Strange G.A. Practices!

[sharpshot]

I flew into a small airfield (anonymous for now) not that long ago, having departed from one controlled by NATS.

The destination strip has a metalled runway, with a single taxiway exit at the easterly end leading to the ramp.

Whilst on short finals another aircraft flew at 90 deg across the runway at < 50.ft :eek:

I landed in a westerly direction with backtracking to vacate being the only option. I called G-***** backtracking and was then taken aback - putting it mildly, to see this other aircraft on a very tight base leg and calling telling me not to backtrack as he was landing :confused: :confused:

Now what would you do:(

Tell you what I did later:mad: :mad:

d_b - hope to hear your learned opinion

[FlyingForFun]

:mad:

That's incredible!

Let's ignore his breaking the 500' rule for his low pass across the runway. We'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misjudged his height, since that's a fairly standard defense when accused of low flying. (Note that I'm not suggested for one second that you did mis-judge his height - I'm just giving him the benefit of what tiny amount of doubt there may be!)

Did he offer any alternatives to your suggestion that you backtrack? Maybe you should have just stayed where you were? Or pulled off of the manoeuvring area while he landed?

Since you were on final approach before he was, you had right of way, and you maintain that right of way until you vacate the runway. Common sense clearly says you were right, and it seems that the law agrees with common sense on this occassion, too.

I'm curious - what did you do???

FFF
----------------

(I was once landing at an uncontrolled airfield in America, called final, only to hear, about 30 seconds later, an aircraft call that he was "crossing the runway". I called "very short final" for the same runway, and the other pilot - if we can call him that - replied "Yeah, don't worry, I'll be well clear. And how long have you been practicing the English accent for?" :confused: This was followed by one of the fastest runway-crossings I've ever seen! My hand was on the throttle ready to go around - it wasn't necessary, but it was close!)

[sharpshot]

FFF
Let's just say I've been around awhile - <50 ft - well I was at about 250ft and although no APAPI on runway, I was making a reasonable app. And I was looking down on him.

Tell you what I did when a few more (maybe) post. Wondering if I dare ever mention the airfield by ICAO code......:p

[Select Zone Five]

I guess it's all down to judgement on rwy length and how tight, tight base was...I would probably have taxied onto the grass and rejoined the rwy once 'crazy man' had passed. :eek:

[knobbygb]

Not enough experience to have ever been in a similar situation, but I suppose it depends how far you were form the landing end of the runway and what type of aircraft it was on approach, but I'd be looking to get off the runway onto the grass as soon as possible. I'd assume the other guy MUST have some kind of emergency and therefore may not be able to make the best of landings or be able to stop in time or steer to avoid me.

Another option would be to contimue to the far end of the runway, if there was room left, but this would involve turning your back on the other a/c.

By the way, why not name the airfield? Not their fault and you're not accusing them of anything. Or was it their CFI who was misbehaving?

[Aussie Andy]

I would have:

a) replied on R/T "G-XX Negative: suggest you go around as I am still occupying the runway"; whilst

b) simultaneously exiting onto the grass ASAP because being right is not enough... I want to be right and alive!; and finally

c) file an airprox (assuming he did continue to land).

What a t*sser!

Go on then, where was it?

[Hooligan Bill]

After making sure that the other aircraft did not hit you, I hope that you took the reg and reported the facts to the CAA. Unless the person was in an emergency situation, in which case they should have used either a mayday or pan call, they appear to be in contravention of at least two parts of rule 17, plus possible certain other rules and articles.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Was he suffering an emergency, it seems the only reasonable explanation for the behaviour?

G

[GroundBound]

Its a lot easier to sit, think and write about it, than decide in the few seconds you had available. :eek:

However, I think I would immedialtely hold postion, and be ready to escape off the runway in case he fouled up.

It also depends a bit on the runway length (and maybe its width?), but I guess if you had just landed (normally) and were backtracking, you must have been within his proposed landing area. Given that, I think I would move to the side and would have made another call repeating the runway was occupied and that there was no space to land.

I'd still keep plan B to escape off the runway though.

A quick (make that long!) word on the ground would seem highly appropriate, as well as the "reg" and a call to the safety people - maybe. Given the low fly over as a precedent, it doesn't sound like you would be talking to a responsible person, does it?

[sharpshot]

Well, there was nowhere to go - the grass was taller than I am used to seeing on an airfield with a long grass policy (i.e. to deter birds) in fact it was tall enough to conceal a Pelican!

I could not take refuge up at the far "stop end" as I had already done a 180 and was not going to turn my back on this n*****r. I have learned never to turn my back on an aeroplane in motion or racing car - do so at your peril.

His only distress seemed to be the one he was trying to inflict upon me:rolleyes: basically the type of aviator one is best keeping well clear of.

I am well used to hearing "land after" clearances either directed at me or following aircraft - no problem. ATC MATS Pt. 1 clearly defines when this may be used in U.K. - for an a/c to assume a land after does not, however, work with an a/c backtracking the "active! - oh no!

[EastMids]

Bottom line - unless he was effected by an emergency in which case I'd go easy on him, unless the airfield is ATC controlled he can't do a "land after" - in fact he's not allowed to land whilst you're still occupying the runway, which you are if you are backtracking and that's the only realistic exit option. Now I'll admit that there's a world of difference between the law and practical reality when faced with this situation, but I'd have certainly not done anything that would have risked my aeroplane (like taxiing off into the grass) and would have probably said "G-XXXX still occupying the runway suggest you go-around". And if he still landed, a report would have been in order.

Andy

[knobbygb]

So come on, sharpshot, what did you do (and where was it)?

With the restrictions you mention above, I suppose I'd seriously consider shutting down the a/c and getting out leaving it where it was. Reason being it'd be the only way to ensure my own safety in a dangerous situation.

My only other thought, when you called back-tracking, is it possible he thought you were about to start backtracking from, say, a point somewhere off the runway at the other end, but had not yet started? i.e. did he know you were actually sat on the runway? What was the vis like?

EastMids, is there actually a rule forbidding a pilot to land when the runway is occupied? I thought it was left to the discression of the second pilot as to how much room was available/required etc. I've certainley seen it happen several times, usually on wide grass runways where the first a/c can pull well over to one side before the other lands.

[sharpshot]

Just to give you a clue where to be very wary - he's still bound to be there - I'm talking east of Cambridge and north of the home counties.

I did speak to our CAA aerodrome inspector latterly and you can guess what he said!

Now having memories of another um ...aviator who I nearly did MOR
- oh well another thread in the making.

I must admit, its a novelty looking at the hits on this - everyone who has looked has actually responded:cool:

P.S. I don't go out of my way filing MOR's, although I do get a little concerned watching fellow aviators going over built up areas too darn low - if I can read the reg, I'm sure Joe Bloggs can too.

Hey knobbygb,

I do believe that if you are beyond the declared runway LDA and stopway etc, another aircraft may land on the area declared usable for landing - but how many airfields in our little land have all this space. Don't take above as gospel - I have a feeling that East Mids could be an ATCO and correct me - please do!

And knobbygb - I assure you I was on the runway
I tried vacating a bush strip in Aussie Andy's former home once - what a mistake and then I had to land back in "civilisation" (Oz ?)
with a right grubby C.177RG- not cool!!

[jayemm]

Being a pilot with little experience (nearly 200 hours), I would want to get out of the way as safely and quickly as possible. I would assume either of:

1. He's got a problem and needs to land quickly so I need to take avoiding action. OK so he should PAN or MAYDAY in this case, but who knows what's going on in the cockpit. or

2. He's an arrogant S.O.B. so I need to take avoiding action.

For me, the priority is not to prove a point but to avoid physical contact. I don't know how long or wide the runway is or how far you had back-tracked, but my first inclination would be to stop immediately, preferably as far to one side as possible, then radio my position (so he can choose to go round). If possible, I'd turn round and give him as much runway as possible.

Once on the ground, I'd want to talk to the pilot, find out what he was doing and then sympathise or protest in the strongest possible terms.

What did you do?

[EastMids]

Knobblygb

"A flying machine or glider must not land on a runway which is not clear of other aircraft, unless an aerodrome ATC unit otherwise authorises"

No ATC, no authorisation. Interestingly though:

"Aircraft on the ground must give way to those taking off or landing..."

Sharpshot,

Interesting comment about being beyond the LDA - not sure. And no, I'm not ATC.

Andy

[Aussie Andy]

But, jayemm, our friend says that the grass was too long for him to be able to safely vacate!

[knobbygb]

Point taken EastMids - I should know that. I think what is happening at the grass strip I fly from is that the runways are physically very wide (about 45M, I think), but only the centre 18M is oficially runway - off to eaither side and you're on the taxiway. This would explain the 'multipule landings' I described.

Having said that, I now realise that many of my early attempts at landing were probably on taxiways :eek: ;)

As for the right of way, I'd stick my neck out and say that since he was still on the runway he was technically still landing and so had right of way as the lower of the 2 aircraft. Quite happy to be proved wrong again though.:D

Sharpshot, didn't mean to imply you weren't on the runway, just that the other guy may have thought you weren't.

[Hooligan Bill]

sharpshot,

The definition of the 'land after' procedure does not preclude its use with backtracking aircraft. As long as the specified criteria are met then then the direction of travel is irrelevant. However, because of this anomaly, some units do have extra procedures published in their Mats PT2 which outlaw its use in such circumstances.

With regard to the LDA, technically you are required to be beyond the 'runway strip' before being considered clear of the active runway. The strip dimensions depend on the length of the runway and wether or not it is an instrument runway.

[EastMids]

Yup, the priority to landing a/c rule is really related to taxiing a/c not entering the runway whilst something's on approach. If you're already on it, different story.

Number one priority in any sitation like this must be protection of firstly lives and a close second aeroplanes. However, based on what we've been told I fundamentally believe that the guy landing was in the wrong (assuming no ATC and no land after) and in those circumstances my secondary objective would be to make him realise that he was wrong and for him to take the proventative action - not leave it to me.

Andy

[knobbygb]

Unless it's a trick question. Was the other aircraft a helecopter?

[jayemm]

Aussie Andy,

I know. I view vacating onto grass very risky unless I am familiar with it or ATC says it's ok. My suggestion depends on the width of the runway.

Either way, if I hadn't started the backtrack I'd try to keep as clear as possible irrespective of what rules exist that say the other guy shouldn't land!

[sharpshot]

Now the enquiring minds are getting technical - good for you!
Here goes; Licensed aerodromes have to conform to CAP 168 and Runways are coded from 1 to 4.
Now I can't speak on grass runways, but the same probably applies. (Always in something a bit heavy for potentially damp grass and I hate to think about all the performance issues regarding whether its wet and how long etc.)

Back to the point all runways are (should be) safeguarded with a "strip area" around the runway. This ranges from 40m up to 150m for a precision app. runway. Best way to visualise this is usually by noting where any runway holding points/stop bars/wig wags are located. Inside ot these and you have not "vacated" the runway.......so in this instance, it was still mine.

I'll try and look through the books and see if same applies to grass runways........don't suppose their are any precision approaches on to grass:D :D

No it was not a helicopter - and don't be fooled by them either. Just remember, and I was useless at physics, the forces required to kep them airborne have to exceed the equivalent of their weight hence rotor wash can do a lot of damage. Please excuse my lay interpretation, but the nett result may not be pretty/

Got to go to a meeting.......other side of airfield!

[skyraider]

sounds to me like the 'aviator' has a helluva lot of confidence in his landing abilities, not to mention an equivalent ego/arrogance to feel the need to demonstate this.

If it WAS an emergency (SS did not mention any pan/mayday calls) then if he has time to tell you not to backtrack because he is landing, then he has enough time to tell you he has problems.

so for my money's worth radio silence would probably make me think that he has a problem, "aviate, navigate, communicate" and all that...

sitting in my chair, I'm not really sure what I would have done in SS's situation but a game of chicken would not be ruled out....:mad:

I assume as this thread is happening that the aviator was able to land/stop in the space available so we wait with baited breath for the answer.

sky...

[vintage ATCO]

It is immaterial if the runway is grass or hard as far as runway strips are concerned. For a visual runway, code 1, the width is 30m either side of the centreline, and for a visual code 2 runway it is 40m. Straying a bit off-topic but for an instrument runway we hold closer than the edge of the runway strip, it can be 90m from the centreline for a code 4 rwy (ignoring Cat III).

Although you're quite correct in saying you haven't vacated the runway until you are outside this area, in practice providing the acft has vacated the runway and is keeping going we will clear the next one to land. Sometimes you have too!! :D But here I am talking full ATC.

But back to the original post, clear breach of Rule 17(7)(b) in my view.

[Mr. TCU]

If this had happened in Canada, the aircraft on the ground would have to vacate the runway for the landing aircraft.

See CARs 602.19 (7) (http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/regserv/carac/CARS/cars/602e.htm) - "Where an aircraft is in flight or manoeuvring on the surface, the pilot-in-command of the aircraft shall give way to an aircraft that is landing or about to land."

[Aussie Andy]

...we thought that was meant to apply to aircarft not yet on the runway, i.e. taxiing, versus those that have just landed, which kinda makes sense, yeah?

[LowNSlow]

How can a pilot who has just landed on a runway with no turn offs (long grass) do anything other than backtrack? As the landing isn't over until the aircraft is clear of the active runway, SS in these circumstances is not technically in an aircraft manouvering, he is in an aircraft landing. Unless the chap behind him had an emergency then SS has priority until such time as he clears the active.

I know it's easy to say sitting in the comfort of home but I would have been tempted not to hurry to get out of this arseholes way and continued to taxi back to the end of the runway. Alternatively, if I'd felt my safety was threatened enough I'd consider coming to a stop, shutting down and getting out for a ciggie and see what Mr. Hotshot did with the situation.

Once I felt safe enough I'd clear the active for him to land. If his tone was as condesceding as I'm interpreting it, then I'd have chinned him. :D

[meslag]

My first instinct was that it was an airfield that they hold one of the british aero nats at, but then you said east of cambridge.

The airfield i thought you meant is very similar. At this years nats, arriving aircraft landed in a westerly direction then continued to the end to a holding area. They then did a beautiful formation scarper to the pan (this happened when lots of ships arriving).

Perhaps my experience is very gash, having been raised on farmstrips and "less than controlled" airfields but i would have just said "Roger. Will expedite my taxi. " Then left the decision to him/her.

In my humble experience it is safe to land over the top of someone who is backtracking or is stationary if you keep them in view with sideslip, you know what you are doing and you have excess runway.
If they have to go-around and they feel agreeved then i am sure they will come and talk to you about it.

As an aside, a similar thing happened to me at work the other day in LGTS (look it up because i cant spell it). A C150 landed then could not decide where to taxi/back track/ spin on the spot etc etc. he was been actively encouraged vocally by ATC to leave in any direction possible but that did not nothing to stifle the surprise when he turned to face us and saw an A321 go around from the flare.
Were we cross? Of course not - it would make a good bar story for him.

Ps. dont get at 50' circuits until you have spent a lazy summer evening in your cub doing them, please.

[sharpshot]

Interesting overnight contributions.

Vintage ATCO - I have a sign outside the door that tells me if we are CAT1 or CAT III - just wish I had the I/R and the plane in which to practice the latter - can't even experience from the jumpseat anymore, although did one myself in a DC-10 sim once - YO!:D

LowNSlow - Glad you interpret my understanding of situations and Aussie - beats me what they do in Canada:confused:

Meslag - Circuit height does not give me a problem - but how many people go crosswind at about 50' with another plane on short final:rolleyes: Another issue that bothered me in the cold light of day - what was he doing / where was he before I had visual contact with him?

Just like to point out that this was not Old Buck......like that place on a sunny day.
However, place in question is related to a word you'll find in the good old Oxford Dict.

Frankly I felt like decking the pratt! But I'm not like that......really!
There was no EMERGENCY, I have a feeling he probably owned the place ?

I had done a 180 when he informed me he WAS landing. A rapid survey of my surroundings told me I had no way of vacating so I went as close to the runways edge as possible and put the brakes on. He landed.....well clear of me - but hey there are no guarantees - backtracked and by the time I reached the apron he had shutdown and vanished. Welcome to the O.K. Coral - been there once before and I don't think it will ever change:eek:

Next time I met up with a gentleman from the CAA I told him about it. The event, relative to the location, did not appear to surprise him. "Hope you MOR'd him".

A few weeks ago I landed at another airfield into a 17 kt. headwind. Never landed there before although had taken off. The landing roll was very short and I thought I could vacate on to the grass to park alongside others. The AFISO advised that I would have to roll to the end. Now, despite trying to expedite, the guy behind had to go around. I apologised.
At least nobody was endangered.

[Aussie Andy]

Gotta love this thread :)

I have always wondered what "Cat III" etc. means - so searched on PPRUNE, if interested you can read a bit about it here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54911&highlight=Cat+III). Where is this in the AIP?

Meanwhile, sharpshot, would be much obliged for hints or statement as to where this took place - I don't think you can get done for defamation of an airfield, and I'd like to be forewarned in case I am ever heading to the place myself!

[pulse1]

SS,

Presumably he communicated with you on 122.60?

[sharpshot]

PULSE1
You've got your finger on it:D
Had to call someone to have a squint in Pooley's or what have you.

So, had any experiences yourself?

Aussie - you'll need a Jiffy Bag soon, not just an envelope to hold all the data!! Don't worry too much about CAT III for now - if you find it's that bad, you should have gone down the pub instead:D :D

[pulse1]

SS,

Well it sounds the sort of place where someone is going to make you mad:D

No, I do not have any similar experiences to share but I am pleased that you shared this one. I learn such a lot from this sort of thread. The nearest I have come is too many people turning final just in front of me when I have already called final. This never happened to me until this year when I have had three of them, at White Waltham, Popham and Le Touquet. This is particularly annoying as I always tend to do tight circuits whenever possible.

Most of my other exciting moments have been self generated:(

P1

[sharpshot]

I know what you mean Pulse - it's just that ATC usually shove an A.321 in front of me and then remind me of the vortex spacing.......then tell me to hurry up or I'll be number three to a 757:D :D (Ended up doing 155kts to two and a half DME)

Flying a bit at a smaller place in the interim and getting used to following a Tomahawk when I'm trying to stay in the circuit and get the speed back is different........mind you ATC suggested he keep his circuit tighter in future, but if the guy was a low time PPL or student I'm happy to pace myself.

Tell you about another one that got my back up next week......;)

[david viewing]

Just picked up on this thread and noticed the reference to Canada - the place where you have to know the range at which you can tell the difference between a moose and a reindeer. Might have been handy in this situation!

Personally, I'd have stopped at 45 deg to the grass with my hand on the throttle waiting to see where his roll out would end. But then I havn't seen the grass. (or the approach lights concealed in it)

[formationfoto]

Isn't there a turn off to a holding point and disused runway about a third of the way down the 06 runway - a possible option in the circumstances described?

The airfield has applied strict rules for based a/c to try and prevent this sort of behaviour and reputation - assuming I have the right place.

[sharpshot]

Well FFF,
I think your last Para says it all - doesn't it. It tells me that they obviously have a problem with the behaviour of some of their aeronautical brethren - perhaps "antics" would be a better description!

A disused part of an airfield is just that - I admit that I sometimes have difficulties with my mother tongue, regardless of accent, however, "disused" - suggests to me that I keep off that surface.

I see your point in mentioning it. However, despite calling the said frequency, no other aircraft was using it for any call let alone a standard one, i.e. a base leg or final call hence I landed short of aforementioned "disused" part, did 180 and reported backtracking.......then Mr. "I am" announced his prescence.

I'll leave it at that:p

[sharpshot]

FormationFoto

I just wanted to add a rider to my last - in a former life, I used to be an Airfield Ops Manager and having issued Notams about airfield conditions that used to either not be read - or ignored by pilots from PPL to and dare I say it, mainly ATPL holder's, one tries hard not to call the kettle black........or whatever the expression ought to be:(

[formationfoto]

SS
I am very familiar with the airfield in question but obviously can't comment on the particular incident - not being aware of all of the details.

For the benefit of others the operating procedure there when using the South westerly (which not all follow it is true) is to continue ahead to the intersection / 'C' hold then check approach clear before back tracking. In the event of not reaching 'C' hold before ready to back track a 90% turn to check approach clear then either continue the turn to backtrack (if clear) or return to original heading and clear at 'C'.
There is no requirement for radio calls to be made by all (and some are non radio) so radio silence can not be taken as an indication that the approach is clear.

There are adequate hard surface 'run offs' at either side of the runway if emergency avoidance is required but back tracking these whilst landing is in progress is not advised. There is also a long taxi way from the 'C' hold to a perimeter track which avoids the need to backtrack.

Not seen 50 ft ACROSS the runway at this location but 50 ft down the runway sometimes.

Aeros, unusual circuits, and formation activity often to be found but mostly not at the same time as visitors following more 'normal' procedures.

I have learnt - thanks largely to making mistakes - that if you want to do things differently it pays not to annoy people in the process.

I hope if you visit again you will get a more friendly welcome.

[Aussie Andy]

Are the operating procedures mentioned in the VFR plate for the field in the AIP?

[formationfoto]

AA
My understanding is that they are informal and not mentioned in either Pooleys or the CAA publications. So of little comfort to anyone new to the airfield (however if used they do increase the safety factor a little hence my posting them here). I'm not sure but I think the current litigation environment has caused some operators of unlicenced fields (or limited time licenced - as in this case) to have as few published procedures as possible so as to reduce the legal risk where the procedure causes some sort of incident.

One example I can think of at this airfield is that the 'taxiway' from the 'C' hold which avoids back tracking is also the public access to the club house. You might avoid being hit by 50ft circuit traffic but collide with a car!.

[Aussie Andy]

So it seems then that the only way to have avoided the problem might have been to get a good briefing on local procedures over the phone before departing... However, lack of published information on such procedures sounds like an accident waiting to happen - unless local traffic are more diligent in realising that the other guy is not a local and so adopting more standard procedures!

[formationfoto]

AA
Never said the world was perfect!
How many of us ring in advance for an extended briefing?. And when told "just give us a call on 111.1" then push for further information?. Let me put my hands up - not me.

I tend to regard airfields without air traffic units as possible centres of unusual or od hoc activity and expect everyone else to be an idiot (not that I think they are) so when on finals in a non radio aircraft following another aircraft which has just landed I assume that he is going to 180 and back track without looking rather than continue to the holding point and pull off. About half the time I am right and have to execute a go round. Half the time I am able to continue. Can't get too bothered about it because I was ready for the danger. Probably think that the guy ahead could have had his eyes out of the cockpit a bit more and been more considerate but that passes reasonably quickly.

On one incident similar to the above I did have someone tell me that I shouldn't be flying without a ***** radio and that he had more right to be there than I had but he had probably come from an environment where he expected to be passed all traffic information by someone else.

The best aviators are those who are able to assess different actions required for different situations and this takes both total experience and exposure to different circumstances. I remember once watching someone land a PA28 downwind and thinking that he must have been quite inexperienced only to find that he was a training captain on a particular jet airliner which only the best get to fly. In his day job he hardly ever had to think about the wind direction.

[Aussie Andy]

Agree with your comments... Maybe we're talking at crossed purposes: I thought you were saying that the local procedures at the airfield concerned are such that its to be expected that someone might tell the back-tracker that he is landing and expect to be able to continue anyway... sadly it seems this guy didn't go around, as you would have... So my point was just that it was proably a bit tough for ss to have armed himself with this information - i.e. not in plate, only "an informal local practice" etc.

[formationfoto]

AA
Not used to getting to getting agreement!
Trying to be careful with this because the precise facts are unclear. If the a/c was already back tracking before the landing a/c had turned finals I would have expected the landing a/c to extend the downwind or base leg or go round. If the landed a/c simply turned and bac tracked without looking for possible conflicting (not just listening for a call) then he could have been in the wrong.

Don't really want to be drawn on the particular case because individual perspectives might differ in important respects from the facts (a natural typical human response), and I don't want to suggest that SS could have acted differently - I don't know.

I do know that if SS had continued ahead to the 'C' hold and pulled off before seeking to back track (rather than landing short and immediately back tracking) he would probably have seen the approaching a/c and avoided any possible conflict (this common sense approach does not require published procedures).

He would have been inconvenienced a little. The other guy might have felt that he had somehow 'won' but the level of induced 'air rage' might have been reduced a little.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that SS was in any way wrong in his actions nor that he should follow the procedure I suggest in my post in the future to avoid possible conflict. Others, however, when visiting an airfield such as this for the first time might benefit from taxying to a safe place (ie the 'C' hold in this case - which is identified in Pooleys and the CAA publications and a part of a 'disused' runway but still a 'used' taxiway / hold) before re-entering to back track.

[Albatros6]

Well, you can examine every situation up to it's tiniest thing, but, walking backward and looking at it from a distance, you've got to live with "Joe Average" also in Aviation, just imagine the idiot driving his sportscar a few feet behind you on the highway got the money for a mooney...
I remember watching a scene where a brandnew Robin landed close (about 400 m) behind the leading plane on a 500m strip, telling the first plane to go to the end of the runway and wait...
Not enough, after backtracking (similar situation, but concrete in a "wet" setting) the Robin was taxied with high speed and flaps extended over a sign and got it's right flap damaged...no need to tell that it was flown again later...

...you better watch out...

[nonradio]

Well, ultimately when all is said and done, was there an actual risk of collision? Be honest.

[sharpshot]

I have caught up with your last posts on this topic and would comment as follows;

I can see that FFF is perhaps a little put out that a slur might be inferred towards the field that he perhaps does his flying from. Good of you to defend it, I would mine.......most of the time.

However, the inference that I was perhaps not anticipating the local antics does not hold much sway with me. If I'm prepared to get in a plane on any given day, I make sure I'm up to it.
This chap was in possession of VHF, yet chose not to Tx until it suited him - i.e. when he informed me not to backtrack as he WAS landing. I may have been a little more aware of his location and intentions had he bothered to press the Tx switch downwind or frankly at any time prior to when he did.

I have been to aerodrome in question before. I was carrying an uptodate plate of the field and I do read the remarks entries carefully. I do check notams.

I have the AIP loaded on this P.C. and have just looked at EGS! a few minutes ago.

You're not wrong FFF - didn't anyone have time to provide any more pertinent information...:rolleyes:

In support of my initial comment about vacating the runway due length of grass - N.B. UK AIP entry states that airfield maybe difficult to locate from certain directions "due to crops".

A question for you FFF, just in case I return in a plane with the Sharpshot logo on the tail:D :D if departing runway 06, what is the local taxy procedure to get to the thr. for departure?

Non Radio
YES and if you don't believe it.........
Most accidents happen during the landing or T/O phase. Do you recall the Pan Am 707 that tried landing on a fishing fleet at Pago Pago. Irrelevant you might say, but how often do pilots get disorientated even approaching their base airfield - I can recall several incidents that were potentially disastrous, but I would never air them on a public forum.

[Aussie Andy]

Got it! There's enough clues now - you must be Seething with anger! ;)

[BRL]

Oh dear Andy :D :D :D
Thats 100 lines for you "I should not tell on anyone again" :D

[Aussie Andy]

:D

[sharpshot]

:D :eek: :eek: :D :confused:
AA

I can't believe you just worked this out - I diplomatically gave you all the clues.

Mind you, if we had a chat about a field called Mooroduc, the folk from this side of the hemisphere might have a problem:rolleyes:

Anyway Andy - get the GPS out and pay it a visit -
P.S. Take a witness and you'll learn new elements of the "envelope" you never even knew existed:p

[Aussie Andy]

Sorry I missed all the clues - I have been a bit busy ;)

formationfoto I might surprise you Saturday-week in the lovely G-ODAK (Dakota)... we've planned a trip to Cambdridge, but might persuade my cohort(s) to extend the trip over to Seething: if we do, are you around for air-to-air photos?

... but I'll have to be careful of who's in the circuit by the sound of it! And no, I won't be impressed if same thing as happened to SS happens to us! ;)

[sharpshot]

Behave yourself at CBG, I have a friend who will no doubt have to come into work on a Saturday if you take a DC-3 in there:D :D

Marshalls do the handling now.

If you pop down the motorway a few miles you reach another airport and that was the closest I have ever come to submitting an MOR voluntarily - i.e. not compulsorily at work.

There I was doing my power checks at the holding point - just check AIP after I write this - methinks!! Was in a PA-32RT - you know the T-tailed one. Well I always felt the tail on these to be a little vulnerable. Ever seen anyone do a walk round with a bloody great step ladder to check all the hinges;) ;)

I digress. Anyway the Lance can be a heavy beast and I don't like grass runways when there is a metalled option. If memory serves me right the hold for the tarmac rwy is in the undershoot of the grass one. My lucky day - two show offs in a Harvard formation were out. Most would know who the "lead" pilot was:rolleyes:
and sure enough they decided to do a low fly by right over my T tail with the smoke on. Impressed not.

Oh the joy and safety that regulated airspace can sometimes bring, but you do get fed up with radar headings:D

[Aussie Andy]

Sorry to disappoint - its a PA28-236, not a DC-3 (I wish!) :rolleyes:

[formationfoto]

AA
Mostly there on Sundays (I do hope it wasn't on a Sunday that SS experienced his 'incident') but if nothing else to conflict might be able to get there on a Saturday along with the camera ship etc. I can provide my phone and mobile details if you want to contact me off line (they exist elsewhere on the private forum but don't want to be accused of promoting free photo session).

SS
If departing 06 you can see the approach quite clearly from the 'A' hold and if clear backtrack to 'C' for power checks then further to threshold for departure. If busy you can taxi all the way round the peri track to the 'C' hold but normally not required. Generally best not to block the 'A' hold for power checks because this stops aircraft from continuing taxi after landing to the club house. Can also be helpful to cross to 'B' hold if someone on approach. This then allows them to taxi back clearing the runway for you to back track. This is an uncontrolled airfield which relies on people being sensible and most of the time it works. Some people try and consider how best not to inconvenience other users (or indeed make it easier for them) some say sod it and do just what they want despite other users (and from my experience - trying to be unbiassed - this is more frequently visitors who simply don't think rather than based aircraft but as I have said before none of us are perfect).

I hope this hasn't put you off going there again because from personal experience there are some very helpful and friendly people at the airfield and I know of many who have benefitted from lots of freely given assistance from members who have put themselves out to aid other aviators with a problem. I certainly wouldn't want a controlled airfield environment as a replacement for this facility. Already perfectly safe activities which i have been practicing for years, and which I need to practice to satisfy the CAA, have been restricted. I don't want to find further restriction. In my book safe and considerate are the key requirements and as long as we have those we should be happy. I guess you had a bad day but come again and I will try and show you a different side of this rarity - a member owned airfield with limited restriction.

[EastMids]

Guys,

Sorry but have I lost the plot on this one?

OK, so we can talk all we want about holds part way down the runway, and whether or not a visiting pilot should know about them or indeed use them, and whether or not such a procedure is mentioned in the AIP or during a telephone brief. But surely the bottom line is that the guy on approach is simply not allowed to land on an occupied runway at an uncontrolled airfield - its illegal. And if the guy on the runway does not vacate, an approaching airplane HAS to go-around.

I visit uncontrolled (read radio) airfields fairly often, and on some occasions I sequence myself fairly close behind the airplane in front. However, NEVER when I do that do I expect to land come what may. If I'm fairly close in behind someone else at such airfields (totally different at East Mids where I may be given a land after), I prepare myself for the possibility of needing to do a go-around if the guy in front mucks around a bit and does not vacate before I need to put my wheels on the ground.

Based on what we're told, the guy on approach may, if he was local, have (a) expected the one ahead to vacate and wait for back-track or even (b) he may have even suggested such on the radio. But just to say he was landing, and indeed do so in contravention of established rules, just points the finger at an ignorant a**hole, who deserves to be reported in a MOR.

Andy

[Aussie Andy]

Here here!

[24Right]

But the give way to landing aircraft rule is in the context of an aircraft on the ground not entering the runway if another is landing - it doesn't apply to one already there! After all, that aircraft has just landed and whilst still occupying the runway is (IMHO) still 'landing'.

So far as getting to one side of the runway to let him land is concerned, whilst this might be the only practical proposition, would you trust this nutter to land bang on the centreline (and stay there)?:eek:

[Aussie Andy]

Amazingly, there's a similar thread on the Dunnunda & Godzone GA forum here: can u land on a rnwy with another aircraft on it (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69050)

[sharpshot]

Well FF thanks for all the Gen! Interesting to note that the obvious way to depart 06 is to backtrack - hence to vacate 27, the logical method is ..........to backtrack!

Use the perimeter road:D :D - time before last when I taxied out, a person went careeiring round it in a Range Rover. Not a hazard to me at the time I should point out, however, the history of the place begs the question whether drivers on your Peri track appreciate that vehicles give way to a/c on the manoeuvring area.
(is it publisherd as one?)
Ho Hum?

I take it you do some aerial photography - lucky you. What does your reference to the CAA restrictions imply? Were they not entirely happy with certain practices or is there a published CAP on aerial photographic activities which curtails some past practice?

Auusie - I will catch up with the southern hemisphere scribe later - cheers.

Have a nice day all - and if you are not hangaring your aircraft, make sure you think about any Hoar frost left on your plane and don't be mean with the de-icer............we are definitely into that season in the U.K.

[sharpshot]

Well AA, that sounded fairly typical - digressing to exiles freighting god knows what in darkest Africa - my old man ended up in a Ugandan holiday camp many moons ago for "legitimately" carrying "sporting rifles" must ask the Gov't what it was all about one day:D :D

Question; - Is there a Turbulent or something similar based at EGS!............think it was him:mad:

[formationfoto]

SS
I think there is a (albeit perhaps small) difference between backtracking to depart off 06 and backtracking after landing on 24. At the 'A' hold (close to 24 threshold) you have a clear view of the 06 approach and can check it is clear before nack tracking and have other options open to you (crossing to 'B' or taxi round the peri track). When landing short on 24 you only have the option of continuing ahead to 'C' hold (2/3rds of the way down) or immediate 180 and backtrack. If you believe the approach is clear (as you did) the immediate 180 and back track is the obvious choice but you can be caught out doing this if there is a non radio on approach so it has to be done with caution and you have to be ready to change the decision and contine ahead to 'C'. It is clear therefore that this is not as clearcut as the backtrack to depart 06 option. The description probably isn't as clear as it should be but it is only a minor point anyway.

The peri track option does have the potential danger you describe and I think I referred to this in the earlier post when I mentioned this option (careful not to recommend someone to do this without warning of the dangers in this highly litigative society!). For me I think I would still rather take this chance if the alternative was to have someone determined to land on top of me (which I think you have to agree is less likely in the case of a Range Rover:) ).

Correct on the photography point. We have a small unpaid volunteer team building an air to air and ground to ground library of aviation / aircraft pictures for an aviation magazine. The aircraft owner / pilot gets a free CD of shots in return for bringing aircraft along and flying for 20 mins or so.

Perhaps I wasn' too clear on the restriction point (and it is only loosely connected with the photography). The restriction is an airfield restriction not a CAA restriction. My role in the photo team is to act as formation pilot of the subject aircraft. I am also in the process of acquiring a Display Authority to display Chipmunk and Tiger Moth and this will include formation fly by. For both purposes I have a requirement to practice formation take offs and these (totally legal) have been banned for members at the airfield (although visitors can still do this). Means I have to go elsewhere to practice this and also means that photo sessions take a little longer as we have to join up out of the circuit.

Finally no Turb at airfield and not aware of a turb or similar in the local vicinity but will keep my eyes open.

Great post - loads of views - I think I have added all I can - SS hopefully see you in happier mood at airfield soon.

[sharpshot]

This has been a very "reasoned" debate" and whilst staggered at the number of "views" and not wishing to push the numbers up, I now have another "scratch my head question" thanks to your latest post FF.

I have absolutely zero time in a Non R/T plane. I have been to airfields with no comms and joined overhead, checked the signal square and carried out published circuit etc.

However, non R/T mixing with the rest of us: surely the same Rules of the Air apply? Plane on runway ahead, non R/T on finals - surely he / she should instigate a Go-Around if perception dictates that say a land after is not going to work?

P.S. FF - you may have gleaned that "SS" is not some contrived paranoid desire to be a "Top Gun", but rather photography based.
Don't know what type of ground to ground pics you are collecting but if I can help..........not into digital yet, but seriously contemplating a Canon D60..........but how many hours will that spend detract from aviating & keep me on the ground

:eek: :eek:

[pulse1]

SS,

I'm not an expert but I cannot think of any rule of the air which is dependent on radio, at least in the UK.

In your case, because you had radio, you at least knew what the other party, who was obviously breaking the rules, was planning to do. Even then, you understandably found it difficult to decide what action to take in the short time you had available. At least you were on the ground.

I spent the first four years of my flying life without radio and on several occasions have been faced with others similarly putting me in a difficult situation without any opportunity to clarify what we were doing over the radio.

For example, on my QXC in a DH82, I was happily proceeding downwind at Shoreham, heading towards the sea. I was overtaken by a light twin who was obviously happy to fly a circuit which took him well out to sea. No way was I going to follow him out there at circuit height. So, what should I have done?

P1

[Aussie Andy]

Pulse1 - I've never been non-radio, and the thought of it somehow scars me!? So, what did you do? I think I would leave the circuit and rejoin...

[sharpshot]

Holy mackerel - I just wrote a bundle and then the server got overloaded and binned the lot:mad: :mad:

Anyway Pulse - do you non R/T chaps have some culture crisis :confused: I can appreciate that a great Garmin and Bendix kit might look out of place, but what about a handheld just in case.

Bet you hate transponders? Think they + Mode C should be mandatory - sorry to be totally subjective.

Now I do not pretend to know how you non-R/T folk go about entering ATZ's etc - do you have to get PPO and give an ETA ?
Better than just appearing out of nowhere.

So you were in a Moth downwind. There was a recent thread that vaguley relates, but did Shoreham know you were coming.
I can only assume they did - spotted you joining at or around your ETA and were then able to inform the rest of those in the circuit about your presence.

Hence you go downwind - base - final .....and land if you consider everything prudent to do so?

I look forward to hearing just what you do do, so I know what to be prepared for.

Now to submit...............again:rolleyes:

[pulse1]

SS ,

I did say that "for the first four years" I was non-radio. Regrettably, for the many, many, years since then I have fallen from the the noble heights of scarf & goggles, eyeball with no radio, to the more common shirt sleeves, 2 x VHF, 2 x COM, ADF, 2 x GPS and a transponder. Ever since I have been more scared by radio procedures and ATC than I ever was by being non- radio. But then, I was a lot younger and life was simpler.

I can't help wondering if students taught in a non-radio environment develop better sense of airmanship than those who find radio essential. It's so long since I flew non-radio that I do not include myself in that bracket as I think my airmanship has deteriorated. Maybe I'm just getting older:( .

As for joining the circuit, unless the PPR tells you otherwise, it's a standard overhead join but you have to look at the signals square to get the information you require. If there is ATC you look out for pretty lights from the Tower. Incidentaly I suffered a radio failure a few months ago and it was like old times, getting a green light from the Tower at an International Airport:cool:

As for what I did. Your are mostly correct. I joined base, staying at circuit height, ready to go around if necessary. You could do this easily in the Tiger because we always did glide approaches and you could lose a lot of height very quickly with a lot of sideslip (Oh how I miss that!). I did get a green from the Tower so completed the landing.

Incidentally, after landing I taxied up to the pumps where there was a huge queue of Spamcans waiting. The wonderful old chap on the pumps was so pleased to see a Tiger Moth that he ignored them all and gave me priority:p

Andy ,

I would be very interested to know how you would have left the circuit under those circumstances. Not trying trap you. I am interested to learn from others.

[martinbakerfanclub]

I can assure you guys of one thing - while i would have bust a bollock to ensure there was no physical contact between my aircraft and this fools, there WOULD most certainly have been physical contact with my steel toecap and this idiots temple and spine later.

Their simply is no excuse whatsoever for this sort of cavalier attitude to another aviators life. Simple as that. Endex.

In my experience it's usualy always pointless trying to have stern words with these sort of people, "they always know best, have always done it as so, it's there home field" and so on and so on...

A good shoeing always stays in the memory however. Not pleasant medicine to dispense, ever, but sadly sometimes needed.:mad:

[Aussie Andy]

Pulse1: I'd turn away from circuit and climb above circuit height and rejoin overhead I suppose...

[FlyingForFun]

Spotted you joining at or around your ETA and were then able to inform the rest of those in the circuit about your presence
Not quite. The airfield I fly from has quite a few non-radio aircraft based there. The way you know they're in the circuit is *gasp, shock horror* you open your eyes and look for them!

Ok, sorry about the sarcasm, but I'm always shocked that people expect to be told who is in the circuit with them. Several times I've been in a busy circuit and only remained safe through looking out as well as listening to the radio. For example, turning downwind in a busy circuit, someone else calls downwind. You spot someone late downwind, but is that the person you heard on the radio a moment ago? Or is the guy on the radio somewhere between you and the guy you've just seen? If they're the only two aircraft in the circuit and they've both got radios, you'd probably know - but if there are 6 or 8 others? In a busy un-controlled circuit, it's just not possible to keep track of every aircraft simply from their radio calls - you must look out, too, even at airfields where non-radio aircraft aren't allowed.

I've flown non-radio a couple of times. Nothing difficult about it. Most fields, if they allow it, require PPR so that they can give you any important information which they'd normally give you over the radio. They don't actually care whether you turn up or not, they don't keep a record of the fact that you've called, it's only so you can get all the latest information.

After that, join overhead, and, while in the overhead, have a good look-out for traffic, and check out the signal square. Then continue as for any other approach, except your lookout needs to be even better than normally. And you have to keep a special lookout for idiots with radios who assume that because you're not on the radio you're not there. And that's it - simple!

The only difficult thing is at airfields with variable circuit directions. Of course you'll know which runway (and which circuit) they're using before you leave, and when you join overhead you'll make sure your turns are in the appropriate direction. But if you look at the signal square and discover they've changed the circuit direction, you need to change your turn direction and try to keep your blind-spots to a minimum.

I'd never fly non-radio through choice... but the handhelds I've used have been so poor that I've felt I'm safer not using one. And in some open-cockpit aircraft I suspect the noise from the wind blowing over the mic would render any transmissions completely unreadable. So no, I don't believe that radios should be mandatory at all.

FFF
---------------

[sharpshot]

Yes I mentioned the signal square in my post that went off into the ehter. I wonder how many of today's students flying in ATC controlled environments are taught about the square - no dig intended at any training establishment.

M-B fanclub - the use of the term Endex tells me all!! And I guess you've heard of Doddie Hay - me mum went to school with him!!
Just as well M-B had someone willing to test the prototype.

Pulse: I too would be gracious if I saw you in a Moth. Side slipping - don't like teaching that any more do they - beats me why not. My instructor used to be in first Spitfire Sq in 1930 something and he made darned sure I could and that was in a C.150! He used to get in and the first thing he would do was light up a fag! :D :D :D :D I can feel the politically correct attacking me for even mentioning it!!

But hey, Pulse - Twin GPS - you'll tell me you have a Cirrus SR22 with one of those fantastic 9 inch screens hooked up to the Garmins - now that is something to behold!!


FFF - thanks for all the non r/t procedural info - maybe Pooley's and the other guides should put a column in to tell us where you all fly!

Have a safe aviating w/e!

[formationfoto]

SS
Tempted out of my self imposed silence. I guess I made an error here in assuming that mostr people would be aware of non radio environment. Obviously it does NOT change the rules of the air with regard to priorities etc. but in any uncontrolled environment the primary responsibility for seperation rests with the pilot and looking out is vital. I guess many have not experienced this environment and rely more on the radio (not a dig at anyone and esp SS).

The air to air stuff is obvious. ground based stuff is to build up a variety of shots of every aircraft type and if possible every actual aircraft on the UK register. A massive task buy we are doing quite well so far. No payment and all rights are retained by the magazine but a load of fun.

We are all digital using Nikon D1x and Canon D60. Although the Canon is cheaper it is a great camera and some of the shots are better than the Nikon. You cant go wrong with this particularly if you have Canon lenses already. I am thinking of looking at the new Kodak (nikon based) 12mpix camera for around £3,500. waiting for someone from a sister mag of PILOT to test it.

Always happy to receive pix for the library (which we hope to also be on the new Pilotweb site some time early next year) but it doies mean the photographer has to assign all rights to use so I doubt whether you would want to offer up your ground pix unless like us you enjoy doiung it and want to see your pix published.

If you want to know more feel free to e-mail me.

[sharpshot]

Thanks for especially not having a dig at SS!!

Ah. now i have placed you - bit slow, really.
Well seeing as one of the Mags on the number two engine had the biggest drop I have ever come across yesterday and the wx is not my favoured for getting airborne over in the west today....

I will e-mail you sometime, but off to sunnier climbs from the middle of next week. Pleased to hear views on D60 - I have 2 x EOS 5's and an EOS 3 and hence all the lenses! Hence no digital yet, but if you scan KR25 and 64 maybe I could lend a gratis hand to your project? (Had a nice pic in the world's leading weekly last week - no clues though!!

I must get a bit of practice in with this non-R/T stuff! Off to read what the fire strike thread has to offer.......