If however you've been descending on base the traffic with right of way is probably at the same level or above you so you're stuffed.

Hence the illegal turn on to final in front of the other traffic.

Oh and before you ask a/g was being operated by the very competent Chris Thompson and an AFIS would not have made any difference. If we had been under an ATC service the cut in would have been illegal on two counts.

Mike

[no sig]

Tinstaafl

Sorry for the delay in response, but you have missed my point. Of course it is the pilots responsibility to operate the aircraft safety and within the rules of the air and that includes the use of standard CAP 413 phrasology and r/t discipline. That may include advice to ATC that you are unable to comply with their request/instruction or clearance. But you seem to advocate this air to air comms as a routine procedure which it should not be where a service is provided, perhaps we can agree on that point.

I acknowledged, if circumstances warrant, air to air comms are a reasonable course of action. But I say again, when operating with an AFIS or ATC services in an ATZ, except in the most exceptional of circumstances all calls should be from/to the tower. If you have ever been in a busy tower working a frequency it is possible to miss a call, particularly a non-standard call, that in itself can result in a dangerous situation developing and I am sure you wouldn't want that.


Wide-Body

On the point about the use of MOR, the CAA mandatory occurrence reporting (CAP 382 avbl on the CAA Pubs.website by the way )scheme is a formal process which will not get diluted by the amount of reports. In the context of the orignal posting, it should highlight to the CAA or the aerodrome operator a particular problem, and thats what it was designed for.

Never worry about filing one, it will be classified by the authority and investigated further if worthy or closed on receipt if not. In airline operations all aircrew, including cabin crew and ground engineers are positively encouraged to file when necessary. It is considered a failing in any flight ops organisation if their crews fail to file MOR's, hence the reason the OR criteria specify those events or occurences as being 'mandatory' reports. As a pilot or engineer it places an onus on you to do so.

[wagon pull]

Ludwig and Bose X

I'll be moving to the midlands in February and intend to move my aircraft to a more local airfield and am now wondering which midlands airport you are speaking of. If you are not prepared to put the name on the forum would you pm me the info

Thanks