Airmanshipfrom the other end

[939]

Calling all pilots ( controllers too, but be nice)picture the scene open FIR, very busy airfield, instrument approach pattern to the NE some pilot decided what a nice idea it would be to fly overhead the fix at the same level as holding traffic without advising ATC he/she was there ( class G hence the title do not quote the lack of rules in the aforementioned class of airspace) the result-- pilot in the hold at the same level " I saw him in the corner of my eye and stuck the nose down if it had been IMC or if I hadn't seen him he would have hit me"What I really need to know is why pilots cannot appreciate that when you fly through the chevrons why can't you advise the ATSU involved, (insert the word AIRMANSHIP into your current thoughts)and secondly when you fly thru the IAP can you tell me what God you are praying to so I can pray to him about my lottery numbers because lets face it Ive more chance of winning thee lottery than you have of not hitting someone.

The Gripe is Complete

When I said Turn Right You Should Have Known I mean't Left...

[Chilli Monster]

939

We have the same problem at a company airfield to the southwest. Normally straight through the ILS at the 5 mile point at 1500' (All you pilots out there can do the maths I'm sure).

Airmanship - has greatly reduced since the advent of GPS and the jump in, push buttons and go anywhere mentality, rather than look at a map and PLAN a flight mentality that these people were originally taught.

And before anyone has a go - I say this as an ATCO AND Pilot. A quick look around some clubs and I'm sure everyone can recognise someone of the above description.

CM

[ 25 February 2002: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]</p>

[Chilli Monster]

Back to the top - from an incident tonight!

Chap flies right through ILS 'VFR' (in this weather - yeah right!) and calls visual with the airliner on the ILS. Keeps heading towards the airliner even though he's been told to route well behind.

Airliner has a TCAS Resolution Advisory and would have broken off the approach had I not informed him the traffic was now passing down his side and was no threat.

Airmanship from the VFR - questionable. Was it a low hours PPL - no. A complex single routing back from a demo flight.

On discussing it with the airliner driver we both decided not to file. If anyone of you out there however were to do the same (crossing an instrument approach albeit in Class 'G') you might not be so lucky. I for one will have no qualms about filing an Airprox against the next person who does that to me!

CM

[Spacer]

As I've heard before, the old one about traffic crossing a MATZ and no-one knows what the traffic's intentions are. I fly in a MATZ for a considerable portion of my flying, and I would never consider not being in touch with the controllers. It hard enough when you are <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Beethoven]

Hi,could I ask a little question with regards to instrument approaches outside controlled airspace.How wide a berth should we give one of these airfields?Is it sufficient to just avoid those chevrons on the chart that indicate the main instrument approach or assume that instrument approaches exist on the other runways and avoid those also..Does the existence of a published instrument approach affect the direction an arriving vfr flight should plan to arrive from?

[Chilli Monster]

Beethoven

Best advice is talk to the ATC unit concerned and use some common sense.

IAP's involve (more often than not) a 3 degree glide path. at 300 ft per mile it becomes obvious that crossing the final appproach track at 5 miles at 1500' or 7 miles at 2000ft is a really dumb move. If you're planning a flight (there we go - that swear word again) then if your proposed track crosses the procedure or a beacon associated with a procedure (beacon = HOLDING TRAFFIC) think to yourself - "what type of traffic is at this airfield and what is it likely to be doing".

By all means plan to route across the final approach track, as the procedures aren't always in use, but have a contingency plan and be aware that you might have to use it. Don't be afraid to ask for a RIS (if available) and vectoring around the traffic (if any). The reason there is no controlled airspace is because there isn't sufficient passenger numbers on flights to warrant it. The likes of Blackpool, Humberside and Filton (to name but a few) however still have public transport flights and IFR training which are best avoided.

The other thing to remember is that although the chevrons are shown for one runway they may be on the other end - and may still be doing Instrument Approaches. (We're a case in point - chevrons for runway 27 only, but we have an ILS on both ends).

If you're joining VFR and there are IAP's in use be aware that you may not be able to effect a straight in approach - expect join either base or down wind to keep you out of the way.

At the end of the day the watchword is planning. Know where you're going and know the airspace. Look at a map - not just blindly shove a route into a GPS and blast off.

CM

[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]</p>

[gasax]

Surely the issue here is the mismatch between the category of airspace and the activities going on?

I would not for a moment disagree with contacting the ATC unit. But - why is it perfectly ok for IFR actual or 'acting' traffic to not keep a sufficiently good lookout in the open FIR?

My feeling is its good airmanship for VFR traffic to avoid these areas, to talk to the controlling ATC - but what about the airmanship (or dare I say lack of?)in having at minimum a degraded lookout in what is VFR airspace? Because people are instrument training its ok?

[Chilli Monster]

Pete Morris

Typical scenario is - cloud base 2300'. VFR traffic 2000'. IFR traffic out of 3 for 2 being vectored for the ILS. When he pops out of cloud he's only 300' above the VFR and being vectored for the ILS. The two are closing rapidly - look out doesn't come into it as he hasn't got time!

There is no such thing as VFR / IFR airspace - the UK weather doesn't allow it <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

CM

[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]</p>

[gasax]

Do not fly IFR without radar cover - otherwise the windscreen fills with all sorts of things!

Even many years ago, very large flying pigs!

[Chilli Monster]

Pete

You're missing the point of the thread.

Whether there is radar cover available or not you still have the problem of the slow moving a***hole tracking across your centreline at the same point as you want your IFR traffic to be. You can see him, and you have to avoid him. End result is IFR traffic goes around, reconfigures and has to travel 15-25 miles dependant on type to get back in the same place again - while Mr dullard floats along with his thumb up his a**e and his brain in neutral.

This due to a total lack of awareness. Do you really think that is acceptable?

CM

[DB6]

Beethoven, advice is that if you're flying within 10 nm of an airfield with chevrons on the map to give them a call. It's actually printed on the CAA 1:500000 charts in the legend that explains what the chevrons are. Before you think I'm having a go at you for not knowing that, however, I must confess I only know because it's a question in the PPL exams which I was asked about recently <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[bookworm]

Chilli

I sympathise with most of what you're saying but I do think the specific example you gave is a bit OTT.

A VFR aircraft is asked (or told: was it class D or class G?) to maintain separation from another aircraft which it has reported to have in sight. According to your narrative, it does so without intervention from you, and without the other aircraft changing its flightpath.

What's the big deal here? Does the carriage of TCAS in this day and age mean that standard separation must be maintained even when aircraft can avoid each other visually, just to avoid setting the bells and whistles off -- I don't think that's the intention of it.

[Chilli Monster]

Bookworm

The narrative is sufficiently ambiguous to prevent things being taken further. However, for your information.

The airspace was Class 'G' (Read the thread)

The VFR traffic was given a turn which he ignored (I've got him in sight)

The IFR traffic had a TCAS Resolution Advisory - in most airlines ops manuals This must be accepted and acted on. My intervention stopped him breaking off the approach!

This event was not 'OTT' as you say - it really happened and the blips got very close and the VFR guy is very lucky he's not being filed against because his actions caused the IFR (an airliner full of pax) to be extremely concerned.

I gave the VFR traffic some credit for being competent - never again!

CM

[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]</p>

[Martin Barnes]

Rumour Control has it that CM has been a validated radar controller nearly all day !!!.. .We are amazed he has time to post on this Forum with the amount of form filling he must surely be involved in from his adventures of the last week.. .what a BIMBO....

[Chilli Monster]

Martin

You only get involved in form filling when things get out of hand. You stop that by taking preventative action when people do their own thing when not cleared to do so. Especially when operating in a procedural environment, when you are under an Approach control service.

I shan't say anymore on that subject though - I'm a great believer in using examples to learn from - not finger pointing (you'll notice I don't name names or places).

CM

[ 28 February 2002: Message edited by: Chilli Monster ]</p>

[bagpuss lives]

Personally I reckon you should have filed - 1261's all 'round my friend :)

That's what the system is there for.

To educate as well as report.

[BEXIL160]

Agreed, CA1261 action required. We all HATE form filling but hey, as my EGCC colleague points out, the system is there so all can learn from incidents, including people who think trundling VFR thru a MARKED final approach track @5nm/1500ft is a good idea....

BEX

[andrewc]

I had the entertainment recently, while turning left base for circuit bashing at Cambridge, of having what looked like a Mooney drive through. .at circuit height at ~150 knots diagonally . .across the field from final to downwind.

The tower controller alerted us to pop-up . .traffic, no eggs were broken, I was just gobsmacked at how badly the driver had behaved.

-- PoG

[gasax]

Chili monster et al seem to be portraying the same attitude as people who cruise down the right hand lane of motorways. I'm going quickly I deserve to be here.

If the VFR traffic can fly through the chevrons then he is VFR! If you then want that piece of airspace and not to look out the windows - who is displaying poor airmanship? (whilst still acknowledging the VFR trafiic should be talking)

As VFR traffic all you have to do is not bump into the other guy, being routed behind another aircraft is the worst place to be sent due to wake turbulence - my preferance would be almost any other position.

Remember VFR means see and avoid and contrary to many of these wannbes ideas, no one is generally moving that quickly. The only guys you cannot avoid are the military but then they are doing 360 or 420 knots.

The whole gist of this thread seems to be I'm flying IFR and so everyone must give me lots of room and make way for me - don't pretend that is any form of airmanship. Most of what these fora are full of is 'and the other guy then... he should be locked up.'

In this case the other may not have displayed good manners but he probably did obey the rules.

[Girl Flyday]

But what is the POINT of plowing through an instrument approach when you can avoid it - 'just because you can'? Surely this is a rather arrogant attitude, and something which I as a PPL myself would avoid.

And OK, so the guy is VFR - but just look back through the AAIB reports and note how many collisions have occured in VFR as apposed to IFR conditions - good visibility does NOT necessarily mean that aircraft will see or avoid each other.

But that's not necessarily the issue, here - because even assuming that the VFR pilot CAN see the airliner on the ILS and is convinced that his airmanship is such that he can avoid a collision - should the guy watching on the radar or the pilot of the aircaft getting TCAS alerts just assume this is the case? Even if there isn't an accident, their careers (or lives) could have been on the line for not taking avoiding action - and all because some arrogant git wants to fly straight through the ILS at a conflicting hight 'because it's his right'.

But no doubt the little guy 'exercising his rights' thinks so WHAT if the airliner is forced to go around because of him, either to comply with ATC separation minima or airline policy regarding TCAS alerts - he's just as much right to be there, hasn't he? And HE knew there was no danger of a collision...

What a w*****r.

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Girl Flyday ]</p>

[autothrottle]

Oh dear,

I feel that our friend Pete Morris is also forgetting the basic rules of the air here.Yes, the Visual Flight Rules mean that the responsibility for separation outside Regulated airspace rests with the "SEE AND AVOID"principle and therefore the pilot.(As it does in CAS too,the buck stops with the pilot.). .Remember though Pete, that the following are parts of the ANO and Rules of the Air:

. .1)A VFR FLIGHT WITHIN ,INTO OR ALONG ROUTES WETHER IN CAS OR NOT ,SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE PILOT MAINTAINING A LISTENING WATCH SHALL MAKE A CONTINUOUS WATCH ON THE RTF FREQUENCY AND REPORT HIS POSITION TO THE ATSU.

2)OPERATION ON OR IN THE VACINITY OF AN AERODROME.. .AN AIRCRAFT ON OR IN THE VACINITY OF AN AERODROME MUST,WETHER IN THE ATZ OR NOT:

OBSERVE OTHER A/C FOR PURPOSE OF AVOIDING COLLISION,. .CONFORM TO THE TRAFFIC PATTERN

amongst others.

While I can see your point about class G airspace,it must be remembered that by passing through an IAP outside CAS in the Manner CM described is not only illegal but dangerous too.This airfield has an IAP for a reason, and that approach is legal.

You could be CA 1261'd ,CA939'd for such action.

Whenever I transition from IFR (in IMC)to IFR (IN VMC )outside CAS ,I realise that although I am in class G airspace and recieving a RAS ,I need to lookout still,but I do hope that fellow flyers are doing their bit and avoiding IAP altogether.

Cheers

autothrottle.

[bagpuss lives]

At last some sense - thank you autothrottle and Girl Flyday <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

There is no doubt at all that this incident should have been 1261'd (at least) for everyone's benefit. Paperwork is crap but so is answering a panels questions as to why you didn't file on this idiot.

There can be no excuse at all for this outrageously unsafe bit of "aviation" and it sadly makes me glad we don't get a lot of VFR stuff buzzing around my unit any longer - apart from the odd "G-LOST" and the Ravenair chaps who are all impeccably behaved - if not a bit easilt confused between 06R and 06R at times :)

Also, surely questions must be asked of the commander of the commercial flight for not responding to his RA regardless of any traffic information passed. Pretty big gamble if you ask me?

I thought it was decreed in SOPs these days that the TCAS is to be followed at all times - at least that's what we're told in TRUCE <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Oh and lastly a message for Pete Morris - I sincerely hope you don't fly close to EGCC or any airspace I'm controlling with those interesting ideas you have.

We're all supposed to be on the same side ya know? IFR, VFR, ATC, CAA, IRS, SOS....oh sorry got carried away there <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

The rules were broken and the pilot concerned should be whipped and beaten senseless for doing something so blatently, and this needs to be said, stupid ------ "Here I am in my little Cessna (whatever) and there's an airliner 5700kg and above with nasty big engines and lots of people on board flying siomewhat faster than I am. I know I'll fly towards him and totally ignore ATC instructions. ATC - pah! - must be fibbing to me - they all hate us VFR chaps anyhow. He must be telling me to keep away and follow from a distance just for a laugh or something to do"

That sense to you is it sir? :)

C'mon - you can't defend the blatently guilty <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[Ludwig]

This thread reminds me of a ditty I read somewhere:. .. .Here lies the body of Johnny Gray. .He died maintaining his right of way. .His will was strong. .His way was right. .but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong