MBZ's

[Wheeler]

I think I just read on the ASFA site that a proposal has been made to make MBZ's into CTAF's(?)

Have I got this right?

If I have, I suppose it just means there will be the odd non radio aircraft flying in what was an MBZ. However, I suppose if you don't want to use a radio, you definitely will have nothing to do with a transponder. I wonder how TCAS equipped RPT guys feel about that?

Any thoughts on mandatory use of radio generally?

[Aussiebert]

I love mbz's, but am not a fan of ctafs

installing a radio to fly into busy enough places doesn't seem all that unreasonable...

its not like it would force 172s to install CPDLC gear! :D

[Pass-A-Frozo]

It can't be true. I can't see Williamtown / Newcastle becoming a CTAF, when the tower isn't active (23.99 hours a day) :D

[Spodman]

No MBZ in NAS...

[Foyl]

Removal of MBZs was mentioned at the recent flight safety forum as well.

[ulm]

Yeah, I've got a comment.

I fly two very different aeroplanes. One has all the belss and whistles and is used to transport people. It needs the B&W.

The other has nothing. No electrics, no radio, no transponder. Nothing.

Now why should I not be able to fly aeroplane #2 into an airport just because twice a day, for ten minutes, someone is operating an RPT???

I do not subscribe to RPT priority either. Airspace belongs to all of us and RPT have it pretty much to themselves above 10,000. Down low, share!

Now I do carry a handheld and battery intercom, but if I'm compelled to use it all the time it will go flat. So I don't want to be compelled to use it. If you come barelling along and report at 15 miles while I'm in the air in the CTAF I usually operate, I will ****** off. Stay way out of the way. I will be able to hear you because my battery won't be flat from mandatory chatter.

If there is potential conflict looming, then I will talk. You wont see me though, I'll be low, camoflaged and not transponder equipped. So again, I will ****** off to resolve the conflict and will tell you that I'm gonna do that.

Unless my battery is flat from mandatory chatter.

So no, I don't want mandatory radio.

Chuck.

[cogwheel]

Ulm, I agree with your line of thinking.

I do much the same, except my toy has a radio and a transponder. I just hate all that chat for the sake of it. Is it really necessary? I don't believe so.

At the end of the day, when MBZs turn into CTAFs I bet most of us will operate just the same as we do now. But with the knowledge that there may be a noradio aircraft about. Thats a chance you take now in an MBZ right now.

Keep it simple, cut the cr@p, all the excess chat and I am sure it will be just as safe.

[DMcK]

Does this mean we will no longer be forced to extend our circuit due to the RPT landing on the contrary circuit with a 15 knot tailwind so as to expediate his bris to bundaberg leg followed by a straight in approach. Gee and I though with all that flash equipment you would know which way the wind was blowing.

[Spinnerhead]

Please be aware of the following:-

1) Knowing the wind direction is a prerequisite to making a straight in approach.
2) Multi-crew RPT can make straight in approaches at CTAF's.
3) Contrary to what your instructor tells you, down wind landings are quite safe, and are an acceptable way of shaving time off a sector.
4) Lets just say that some operators chose to ignore that other "minor" stuff about giving way to traffic already in the circuit etc.

So yes you will still have to extend your downwind, until you have the balls and knowledge to backchat a crusty old Dash Capt who is bullying his way into the circuit.

Your old mate Spinner.

[Wheeler]

See and avoid is great when you do - but if you don't ...

Let's face it, it is just not reliable. Using radio etc is not either but surely it must help the risk factor a little?

I am really pleased to hear you stay out of the way ulm, when you hear others whom you decline to talk to. Great airmanship - but dare I suggest there are some possibly not from the GA fraternity, who don't seem to want to know one end of a radio from the other.

Take one CTAF near Sydney, where Lancairs mix it with Quicksilvers, the slope means it is almost always necessary to take off in one direction and land in the other, the full view of the circuit from the ground is badly obscured by trees - and then half of them don't even know it is a CTAF, let alone the frequency and you have a pretty tricky situation at times. Radio in those situations really is a pretty important safety enhancement!

[DMcK]

oh contrae to your belief you may not make a straight in approach to a CTAF but still have to fly three legs of the circuit, you may how ever make a straight in approach at a MBZ. And as far as having balls, how about showing consideration to fellow operaters, I'm sure CRUSTY would before me to be considerate rather than flashing my balls at him while turning final and carving him up.

[Captn Seagull]

DMcK,

AIP, ENR 1.1, 61.4.2
RPT A/C CAN make straight in approaches in CTAF's provided;
The aircraft must be crewed by Two pilots, VHF Equipped and able to transmit on CTAF and the PIC must be able to determine wind direction from the air.:cool: :D :cool:

I love MBZs but I'm wary of CTAFs, the idea of popping out of IMC following an approach, in the circuit area at or below the standard circuit ht then dodging non radio equipped or not monitering traffic (read Ultralight), does'nt turn me on, but each to their own.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

[Blue Hauler]

Many pilots overuse the radio when operating MBZ to the point of frustration. Just four calls are mandatory:

Taxiing, Entering runway for takeoff, inbound/transiting and joining the circuit. The only addition is when a report from an IFR aircraft is made to FS on HF, a broadcast on the appropriate MBZ/CTAF frequency is also required. Other calls need only be made at the discretion of the pilot to separate from traffic within the MBZ.

The right-of-way issue involving straight-in approaches at MBZ/CTAF aerodromes is even less understood.

The pilot on such an approach is obliged to give way to any aircraft established on base or final, but he/she…must not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway direction is being used by aircraft already established in the aerodrome traffic pattern. (Jepps AU-715 para 5.6.4.3 b.)

[Aussiebert]

1) Knowing the wind direction is a prerequisite to making a straight in approach.

Does this mean you can or can't make a downwind landing? i think it makes no difference

2) Multi-crew RPT can make straight in approaches at CTAF's.

There are more aircraft flying then RPT, MBZs make life safer for everyone, not just the RPT guys. YBAF has little RPT traffic but will be a CTAF after tower hours (where yes it is still busy! i know of a near miss in mbz hous very recently as a result of one aircraft not using his radio!) Then again YLIS would become a CTAF at all hours, which is probobly okay as their isn't much traffic there. However, somewhere like YTWB will be a CTAF full time, which is all good and well except that from one end of the runway you can't see if theres anyone at the other end lining up to take off into you...

3) Contrary to what your instructor tells you, down wind landings are quite safe, and are an acceptable way of shaving time off a sector.

Yes, but contrary to shaving 1-2 minutes off a flight, in a 15 kt wind your looking at a 30kt difference in ground speed! if your a non radio equipt a/c i'd say your not really time critical and will land the safe way. In fact in my training it is quite routine to learn that straight in and out is the way to go because thats what happens in a commercial situation, regardless of if its RPT. Fine and dandy in an MBZ where you know whats going on even if you can't see it


4) Lets just say that some operators chose to ignore that other "minor" stuff about giving way to traffic already in the circuit etc.


Yep, which happens in MBZs and CTAFs, but in MBZs at least you know everyone knows your barreling in and can a) get out of the way, b) point out regulations and tell the RPT guy to get stuffed or c) not run into the 65yr old in his glider who won't be there because it so hard to get a radio... pfft


Okay maybe i'm a little harsh...

why not get rid of the transpoder requirement for CTA? in fact get rid of all transponders, after all there still a few primary radar covered spots around, and Warning areas (read the NAS if you don't know what they are) can be monitered by AWACS... no wait thats just silly


A few things to consider:

There will be Class E airspace down to 700ft agl at some current MBZs. There will be at some point, IFR aircraft poping out of cloud into an area where there could be anything, but ATC won't know because not only will these a/c not show up on radar because they are not transponder equipt, and they have said nothing so ATC won't know they are in the area. the NAS makes no distinction in this area between primary and secondary surveilance radar, so its not like we can assume that atc will have a blip of some sort.

RPT will be expected to provide a unicom operater for these ctafs when rpt traffic is expected. thats great i spose, for the RPT guys who can afford it. how doest hat help the non RPT guys stay safe the rest of the time? so now to ensure safe seperation of airccraft the cost will be to the travelling public, not the glider, ultralight and private guys who are causing this risk in the first place. Your saying RPT guys are causing safety issues too? well yes but these guys have radios, transponders, often TCAS and a second set of eyes... i think thats plenty of safety gear.

The fact of the matter is, the safety analysis used for the NAS is ridiculous. A mix of the US and canadian systems is compared to the 2 systems as seperate enteties despite the melding of the 2 resulting in something different to both. Add to that, the vast differnces in radar coverage and traffic levels between AUS and the US. I don't look foward to the airspace charges this thing will need...

ah well, i should add there are good points in the NAS, but getting rid of MBZs is not one of them. As good as standardisation is, should we abolish MBZs so it takes 5 minutes less for an overseas pilot to be familiar with low level airspace which international flights will never be near, while at the same time reducing safety levels at airports with justifiable levels of traffic?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

My concern would be if people aren't talking - what if they miss my radio call inbound because they were chatting with a mate in the cockpit or something. Pop out visual off an ILS into a cessna doing circuits. Just a concern. I at least enjoy the regular calls because you can tune in 50 miles out and get an idea of who's where. How about no compulsory radio calls but must have transponder on?? RPT happy with TCAS at least . Although I suspect a transponder is more expensive than a VHF set (or a spare set of batteries as the case may be!)

PAF

:confused:

[RENURPP]

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 166
Operation on and in the vicinity of an aerodrome


(1)
The pilot in command of an aircraft which is being operated on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome shall:

(a)
observe other aerodrome traffic for the purpose of avoiding collision;

(b)
conform with or avoid the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft in operation;

(e)
land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;

Landing with a 15kt tailwind to maintain a schedule is contrary to para (e) in my way of thinking, whether you are RPT or not.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

You probably don't care about what is published in ADF Flight Info Handbook regarding non-controlled aerodromes but here goes :

61.2 The runway to be used for landing must be:
a. the most into-wind runway;
b. when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take-off traffic using the most intowind runway....

61.6 Aircraft conducting a straight-in approach at a non-controlled aerodrome ... must observe the following procedure: ...

b. The aircraft captain must not commence a straight-in approach to a runway when the reciprocal runway direction is being used by aircraft already established in the aerodrome traffic pattern.

anyway.. that's from one side of the coin.

PAF.

[RENURPP]

Same sh*t different author.

[Blue Hauler]

Pass-a-frozo,

I don’t think too many military pilots care what is written in the ADF Flight Info Handbook either.

On descent into YBUD in a Citation, I contacted a Caribou crew operating in the circuit RWY 32. The wind was a northerly at about fifteen knots, viz around 6 km and base about 700 feet. Advised the cream of our aviation fraternity (???) that I would call approaching the minima or established straight-in for 32. This was duly acknowledged. At five miles I reported final 32 and requested their position to be advised they were left base RWY 14 for a stop and go (!!!???). I had no alternative but to manoeuvre right for a left base for 14 and accept some ten knots of down-wind. They advised me they were practising for an air show. I thanked them for their fine display of airmanship but guess the emphasis was lost.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Well I wouldn't exactly agree that we don't care what is written in ADF FIH, as they are the rules we must follow.

I think it's a bit harsh to taint the entire fraternity of military pilots with the same brush after a bad experience you had with one operator. I'm sure you wouldn't like military pilots to think all civilian pilots are like the worst that we've come across. I'm not going to start a slinging much by going through examples . Needless to say my point is we're all in the same sky.

I'll ignore the cream of ... comment.
PAF

[Hugh Jarse]

land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;

As you know, there is no ATC at MBZ's, so that is hardly applicable.

I will land with up to 10kt of tailwind at an MBZ, PROVIDING it fits the A/C performance AND with the traffic . Commonsense, really.

Ulm, have you heard of carrying a spare battery for your "hand held" radio? I bet you carry them for your hand-held GPS, lest you become uncertain of position :D:D:D Commonsense, really.

[Blue Hauler]

Pass-a-frozo


It wasn’t my intention to taint the whole fraternity of military pilots with the same brush. Nor is this an isolated experience as I have encountered several other instances with military aircraft but involving different circumstances. I also acknowledge the courtesy demonstrated by a Caribou pilot at Townsville this week who sat back from the holding point to allow a couple of time strapped operators to depart.

Certainly civilian pilots are capable of demonstrating poor airmanship and we could both cite many such instances. But allow me to make the following observations:

Airmanship reflects the culture of the organisation. Poor examples are usually attributed to operators who encourage their pilots to cut corners to save time and therefore money. Reducing costs at the expense of safety. Their pilots seem to revel in the number of minutes they are able to save on a sector or their skill in cutting off a rival operator.

The more professional organisations such as major airlines, and one would hope, the military put safety above such cost cutting measures and such culture is demonstrated by safe operating procedures and consideration towards other operators.

But when an organisation purporting to be professional is represented by ‘cowboy’ attitudes one must ask is this some form of point scoring or is the discipline within that organisation as professional as they would have us believe? Do other crew members condone such antics or are the transgressors counselled?

By comparison airline jet traffic at MBZ’s such as Mount Isa and Weipa demonstrate an exemplary standard of airmanship, even when mixing with civvy cowboys. Perhaps the airline culture involves a greater consideration of safety to those travelling down the back!

I don’t know the answer – I merely comment on the facts.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Cowboy attitude. Your forgetting one thing. People like the caribou aircrew are training to fly in an environment where people are SHOOTING at them. That doesn't involve doing regular "RPT" type flying. I think you've mistaken the RAAF for an airline. Which it isn't - and the RAAF must train - at least the bou's haven't been operating "due regard". I'm no military spokesman, but perhaps you can think about that??

I welcome your opinion, but perhaps you should stick to commenting on what you know , because you certainly have no idea what the training objectives are on a given military flight. However the military do attempt to "fly neighbourly" while doing this.

You've obviously got some built up anger toward the military over the years, why??



:rolleyes:

[Blue Hauler]

Pass-a-frozo


You’re shooting the messenger. Surely you don’t condone a breach of “…ADF Flight Info Handbook regarding non-controlled aerodromes…(viz 61.2 (a) and (b) on the pretext of)… training to fly in an environment where people are SHOOTING at them.” I suspect that most of the professional pilots who have read or contributed to this thread would find such rationalisation unpalatable.

YBUD is a busy MBZ. With weather fluctuating about the minimas I’m not impressed when I have to subject my passengers to a missed approach and circle to land in such conditions because of the poor airmanship or cowboy antics of another crew, whether that crew is military or civil.

I don’t have any agenda with military pilots as you suggest. Nor do I particularly care what their training objectives are, I simply expect more from professional organisations particularly in a busy environment. As you point out above “we're all in the same sky.”

[RENURPP]

land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;

Hugh Jarse

Are you suggesting that this CAR is only applicable for flight where ATC is operating?

My interpretation is that unless you are operating into a location which has ATC you must take off and land into wind.
One reason being, keep every body flying in the same circuit direction. You look at the wind sock, receive the latest weather, see some smoke, whatever, and organise your self to join the traffic pattern for that runway. Its a bit different when ATC can regulate the flow of traffic. (some of them can)

Who is at fault if you arrive at your destination on short final (with a 10 kt tailwind) only to find a no radio "Ulm" touching down at the other end, or even worse just airborne?



Of course many pilots fly contrary to this CAR and land with a tailwind for convenience.
I personally don't see much difference in doing that and some one say for example turning right after take off at 500', joining on base, and the list goes on.

Just my thoughts

[Hugh Jarse]

Practicable: achievable, attainable, doable, feasible, possible, viable, workable.

RENURPP, Interpretation of regs is a very subjective thing. Just look at how different rulings can be from different Casa regional offices :) My interpretation of the aforementioned paragraph is that I should operate into-wind where possible and does not specifically exclude me from tailwind operations.

Actually, Jepp ATC AU-715 5.6.2(b) states: When operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided that the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take-off traffic using the most into-wind runway.... Operational reasons paint with a broad brush.

Im not saying who's wrong or right, just giving my interpretation....:)

The practical reality is that a stabilised straight-in approach is safer than manoeuvring around the circuit. Provided it is conducted in accordance with the AFM and Company limitations I see no reason why they should not be conducted.

You can't legislate commonsense and good airmanship, which are usually the key factors why things go tits-up at uncontrolled aerodromes.

There is an informative and useful guide to interpreting the regs on this topic located at: Operations At Non-Controlled Aerodromes (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/download/CASRdocs/091/091c220.pdf)

Here is an extract from the wind heading:

6.4 Wind, and pattern conflicts. Wind direction is generally more critical to smaller aircraft, hence the common provision of a small secondary runway.
• If a strong wind favours a short runway the circuit pattern may be complicated
because small aircraft will use the short runway while larger aircraft may be forced to use a longer, out-of-wind runway.
• Light winds can make for a difficult traffic situation because pilots are not provided with a cue to use a particular runway, and will prefer to use the runway which is most suited to their operation.
• Where wind direction is not available from other sources, incoming aircraft may have to overfly the aerodrome to see a windsock, and may enter the traffic pattern in conflict with preceding aircraft.
• A difficult situation can arise when an aircraft is established on final leg in conflict with another aircraft taking off in the opposite direction.

With regard to conflicting traffic in the example you gave, firstly I would hope that I would have seen or heard from him/her or he/she would have seen/heard me. In the absence of either, the outcome would probably be the same regardless of wind.

RPT aircraft usually have planned their straight-in approach well before top of descent. Planned is the operative word. Like all things, plans can and do change.

[RENURPP]

Hugh

Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.

My interpretation of the aforementioned paragraph is that I should operate into-wind where possible and does not specifically exclude me from tailwind operations.

I agree 100%, we differ on when what constitutes "operational reasons justify".

I would insist that to meet the above obligation the "operational reason" would be just that and not an economical one.

The practical reality is that a stabilised straight-in approach is safer than manoeuvring around the circuit. Provided it is conducted in accordance with the AFM and Company limitations I see no reason why they should not be conducted

Once again I agree whole heartedly.
It can become unsafe when carried out against the general flow of traffic, the problem being how do you know who is traffic in an CTAF. No radio aircraft can and do opertate out of these places. A non radio equipped aircraft should attempt to be even more alert with regards to traffic before entering a runway particularly in the obvious circuit direction.

The quoted extract is interesting, however I understand that it is based on smaller aircraft normally requiring the runway with trhe least amount of crosswind and has little to say with regards to landing with a tailwind. The reason the cross runway is short to start with.

:)

[triadic]

There is no doubt in my mind that we will see MBZs change to CTAFs during the introduction of the NAS, so we all better get used to the idea. The (political) decision has been made and I think it will be difficult to change. Do you really believe that this will bring about mass change in how we fly into those aerodromes?


RENURPP
It can become unsafe when carried out against the general flow of traffic, the problem being how do you know who is traffic in an CTAF. No radio aircraft can and do opertate out of these places. A non radio equipped aircraft should attempt to be even more alert with regards to traffic before entering a runway particularly in the obvious circuit direction.


If you think that you have protection in a MBZ then you are wrong. Radios do fail and frequencies are still miss dialed and in many cases there is just nowhere else to go, so there is always a chance of a unknown stranger in a MBZ. If you don't operate with that in mind, then maybe you should have a think about it!


You can't legislate commonsense and good airmanship, which are usually the key factors why things go tits-up at uncontrolled aerodromes.


You are dead right there Hugh. The trouble is that neither seems to be either encouraged or taught these days.

Just go to a busy GA aerodrome (if you can find one!) and watch operations for a while. The levels of airmanship and even observed flying skills is often way below PPL level for those that have a CPL etc. I think that CASA and most of the flying schools have some responsibility in this.

The problem is that at the end of the day we have to share the airspace with these pilots that have really little or no idea on procedures in MBZ/CTAFs because they were never taught it in the first place. Many of them try and do the right thing, but it is difficult when you don't know what the right thing is!

Some basic discussion on what airmanship is might be a good idea for some clubs and schools in the lounge or bar!

[RENURPP]

Triadic

Yes I agree. I do not operate into CTAf's at present, I do operate into MBZ's and I have confronted the same situation.

Doesn't change my point of view though.

Actually thats not correct, I do operate into Gove MBZ which is located in NHulumbuy CTAF

[OzExpat]

It seems to me that, the way the system is going, the "rights" of those who pay little or nothing by way of nav charges, landing fees, etc., are being placed above the "rights" of those who pay the most. Which of those categories involves carriage of the most people and I wonder how those people would react to the knowledge that their safety is being compromised. The whole thing seems to be skewed the wrong way, IMHO. :(

[Aussiebert]

everyone has a right to be safe. theres not a lot of difference (if any) in the cost of a ctaf vs an mbz for airservices

sure it may be inevitable

but there are options

perhaps when GAAPS next to a TCA go after hours they could go class C? considering anything other then CTS at night in places like this are likly to need a transponder anyway the equipment costs wouldn't be too excessive...

reminds me of the phrase 'Affordable Safety'