Light AC "Hold on base leg " with airliner landing.

[fade to grey]

Hi,
I had cause to fly into an 'airport' on the south coast the other week. SW runway , NW wind. Pa28 holding on base, orbiting L, passes by 200' above and probably the same horizontally.'TRAFFIC' TA. No RA - can't of course instruct us to descend at that point.

My issue being can't they be told to hold somewhere else - downwind ? geographical point ? With that wind it would have only taken slightly worse judgement for the Pa28 to have been as one with us.... I didn't think it was safe TBH.

[orgASMic]

Was he visual with you? Did ATC tell you that he was there, holding off? Did they tell you that he was visual with you? Did you get visual with him? You don't give enough detail of the scenario.
Why not hold downwind? Maybe there was another ac on the downwind leg.
Why not hold at a geographical point? He was already in the circuit. I might have held him off if he was joining, but I would be unlikely to kick him out if he was already in.
Did you ask to speak to the controller or the ATC supervisor after you landed? You might have been reassured that all was well.

[RMC]

Orgasmic, If there was anywhere near the quoted 200' vertical and horizontal separation all was not well. Something went badly wrong here and I suspect it is another example of an inexperienced GA pilot not doing what he was told. I've had to go around twice in the last two years both were caused by inexperienced PPLs.

[rich_g85]

This often happens at Bournemouth, except we're normally given 'orbit left/right at the end of downwind', with the orbit on the 'outside' of the circuit. The traffic on final is always told the location(s) of the orbiting aircraft. I was also taught to keep the orbit fairly tight, and allow for wind so as not be blown towards the field.

[orgASMic]

RMC, I am quite sure that there will be other examples of losses of separation in similar circumstances, but my point was that the OP did not give us much to go on. The glaring gap was whether or not he spoke to ATC afterwards to find out what was going on. The view from the tower will have been very different from that of the two cockpits involved and the controller may have been unaware of the result of a safe plan by ATC allegedly being poorly executed by the PA28.

[ShyTorque]

If it was a problem, and it appears that there were safety concerns, an AIRPROX report would be a more appropriate channel. Mandatory, perhaps.

[fade to grey]

Hi,
we were both warned about each other.We were visual, so was he. As he passed 200' above and to one side, he must have good judgement as 2/3 of a mile back we would have been at his height of course...

I was tempted to airprox it, but my colleagues considered the separation was enough - I was still uncomfortable.

[Andy Mayes]

By all means file an AIRPROX if your concerns warrant it however, the UKAB (UK Airprox Board) are unlikely to go much further when you say:
we were both warned about each other.We were visual, so was he. As he passed 200' above and to one side, he must have good judgement as 2/3 of a mile back we would have been at his height of course...

Edit: I am surprised the orbit was given as late as base leg* (I've had 5 hold downwind in extreme circumstances) and ever since the Southend Accident a few years ago, at my unit we are not allowed to hold light aircraft in the circuit other than downwind or by using tactics such as extending the circuit and planning ahead as far as possible or going around which have been assessed as being generally much safer.

* We don't know the entire scenario so maybe the only option available to the ATCO.

[bookworm]

Orgasmic, If there was anywhere near the quoted 200' vertical and horizontal separation all was not well. Something went badly wrong here ...

RMC, I am quite sure that there will be other examples of losses of separation in similar circumstances, but my point was that the OP did not give us much to go on.

I think you need to bear in mind that IFR flights are not separated from VFR flights in class D airspace. A miss is, as the say, as good as three miles.

[eyeinthesky]

Depending on the size of OP's aircraft, the orbiter might have had a long wait for vortex separation...

[sevenstrokeroll]

can you imagine how the brits will have to change things once regular manned commercial spaceflight is accomplished?

ORBIT, indeed.

why not just say CIRCLE

?

we also use the term...extend downwind follow JET on final, caution wake turbulence

the pilot can even say: wilco, but call my base turn

[eastern wiseguy]

why not just say CIRCLE

Because the correct UK phraseology is

G-CD, for spacing orbit right number
2, number 1 is a Cherokee on final,
report again on base

See CAP413 for further details:)

[ShyTorque]

Furthermore, "circle" is where one sits in the theatre, old boy! ;)

[sevenstrokeroll]

since we do things differently over here...tell me please...do you have a segmented circle at your aerodromes?

[Lucerne]

Gee you blokes worry about the strangest things!:bored:

[Spitoon]

we also use the term...extend downwind follow JET on final, caution wake turbulenceAhh, the pilots' perspective....only thinking of one aircraft, or at best two. So an SEP extends downwind and ends up turning onto a six mile final approach.........just as the next jet reaches 10 miles. It's very rare that I end up thinking in a 'them and us' way, but this sort of thing does it. sevenstrokeroll, you fly the plane and leave ATC to think about the big picture.

And by the way, the UK uses the term orbit because ICAO uses the term orbit.

[jxk]

Should have landed the PA28 first and told the airliner to take up the 'hold'.

[Talkdownman]

At Ronaldsway I was once instructed to break off a short final and hold on base leg because there was 'a faster aircraft behind'. After an eternity a Tucano appeared on a PD. The Rules of the Air must be different over the IOM...would have been much easier to permit me to land vacate, park, get out and finish my tea...Ho, hum, it takes all sorts...

[custardpsc]

7stroke - we don't have the segmented circle. We do, however, have a Signals Square and or a landing 'T' which performs the same function. I have heard 'orbit' in your part of the world too.

The place to settle the Orbit/Circle and similar debates is ICAO SARPS by the way !

[chevvron]

Shirley in the USA it's called 'a 360'.

[orgASMic]

Using 'circle' instead of 'orbit' would get confusing if there were traffic making a circling approach, too.

[sevenstrokeroll]

thanks for letting ATC take such a burden off a humble pilot.

but you see, I'll keep both the BIG and SMALL picture in mind...because if YOU screw up I'm dead. But if I screw up, you are in a nice concrete building, getting fresh coffee or TEA in your case.

I remember one time when ATC had the big picture and cleared me for a takeoff while a fuel truck (bowser) was in the middle of the runway.

but being worried about ATC errors, I managed to control my extremities and kept the plane from getting close to the fuel truck.

let's see...IF ATC suddenly went away...there would still be a way to keep planes flying.

if planes and pilots went way far away...ATC could just sit in their tower as long as they like, and govt would figure out how to not pay you.

so...sit

[rich_g85]

Bit rude wasn't it?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

How to make friends an influence people!! One day... just one day you might be very pleased indeed for ATC. If I had a quid for every clockwork mouse pilot I've helped out I'd be fairly well off.

[sevenstrokeroll]

don't be too upset heathrow director...I wouldn't have said anything to be rude except for the guy who lectured me about how atc has the big picture and the little pilot shouldn't worry about it.

gee, we have TCAS now...but we don't have a way for atc to directly fly th eplane....hmmm

[Daermon ATC]

As has been posted before, there is no separation required between IFR and VFR in class D airspace, therefore just providing information is sufficient for the atco to be on the right side of the law.

However this does not mean that this is anywhere near the right side of safety, just that if metal bits start to rain on final approach, the atco will (probably) have his/her head out of the chopper... :ugh:

This is an issue I do have regularly at my working place (small airport in Spain) since Aena considers only IFR to assess workloads stating as above that since I do not have to provide separation to them they are not a burden to me. :mad:

If I were to allow takeoff of a PA34 and just as it crosses the threshold I'd clear a B737 for the same, I'd be absolutely clean in legal terms but I wouldn't want to be the one telling that to the widow and children :uhoh:

Anyway, isn't holding on base a bit short for wake turbulence? I usually have the first VFR holding at downwind abeam threshold in order to allow for 2 minutes separation...

[Tarq57]

I would have thought (and happen to think) that, regardless of the airspace category, aircraft in the circuit at a controlled aerodrome are to be controlled in such a way that a collision is (should be) out of the question.

If the spacing was as suggested in the OP, it's too close by far.
If I (the aerodrome controller) get an aircraft to hold anywhere in the circuit that is not separated from the approach of another aircraft, except visually, then there is an expectation to monitor (visually) that there is no risk. Which means just that. And if the aircraft concerned starts to drift a bit close to final, to perceive the problem before it becomes a problem, and issue instructions to put it right.

It appears that at least one element of that wasn't done, here.

[Vercingetorix]

sevenstrokeroll

but that was 'merican ATC. They do things different over there!

:ok:

[BDiONU]

gee, we have TCAS now...but we don't have a way for atc to directly fly th eplane....hmmmCPDLC, direct link to the FMS, removing the need for the carbon based interface. Autoland when it gets to the hard bit. Simples ;)

[Vercingetorix]

BDiONU

Nailed it.:ok:

[aluminium persuader]

Now we've got drones and TCAS, shouldn't the pilots be on the ground & the controllers in the aircraft?
:E:E:E

[mushroom69]

Anyway, isn't holding on base a bit short for wake turbulence? I usually have the first VFR holding at downwind abeam threshold in order to allow for 2 minutes separation...

Do you have a regulation regarding the 2 minute separation you refer to?

As long as the following aircraft remains above the flight path of the preceding and lands beyond the touchdown point of the preceding, there is no wake turbulence.

In the "old days," when I was flying a lot of smaller aircraft, I could also depart directly following the large aircraft, as my take-off roll was much shorter, then make an immediate turn. This permitted the controller to line up the next big guy.

Had an interesting departure at EBBR the other day. We departed from the midfield intersection, while ATC lined up the next airliner from the end. No big deal there, but what did impress me (seriously, no irony) was that when we passed the departure end of the runway, said airliner was cleared for take-off.

Very efficient use of the runway, as he was essentially doubling up the runway capacity by having the business jets off from the intersection (we had 2500 feet more runway than needed anyway) which was closer to the GA parking, while the airliners were getting their departures from the end (close to the terminal) lessening the cluster of aircraft on the taxiways and doubling capacity.

I have never seen this so systematized. Quite cool.

[tiger449]

Almost identical situation, with a non-radio Tiger Moth flying base leg into Cambridge. On the descent prior to turning finals, I spotted an airliner on long finals, about 5 miles distant. My speed was around 55 knots, his was around three times that. I could have made it to the runway in good time and turned off on to the grass without causing the airliner to overshoot. Immediately prior to turning on to finals I spotted a red flare fired from the signals caravan on the starboard side of the runway so immediately did a sharp turn to port and commenced an orbit, clear of the approach. After the airliner landed I was given a steady green Aldis clearing me to land. Enquired with the signaller who said he thought I was too close to cut in front of the airliner but my question remains "Does a light aircraft (non-radio) joining finals at half a mile from touch down, have priority over an airliner at 5 miles on long finals? OK, I concede the airliner had been cleared for long finals prior to my turning finals from my base leg.

[Talkdownman]

Was this under Cambridge ATC?
If so Rules 12(2) and 13(3) would apply.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<I have never seen this so systematized. Quite cool.>>

I think you need to get out more...

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

I thought Cambridge was a pretty switched on place but you mean they allow non-radio clockwork mice to mix it with airliners? The word "insanity" keeps flashing before me!

[Talkdownman]

Just the same at Lasham...and some of its mice aren't even clockwork...

[tiger449]

The Tiger Moth I was flying was not equipped with a radio so I had to use the Mk.1 eyeball and make use of the runway controllers caravan. The turboprop only appeared as I was about to turn left on to finals. At this stage he was around 5 miles away, whereas I was half a mile from touchdown and quite willing to land on the grass to the left of the runway. I was approaching at around 55 kts, whereas the turboprop was around 180 kts. The controller clearly decided in favour of letting the turboprop in first. That was their perogative. I suppose long finals might well have priority over someone a lot closer turning on to finals from downwind at half a mile.

Yet in a different scenario, this time at Edinburgh Turnhouse, I had been doing pleasure aerobatics over the North Sea where the weather was CAVOK, yet had deteriorated to 8/8 NS at 600 ft., with VIZ approx 150 ft. I then had to call for help on my VHF and wait for a shepherd aircraft to arrive and visually escort me back to the field. I had to fly around 75 ft. away from him which was a LOT closer than 4.5 miles at Cambridge. We maintained COM between us on the standard VHF of 123.45 which was also monitored by APP. Then landed as a pair. Now converted on to ultralights which requires CAVOK over open countryside and maintaining visual with the ground at all times. No built-up areas, controlled or congested airspace.