How rude

[glush]

So there we were today number 1 at the holding point with 2 other aircraft behind us for runway 10 at Leicester. Circuit extremely busy with both training and visiting aircraft etc and the radio operator doing a valiant job of trying to ease the situation. After holding for about 7 or 8 minutes, some kind soul on Final offers to go-around in order to provide a window of opportunity to clear the backlog at the hold (thanks!). The radio operator calls my aircraft up asking if we're ready for departure and my student replies in the affirmative. Student then announces 'lining up'.... We roll out onto the runway, and backtrack about 20m. As we turn around to commence takeoff, some ignorant s@d in a Pitts scoots onto the runway ahead of us, slams the power on and takes off. Sadly this kind of impatience and poor airmanship seems to happen more often than it used to. I'm also seeing more aircraft landing on runways whilst they're still occupied by other aircraft, or aircraft lining up whilst others still backtracking.... The worry is as the operating costs go up, I expect we'll see even more of this kind of thing happening - but it's pretty shabby in my opinion.

I'm sure that student pilots don't believe half of the 'did I tell you about the time when' stuff that instructors moan about.... So on a positive note, whoever was 'piloting' the Pitts provided my student with a great insight into the kinds of behaviour they'll be encountering when they acquire their licence. But if the 'pilot' hasn't got enough money to pay for another couple of minutes fuel at the hold, perhaps they should consider flying something more affordable?

Rant over.

[Spit-Fire]

Don't take this the wrong way, but if the circuit was busy and you are holding for extreme lengths of time, then whilst you are backtracking it is an ideal time for something of the Pitts ground roll to nip in front and climb away. If it was anything on similar power levels to your own aircraft I would agree on the poor airmanship principle.

[Fuji Abound]

Glush

I am sure you are entirely correct in the circumstances you encountered.

However to offer another perspective there are occasions when an experienced pilot can safely take advantage of an opportunity without causing any inconvenience.

At my home airport there are two routes onto one of the runways. Many a time I have pulled up immediately after the aircraft ahead at the hold. Familiarity enables me sometimes to rattle through the checks whereas it is obvious the aircraft ahead has a student aboard and the pace is much slower. With the luxury of a quick call to AT and the requested departure from the interesection is granted although to by knowledge sometimes to the annoyance of the aircraft ahead. Why? If they werent ready (still turned into wind doing power checks) why so precious?

Perhaps the answer if in doubt was "G-XXXX ready immediate unless any objection intending to depart while G-YYYY is back tracking".

The CAP watch dogs will almost certainly object to such terribly non standard RT but sometimes plain English has its merits.

[Spit-Fire]

Well described analogy

[BackPacker]

I'm thinking along the same lines. Was your departure in any way delayed because the Pitts nipped in front? Was there any doubt in your, or the students mind, about the intentions of the Pitts? Was safety compromised because you had already started your take-off roll when he nipped in front? Was this a "heavy" Pitts that forced you to wait unexpectedly because of wake turbulence?

If not, then I'd say the Pitts did the right thing - optimize runway usage.

Student then announces 'lining up'.... We roll out onto the runway, and backtrack about 20m.

Nitpicking here, but shouldn't you have announced "backtracking" first? That way the Pitts maybe could've nipped in front of you even sooner. (I'm assuming that backtracking for a whopping 20m is somehow common practice for your training fleet, but that not all aircraft need that additional 20m for a safe take-off. So the information about whether you were going to line-up immediately, or do a backtrack and then line-up would be relevant for the Pitts.)

Many a time I have pulled up immediately after the aircraft ahead at the hold.

Same here. Fortunately we're blessed with wide taxiways (they need to be wide enough for 737s after all) so my call in those situations is typically "Ready for departure number two, able to pass".

[glush]

... have to disagree. Our aircraft was already occupying the runway and had turned around to commence takeoff. It wasn't a case of a student taking longer to do checks etc, it was just poor airmanship on the part of an impatient Pitts driver. The other aircraft holding behind it didn't seem to have a problem with waiting their turn.... And our aircraft actually has a better takeoff and climb performance than a Pitts, so not sure that would be relevant mitigation either. Sadly, it's just cr@p airmanship.

[Rod1]

“And our aircraft actually has a better takeoff and climb performance than a Pitts,”

Which invites two questions, what were you in and why did you waste valuable runway time backtracking 20m in such an aircraft?

Rod1

[glush]

... ever heard the legend that goes something like, "nothing so useless as runway behind you"?

As I explain to my student pilots, it might save 30 seconds or so, but just imagine going through the hedge/fence/gate at the other end of the runway by 2 metres, when you could have gained yourself an extra 20m? Or that engine failure after takeoff that you could have got back down onto the runway with stopping distance to spare.... It's not so much to do with takeoff performance as 'stopping' performance. Perhaps when they start fitting ABS to aircraft we won't have to worry about such things..... but until then, I'll continue to encourage my guys to take the extra few seconds.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Notwithstanding the likely pointlessness of the 20m backtrack, and any difference in types - entering a runway, without any RT communications, after an aeroplane in front of you has called "lining up" is p***-poor airmanship, I have to agree with glush.

G

[Pilot DAR]

The bottom line lies in:

Our aircraft was already occupying the runway

In the absence of a clearance from an air traffic controller, it's just rude to nip out in front of another aircraft on the runway. The pilot of the Pitts looses a point...

[ospreydriver]

Rudeness is immaterial.

The Pitts was wrong to do what he did without notifying the other aircraft already lined up. Without calling, he doesn't know if the aircraft behind him is already at max throttle and about to overtake him.

Now, with a call, I've got no issues with him.

There's nothing wrong with doing something non-standard, as long as appropriate deconfliction and comms are used. Without them, though...

[Fuji Abound]

Glush

So what was your aircraft? I am genuinely interested as I have a little Pitts time; I cant think of any aircraft that would typically be used for student training that would outperform a Pitts; I appreciate you might not have being doing ab initio training.

I agree about runway ahead, but to be fair, you took your decision and the other pilot was entitled to take his. He accepted not using the full runway length and he alone was responsible for that decision.

I also agree that if you had turned and the Pitts "infringed" the runway after your turn then his airmanship was poor. If he had lined up and started his roll while you were backtracking and before you had completed your turn that might be a diffferent matter.

I am not sure what the aircraft did behind the Pitts is relevant - after all he was never going to be in a position to "take" an immediate.

Events such as this are always going to be a matter of judgement. You are an isntrutor so I would expect your judgement to be sound. I have seen novices very unhappy with the action of other pilots whereas in fact what the other pilot did was perfectly safe and not the least inconsiderate.

It is impossible to be critical about the events you describe for that reason because I can see circusmtances in which the Pitts pilot had not behaved unreasonably and equally, dependent on the Pilot's timing, the actions of a rather pushy and inconsiderate pilot. However, at least it is difficult to construct an argument that the other pilot's actions were actually dangerous, which is at least some help, while not an excuse for his actions.

You comment about aircraft landing while the runway is still occupied. I dont entirely follow your point. You will be familiar with the instruction to "land after", are you uncomfortable with a pilot accepting a land after clearance unless the pilot is absolutely certain the runway will be completely vacated or are you referring only to fields without air traffic?

PS - I am assuming Leicester is still A/G (it was the last time I was there). If so I agree with the other posters, the very least the Pitts should have done is announce his intentions. If Leicester now has AT then of course it is tea without bickies, the Pitts had no clearance and the pilot should be shot.

[flybymike]

I take the same view as Glush in that human nature will inevitably regard this type of "pushing in" as intensely annoying and unforgivably rude as far as the average Englishman is concerned. None of us would simply say nothing if someone barged in front of us in a queue at the Post Office or chip shop, and philosophical thoughts along the lines of "did it really do much to inconvenience me" cut little mustard. I have had exactly the same situation occur to me (ironically in reverse) at Beverly last year when an instructor with student barged past me completely unannounced, while I was still doing run up checks at the hold, and sailed off into the distance in front of me. (Marvellous demonstration of airmanship for an aspiring pilot) A few days later another instructor following my aircraft after a go around on an obstructed runway at Breighton, obviously decided that my idea of a conventional circuit was far too time consuming for him to bother with and he simply turned his following go around "circuit" into an orbit over the field directly behind me and a quick reposition back to finals while I was still downwind. Did it inconvenience me? no not strictly. Did it annoy me? Bloody right it did.

[mrmum]

glush, I think you are correct on both points.

If you've already backtracked & lined-up 20m from the HP entry and are pointing the right way about to commence the take-off, then the Pitts shouldn't have entered in front of you. I would maybe look at it as you were taking off, the Pitts was taxiing, therefore you have right of way, Leicester being A/G radio.

Where possible I would always use as much runway length as I could, 20m may not be a lot but as you say, every metre can be crucial in the event of an emergency. A few years ago the club where I worked had a guy put a PA28 in the hedge at the end of the runway following an EFATO , I think an extra 20m would have made the difference that day.

[boofhead]

Flybymike, you are kidding, right? If you cannot takeoff on reaching the holding point because of checklists, run ups or whatever, park to the side and let the others through. Why make them wait? When did that airport become your property?
I am amazed also at pilots who think they can enter a runway then hold while completing checks, never mind any airplane on final. What if the landing airplane was a glider?
And how did that airplane landing behind you affect you, in any way? You have no idea if he had a problem with an engine, or a need to be on the ground without delay. If he had asked for the orbit at a controlled airport he would have been given it immediately and it still would have had no effect on your flight.
I have had radio problems at times, thinking I was transmitting or receiving when I was not, so I am not so quick to find fault with others. There is no place in aviation for impatience, yours or theirs. If the airport is not controlled, please share it sensibly.
Try to be more accommodating with others; give them some leeway. In turn they will do the same for you.

[A and C]

I can't help feeling that the real reason for this post is that you feel irritated at the guy in the Pitts getting off ahead of you however I think his airmanship might be a little suspect if no radio calls were made.

As you say the CCT was busy so the fact that the guy in the Pitts could get away while you were back tracking he did in fact ease the congestion.

I operate from an airfield that is very busy and I know that it takes low time students a long time to get the checks done properly and so position the aircraft in a way to avoid delays to traffic that arrives at the hold behind me.

Most of the congestion at small airfields is is due to students being taught to fly overly large CCT's and long approaches, some of the CCT's I have seen flown are so large that a 737 could fly a tighter CCT!

This thing about aircraft landing on a runway that is still occupied by another aircraft is pure rubbish. as long as the other aircraft is far enough along the runway for a safe landing to be made the why not "land after".
The worrying thing is that the powers that be in light aviation seem to find the "land after" unacceptable and issue a go around order at the drop of a hat, it seems that the only place that I now regularly get a land after clearance is at Gatwick.

[Helen49]

Surely a significant purpose of the 'Rules of the Air' is to keep order and maintain safety at airfields lacking an Air Traffic Service. The law nust be observed otherwise we have anarchy (and accidents). Too frequently there is an insidious decline into sloppy procedures.....the AAIB record the ensuing details!

[glush]

A and C

Landing on a runway which is already occupied by another aircraft is illegal, except where this is authorised by an air traffic controller. Notwithstanding the inherent risks (where full ATC is not provided) pilots who feel it is a convenient way of saving time (and can't be bothered going around) are leaving themselves open to prosecution.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the ANO:

(2) Subject to paragraph (5), a flying machine or glider shall not land on a runway at an aerodrome if there are other aircraft on the runway.

(5) Paragraphs (2) and (4) shall not apply if the air traffic control unit at the aerodrome otherwise authorises the flying machine or glider.

[flybymike]

Flybymike, you are kidding, right? If you cannot takeoff on reaching the holding point because of checklists, run ups or whatever, park to the side and let the others through. Why make them wait? When did that airport become your property?


I was parked to the side, which is how he had room to move past me. I had just completed checks and was about to line up when he pushed past me with no comment. I consider that rude and dangerous.

I am amazed also at pilots who think they can enter a runway then hold while completing checks,

I had not entered the runway and did not say that I had.

And how did that airplane landing behind you affect you, in any way?

He landed by cutting in front of me by flying an unannounced abbreviated circuit behind me (effectively an orbit above the airfield at a couple of hundred feet.) As well as cutting in front of me he might well have been turning back against landing traffic behind him.

If I failed to make myself clear in my original post I apologise. If I did make myself clear, please read my posts more carefully before criticising them.

[IO540]

He landed by cutting in front of me by flying an unannounced abbreviated circuit behind me (effectively an orbit above the airfield at a couple of hundred feet.)Standard practice at Stapleford, and to a lesser degree at Duxford.

It's not too bad if done by some aeros pilot who knows what he is doing. The problem (at Stapleford) is that it is done even by Cessna occupants who often have an instructor in the RHS. They are not so good and usually force the next person (on final) to go around.

[soaringhigh650]

He landed by cutting in front of me


If no special procedures have been published, keep the pattern as small as possible so that everyone can see you.

Larger/faster aircraft will need to fly a larger pattern.

But if you're a slow plane and flown way out there (say more than 1 1/4 miles), most will assume you have left the field.

[A and C]

While excepting you interpritation of rule 5 I have to ask how a gilder can go around on short final if someone is slow to clear the runway?

A rule that is imposable to comply with is a bad rule and should be changed.

I have no idea what the ATC situation is at the airfield you are flying at and my comments about "land after" instructions were aimed at some of the smaller airfields with full ATC. It could not be otherwise because it takes a full ATC unit to issue such an instruction.

Not withstanding the instruction if you think it is not safe you should go around.

[Fuji Abound]

A and C

As a small point of order I think it can be misleading to regard a land after clearance as an instruction, because it implies you must land behind the aircraft on the runway. As we know it is wholly up to the pilot to decide whether he considers it safe to land after - in effect it is a "land at your discretion IF you consider you can safely stop before colliding with the aircraft yet to vacate"

and on that topic if a vehicle is checking the runway can AT give a land after clearance? You would have thought so, but you would be wrong.

and back to topic - what service does Leicester offer these days - is it A/g, FICO, or AT?

and Glush did you not want to tell us the type of aircraft you were flying?

[Planemike]

glush..........

You have still not told us what type of a/c you and your student were flying. Classfied information?!!!!!!

Planemike

[Zulu Alpha]

G-INFO says G-LUSH is a PIPER PA-28-151.

I doubt it would outclimb a Pitts, or whether the Pitts caused them any delay.

Its a bit like when someone in a Porsche uses the outside lane at traffic lights to out accelerate to get ahead of a learner driver. Pi$$es you off but....

I think Leicester is just A/G and maybe the Pitts just said "XX departing yy" and you missed it. He probably didn't go through the whole" Leicester this is G-XXXX requesting radio check for a local flight.... etc etc."

I doubt there was any safety issue

[Local Variation]

If the PA28 was still back tracking, then maybe, with a radio call stating intentions.

But it doesn't seem that way. In which case, I think it was rank bad airmanship.

Pitts by name and pitts by nature.

[7120]

We don't know the full facts - and never will. Neither do we have the interpretation of all parties to review. Such a forum post makes one suspicious of long standing simmering resentment between the airfield users.

Any sensible instructor receiving a call from a Pitts to jump ahead at the intersection so allowing the student to back track line up and collect their thoughts for a few minutes, without delaying others, would be delighted to say yes. Why would you want a faster aircraft, with bugger all field of view, coming after you wondering where the hell you are? To respond negatively to such a call or be irritated not to have received one is irrational and peevish.

Students are taught the importance of human factors. Being unable to cope with an immediate, perceived, act of injustice perpetrated against one can lead to aberrant behaviour eg road rage. In this situation should the instructor have taxied back, lodged his complaint with the CFI, calmed down over a cup of tea rather than taking of in a red mist is open for debate.

Training is the lifeblood for many clubs, but this does not give instructors irrational rights of claim to real estate both on the ground and in the circuit - it's always a balance.

[Rod1]

10 at Leicester is a hard 940m long (licensed) runway. Your description was that the circuit was extremely busy. You were flying an aircraft, which will “out perform a Pitts”. A Typical Pitts would get airborne in less than 200m and has a R of C around 2500fpm. Was blocking the runway to backtrack 20m really in the spirit of things? Had you not backtracked the 20m, the Pits would not have pushed in and the runway usage would still have been optimised.

Rod1

[PENNINE BOY]

I was at Leicester yesterday and thought it was a bit of a mess! You had a busy airfield and yet people were landing and backtracking runway10! Come on guys and instructors clear the runway at the end rather than making guys go around.

Could have done with a bit more authority from the radio operator! Other than that I thought it was a damn good place to visit with a great cafe!

PB

[Cows getting bigger]

A worthwhile read

ISBN-13: 978-0070342842

[Fuji Abound]

Redefining Airmanship - what did you learn?

[Cows getting bigger]

That pprune doesn't necessarily engender airmanship :)

[Fuji Abound]

Now there is a thought.

Another is you dont often get a very symphathetic hearing on PPRuNe unless you are on solid ground.

[mary meagher]

Okay, guys, just for your amusement.

I was flying a single seat glider; from Aston Down on a wonderful day, flew all the way to GREAT YARMOUTH. North Dene airfield down there, according to my map.

Considered completing 300 k by turning an oil rig out to sea, but chickened out from that idea, and after flying up and down the beach a few times, seeing absolutely NO traffic of any sort at North Dene, set up a circuit and came in to land. Without radio, couldn't tell anyone of my intent.

As it had been a long flight, about five hours altogether, it did not occur to me to let the glider roll off the runway. I opened the canopy and heaved a sign of relief at having safely landed, when a red Landrover swung round in front of me, four guys jumped out and without a word shoved me and the glider off the side of the runway. And then they jumped back in the Rover and roared back to the tower.

Seems North Dene was used only by North Sea Helicopters. And coincidental with my arrival, for the very first time in the year, a helicopter was coming in with one engine out, and 14 people on board, thereby unable to hover and in need of the runway in the middle of which was parked me and the glider. When told about the situation I could only apologise abjectly. Ever after I do my best, when landing at an airfield, no matter how little traffic may be in evidence, to roll the glider out of the way before it runs out of energy!

Of course glider pilots landing at gliding fields are quite used to having six or seven gliders coming down at once, especially in competitions; we do have rules, and we do look out carefully, and we do talk to each other on the radio.

[eharding]

Of course glider pilots landing at gliding fields are quite used to having six or seven gliders coming down at once, especially in competitions


As yes...gliders and competitions. ;)

I remember Zulu Alpha giving a gaggle of gliders turning up without warning at the Power Aerobatic Nationals at Conington a very warm welcome....was that really 5 years ago?

[Sir George Cayley]

I wonder if the right seater in the backtracking a/c wears epaulettes ?

SGC

[stiknruda]

yep Ed - it was. My last domestic comp in the old svelte Ed days!

As a Pitts pilot, I'm horrified by the decription of the incursion by the op.
Makes me feel like a member of a renegade biker gang - poor show :(

However, if I'd been at the 10 hold in a Pitts that was prone to overheat and the OP backtracked, I would have been tempted and after a radio call would have gone and hauled it into a tight right turn - by the time i regained r/w hdg, I'd be out of the top of the circuit...

wasn't there - dunno but it hardly sounds like a lynch mob is required

Stik

[Zulu Alpha]

.... of course you do have to remember that all Pitts Pilots are rude boys!!!

I'm surprised the PA28 didn't pull over to one side to let him past!!...maybe that's what the Pitts pilot thought he was doing when he turned the wrong way onto the runway!

[Spitoon]

Could have done with a bit more authority from the radio operator!Might be worth checking up what a radio operator is allowed to do!

[boofhead]

Flybymike, not meaning to insult you; I was not there. Maybe I was generalising.
What about my comments re patience and accommodation? Do you agree with them?
I have seen the problems caused by pilots who demand access to runways or airspace (I am not saying this was the case here) causing student pilots to make errors in their attempts to get out of the way. So long as we don't know the reason for the unusual activity (which could be a variety of reasons from mechanical difficulties, radio problems, unfamiliarity, lack of proper training, etc) we should give the benefit of the doubt and give them room. If we get to fly another 10 minutes, isn't that what we are doing there anyway?
They call it a brotherhood of flight for a reason.

[Echo Romeo]

Much to do about, well, nothing really, the Pitts pilot saw an opportunity and took it, maybe should have made a radio call, but hey ho.:rolleyes:

[Pitts2112]

A couple of hours spent watching the Microlight Fly-in arrivals at Popham and you'll learn a lot about relaxing and just getting on with things. There's a group that fly for fun and aren't too put out by one another. Never saw a rule book quoted or anyone pulled up for minor inconveniences, unlike much of the Group A group who seem to want to throw the book at others quite a lot.

GA could learn quite a bit from the attitude of the microlight community.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

glush,

... ever heard the legend that goes something like, "nothing so useless as runway behind you"?

Agreed completely.

Ok, somewhere like Bournemouth/Birmingham etc may dictate a different (sensible/logical) approach, but my standard procedure is to use every metre of runway available to me.

I don't have thousands of hours, but have done enough flying to see the difference between what the theory says we should do and what we sometimes ACTUALLY do.

I've beat up runways lower than I should have and other such things, my point being I'm not one of these holier than thou types who doesn't know the difference between legality and safety (not always the same). But I know what it's like to lose power after unstick and needing that extra 50 metres or so.

I wasn't in the OP's shoes and I think it's impossible to judge these situations unless you were there. It doesn't sound unsafe to me - in fact I can imagine everybody was trying to find an opportunity, and I'm sure the Pitts pilot didn't intentionally try to upset you. I'm speculating because I have done 'this' to other pilots before to utilise a spacing opportunity, but only if I was sure it wouldn't inconvenience anyone and I really was ready to roll immediately.

Just a shame you guys were taking off as opposed to landing - then you could have spoken to him and found out what was going on!

:)

[Justiciar]

Isn't the only issue one of whether the Pitts pilot advised his intentions on the RT? If he did then it would appear to be entirely his own decision as to whether to take off from the intersection as opposed to backtrack. He does not appear to have done anything illegal or dangerous and indeed it sounds safer than having taken off following a slower aircraft which had a inferior rate of climb

[hatzflyer]

I think the question that is missing here really is " did the Pitts pilot , { who nipped in on the quick} have time to have a real lookout before taking off , given his speed of action and the poor lookout available from a biplane configuration ? "
That would be my main concern under those circumstances.

What you should have done was opened up and outclimbed him, rolled inverted 2M above his cockpit whilst simultainiously taking a polaroid with one hand and giving him "the bird" with the other.
(probably wouldn't do much for safety but would ensure a place in any remake of top gun though) ! :ok:

[GK430]

C'mon, I have visited Leics about once or twice a year over the past three years and have nearly always departed Rwy 10.

Our moaning friend says he backtracked......20m to avoid departing with usable Rwy behind.
Take a closer look - the actual available Rwy from the holding point requires somewhere akin to > 250m backtrack to make full use of the licensed paved length.

No further comment.

[Zulu Alpha]

Glush does seem to be maintaining radio silence.

Was he in a Piper PA28-151?
Was he backtracking 20 or 250 mtrs?
Did he miss the Pitts radio call?

Perhaps, Glush entered the runway for a 250 mtr backtrack and missed the quick radio call from the Pitts who did an intersection departure while G-LUSH was blocking the runway.

[hatzflyer]

G lush may not have been flying G-LUSH. My moniker is Hatz flyer but I haven't flown a Hatz for 6 years or so.

[Fuji Abound]

More often than not I find these threads a little strange (and a waste of time) for exactly this reason; the OP proclaims a great injustice but is unwilling to submit to the scrutiny of PPRuNe or answer some of the questions raised.

The danger is we are left wondering whether the injustice was as claimed or the post was made for some other reason.

The OP may have been in error and the back track may have been much longer (or the Pitts expected it to be longer) and / or the OP may having be flying a high perfromance aircraft but we just dont know.

[UV]

The radio operator calls my aircraft up asking if we're ready for departure and my student replies in the affirmative
Err... no you were not ready for deeparture... you were ready for a backtrack.

Student then announces 'lining up'.... We roll out onto the runway, and backtrack about 20m.
Err....no he wasnt lining up... he was backtracking! You said so yourself!

Perhaps if more accurate RT had been used, indicating what you were actually doing, the Pitts pilot would have been more in the loop. Im sure he didnt expect a mere 20m backtrack!

[dope05]

either the backtracking aircraft missed two radio calls, one from the Pitts requesting an immediate with backtracking in sight and one from the tower then advising of traffic lining up in front, or the pitts was guilty of piss poor airmanship.

[Anonystude]

Or c), it's an a/g field and he doesn't have to ask 'permission' from anyone, leaving one call to be missed...

[dope05]

common courtesy, safety and good airmanship me thinks

[Zulu Alpha]

common courtesy, safety and good airmanship me thinks

... to have let the Pitts go ahead of you if you were going to backtrack?

[dope05]

absolutely, as long as they had asked, especially with a student pilot, thus demonstrating the real world and the need for situational awareness and at least one ear on the radio. :ok:

[eharding]

It's no good - every time I read the thread title I imagine Jar Jar Binks sitting in the PA28, harumphing away at the impertinence of the Pitts driver.

And then I found this....

Qx15jQliS1Y

Sorry. :\

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So in the absence of ATC it's OK to enter and take off from an occupied runway is it?

You learn something every day.

[maxred]

Following on in this quite fascinating thread, the video wonder You Tube be is full of aviation disasters where two aeroplanes collide on runway, generally resulting in non surviveable incidents.:\

Now we are not privy to ATC Comms on these postings, however, I would hazard a quess that communication, and situational awareness is probably the cause in a lot of them.

There is never any excuse for runway incursion, without adequate and confirmed communications between participating aircraft. End of.

i.e. confirms by the backtracking aircraft that he is happy, and knows about, the others intentions on entering the active. Everyone happy, and safe:D

[mur007]

So in the absence of ATC it's OK to enter and take off from an occupied runway is it?

Apparently it is to be encouraged if it saves a minute or two of waiting at the hold!

[mur007]

The worrying thing is that the powers that be in light aviation seem to find the "land after" unacceptable and issue a go around order at the drop of a hat, it seems that the only place that I now regularly get a land after clearance is at Gatwick.Well technically it's not a clearance; Biggin offer them fairly regularly - I've had two myself there that I can remember off the top of my head. On one occasion when waiting at the hold, I observed an American (going by his accent) on short final in a jet being given a land after and he had absolutely no idea what the controller meant. He flew down the runway asking 'land after what?' or words to that effect. Eventually when the other traffic had exited the runway he was cleared to land and then he touched down. He was then asked to contact the tower once he had shut down! Maybe that partially explains the reluctance to use it at other ATC fields?

[dhc1chippymunk]

It seems to me that:
-The pitts pilot was within his rights to take off.
-He should have made a radio call
-Regardless of whether glush was flying a piper or an aircraft with higher performance than the pitts he was wasting time by backtracking 20m when over 250m is available, especially when he is so concerned about runway behind him.
-The pitts pilot probably assumed that when glush started backtracking he would backtrack for long enough for him to take off safely.
-Finally, both pilots were not on top form that day.

Investigation complete
However, I do understand why glush was annoyed

[Pilot DAR]

Apparently it is to be encouraged if it saves a minute or two of waiting at the hold!

Well said.

I hear that flying is expensive in the UK, and everyone is trying to save a quid, and fly as cheaply as possible, but come on here, isn't courtsey still a hallmark of behaviour in the UK?

I don't think that one can be proud of, or defend, "butting in" the queue, be it at Tescos, or on the runway. If proper radio calls were made and missed, it could be seen from differing perspectives. If no radio calls were made to assure that everyone was in agreement, poor form in my opinion.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It seems to me that:
-The pitts pilot was within his rights to take off.
-He should have made a radio call
-Regardless of whether glush was flying a piper or an aircraft with higher performance than the pitts he was wasting time by backtracking 20m when over 250m is available, especially when he is so concerned about runway behind him.
-The pitts pilot probably assumed that when glush started backtracking he would backtrack for long enough for him to take off safely.
-Finally, both pilots were not on top form that day.

Investigation complete
However, I do understand why glush was annoyed

I think you have succinctly and accurately summarized the situation.

I think this is an example of a more widespread issue. That is the lack of emphasis flight training organizations place on using runway time efficiently. When things are busy I think good airmanship means not wasting time on the runway. That means not taxing to the hold line until you are in all respects ready for takeoff, not dawdling on the runway when you are lined up, and when landing, exiting expeditiously at the first safe taxiway. If you have to taxi along the runway to get to the next exit than use a high speed taxi until you are near the exit. Finally be predictable, if you are going to backtrack, others will assume you are going to the end, so if that is not the plan clearly describe your intentions.

[BackPacker]

I think this is an example of a more widespread issue. That is the lack of emphasis flight training organizations place on using runway time efficiently. When things are busy I think good airmanship means not wasting time on the runway. That means not taxing to the hold line until you are in all respects ready for takeoff, not dawdling on the runway when you are lined up, and when landing, exiting expeditiously at the first safe taxiway. If you have to taxi along the runway to get to the next exit than use a high speed taxi until you are near the exit. Finally be predictable, if you are going to backtrack, others will assume you are going to the end, so if that is not the plan clearly describe your intentions.

Hear hear!

To add: High-speed exits can be used at high speeds. For a typical spamcan that's just below stall speed so if you touch down 200-300 meters before a high-speed exit there's no need to brake. Just roll out onto the exit.

And of course, if it's a 1000 meter runway with no intersections, land long.

[Joao da Silva]

Backpacker

Greetings; Before landing long, could I just suggest (from personal experience) that it is good to know how long your landing roll is in case of failure of the breaks and touch down at more than that distance ;)


Maybe my English is not quite right, but I do not see any mention of an intersection in glush's first post.

The mental picture I have is that the second aircraft entered by the same place and then took off.

So, if I understand correctly, his first glance of the Pitts might have been at quite short distance.

I make no judgement, but am trying to imagine how things looked.

[BackPacker]

Joao, the airports that I know only have high-speed intersections, but a normal 90-degree exit at the runway ends. So if you land long, aiming for a high-speed intersection and then find you're confronted with failed brakes, you have an additional few hundred meters to roll out to the end of the runway anyway (or accelerate and climb away).

[Joao da Silva]

Backpacker

That works just fine.

I had brake failure on a 800m runway and was amazed how long we rolled for!

However, we did not run off the end.

[stevelup]

I've just looked at the AD Chart and satellite photo for Leicester and it looks like the backtrack for 10 is more like 200M than 20M?

[BackPacker]

Yep. That's why it's so odd to call "lining up" and then do a 20-meter backtrack before actually lining up. It doesn't make sense. Either you need the backtrack and you go all the way, or you don't need it so you line up and depart immediately.

[Joao da Silva]

The only logical reason I can think of, is that the take off charts and factors (e.g. CAA) suggest those extra 20m and you decide to play it by the book as it is a training flight.

Maybe the OP will inform us.

[Rod1]

“The only logical reason I can think of, is that the take off charts and factors (e.g. CAA) suggest those extra 20m and you decide to play it by the book as it is a training flight.

Maybe the OP will inform us.”

He has already told us that his machine had better performance than a Pitts. With a long hard runway no way did he need the extra 20m to comply with the regs. He probably had more than 5 times what he needed.

Rod1

[stevelup]

Assuming the aircraft was a PA28-151, take off distance over a 50ft obstacle is 540M.

There is 630M of runway between the intersection and the far threshold - the backtrack doesn't make any sense to me at all?

If it wasn't a PA28-151, and some kind of 'hotter than a Pitts' hot ship, then the backtrack makes even less sense!

glush mentions in another thread that he instructs on a Eurostar - so perhaps that was the aircraft in use on the day?

[mur007]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the OP might have been ill-advised to backtrack does not then legitimise someone else entering the runway unannounced for a sneaky take-off when noone's looking.

If you are at an airfield where there are frequent PPL training flights then it is naive to always expect the standards you would get from experienced pilots. Students are learning and will occasionally make mistakes. We all had to start at the beginning and the vast majority of us weren't particularly brilliant when we started off!

When I flew solo to another airfield as part of my PPL I was taxiing to the hold when I realised I had made a silly error. This threw me and then I became conscious of another bigger aircraft waiting behind me and I panicked - took off without completing a whole section of my checks. I learned a lot from that - namely do not rush and get it wrong.

But what if this had been a solo student? Mr Pitts wasn't to know there was an instructor on board. Already feeling pressurised because of the busy circuit, the student enters the runway, backtracks (rightly or wrongly), turns, applies full power without looking ahead properly (he is trying to save time remember) and then suddenly finds himself taking off alongside another aircraft who entered the runway without telling anyone.

Piss poor airmanship and quite worrying that others regard it as acceptable behaviour (until of course someone does it to them!)

[Fuji Abound]

who entered the runway without telling anyone.




We dont know if he did or didnt (tell anyone).

No excuses for not saying I agree.

If he did say this could be all be a wind up.

Thats it - doesnt seem a lot more to say, other than our OP seems to have got sticky keys.

[7120]

"When I flew solo to another airfield as part of my PPL I was taxiing to the hold when I realised I had made a silly error. This threw me and then I became conscious of another bigger aircraft waiting behind me and I panicked - took off without completing a whole section of my checks. I learned a lot from that - namely do not rush and get it wrong.

But what if this had been a solo student? Mr Pitts wasn't to know there was an instructor on board. Already feeling pressurised because of the busy circuit, the student enters the runway, backtracks (rightly or wrongly), turns, applies full power without looking ahead properly (he is trying to save time remember) and then suddenly finds himself taking off alongside another aircraft who entered the runway without telling anyone."


Excellent points which the OP could have resolved by calling the Pitts through, agreeing to a call from the Pitts indicating his action or being relived that the Pitts took the initiative and went ahead.

[Zulu Alpha]

turns, applies full power without looking ahead properly (he is trying to save time remember) and then suddenly finds himself taking off alongside another aircraft who entered the runway without telling anyone.

....pretty unlikely with a Pitts, you've obviously never flown one.

If the Pitts pilot had been holding behind the PA28 and then the PA 28 had called lining up and proceeded to turn to the left, then its a reasonable assumption that the PA28 was going to backtrack and that could have been up to 200mtrs which would take some time.

The Pitts could then easily depart from the intersection. Generally he would out accelerate and out climb most other piston aircraft and it would be safer to be ahead of a slower aircraft rather than behind because of the limited forward visibility.

Yes, he should have announced his intentions, but maybe he did and Glush missed it. He does seem to have been wrong on the distance to backtrack and the relative performance of the two aircraft.

I'm no lover of Pitts's but this seems a pragmatic and safe way to maximise the use of a busy airfield.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Let's face it, the whole thing is about communications.


"G-ABCD making short backtrack before line up and departure"

"G-EFGH entering behind backtracking aircraft for immediate departure"


Would have probably solved probably the whole misunderstanding.

G

[Fuji Abound]

Genghis

Exactly

Yes, he should have announced his intentions, but maybe he did and Glush missed it. He does seem to have been wrong on the distance to backtrack and the relative performance of the two aircraft.


Hmm, I agree, for an instructor the OP is beginning to look less than like a reliable witness. It is one of those stories that doesnt quite stand up to scrutiny.

Still it has kept us all entertained when we have nothing better to do!

[DeeCee]

The OP said it was 'rude'. I agree and it was also poor airmanship. Procedures and good habits are put in place to ensure safety. Unfortunately the type of pilot described here will also be likely to nip in front of a student on finals. I have seen this twice and both times the offending pilot took umbrage at being challenged (what about the wobbly student?).

I also don't blame the OP for going quiet. He makes a valid point and members with thousands of posts (and presumably nothing else to do) take over and change the entire emphasis. No wonder people are leaving Pprune.

[Joao da Silva]

He has already told us that his machine had better performance than a Pitts. With a long hard runway no way did he need the extra 20m to comply with the regs. He probably had more than 5 times what he needed.If it was an F4, it uses a lot of runway before achieving a 48,000 feet rate of climb, which I believe might just beat a Pitt's.

And that answer is about as sensible as yours, as you have no more idea than me of the performance calculations for that aircraft, which might even be simulating an IFR departure in a multi for training purposes.

Let's face it, the whole thing is about communications.


"G-ABCD making short backtrack before line up and departure"

"G-EFGH entering behind backtracking aircraft for immediate departure"


Would have probably solved probably the whole misunderstanding.


Possibly not, as G-ABCD was a AVRO 616 AVIAN MK4M, withdrawn from use in 1938 and G-EFGH is a Robinson R22 ;)

Sorry couldn't resist!

[Sir George Cayley]

Lads 'n Lasses,

Do you think we've done this about to death?

Two sides are poles apart and irreconcilable :ugh:

I think a group hug and go our separate ways - I'm in a Pitts:ok:

Sir George Cayley

[Pitts2112]

Sir George,
I think you're right. This is just another case of "Anything I think is right is good airmanship. Anything I disagree with is bad airmanship", perpetual conversations that happen here all the time. I always get very leery when heading into a thread where "airmanship" is mentioned because it usually descends into an opinion-based argument bordering on religious fervor with little basis in fact or self analysis of one's personal take on it.

In other words, most posters aren't interested in learning from the discussion, they just want to convince everyone else that they're right and make the world the way they think it ought to be. Not everyone, but enough for the discussions go that way so often.

[flybymike]

Only the British could devote five pages to ungentlemanly behaviour.

[MichaelJP59]

Don't think this thread would have run to 5 pages if the OP had returned to answer what type he was in:) My vote is an Me163.

FWIW, if I was at the hold with a Pitts behind, I'd probably quite like to let it through, given their limited forward vis, and the fact I quite like watching them do their stuff!

[petes1s]

Looking at the first post - the moan is about "a Pitts" "Rude" "pushing in"

sounds like anti-Pitts to me - otherwise why single out the type? it could have been any old pusher-inner

What a brilliant place Leicester is, Last time I visited Leics in the autumn there were more and more Pitts Specials based there, well in to double figures. All neatly fitting in with training traffic, driven by excellent, well -meaning, high class individuals.

GLUSH is lucky there wasnt a whole load of them sitting behind him

[fwjc]

The runway available to backtrack on 10 at Leicester is around 200 metres (according to Google maps). So why only backtrack for 20 metres before turning around? As already pointed out, seems hardly worth it. If you were genuinely planning to backtrack the entire length of the runway, the fact that the Pitts nipped in and off by the time you'd made 20 metres suggests to me that he was well in time to allow you to have made a full backtrack of the 200 metres available.

To note - biplane / vintage radios are often rubbish. The chances are that the call entering the runway was made, but won't necessarily have been very clear making it easy to miss whilst talking to your student.

If you didn't really need to backtrack, since this magical aircraft will outperform a Pitts, then it could be argued that you were being rude by occupying the runway for an excessive and un-necessary amount of time.

By the way, I'd rather have a Pitts take off in front of me than to take off and worry about having one climbing up my chuff.

[Tupperware Pilot]

i wonder which one it was....?
Photos: Pitts S-1-11B/260 Super Stinker Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Pitts-S-1-11B-260-Super/1854735/L/)

But not one of these!
Photos: Slingsby T-67... Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Slingsby-T-67.../1856120/L/)

[Zulu Alpha]

...or one of these:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs045.snc6/167565_170108196364761_100000967447059_335050_6649860_n.jpg

[Russell Gulch]

... or even one of these? :}

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/868mick/biplanefront1.jpg

[Pitts2112]

Magnificent picture, there, Russel!!

[BackPacker]

...or one of these:

I bet those Cessnas felt really intimidated.

[Zulu Alpha]

...oh my gosh 10 Pitts pulled onto the runway ahead of me!!.. or perhaps they were just backtracking!

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff206/868mick/biplanefront1.jpg

[waldopepper42]

the two at the far end look more like skybolts!

Pedant mode off. no, off, OFF! That damn button never seems to work for me! :-)

[Pitts2112]

Good eye, Waldo. The last white one is a Skybolt. The yellow one is something else again, but I can't remember what it was. Most of those airplanes were based at Leicester at the time.

[fwjc]

Pitts2112 the multiple Pitts (plural noun suggestions?) are on the hold for 10, as you can see :)
The yellow non-Pitts is a Stolp Starduster Too. The white non-Pitts is a Steen Skybolt.
Funnily enough, with all of those candidates shown, I believe none of them are the subject aircraft.

[The Flying Chicken]

After reading this post I was put upon a similar situation. Holding behind another aircraft at an uncontrolled airfield for some time, rather than be spread across the PPRUNE as rude, I thought to inform the aircraft ahead of my intentions. Multiple calls were made from me sitting behind, all ignored. Aircraft ahead in question had a fully serviceable comm stack as I responded to his earlier radio check.
I backtracked with and departed before him. All I can say is I tried!

[vanHorck]

Glush has posted again on the 27th January but not on this thread.

I call upon him to come and give us the missing bits of the puzzle


:D:D:D