Talking to traffic in the circuit [Archive]

Chilli Monster

29th May 2004, 15:11

This was about 200ft from behind and closing, so yup, I was getting jumpy

In which case I would have concentrated on flying out of the way.

If, as you say, it was that close and closing, and you were getting jumpy, then the other aircraft must have been flown in such a manner as to cause you concern for the safety of your aircraft.

That, believe it or not, is the definition of an 'AIRPROX'.

I don't for one minute believe that sort of scenario is 'the luck of the draw'. I've flown for years at an A/G airfield where the overhead join is the norm. Never had a problem or an incident where people were behaving sensibly. The whole idea behind it is you get a picture of traffic before you join, you keep your eyes open and you descend into the circuit not, with blatant disregard to the other joiners but in an orderly queue - merging with existing circuit traffic at circuit height. If you can't see the conflicting traffic at the point of overhead entry you stay in the overhead until one of you is descending out of the way - which then decides the order.

I would dare to suggest that one of you wasn't fully aware to have this situation develop - someone's at fault somewhere.

paulo

29th May 2004, 16:13

Post was about RT in the circuit, not me or the other guy being a rubbish pilot

(although I hasten to add that I'm a :mad: nightmare, spesh if you get queued up behind me. :ok:)

Miserlou

29th May 2004, 18:20

How about keeping your mouth shut and flying the aeroplane according to the rules. If one has seen the other then it doesn't make any difference. You can continue with right of way if (if you have it) and take avoiding action if the other bod hasn't seen you. It's not dangerous because YOU'VE SEEN HIM!
And one wouldn't want to make an airprox report just because some-one is flying close behind you, that's their responsibility.

If you want a sign, rock your wings.

The best functioning fields I've visited are non-radio or A/G only.

fireflybob

29th May 2004, 19:29

Have to agree totally with Chilli Monster on this one.

There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship. Yes the radio is a useful tool but it is only part of your armoury.

I recall the days when I started flying at a local GA airfield when at the weekend we often had up to 12 a/c airborne in the circuit with others joining. Everyone flew a standard overhead join and we never had any incidents and this was all done NON RADIO!

bar shaker

29th May 2004, 19:38

You could always call "XXXXXXXXX Traffic..."

dublinpilot

29th May 2004, 19:52

Misterlou,

I think that is a bit harsh. Paulo hasn't really described his situation in any detail; probably because it wasn't relevant to his question, which was about how to communiate with another aircraft.

However lets imagine that Paulo was doing circuits, in a C150. Another faster aircraft, lets say an SR22 (just because I like 'em), joined the circuit. Paulo turns downwind, and the SR22 joining crosswind, slots in behing him. Now the SR22 is maybe 10 feet above Paulo. Now if the SR22 pilot has Paulo in sight he'll slow down, or over take, and everyone is safe. On the other hand, if the SR22 pilot hasn't seen Paulo, he'll be catching the C150 very quickly indeed, and probably try to correct his altitude difference, and an mid air is imminent. Given that the SR22 is above the C150, and close behind, the C150 will likely be hidden behind the nose of the SR22 (unless the pilot has already seen it and taken corrective action). Given that Paulo in front and is flying a high wing a/c, he is unlikely to be able to see anything behind and above him.

Now your advise is for Paulo to rock his wings, and continue on, and when the mid air collision happens, for him to point his finger at the SR22 pilot, and say "I had right of way!"????

I can certainly see why a pilot in those circumstances would want to know if the other aircraft had him in sight, irrespective of who was in the right or wrong. It's not one to leave the insurance companies sort out!!

If I've interperated your post as being harsher than you had intended, then please forgive me. But as I read it, it sounded very critical.

For what it's worth, I think something like this might be appropriate in those circumstances. "zzz Information, Gxx is just in front of Gyy, and 10 feet below, at 80kt". It gets the info to the other aircraft very quickly, without be discurtious to the ATC.

dp

TonyR

29th May 2004, 20:16

I was going to say "try flying at Weston" but thats not nice.

There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship

A few years ago I flew from Ireland to Holland to a small field called "Hilversum" in a 172. I was tired and just wanted to get on the ground, although I used to fly at a non radio airfiedl I had become conditioned to the tower giving me all the info I required at EGAA.

I called Hilversum radio for joining instructions and the reply came back in broken english "tis VFR" that was it, so I also say look out the window boys, if your number 2 or 3 and your not told by the tower then its up to you to tell.

"tis VFR"

Evo

29th May 2004, 20:46

I think people are being too harsh on Paulo. It's all very well saying things like

How about keeping your mouth shut and flying the aeroplane according to the rules

There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship

but there are times where you just don't see other traffic no matter how hard you look. Last weekend I arrived back at Goodwood from the north (in the RHS, with another Goodwood-based pilot flying) and traffic called overhead just before we joined overhead. Between us we've probably done that join a hundred times, we knew exactly where the traffic must be and we had two pilots looking... but it was against the backdrop of Chichester and we just could not see it. That's how it goes sometimes.

Surely good airmanship is using the resources available to you?We couldn't see the traffic, so we asked over the radio once we were deadside as the other traffic still hadn't called crosswind as requested and could still possibly be in the overhead, unseen by us. It's all very well saying that if we both played by the rules nothing would happen, but i'm not going to just continue blindly assuming that the other pilot is going to be correct - we've all screwed up the join at an unfamiliar airfield. We got a "crosswind" call back, which eased our nerves and we eventually saw it downwind once we were crosswind, it was a couple of miles ahead of us the whole time. In Paulo's case it sounds like it got a bit close and could have been sorted out earlier, but don't give the guy a slagging for asking.

JeroenC

30th May 2004, 00:21

I'm Dutch (never flown to Hilversum ;)), so i'm not quite familiair with the overhead join.

So you fly overhead, look for traffic, then join. But a what altitude to you fly overhead? Aren't there a lot more pilot's flying overhead? "Yes, but you have to look out for them" people can argue.

But then why not make a 45 downwind entry or the like? I just don't see the point of the overhead join.

Somebody care to explain? Thanks!

Finals19

30th May 2004, 05:15

Reading through the posts on this thread, I think there is some pretty harsh stuff being thrown at Paulo....Evo has some very good points.

I mean, come on!, this is not the 1930's, we are not all bombing around in Tiger Moths and we have VHF radio which is there for us to use. Its as simple as that!

See and be seen is one thing, but if you have a resource available (and already stated on here by someone) why on earth not use it? As long as it doesn't override a thorough and continuous visual scan and instead compliments it, I think it can only add to safety.

In my part of the world there are many uncontrolled airfields that have no A/G or FISO and "traffic" calls are mandatory in many places. They are invaluable and give one a good heads up on traffic in the area and its position / type. Having done a lot of flying in the UK, I have experienced several times some fairly close contact in some non radio situations. Assuming both parties had been happy to use some sort of reporting system, VHF could have helped a lot.

KCDW

30th May 2004, 07:32

Yes, some pretty harsh critique going on IMHO, it was a sound question.

Class G "traffic" calls in the US/Canada are useful.

Bar Shaker:

'You could always call "XXXXXXXXX Traffic..."'

- excuse my ignorance, but you imply traffic calls over here are accepted R/T - is that true?

FNG

30th May 2004, 08:12

Jeroen C, the overhead join is intended to allow positive identification of the active runway and a descent to circuit height on the dead (inactive) side of the airfield. You arrive overhead, usually 1000 feet above circuit height, and descend in a turn (all turns in circuit direction) so as to cross the upwind threshold at circuit height, joining the pattern crosswind. The system has its critics, but I think it works well. The main possibility for conflict occurs if two aircraft arrive in the overhead together, and another point for exceptionally careful lookout is as you turn downwind, as aircraft already in the circuit may be coming from a wider crosswind position.

As for the RT, maybe "G-ME [position] request G-THEM confirms visual"? Although there are standard calls for standard scenarios the RT manual is not an inflexible script.

Wide-Body

30th May 2004, 08:36

Hi FNG

Nice explanation. Although the overhead bring aircraft together, you at least know where they are going to be so you can look out for them. Then use a bit of brain to sort out you own sequence (folow the CAP ;) )It only goes pear shaped when people join direct in an overhead pattern.

As for VHF, I think common sense is the byword. I am a great fan of AG. Just try Booker (full ATC) and Waltham AG and see where you prefer to fly out of. OK I do take into consideration the gliding site at Booker adds complications.

Safe flying to all

Wide:ok:

FNG

30th May 2004, 08:49

..."follow the Cap"

But, Wide, I was following you, mate! Now we're going to get busted again for dogfighting in the overhead.

PS: Yesterday it was Bulldog 1, Cap 10 nil (low yo-yo), but I don't think the guy in the Cap was trying.

Bernd Podhradsky

30th May 2004, 09:02

Hi!

Interesting thread, really!

It kind of reminds me on the typical "gps or non-gps" discussions on our airfield. Some people say, it's better to have no GPS on Board and just navigate by looking out and some think it's better to have GPS.

I think it's all depending on the attitude of the user, not the technique itself. I love flying only by looking out, but it's a good thing to have a moving map on board, especially when it comes to "near CTR-border" flights.

Back to the VHF-discussion: in Stockerau (LOAU) it usually is procedure, that the aircraft in base calls "OE-COG on base as number 2, number 1 in sight". So he combines it with a usual call that has to be made during this phase of flight. For me, it's very good to know that he has noticed me. If he is number two and doesn't say that when he calls the aerodrome, Ground usually tells him "you're number two, do you have number 1 in sight"?

Never heard anything negative about that on our aerodrome and it's just safer than just flying there and not knowing if other planes see me. That's the point, when you see the other one's, it's good, but it's much better to know, that it is also the other way 'round.

Bernd

FNG

30th May 2004, 09:43

Flying with an instructor at an AG field a while back he criticised me for calling "G-OB downwind, two ahead", saying that I was cluttering up the airwaves with nedless verbiage, but I responded that informing the aircraft ahead that I could see them might give them one thing fewer to worry about and so contribute in a small way to overall safety. We agreed to differ on this.

Chilli Monster

30th May 2004, 10:03

FNG

but I responded that informing the aircraft ahead that I could see them might give them one thing fewer to worry

As he said - unnecessary verbiage ;)

You're behind them - therefore you're not a worry to them - it's them that are a worry to you ;)

In addition how do you know there were two - there might have been only one and the the other was departing downwind low level. Or there might have been three and you couldn't see the third (or the first, or the second). There can sometimes be a fine line between a 'helpful' call and misinformation.

EVO

traffic called overhead just before we joined overhead.

I'm intrigued. Is an over head call standard practice at 'HR or is the normal call 'deadside descending'. Reason I ask is if you call in the overhead just after someone else then you've no real idea who's going to be descending first. However, if you hear 'deadside descending' before you then that's an indication in itself that you're going to be no.2 to that traffic.

TonyR

30th May 2004, 10:36

I have a feeling we could cause new PPLs (who are used to a tower) to worry more than necessary about going to non radio or a/g airfields.

I think a very quick call giving your position and your number in traffic (if you know it ) is important, but you could be in a mix of non radio aircraft so just slot in the pattern and keep a good look out.

I have been to a few fly-ins where it was safer when the A/G just gave up and the drivers sorted it out.

FNG

30th May 2004, 11:30

CM, if I understood paulo correctly, he was worried about someone flying up his wazzoo. At least a call may let the traffic ahead know that you are not going to cut in.

Chilli Monster

30th May 2004, 11:37

if I understood paulo correctly, he was worried about someone flying up his wazzoo. At least a call may let the traffic ahead know that you are not going to cut in.

If the circuits being flown properly then no-one would have any need to 'cut-in', nor would they be in a position to do so. I think you're trying to justify a solution to a problem which doesn't actually exist - sorry.

FNG

30th May 2004, 11:42

I agree in principle, CM, but in reality you sometimes find yourself, as Paulo did, visual with an aircraft whose intentions are unclear, especially if people have differing views as to what "downwind" means (I know that they shouldn't, but they do). I agree that our primary job is to look out and to manouevre as nececessary to remain safe, but the radio, used in moderation, can help. As pointed out above, pilots can sometimes effectively "manage" a busy non ATC circuit through good airmanship and calls.

Evo

30th May 2004, 12:56

I'm intrigued. Is an over head call standard practice at 'HR or is the normal call 'deadside descending'. Reason I ask is if you call in the overhead just after someone else then you've no real idea who's going to be descending first.

Sorry, I was imprecise with my wording - he did call overhead, descending deadside. You're quite right that this tells us that he should be ahead of us in the circuit (as he turned out to be); had he just called overhead we would probably have called immediately to clarify where he was and what he was doing.

We knew there was other traffic joining overhead, Goodwood Info told us when we told them our intentions. However, we couldn't spot it and were only a mile or so away from starting our descent when his deadside call came (he was arriving from the south, we were arriving from the north - the live side), so a sloppily-flown descent by the other pilot could have put us quite close on crosswind. In this case everything worked according to plan, but I don't like having to trust the other pilot to do the right thing if I haven't managed to spot him. So we called once we were descending to make sure that he really was ahead... he was.

bar shaker

30th May 2004, 18:37

AG cannot tell you or any other aircraft in circuit what to do, it can only give you information.

If I feel that another pilot would benefit (ie, I will benefit by not hitting someone I simply cannot see) then I would pass my intentions to traffic.

In theory, all circuit traffic will be listening anyway. The reality of often a different matter.

Reality may be - When the radio is not manned so calls dry up as there is no op to reply. Other traffic still will benefit from "traffic" calls. Another common reality is non radio traffic. This comes back to the lookout. Because you haven't heard him call, does that mean he isn't there... even though you haven't seen him yet?

I've met Paulo and he's a very nice bloke as well as being an accomplished pilot. Its a good question and deserves good answers.

Chocks Wahay

30th May 2004, 18:41

TonyR
I have been to a few fly-ins where it was safer when the A/G just gave up and the drivers sorted it out.
A/G is about providing information like wind & QFE etc. It's not the job of Air / Ground Radio to sort anything out traffic wise. Too many pilots (and one or two Air / Ground operators to boot) seem to be confused about the various roles of A/G, FISO and ATC.

TonyR

30th May 2004, 19:44

Yes I do know the difference, but at a busy fly-in by the time A/G give every pilot the wind etc, a lot of wasted radio time could have been used better by pilots.

I would not expect FISO or ATC to just "give up"

bar shaker

31st May 2004, 07:27

Of course the other reason for not being able to spot someone decending on the dead side is because he is actually decending on the live side.

Buts that's a different can, full of different worms.

englishal

31st May 2004, 14:15

I would just make a position report, and I would do it at any field. Once did it after departing a towered field, another aircraft was reporting 10 miles to the south descending through 5000, and I was 10 miles to the south at 4500. As the tower blokey didn't seem to give a toss, I called up "XXXXX 10 miles to the south 4500"

I tell you what, these new fangled contraptions like "GPS" and "Radio" don't half make it dangerous flying around the british isles.:D

Miserlou

31st May 2004, 21:30

For clarification; yes, it may have sounded harsher than it was meant but then again I really mean it. It was most certainly not meant in a derogatory way.

I do not suggest that Paulo should sit and let the other guy fly into him. The fact that Paulo has seen the other guy is enough that the two don't hit each other.

By making a call on the radio you may put the other guy's back up for a number of reasons.

Rocking the wings is a tradition (apparently a dying one) which has a number of uses. Aircraft can be very difficult to see especially with no relative movement (ie on collision course) so the rocking wings, differing light and shadow or glint makes it more visible.

It also helps maintain the camaraderie amongst pilots.

I'm with Chilli, too.

Just to add that people's position reports often reflect more where they think they are than where they actually are.

englishal

31st May 2004, 21:56

By making a call on the radio you may put the other guy's back up for a number of reasons.
Thats a silly arguement ;)

StrateandLevel

31st May 2004, 22:23

Calls to "Traffic" are not OK in the UK. They are not listed in any document and should NOT be made.

All calls should be addressed to the ground station; if there is nobody there, "XXX RADIO" will suffice. Alternatively, "transmitting blind" may be used however, simply stating your callsign, the airfield name, your circuit position and intention will advise interested parties what you are doing.

Miserlou

1st Jun 2004, 07:22

It's not a silly argument. The call implies that the other guy hasn't seen you, isn't following procedures or doesn't know what he's doing. You're questioning his airmanship.
It also suggests that you are uncertain, nervous, inexperienced or reliant on radio and ATC.

Bear in mind that this is the impression that others who may be listening but not watching the situation may get. 'The other guy' then gets greeted on the ground with an 'oh, you're the guy who tried to cut up/didn't see/doesn't comply....' type of comment.

The irritation(distraction) of the above scenario, whether the former or latter case, doesn't belong in the cockpit either CRM-wise.

paulo

1st Jun 2004, 21:28

Being asked if you have traffic in sight is a normal part of circuit ops. I don't find it insulting (but maybe others do).

Miserlou

1st Jun 2004, 22:35

Being asked by ATC maybe but not by other traffic.

paulo

1st Jun 2004, 23:05

ATC is asking on behalf of the other traffic.

Miserlou

2nd Jun 2004, 07:01

I don't buy that. If that is the case then why didn't they ask the guy behind you? How come they don't ask every-one all the time?

They ask because it is their job to ensure a flow of traffic and by asking if X has Y in sight they think they're doing a good job. Problem arises when they ask Z if he can see Y and Z says yes when really he's looking at X. Two aircraft now following X. Recipe for disaster!

FNG

2nd Jun 2004, 07:14

When in the open FIR, we may be passed traffic info if talking to someone for FIS or RIS. Naturally, in that event it is still our job to look out for the reported traffic, and all other traffic. It's the same in the circuit: being given info may be helpful, so long as we don't assume "That's OK then: there's only that bloke over [THUMP]..."

Miserlou

2nd Jun 2004, 07:25

And it's all very well being told you're number in sequence but you may not be able to see everyone ahead of you.
It's quite an eye-opener with TCAS; how far away you can see other traffic and how close you can't!

Rod1

2nd Jun 2004, 18:49

I was flying in the circuit at Nottingham some time ago. The vis was very poor, I was flying a PFA high wing machine and there were three others down wind behind me. I started to turn base, but caught something out of the corner of my eye, raised the wing and a PA28 shot past at my height not very far away. I called “Nottingham traffic, danger, aircraft at circuit height wrong direction”. This was the first thing, which came into my head. In the PA38 behind me was an instructor, who “broke right” and narrowly avoided a nasty end.

Are people going to suggest the radio rules should have come first in this case? Perhaps I should have taken my time; after all, he was behind me and not my problem.

Rod1

Chilli Monster

2nd Jun 2004, 19:05

Are people going to suggest the radio rules should have come first in this case? Perhaps I should have taken my time; after all, he was behind me and not my problem.

Actually this occurrence demonstrates just why you should be keeping the R/T to a minimum and concentrating on the flying - gives the chance to make an important safety call like that.

Did you file an AIRPROX?

Rod1

2nd Jun 2004, 19:21

No. I did not file.

Our intrepid visitor had mistaken Syerston for Nottingham, worked it out very late on, blundered through the then active Newton on his way to the real Nottingham, and then got the runway mixed up when he thought he was joining down wind, which he should not have been doing anyway. I had been aware of the radio traffic when he was calling over Syerston, but his appearance was something of a shock.

He had a long chat with the CFI, but no prosecution as far as I know.

Rod1

Miserlou

2nd Jun 2004, 19:42

So, you knew where he was 'cos you heard it on the radio and therefore needn't lookout?
Point proved!

dublinpilot

2nd Jun 2004, 20:04

No one is saying don't look out! We're just discussing what to do when you've spotted someone, but they are about to go into your blind spot (because they will be behind you), and you're not sure that they have spotted you. And if they haven't spotted you, there maybe a risk of a collision.

No one is suggesting the radio is an alternative to a lookout. It's just that a lookout is not very effective for dealing with traffic catching you from behind.

dp

Gertrude the Wombat

2nd Jun 2004, 21:23

a PA28 shot past at my height not very far away I flew to Nottingham for the first time the other day, and didn't find the airfield totally easy to locate visually (good thing they have an NDB). Probably I should have flown higher, in East Midlands' airspace, to get a better view (not flown in Class D before, so avoided it).

Anyway, I kept well to the east, precisely so as to avoid blundering into the circuit flying in the wrong direction, and got a call "where on earth are you then?" having announced my intention to join several minutes earlier.

FNG

2nd Jun 2004, 21:32

Dublinpilot, I agree. CM and Miserlou, I'm not sure why we are disagreeing on this. If you check posts on similar subjects made by paulo, dublinpilot, Evo, me and others you may see that we do not believe that the radio is a flight control, a navigational device, or an anti-collision failsafe. All that we are saying is that use of the radio, combined with lookout, and as an ingredient of airmanship, may in some circumstances help a little in the circuit, as elsewhere.

Rod1: good call.

Someone said above that "Traffic" calls should not be made, because they aren't in a book. There is no book dictating precisely how one should speak on the radio. It is a device for communication with the ground, and with other pilots, usually indirectly, but occasionally directly. I get fed up with PPLs, and some instructors, adding mystification to the radio by assuming that one has to learn by rote a particular thing to say at any given moment.

DFC

2nd Jun 2004, 21:46

As I see it, "Paulo" had the other aircraft in sight and wanted to ask if the other aircraft had Paulo in sight.

a) What if the reply is NO......do you wast more R/T time trying to have a private conversation describing at length where you are and what you will do? or

b) What if the reply is YES.....and the aircraft continues to get closer and closer and closer.

In both cases, the R/T call is a waste of time that can be used to get your aircraft into a safe position.

Are we going to hear the following on London Information and thus making the frequency totally useless;

"G-ABCD mid channel 3000ft"

"G-ABCD this is G-XYZA do you have me in sight?"

"G-ABCD this is F-DFRT do you have me in sight and G-ZYZA wher are you should you have me in sight or should I have youi in sight or is this a wast of time better spent looking out the window?"

I have been on the receiving end of this "do you have me in sight" bleating on a few occasions. In order to shut the guy up, I eventually pointed out that I had just called final while he was still overhead and yes I did have him in sight 2000 ft above and 2 miles away!!!!! I have enough to do flying my aircraft I am not going to do your job as well!!!

There is Paulo looking out the back window talking on the radio driving his aircraft into the one in front.

Chilli is perfectly correct to be harsh...because standards are dropping and we will end up with nothing but Yak Yak where are you here I am what did you do for lunch old chap yak yak yak.

ZXC down wind contact 2 ahead / zxc final contact one on the runway / ZXC having a collision with the non radio final traffic / zxc leaving the airwaves.

Only ATC can decide or dictate the sequence.

At an AFISO or A/G service field, if G-ABCD calls downwind and correctly identifies 2 aircraft ahead at that time it is perfectly correct for another aircraft to position ahead and thus change G-ABCD's position in the sequence provided it is done safely. This instantly makes the out loud calling of sequence number a waste of time and an even bigger waste of time if it is repeatidly updated.

I personally think that some pilots believe that if they call downwind 2 ahead that no other aircraft can then get ahead of them - Not true.

Aviate, Navigate and Communicate by the book cause that is why it is there.

Feel free to suggest changes to the R/T book to the CAA so that we can all use them if they are safe.

Regards,

DFC

Miserlou

2nd Jun 2004, 22:17

To go a little deeper, FNG, part of the reason many people fly is for the freedom. That freedom is restricted by the radio and, God knows, there are enough restrictions placed our flying already.

There was once an accepted gesture, I think I mentioned it earlier, waggling the wings; could mean anything you want it to mean. And a little waggle back in reply...being a member of the brotherhood of airmen and all that.

Why don't people do that any more?

FNG

2nd Jun 2004, 22:33

I entirely agree, Miserlou. I often fly without the radio, and always rock my wings on meeting other aircraft. It is a shame when people do not respond. Sometimes I think they have not seen me. Other times, I lament the fact that some products of PPL schools appear to be afraid to bank more than twenty degrees. Sometimes,I wonder if they are just flying on, having seen me, but assuming that they have right of way because their GPS (aka PIC) tells them so, and that my wing-rocking is a panicky "get me out of here" manouevre, rather than a way of saying "I see you, and hello, fellow pilot" . Bah, humbug.

paulo

2nd Jun 2004, 23:14

DFC: If in doubt, don't shout? :confused:

englishal

3rd Jun 2004, 07:30

Its a grey area. It is the pilots right and responsibility to question anything which might affect the safety of the flight. If an accident happens, its the Pilots responsibility.

Would you never question an instructor / captain sat next to you for fear of "putting his back up"? Thats a very dangerous game. ATC do a wonderful job, but do make mistakes (being vectored into a mountain springs to mind).

DFC

4th Jun 2004, 22:24

Paulo,

If in doubt - get out of harms way and talk about it later.!!!!

When you have and engine failure do you sort out the aircraft and make an R/T call or do you make the call and then sort out the aircraft?

------

einglshal,

This has nothing to do with ATC and I hope that I can rest assured that if one had doubts about an situation involving ATC that everyone would address the question to ATC and not to the other aircraft on frequency.

FISO and Air Ground Radio and for that matter ATC radio frequencies are for Air - Ground - Air communication. They are not for Air to Air communication.

The crux of this argument lies with the fact that Paulo had the other aircraft in sight and had the ability to ensure the safety of his aircraft (and the other aircraft).

If however, Paulo was observing an imminent collision between two other aircraft (who may not see each other) then he would be quite correct to issue a warning on the R/T. But I bet that he would be disapointed if after issuing the warning, the aircraft in possible danger did nothing other than make a radio call asking the other aircraft if his aircraft was in sight.

Regards,

DFC

valenii

5th Jun 2004, 22:34

Dublinpilot

I like your example, and as an SR22 driver, it rings true to me.

This is a real risk.

On the other hand, if the SR22 pilot hasn't seen Paulo, he'll be catching the C150 very quickly indeed

Actually the SR22 pilot will be hearing "Traffic Traffic" in his ears if his SkyWatch is working!

Which brings me to a very important point, many old time pilots still switch their transponders off as part of their approach checks.

IMHO This is the most stupid habit anyone can ever practice, in the crowded area of an airport, having transponders on and TCAS systems fitted can very effectively help a pilot aquire visually all other aircraft in the close proximity of the airport.

If pilots out there do not want to have a mid-air with a fast Cirrus (and there are a lot of us around now) then please leave your transponders on!!! You will probably come out the worst afterall the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....

Ian

Chilli Monster

5th Jun 2004, 22:58

If pilots out there do not want to have a mid-air with a fast Cirrus (and there are a lot of us around now) then please leave your transponders on!!!
Alternatively the Cirrus could slow down to a reasonable speed in the vicinity of the airport and you could both look out the window ;)

Much as Valenii has a point, there is, as always, two sides to the coin:

Busy circuit, everyone squawking, many of the aircraft have no mode 'C'. Take this to be at any airfield outside CAS.

Now adjacent radar unit is working an aircraft under RAS which wants to route via this airfields overhead. This aircraft can be anywhere between FL50 and FL245. The airfield is far enough away that you can't see the primary returns, but because you can see the copious, garbling, SSR readout's, including lots of 'NMC' indications (no mode Charlie) then you have to give avoiding action on traffic which my be 20,000ft below.

If you're arriving then fine, leave the transponder on until landing. Don't have a problem with that as it's SOP for most people. However - if you're going into the circuit consider whether you actually need it on. 99% of the time the answer will be no.

valenii

5th Jun 2004, 23:21

Chilli Monster,

I agree the SR22 driver should be slowed to circuit speed, and thats easy in a Cirrus, she will happily fly along at 90knots!

I also agree that mode "alpha" is next to useless. It not only causes the ATC confusion you speak of but also causes us frights also!

Worst one I got was while I was practicing holds once, and suddenly got "Traffic Traffic" 0.3Nm 12o'clock.... no mode charlie!!!

Looked for ages for the traffic then noticed a helicopter starting his rotors in a field way way below me!!! If he had Mode C I would not even have seen a target on the scope (as the threat level would have been too low)

I would personally like to see "mode a" phased out and quickly. and as a start I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie. That way if we see a return with no altitude on our scopes, then we know he should be below 1500ft.

Anyone that refuses to fit mode C in their aircraft is probably more happy flying low anyway......

Okay now you can all "flame me".....

Ian

Evo

6th Jun 2004, 08:18

I would personally like to see "mode a" phased out and quickly. and as a start I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie. That way if we see a return with no altitude on our scopes, then we know he should be below 1500ft.

I'm trying to figure out if this is intended seriously or is just a pure troll. I have never seen a convincing argument for not using mode Charlie in the cruise when it is fitted, but it's an odd argument to suggest that a huge portion of the UK fleet be forced down into the weeds so that the 1%, if that, of pilots with TCAS-type systems don't have to bother looking out of the window, safe in the knowledge that their gizmo will pick up all traffic for them. Forcing everything down low is daft, for both safety and noise reasons. Maybe in 2008 you'll have your wish for Mode-S in all aeroplanes, but I rather suspect that even then you'll still need to keep eyes outside when in the open-FIR; i'd be amazed if every microlight, glider and baloon has to have Mode-S, and I remain hopeful that parts of the PFA fleet will be exempt too.

It's also fairly concerning if Cirrus drivers really believe that a midair, in the circuit or elsewhere, is more of a problem for someone else because they "will pull ... CAPS and walk away". :rolleyes:

valenii

6th Jun 2004, 12:14

I'm trying to figure out if this is intended seriously or is just a pure troll. I have never seen a convincing argument for not using mode Charlie in the cruise when it is fitted, but it's an odd argument to suggest that a huge portion of the UK fleet be forced down into the weeds so that the 1%, if that, of pilots with TCAS-type systems don't have to bother looking out of the window, safe in the knowledge that their gizmo will pick up all traffic for them. Forcing everything down low is daft, for both safety and noise reasons. Maybe in 2008 you'll have your wish for Mode-S in all aeroplanes, but I rather suspect that even then you'll still need to keep eyes outside when in the open-FIR; i'd be amazed if every microlight, glider and baloon has to have Mode-S, and I remain hopeful that parts of the PFA fleet will be exempt too.

Evo

I was quite serious. We are at a step change in the industry, where Technically Advanced Aircraft are now out selling traditional ones. As we go through the change, there will be those that "mock" the advantages of these planes and try to hold back progress. As an example about two years ago Pilot Magazine ran an editorial arguing that the CAPS system was just a waste of 100lb of payload. They failed to see that it was fitted in light of a "whole new design", and the other factors such as less drag etc actually made the "whole" aircraft more efficient than the old style - even with the CAPS!

Likewise people think that a Cirrus pilot depends on his TCAS system to save himself looking out the window.... This is rubbish, we are pilots trained in the same way as everyone else, like all pilots we push ourselves to look out the window and fly as safely as possible. However I have been in many many situations especially in the london area, when I have been looking as hard as I can, but not seen anything. 7 times out of ten, the TCAS system helps me find a real threat that I may not have otherwise found. The other 3 times out of ten I look just as hard, but due to the fact the target has no mode C I often fail to see him. I KNOW that other pilots DO NOT SEE half the traffic I look for....

Not having mode C does not just confuse aircraft with TCAS it also confuses ATC. Soon we will have to upgrade to mode S as you suggest, this will dramatically bring down the price of second hand mode C kit.

In my opinion mode A is just a pain. Why not have negative transponder or mode C?

My comment about the CAPS pilot "walking away" was tongue in cheek, but meant to highlight that the designers of Cirrus aircraft have deliverately tried to address issues that cause GA fatalities, namely CFIT, loss of control in VFR into IMC, inadvertant spins, Collisions, and Airframe failure.

I was good friends with Pete MacNeil who died in the C310 at Soloflight earlier in the year. I don;t know what happened but am sure if he was in a CAPS equipped aircraft he would be alive today.

Ian

BTW isn't a troll someone who hides his identity?? thats not me!

Evo

6th Jun 2004, 15:32

Ian - a troll is one who posts controversial views with the intention of provoking an argument. Your views can certainly be read as unconventional - especially as 'no mode Charlie' includes those with no transponder, not just those with only mode Alpha - and your closing statement of 'Okay now you can all "flame me"' made me uncertain if you were posting to get a reaction or were trying to make a serious point. I can agree when you say "In my opinion mode A is just a pain. Why not have negative transponder or mode C?", but it's not obvious that that was your point from your original posts. Sadly the troll is all too common online, so I hope you will forgive my response.

I would agree that glass-cockpit recreational (for want of a better word) aeroplanes will soon start to out-sell traditionally-instrumented aeroplanes, if they haven't already. I have no idea of the statistics, and would suspect that the healthy homebuilt and microlight markets probably mean that new registrations are still mainly traditional, but I imagine few people buying, for example, a new C182 would not buy a glass-cockpit, and the low-end market will surely follow as prices drop. However, the life of GA aeroplanes is long, and I imagine it will be a decade or more before anything other than a small fraction of the UK fleet has the sort of advanced instrumentation found today in a Cirrus, and the cost of equipment and ongoing maintenance will mean that a sizeable proportion will essentially never have it - i'm thinking of the PFA fleet here, but there is a joy to flying a basic, uninstrumented aeroplane that I suspect will only be lost if it is legislated away. Some people just want stick and rudder, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I have no doubt that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane; the benefits of the equipment are, I think, unarguable, and I would love to have access to one for when i'd like to go touring. However, you did say that "I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie" and I think it's unrealistic, and somewhat unhelpful, to expect the rest of aviation to change to fit equipment that most will not have for years, if ever.

Ben (aka Evo).

Chilli Monster

6th Jun 2004, 17:01

Evo

especially as 'no mode Charlie' includes those with no transponder, not just those with only mode Alpha

Actually it doesn't. Transponding aircraft with no mode 'C' are a pain in the backside from both the 'TCAS' and similar equipped aircraft that are finding their way on the market, as well as from an ATC point of view. If you don't have a transponder well - such is life.

If you go back and read my post you'll understand - you can't avoid what you can't see, but you must avoid what you can't place 3 dimensionally.

The problem a lot of airfields have is they have their own primary radar head, but the SSR aerial can be up to 50 miles away, shared with other users and piped in down the phone line. Now - the average primary radar base of cover increases by 1000ft per 10nm away from the radar. This means that traffic 25 miles away below 2000ft is possibly going to be invisible.

Now - add an SSR aerial which is the other side of the target, on top of a hill, thereby increasing the range by an ability to 'look down' and you end up with SSR returns, but with no corresponding primary. Makes no difference - if you can see the Squawk you have to avoid it, even though primary radar performance may provide the assumption that it's low-level. The one thing you cannot do in that game is assume however.

englishal

6th Jun 2004, 17:38

I agree that if you don't have Mode C, then whats the point in transponding at all.....and controversially I think that if anyone wants an ATC service, then they should sqwark mode C......

But thats just me, I was brought up in a mode C vail, and I like talking to ATCO's, they're nice people really ;)

Mr Wolfie

6th Jun 2004, 21:50

valenii wrote:

You will probably come out the worst afterall the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....

This attitude makes Cirrus drivers and their BRS chutes look remarkably similar to Volvo drivers and their wannabe tanks.

The whole SIPS (side impact protection system) nonsense was promoted by Volvo and aimed at drivers who wanted technology to make up for their own lack of observational skills and ability, and to still have the best chance of walking away from the accident that they just caused by pulling out of a side road into traffic.

-"So what if I can't keep on top of my fast plane? Why bother to look out of the windows when I've got a couple of nice telly screens to look at and a nice computer voice to listen to? If I should run into someone else, well, I'll just pull my little red handle & I'll be all right Jack".

:sad:

Mr. W

valenii

6th Jun 2004, 22:04

Ben

I have no doubt that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane; the benefits of the equipment are, I think, unarguable, and I would love to have access to one for when i'd like to go touring. However, you did say that "I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie" and I think it's unrealistic, and somewhat unhelpful, to expect the rest of aviation to change to fit equipment that most will not have for years, if ever.

Thanks for your reasoned response and for treating me decently, I apologise if my original post looked like it was intended to provoke a response! In a way it was, but I did not intend it to offend or cross any "netequette".

I have always been known as a bit of a forward thinker and as an "unreasonable man" in the George Bernard Shaw definition "A reasonable man adapts himself to the world, and unreasonable man adapts the world to himself; its only through unreasonable men that we ever make progress".....

I am also new to aviation, having only been flying since April 2001 and having only got 730 hours or so.... mostly in a Cirrus. So I can take a fresh look so to speak. I do appreciate the value of "stick and rudder" uninstrumented flight, and would never want that to disappear, and a lot of Cirrus drivers are the same. (Did you know the Cirrus CEO just bought a Chipmunk??!)

I think the real issue here is one of airspace and available ATC services. I honestly believe that the comblination of new generation aircraft like the Cirrus and possibly others, together with small airfields around Europe could be used as an effective personal transportation infrastructure, but changes need to be made to make this safe and effective.

The fact is that my SR22 IFR to Brussels National from Denham, can do it in basically the same time as a BMI from heathrow, and at a third of the cost. Now that might not be the right route, but in the UK routes such as Norwich to Exeter, or Southend to Oxford, or Southampton to Hull, just beg for an efficient air transportation system, travelling these routes any other way is pure hell.

I think one day I would like to get a study done that looks at the cost of upgrading the roads and railways, compared with the costs of changing the regulations to allow small aircraft & small airport operations to really work, and the effect on the UK transportation infrastructure.

Sure you would need special "airways" (called Victor Airways in the US) proper radar services, GPS approachs, single pilot, single engine commercial operations etc. but it could all be done very easily. Much easier than enlarging the M25!

Imagine a world where clearances were automatically relayed to your aircraft, where traffic seperation was built into the autopilot, where every little airfield in the country was as well equipped as the average motorway service station.

In this world, (that I would love to see happen) then I am sure that the use of non mode C transponders would be confined to smaller areas designated open FIR and that the airspace structure of the skys was much different, with a large amount given over to non-Class A public cat operations.

It was in the context of such a dream that I made the "flippant" comment that we should ban non-mode C traffic above a particular altitude. I kinda thought it might make a start.....

I would like to see GA taken seriously and be more than a "hobby", if it was then I am sure that the knock on effect, in a larger GA economy, for those that just fly for fun would be better cheaper equipment, more facilities and better safety.

Its in the interest of all flyers everywhere to see growth and change, the alternative is stagnation and decay. So lets support companies like Cirrus, who have been bold enough to change things, I would like to see flying in the 21st century change as much as it did in the 20th. How about you?

Ian

[INTENDED TO BE TWO SEPERATE REPLYS, BUT PPRUNE IS JOINING THEM TOGETHER]

<hr>

Mr Wolfie

The whole SIPS (side impact protection system) nonsense was promoted by Volvo and aimed at drivers who wanted technology to make up for their own lack of observational skills and ability, and to still have the best chance of walking away from the accident that they just caused by pulling out of a side road into traffic.

I can assure you that no Cirrus driver I know takes a light hearted approach to risks. We are probably more careful than most, and more worried, more anxious, which is why we fly CAPS equipped aircraft in the first place.

The fact is that your analogy has some interesting parallels in it. When seat belts and airbags were added to cars, they decreased injuries and fatalities. But the \"old school\" were of the thinking \"I don\\\'t need my seatbelt as I am such a good driver that I will not have a crash\"

In road traffic I think you will find your position hard to prove - namely that the existance of SIPS made Volvo drivers cause more accidents.....

What I meant by my comment :You will probably come out the worst after all the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....
Was meant as a simple statement of fact, If I loose a wing or a fin in a mid-air, I may still have some options that may keep me alive. I never intend to be in that situation. I also never intend to crash my car. But I still put my seatbelt on.

Ian

charlie-india-mike

6th Jun 2004, 22:38

Well said mr wolfie

See and be seen.

C-I-M

Say again s l o w l y

6th Jun 2004, 23:15

See and be seen sounds fantastic, but in reality it's a very flawed method of traffic avoidance.
TCAS makes life an awful lot easier (and safer IMHO), but it does rely on people having transponders equipped and actually having them on.
There is often a reluctance in the PPL world to use the transponder in anything other than mode A. I cannot understand this at all, sticking on mode C makes sense.
Do people not like it because of a 'big brother' fear? They'll know my height and position etc....
I hope not, as it is a pretty crap argument for not trying to keep some order in the busy skies above europe.

I'm also fed up of TCAS showing traffic up, without any height indication. I know it's going to be a bug smasher far below, but it still means you have to check and that increases the workload ever so slightly. So stick Mode 'C' on to make it easier for us to sleep or drink coffee undisturbed as we trudge along the airways! ;)

valenii

8th Jun 2004, 08:08

See and be seen sounds fantastic, but in reality it's a very flawed method of traffic avoidance.......
There is often a reluctance in the PPL world to use the transponder in anything other than mode A. I cannot understand this at all, sticking on mode C makes sense.

Thank you. And in the circuit too please!!!

Ian

PPRuNe Radar

8th Jun 2004, 10:12

The Cirrus looks like a superb machine .... I want one :)

Just a subtle point though, it is NOT necessarily equipped with TCAS. And definitely not with TCAS II, otherwise the equipment onboard would offer Resolution Advisories. Hard to see even a Cirrus being able to comply with a 2000fpm climb instruction to avoid a collision ;).

Most seem to be specced with a Goodrich SkyWatch system which is generally classified as a Traffic Advisory System and does not meet the TCAS standard unless it is the Skywatch HP version and the antenna and cockpit displays comply with the FAA TSO (C147) relating to TCAS. But I would bet it is still a very useful tool nevertheless.

valenii

With your experience on type, I was wondering if such an advanced cockpit with a whole host of electronic features and displays might tend to make pilots of such aircraft fly a lot more heads in, playing with gadgets and fiddling with buttons, etc ? I am referring to VFR flight of course. Would be grateful for your views :ok:

PS HOW do you manage to keep all that white leather inside clean ?? It is an aircraft after all and dirt and oil normally appear as if by magic !!

:p

Fly Stimulator

8th Jun 2004, 11:43

When Ian is back in the office this afternoon I shall go and poke him with a sharp stick on behalf of flyers of simple aircraft who would like to avoid the aeronautical equivalent of being forced to cycle in the gutter while the flash cars hog the road! ;)

Puts me in mind of something...

http://www.theflyingschool.co.uk/pprune/ToadCirrussm.jpg

FNG

8th Jun 2004, 11:45

Pooop, poooop! Oh, for the joys of the open woad (or airways). Hoowah!

Capt. Manuvar

8th Jun 2004, 11:53

This is my view on this debate. A couple of months ago, i was doing T&Gs at an unattended A/G airfield. Inbound aircraft made initial calls but didn't get a response. Some of them then proceeded to ask me for airfield information, I did give them the landing runway and last known QFE. But it got me thinking about the legality of what i have done. For example, if i gave someone a wrong QFE and they busted overlying CAS, would I be responsible? On the other hand, there is the need to want to help your fellow aviator. I do agree that there are a few people who misuse the radio, like one pilot who kept persistently trying to ask me for airfield info while i was dodging a tree on short finals. But pilot to pilot communication is sometimes necessary. When you have aircraft with different performance in the circuit it is not unusual for pilots to misjudge the positions of other aircraft in the circuit. In situations like this a short to the point radio call will do no harm. RT is a safety. As for those who insist on sticking to standard RT, The most important rule in avaition is that rules can be broken in the interest of safety.