Runway change, a question of rules or etiquette?

[Reg-e]

The scenario: unlicensed aerodrome with intersecting runways and different circuit patterns for each. Training aircraft doing circuits on cross-wind runway, no other traffic in circuit or expeected. I wish to do one circuit to check some engine maintenance, but require the use of an into-wind runway. I chose to wait until the training aircraft had completed its operations, but it took long enough that I wondered what the position is re rules and/or etiquette in cases where this wouldn't have been an option (e.g. any additional traffic would probably have just prolonged the use of the cross-wind runway)?

As an extension of this, what is the position if returning to land and requiring a different runway from the currently in-use runway, where the waiting option is not practical?

[Pilot DAR]

Welcome Reg-e,

I encountered exactly this situation last week. Arriving to a rather busy uncontrolled training airport, I heard on the radio that the runway in use was actually downwind for the wind indicators I was seeing as I approached. I made the call: "Aircraft in the circuit at [airport], confirm the runway in use is the runway into the wind?". The next voice on the radio was apparently not an aircraft, but a dispatch, who simply stated the indicated winds, which I understood from what was said to mean all the airplanes in the circuit were taking off and landing with a 9 knot direct tailwind - for no good reason (no airport/runway restrictions either way). As I approached the airport, I heard a gaggle of radio communications which indicated that everyone was changing their circuit to the into wind runway. I landed into wind.

If there is a steady wind at the airport, aircraft should use the runway most into that wind. If an airplane needs another runway (longer, and cross wind) it is courteous for traffic to accommodate that when it is safely possible. If you have an emergency in the circuit, and must use any runway just to get on the ground safely, you are "compelled" to land, and traffic should give way to you if they are aware of your emergency, and can accommodate your need, but don't assume that other airplanes can maneuver out of your way of you're doing something unexpected.

Decades ago, a friend and I co-managed a small aerodrome. We were both experienced pilots, and fairly casual. Few others than we two used the 1600' runway, and there was no "aerodrome frequency". He took off early morning to go somewhere, when I went mid day to fly some circuits, I looked at the windsock, and flew my circuits into the wind. On my second or third circuit, on very short final I saw that he was too, landing right toward me! I completed the landing, deciding that if we were to collide, that would be better on the ground than in flight. On touchdown, he saw me, and we both did admirable very short landings, stopping 50 or so feet apart nose to nose. He had taken off in the morning, and not checked on his way home to see that the wind had come up, and favoured the other runway, which I was using. He admitted his gaffe!

Choose the runway best suited for your safe operation, and most conforming to other traffic as a secondary consideration. If you cannot conform to the other traffic, make sure everyone knows it! If you land crosswind/downwind when you could have chosen into the wind, and have a runway excursion, your insurer may ask why you chose to land out of wind - the reason should be really good!

[chevvron]

Delivering a C152 to Lasham for maintenance, I flew overhead and observed gliders operating but a limp windsock, so I positioned to land in the same direction.
A few minutes later after I had delivered the aircraft my 'lift' (another '152) arrived. I didn't notice at first because I was looking out on final watching for him, then I heard an engine approaching from behind me! He'd landed opposite to all the other traffic.
And the clincher is, he worked for AAIB at Farnborough!

[Jan Olieslagers]

In decent times, aerodromes had a mandatory signal square including a landing T indicating the "active runway". Such a shame it is less and less in use, actually I heard (several years ago already) that French aviation authorities are actively discouraging their use. A shame!

[Maoraigh1]

I know of an accident when a pilot landed a tailwheel aircraft downwind in accordance with the signals T, which was never ever kmoved.
When I was getting my PPL at Thruxton in 1964, Mrs X came to meet her husband, who was still flying. As she chatted, 7 year old Miss X put her younger siblings on the roundabout, and pushed it round. Little wind, no ATC, no radio, and the grass was used without marked runways. And the 8 Jackeroos did not have brakes.
NO accidents. But I do not share Jan''s enthusiasm for TS on a signal square.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Whatever TS may mean, it is obvious that signal squares only add value if properly kept up, and adjusted to current situations and their changes.
I understood this was the reason for French authorities to discourage them: they require an "able" and "authorised" person to be on site whenever the field is open, which not all operators managed to realise; causing the closure of quite a few fields. A medicament improperly administered can indeed be worse than no medicament at all. Is that a sufficient reason to not apply medicaments?

NB already flabbergasted by the "TS", I'll be glad to learn what a "Jackeroo" might be.

[megan]

I'll be glad to learn what a "Jackeroo" might beA four seat Tiger Moth.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1276/j_9c0af057e2f100d61361fe2ac7df38dfcf777725.jpg

[Saab Dastard]

Perhaps "TS" should have been written as "Ts", i.e. the plural of T - as in signal square?

[Jan Olieslagers]

Ah, yes, it is not impossible to decipher.
A Jasckarpoo it was, perhaps? (later: hm, not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thruxton_Jackaroo )
And TS might well have been meant as T's, I now realise.
Not easy for outsiders, that English language, thanks for support.

But let us not stick to semanticism. I still hold that a properly maintained signal square, including its landing T, is a valuable addition to security, especially at non-controlled or even non-radio fields; and if things do go pear-shaped, at least it will help to unambiguously figure out who was right and who was wrong. Cannot we get insurers to sponsor them?

[EXDAC]

If there is a steady wind at the airport, aircraft should use the runway most into that wind. If an airplane needs another runway (longer, and cross wind) it is courteous for traffic to accommodate that when it is safely possible. If you have an emergency in the circuit, and must use any runway just to get on the ground safely, you are "compelled" to land, and traffic should give way to you if they are aware of your emergency, and can accommodate your need, but don't assume that other airplanes can maneuver out of your way of you're doing something unexpected.

One airport I like to visit, (KSEZ), has significant runway slope. I will land uphill with up to a 10 kt tailwind and need less runway than landing into wind. It is normal practice at this airport to land uphill and takeoff downhill and most pilots adapt to the fact that the single runway is simultaneously active in both directions. A Phenom pilot who thought one must land into the wind went off the end, through the fence, and part way down the hill.

Slope can be more important than wind direction in deciding best landing direction.

[Pilot DAR]

Slope can be more important than wind direction in deciding best landing direction.

Very true! My home runway is 25 feet higher at the east end (2100 feet long), so I do accept a tailwind in some cases, to make the benefit of that slope. A review of the airplane's performance information, which may include runway slope as a performance factor is always a good idea. The steepest sloped runway I have regularly used was 54 feet difference over its 1550 foot length, with the low end at the water, so that was always operation to suit the slope rather than the wind, or don't operate!

That said, in the context of the OP's question, my experience has most commonly been that airports with "traffic" such that consideration need be given to conforming with the established circuit traffic do not usually have runways with so much slope that that becomes a factor in runway choice for GA types.

single runway is simultaneously active in both directions

I noticed this type of operation in Meigs Field in Chicago when I used to fly there, I never understood it. But it was tower controlled, so I guess they had a plan!

[Uplinker]

During my training, we were in a queue of light aircraft waiting to take-off. The winds were a bit marginal, hence the long queue. After a few minutes, I innocently asked if runway XYZ (grass, but more into wind) was available. Yes, came the reply, so ATC changed the runway to that one and we all took off, (one at a time, obviously !).

Nobody else had thought of it. ATC is there to control and advise, but pilots can request what they need.
.

[chevvron]

During my training, we were in a queue of light aircraft waiting to take-off. The winds were a bit marginal, hence the long queue. After a few minutes, I innocently asked if runway XYZ (grass, but more into wind) was available. Yes, came the reply, so ATC changed the runway to that one and we all took off, (one at a time, obviously !).

Nobody else had thought of it. ATC is there to control and advise, but pilots can request what they need.
.
Was it actually ATC or was it AFIS or A/G?
With ATC anyone can request an alternate runway to the one notified as 'in use' but must accept they may be delayed and with AFIS it's 'pilot's discretion'.