Run and break when will they learn ?

[A and C]

I have just been looking on the military thread and a PPL holder is asking about the "run and break" manoeuver , it would seem that an aircraft was performing a run and break and he as another pilot in the circuit did not know what was going on or even were to look to see this run and break traffic.

Following the tragic accident at North Weald a few years back I would of thought that the lesson that the run and break is not a safe way to join a normal civil circuit would have been driven home hard as most of the other traffic has no idea (and why should they ?) of what is going on.

Is it not time that this practice was stopped when flyind in a circuit with traffic that has not been fully briefed to expect such manoeuvers , or will it take more deaths and leagal action to ban the practice ?.

[Flash0710]

Ok standing up for a pelting

I feel that it is unfair to relate what happened at North Weald whilst tragic beyond comprehension to be blamed solely on the run and break.

We could sit on our hands and say well shant go flying that might kill you.

Accidents happen at any time.

I enjoy carrying out run and breaks

I feel that as long as the approach to carrying out the manoeuvre is done in a resposible way ie listening out on frequency a long way out from the field to assess traffic levels/positions and getting the picture mentally.

Run and breaks IMHO if approached in a sensible and responsible way by the pilot ( we all are responsible and sensible of course ) Thereis little danger involved.

We all accept risk when we fly, another vital lesson that could be learned from the tragedy could also be that we should not only look out more but also listen out more.

Please can we not start campaigning for the banning things like this

What next activists against the loop?

[Genghis the Engineer]

What A&C said was...

time that this practice was stopped when flyind in a circuit with traffic that has not been fully briefed to expect such manoeuvers

With which I agree. I occasionally fly a run and break, usually during practice for the DA I still haven't got - and on an airfield with no other traffic and those on the ground know what I'm up to. I've nearly been wiped out landing a non-radio microlight (quite legally) on an airfield where a Yak started one having ascertained from the AFIS operator (who couldn't see the threshold) that there was nothing known on finals...

There is a time and place.

G

[QDMQDMQDM]

What's a run and break?

QDM

[keendog]

Not something that I'm expecting to have to encounter on a training flight

[Don D Cake]

QDM, a run and break is described in the Mil forum here Run & break (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81454)

The North Weald accident is here (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gingr.htm)

[Flash0710]

Whilst it may not be understood by others on frequency is it not the commander carrying out the run and breaks responsibility to see and avoid?

Agree with time and place but that was kinda me point.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I think that officially both commanders are equally responsible.

FD

[FlyingForFun]

Flash,

I presume, from your last post, that if you're flying a (regular) circuit in, say, a C150, and you're late downwind when you hear, say, a PA23 call "downwind", that you make no effort to locate the faster aircraft and ensure he's not going to fly into the back of you?

No - of course you will look out for him. Even though it's his responsibility to avoid you in this instance, you still like to know where he is.

Likewise, I'd be uncomfortable if someone called "initial" while I was downwind. Less so having read about various run-and-break incidents on PPRuNe, but I've still never actually seen one, so I really wouldn't know where to look with any kind of certainty.

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

(FD - If an overtaking situation exists - and I'd say one aircraft doing a couple of hundred knots while the other is doing 70kts counts as overtaking - the aircraft being overtaken has right of way, and the responsibilty to avoid therefore belongs to the overtaking aircraft, as far as I'm aware.)

[High Wing Drifter]

I am with A and C,

Having just read the North Weald report I have to say: "Why?" What is the point of these fancy pants manouvers other than to confuse everybody and add a lot of risk to the circuit? Just fly the circuit and do the smarty arse flying somewhere over the sea!

Sorry if I come across as abrupt and over-opinionated, but IMHO this is not even worthy of a debate!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Nothwithstanding what I've already said that I think is a little over-strong. If for example somebody is practicing a display routine which starts and ends on a runway then doing it over the sea isn't really possible. It's just that practicing it in a working circuit would be downright irresponsible. Balance is needed.

G

[formationfoto]

I think it is worthy of debate. Any area where there are valid views and differences is worthy of debate.

My view (and I accept it is no more valid than any other) is that there is more to flying than simply flying straight and level from A to B and carrying out a standard circuit at the end. Some people fly upside down, some fly close to others, some even upside down and close to others. All of these things are acceptable providing that they do not cause UNDUE danger to others. Run and break is reasonable providing the PIC does not simply expect everyone else in a five mide radius block to keep out of the way.
On the other hand the PIC of other aircraft ought also to be sensible and not sit there like the guy sitting at 70 in the outside lane.

[Barney_Gumble]

Hi,

I posted the original question on the mil forum and I didn't realise I had touched on a contentious subject. I will read with interest the incident report and the other postings.

I would like to say that I may have led A and C astray by a poor use of words.

When I heard this manoeuver mentioned on the R/T it was quite a while ago now and I was NOT PIC and the commander of the aircraft I was in was a very experienced military pilot. He knew exactly what was going on but it happened so fast that I missed it. I asked for a description of "Run & Break" on the mil forum just so that I could picture it in my mind in slow time. Also I asked for the rationale behind such a manoeuvre just to add to my knowledge bank; I am not sure the rationale applies to a C172 bimbling from Biggin to Duxford ;)

Suffice it to say that I will now either keep well clear or make absolutely sure that the controller knows that he/she has a limited experience tyro in the circuit and he/she will be able to judge that permitting such a join could be dangerous.

I doubt whether it would happen as my flying has been to date always out of civilian airfields.

Any confusion caused was not intentional.

Regards

Andy

[High Wing Drifter]

I think it is worthy of debate. Any area where there are valid views and differences is worthy of debate. Sorry guys. Of course it is worthy of debate (well upto the point that everybody starts saying the same things again).

It's just that practicing it in a working circuit would be downright irresponsible
Quite right too. I guess my blood was boiling upon reading how tragically avoidable that North Weald accident was :mad:

I stand corrected.

[Rod1]

I was under the impression that there is a practical requirement for the run and break in some aircraft. A hunter or L29 for example? Both of these kinds of aircraft fly from airfields without full ATC, so it is important to expect an R & B. Following on from this it is a good idea to understand the R & B and be prepared for it.

I personally have been in the circuit when a Yak did a R & B and it did not cause me any problems. I think on a day with good vis and not much traffic it can be done safely, and I imagine it is good fun to fly.

[A and C]

The practical requirement for the run and break is a military one the object being to keep as much energy in the aircraft and there for the ability to manoeuver if attacked untill the last moment and to only slow up when over a well defended area when the local triple A should be able to ward off an attacker.

This is hardly a factor over most UK civil airfields.

I dont object to pilots performing a run and break BUT all the pilots in the circuit must know what to expect , if any any doubt exists then a normal circuit join should be performed.

If the run and break is part of a practice of a display then ATC should keep the circuit clear untill the practice has finnished.

The bottom line is that aircraft performing high energy manoeuvers and pilots in slow aircraft without a proper briefing cannot safely mix in the circuit.

[drauk]

I've just read the AAIB report for the North Weald incident and I have to wonder if I'm missing something. The conclusion is that the planes collided because they didn't see each other, which seems reasonable. What seems strange to me is that no greater responsibility for this is placed on the pilot of the Yak than on that of the pilot of the Cessna. This seems strange in that it also clearly states that the Yak pilot turned left instead of right as expected by the definition of the run & break he declared he was doing.

Is the point that I'm missing the fact that see and avoid is always the responsibility of both pilots, no matter what procedures are or are not being followed?

Or is it that AAIB reports don't apportion blame?

[Rod1]

A & C,

I will bow to your greater knowledge, as I have never flown a Jet. It was however my understanding that the requirement was to do with jet engine spool up times and the potential to need to go round?

I have only seen seven or eight aircraft in this category land, but they all performed the R & B.

>>> If the run and break is part of a practice of a display then ATC should keep the circuit clear untill the practice has finnished.

A lot of this sort of flying goes on at non ATC airfields. I have come across such traffic at Duxford and Kemble, but I have always been well clear to start with.

[High Wing Drifter]

I personally have been in the circuit when a Yak did a R & B and it did not cause me any problems. I think on a day with good vis and not much traffic it can be done safely, and I imagine it is good fun to fly.
The North Weald accident was in unlimited vis with a single aircraft in the circuit.

What seems strange to me is that no greater responsibility for this is placed on the pilot of the Yak than on that of the pilot of the Cessna.
Yes! And what also seemed crucial is that the Yak pilot ASSUMED that everybody knew what he was doing.

[rustle]

drauk

Or is it that AAIB reports don't apportion blame?

Got it in one.

[A and C]

You are quite right AAIB reports do not apportion blame they just report the facts.

However the run and break has no practical use outside the military and so is not part of the normal training for the PPL.

This makes it very hard for the PPL holder to know what to expect and how to best maintain an effective lookout in this situation add to this a slow and unmanoeuverable aircraft in the hands of a low time pilot and all is set for an accident.

[Wrong Stuff]

Wouldn't it be simpler if we were all just taught what a run and break manouevre looks like? Or perhaps took it upon ourselves to look it up in a book. Would seem to solve most of the problem without adding another restriction to the rule book.

[Evo]

Wouldn't it be simpler if we were all just taught what a run and break manouevre looks like?


That's fine - stick it in CAP413 and when someone calls "initial for the break" (or whatever Top Gun RT they decide on) the low-hours spamcanners like myself will have some clue what they are doing.

I've only ever heard it once, while student solo, and it was by some pillock in a PA-38 (seriously :rolleyes: ). My response, while turning base, was "Aircraft calling initials, where are you and what are you doing?". Maverick decided to do a normal circuit at that point...

[WorkingHard]

It is of course an absolute fact that we all take risks BUT the very nature of aviation is to minimise any perceived risks. Now the R&B is a totally unnecessary risk to anyone in the circuit and as such should be banned absolutely. I have no objection to anyone performing whatever they like with their a/c but not when it puts others at risk and surely that is the real nub of this thread. If you want to play war games or pretend you are a FJ pilot the do it somehwere else or on MS Flight Sim

[DB6]

We fly the run & break at JEFTS in light a/c (Fireflies) as do the various UAS's in their Grobs HOWEVER it is the responsibility of the aircraft joining the circuit to give way to traffic already in the circuit and if the circuit is busy we don't fly a run & break.
As flown in light a/c: fly in parallel to and slightly on the deadside of the active runway at cruise speed and circuit height. Call 'initials, break' at approx 3nm out, descend to 500' (or lower if not subject to rule 5) then if circuit is clear turn into the circuit over the runway threshold and land as usual. If traffic is in the circuit extend upwind and turn in behind them in a polite manner, cursing gently at being denied the chance to play the hooligan but not breaking in front of them. Good fun but not really on if others are in the circuit already.

[Flash0710]

Workinghard

Once upon a time people were enthralled just at the sight of an aircraft leaving the ground

Now people are so spoilt that the romance and splendour of a golden age have been gobbled up by image seeking flying accountants.

You fly straight and level don't explore your personal envelope. Leave it to the people with the passion still in them.!

And people wonder why GA is dying?




:mad:

[drauk]

Thanks for the "no blame in an AAIB report" clarification.

People seem to be saying that the problem with this move is that private pilots don't know where to look or what to expect, but again my attention is drawn to the fact that the Yak pilot didn't do what was expected - he turned left instead of right. (Just so happens it was over his house, though of course this was probably just a coincidence.) So even if people knew where he should have been based on the radio calls he made, he may well not have been there. Again, maybe I missing something here.

[High Wing Drifter]

And people wonder why GA is dying?
Ignoring the predictable rearrangement of that sentence for a less than humourous effect, I don't see what that has to do with a PREDICTABLE circuit pattern.

Nothing wrong with aerobatics, nothing wrong with exploring one's envelope, just do it with minimal (if any) risk to anybody else...please!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Gerry Actrick]

I can’t believe some of the responses in this thread. There are rules and common sense which dictate how we behave in the circuit. If we all did a r&b that would be fun and may even work – but we don’t, so we should all do the same. Would Mr. Flash thank me for going round the circuit the wrong way or the wrong height?
Gerry

[flickoff]

I have read this R&B stuff on many threads now and for what it's worth, which is probably the square root of jack **** it seems to me to be a fight bewteen the hawks and the doves.

People die flying a/c that's the way it is, they also die driving cars. So what. When you are going to go, that's it. The problem here is really about the penis extention aviators, " look at me I didn't make fast jets but hey, I can R&B" and the flat cap car coat aviators pootling about in their hired spam can going for a £50 cup of coffee for the third time this year. The sky is a big place and both types are a pain in the arse to the other. Personally I would ban anyone that does circiuts outside the airfield boundary and cannot maintain 150 kts to the threshold, but as some one french and famous said, I would fight to the death to maintain their right not to do so!.

We need to live together. If you are a spam can hirer at an airfield where people do r&B find out what it means, if you do r&b's remeber what it was like at your first away landing during your ppl training. Give a bit. Just because you are faster don't assume you are right. It really doesn't matter to anyone at all if you kill yourself, we don't give a ****, but it matters like hell if you kill someone else.

If you want to gang up against anything in the circuit, I suggest a campaign against bomber command circuits and microlights.

I know you will all agree.

[LowNSlow]

DB6 the only reason you are doing R & B in a light aircraft is cos you are training bods who will be doing it for real in jets.

IMHO the run & break has no place at a civilian airfield full stop. It is simply a pose. A Yak 52 is fully capable of flying a standard circuit as is a Delphin given reasonable forward planning. If a person can't plan that far ahead then they shouldn't have the stick in their hands. I fly for fun, I enjoy a fast low pass (well slow pass in an Auster) but I don't enjoy unexpected manouvers when I'm getting ready to land.

[WorkingHard]

Flash - Perhaps you should read again what I actually said and not make assumptions. The consensus is, I believe, that pilots may do what they wish within the law AND without endagering others. Do not try and emulate the military in a civilian circuit; as has been seen this can lead to tragedy and more sadly, tragedy for those on the receiving end of a quite dubious practice. I have no idea of your kind of flying or what you do to explore your "personal envelope" but what I do know is that if you "explore" in any way that presents an unnecessary or unknown danger to others then you have no business being in control of any aircraft. Perhaps we should start a thread listing those airfields that allow such actions as R&B and then the rest of us can avoid and see what happens when economics takes over.

[2Donkeys]

Interesting thread.

It seems to me that the rules of the air require a pilot to:

Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 39,a flying machine,glider or airship while flying in the vicinity of what the commander of the aircraft knows or ought reasonably to know to be an aerodrome or moving on an aerodrome,shall unless,in the case of an aerodrome having an air traffic control unit that unit otherwise authorises:

(a)conform to the pattern of traffic formed by other aircraft intending to land at that aerodrome,or keep clear of the airspace in which the pattern is formed;and

(b)make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate.

So.... if there is any other traffic at all, a run-and-break is out.

I never have bought the various arguments used relating to the speed and handling characteristics of jets. Perhaps I have been doing visual joins all wrong in my Citation all this time :D

[WorkingHard]

I feel very strongly about the issues raised on another thread. I feel very strongly that I do not want my safety or the safety of fellow aviators or the public in general put at risk for the perceived "fun" by a few selfish pilots. I feel very strongly that this is the kind of irresponsible behaviour that brings GA into disrepute. I think it would be interesting therefore to list any airfields that allow such circuit joins so that those of us wish may avoid them totally.

[Legalapproach]

LowNSlow,

Agree with you 100% I cannot see any requirement for or virtue in a R&B in a civillian environment or in a light aircraft save for those being used for military training. The R&B is a military manouvre designed for use during conflict when a returning aircraft may be damaged or under threat and as such is practiced during peacetime. It is not, however the only manner in which a military jet can approach and land hence a standard circuit may be flown or an SRA or the like performed.

In a civilian environment what purpose is served by an R&B? If you want to throw an aircraft around you have plenty of sky away from the circuit in which to do it. If you want to pose and/or fulfill some sort of military wannabe fantasy then IMHO you shouldn't be in an aircraft in the first place.

I have flown run in and breaks in military jets and I'll admit there is a degree of fun in them, especially a formation break but then there are a lot of things that are fun in a jet that simply don't translate into a piston single no matter how macho its pilot thinks his mount is. I also wonder how many non-military pilots know what a proper R&B is - most light aircraft will run out of speed too quickly to perform the manouvre properly. The fairly constant curve allowing the speed to bleed off simply turns into a shortened circuit in most light aircraft.

[Flash0710]

If you send me a private message as im not going to start naming publically i can let you know of three where i am actually asked if i would'nt mind doing a run.

Perhaps you should stay in your car it's dangerous outside.

[AC-DC]

Flash
Nothing wrong with his wish to avoid it.

[Flying Lawyer]

Of course there's no requirement, but it's fun and completely safe in appropriate circumstances.

As for old WorryHard ... "the R&B is a totally unnecessary risk to anyone in the circuit and as such should be banned absolutely." :rolleyes: Why not go further and get the CAA to make it illegal?
Don't come to Duxford - you wouldn't enjoy it very much.

The important factors are time and place. A busy circuit when other traffic may be endangered is obviously not an appropriate time or place, but a total ban is silly.

Flash - I know what you mean. ;)

[DB6]

LowNSlow, quite so - and we can only just manage them in a Firefly. We don't do them elsewhere and I agree with others who say they don't really have a place at most civilian airfields (not all). My post was really just to NB the fact that basically with anyone else in the circuit a run & break is not advisable, and certainly not if others aren't expecting it

[Evo]

I think it would be interesting therefore to list any airfields that allow such circuit joins so that those of us wish may avoid them totally.


Well, I guess you should avoid all FIS and A/G airfields - they cannot disallow them... :)

[Dan Winterland]

The Run In And Break is a joining manoeuvre, any aircraft joining should not break into the circuit until the pilot has all the other aircraft in the circuit in sight. He/she should know how many are in, as the controller normally tells him 'X aircraft ahead' at initials. This is what was the practice when I used to instruct the RIAB in military aircraft.

As the procedure is primarily designed for reducing energy prior to the downwind leg (with a secondary advantage of minimising your exposure to groundfire), it's pretty pointless in any aircraft doing less than 200 knts.

But my main point is that everyone in the circuit should know where initials is so they know where the threat is coming from if the RIAB procedure is to be used. If people don't know - then it doesn't really have a place at that airfield.

[DFC]

Some points:

1. This is a Military procedure carried out at Military Airfields.

2. Most if not all such Military Airfields have an ATC Service, an ATZ and thus a known traffic environment.

In the civil world, unless there is controlled airspace, it can not be taken as a known traffic environment.

Perhaps, pilots operating at uncontrolled airfields should voice their objections (if they have any) on the R/T when they hear the call "run and break".

DFC

[DFC]

Very true EVO with regard to FIS and A/G

However,

Why would you be doing a run and break over an airfield where you were no longer permitted to land?????

;)

DFC

[WorkingHard]

This topic certainly raises temperatures. Flash why are you unwilling to name where you carry out this military joining procedure? I shall continue to exercise my privileges as a pilot and not stay in my car. I merely wish to avoid any unnecessary dangers from pilots who want to do their own thing in a circuit pattern. You can of course go to your nearest military airfield and ask if you can play at being a FL pilot there. Equally if your own airfield has no pattern traffic you may do as you wish within the rules of the airfield. To say "they cannot disallow them" is something you may wish to clarify with the airfield management.
Lawyer - I think that my concerns are that we need to avoid getting the CAA involved. The fact that some pilots need to do this in a circuit with existing traffic is surely more likely to get the CAA involved than avoiding it. As I have said above - I believe pilots should be free to do what they want BUT not where it is LIKELY to endanger others. I am a most fervant supporter of GA and believe we all have a role to play in being seen to be responsible.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Come on folk,

It is bad enough without infighting.

Having priviliges means also having responsibilities, flash. WH you will have to accept that people like doing these things and that there is a time and a place for all of this.

Can we just stick to the rules of the air and all have a slice of the cake and enjoy it.

Never done a R&B but assume they can be good fun if done in a professional manner in an aeroplane capable of doing one.

Not more red tape please.

FD

BTW are babygrows compulsory for those performing them?

[Flying Lawyer]

Well said, Flyin'Dutch'.
No, babygrows aren't compulsory but, if you've never worn one, it won't do any harm if the instructor who demonstrates or teaches you the manoeuvre has at some point. :)

WorkingHard
It isn't the topic which has raised temperatures, but your attitude to it. I confess my reaction was influenced by reading your (now merged) thread in which you described the manoeuvre as "irresponsible behaviour", and suggested listing airfields which allow them.
The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances. The idea of yet another 'ban' or restriction, whether imposed by airfields or the CAA, fills me with horror. In 30 years or so flying, I've seen an increasing number of restrictions imposed upon our freedom to use our own judgment. Some are necessary; many are an unfortunate product of the 'nanny' culture in which we now live.
There was a tragic accident at North Weald, and lessons should be learned. But I know of no evidence (personal, official or anecdotal) to suggest there is a problem calling for the imposition of yet another restriction.
Is your experience different from mine? Have you been caused anxiety by such manoeuvres?
Our attitudes are inevitably formed by the type of flying we've done - in my case, mainly RAF, Tiger Club and the Old Flying Machine Company at Duxford. Like Flash, I've frequently been invited to do a RIAB when visiting airfields. Much depends upon type flown. When flying a Harvard or Yak 11, requests are common; not surprisingly, I've never been asked when flying a Piper or Cessna. Invitation or not, I wouldn't do so unless satisfied it was safe.

I don't seek to persuade you to my point of view. Having now read many of your contributions to various topics, I am entirely satisfied the only thing we have in common is that we both hold a pilots licence. I respect your right to fly as you wish, and have done a modest amount of s&l cross-country flying myself. Some of us have a more adventurous, but nonetheless safety-conscious, approach to our flying - but there's plenty of scope for us to co-exist happily and safely without the imposition of yet more rules.

[Flash0710]

As you say FL outside aviation there are enough enemys why fight each other ?

Perhaps a knee jerk reaction to something i feel should be kept alive.

The point i'm making is accidents happen and why should a RIAB be banned after a collision. and an approach to land not be? I'm sure the approach is a bigger killer.

Like i say we take the risk.

And wannabe topguns i agree get them out the sky and onto their computers....!

[High Wing Drifter]

The point i'm making is accidents happen and why should a RIAB be banned after a collision. and an approach to land not be? I'm sure the approach is a bigger killer.
I can't decide if you are a contrary fellow or you are deep sea trolling with hook and feather!

I can't wait for demo at Farnbourough. What will you be flying Flash?

...smoke me a kipper and all that jazz...

[Hew Jampton]

Is the R&B:

In the PPL syllabus?
In the Instructor syllabus?
Part of the CPL?
Part of the ATPL?
Described in the AIP ('Air Pilot')?
Described in CAP 413 (R/T Manual)?

No? Then perhaps you should conclude that it has no part in civil aviation and it is a military procedure. Go and do it in the military at military airfields.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I just love doing them, they are an expression of true flying in the circuit...... When done so as not to conflict with other traffic.

Maybe I also am dangerous? :eek: :eek:

Cat Driver:

[Wide-Body]

Please read flying lawyers post, it makes so much sense.

Hew Jampton---- Sorry friend but there are a lot of Manoeuvres not described on your list, that I do. Does it mean I can not loop!! Shall it be illegal to practice a spin. My attempt to roll on a Sunday afternoon be a thing of the past !!!. Do a Run and Break when the circuit is clear and you are affecting no one, it is after all just another method for joining the circuit. Treat your fellow aviators with respect.

And Flash on your next R&B at least do a tight circuit or are you trying for a 747 rating :D

Love Wide

[Evo]

Do a Run and Break when the circuit is clear and you are affecting no one, it is after all just another method for joining the circuit.


Completely agree. The problem comes when the circuit isn't clear, and people clearly still attempt R&Bs in this situation. I still do not really understand what another aeroplane would be doing if it declared that it was doing a run and break, and I bet many (if not most) PPLs are in a similar position.

IMHO, a run and break is different from aerobatics - if you fancy looping, then find a quiet bit of sky, tell whoever you are talking to what you are doing so they can tell other people to avoid you, and get on with it. A run and break is in the circuit environment. If it's empty, then fine, go ahead. If it's busy then give it a miss.

Places like North Weald aren't the problem - plan a flight there and you'll notice the warnings about high-performance aeroplanes and find out what is going on for yourself (I'd ask what they were likely to do when calling for PPR). The problem is at the places where nobody has a clue what a run and break is.

[WorkingHard]

FL - I appreciate all you say and essentially we do not differ in our views of GA. My entire point was that I defend to the end a pilots right to do what is within the law and WITHOUT endangering others. I understand selective reading of a topic may draw one to the incorrect emphasis. You say quite correctly that such manoeuvres are safe at the right time and in the right place. We all seem to wholeheartedly agree with that. As you agree that a circuit that already has other traffic is not the place or time. I shall choose my form of word more carefully next time I feel strongly about an issue.
No more comment from me! (did I hear a cheer?)

[ShyTorque]

Having flown military jets during training, military helicopters and light fixed wing and carried out RIABs on all of them, I see RIAB as a punchy and extroverted way of joining the circuit in an expeditious way. The origins of the manoeuvre have already been mentioned.

There are risks in the manoeuvre, tragically demonstrated by the mid-air already mentioned. However, aircraft do collide in the circuit in other circumstances that all pilots would consider more "normal", irrespective of their experience and training. For example, two gliders collided on finals whilst landing at Camphill about 4 years ago.

The common thread is insufficient lookout, with perhaps a lack of awareness by one or both pilots. As far as I was taught, it is the responsibility of the pilot joining the circuit to fit in with other traffic already in the pattern and cause no inconvenience or danger, just like road traffic joining a roundabout, or driving / flying in general.

IMHO the North Weald mid air was the fault of the Yak pilot. He failed to safely carry out a manoeuvre that was beyond the experience of the other pilot.

BTW, military airfields always have a Flying Order outlining the procedure for a RIAB, giving details of the position of "Initials", radio calls etc etc.

[Flash0710]

Hello Wide,

Sorry bout the circuit but i think the only chance i shall have of flying a 747 is in wh's world on the pc

Hopefully b flying a vulcan this year at f'bro but think there is more chance of "smoking class " being introduced on the Hindenberg

:D

[Another St Ivian]

I took a short video of a RIAB I did earlier on today. You can download it here;

RIAB Video (http://www.cyborg2000.fsnet.co.uk/RIAB.AVI)

As you can see its not a particularly violent manoeuvre.
Just to note, the aircraft it is taken in is a Tutor.

ASI

[Final 3 Greens]

Flying Lawyer got to the heart of the matter when he said

The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances

When confronted with this type of logic, is it any wonder that joe public takes the view that he doesn't give a f*ck about the semantics, just stop people in light aircraft flying over my house because it is DANGEROUS.

And there are many MPs who are only too happy to take up the anti GA cause, who understand how to argue a brief (and many of whom are or were lawyers.)

BTW, I'm not anti laywer, my own 'profession' of consultant fights for an equally lowly place in the mind of the public when asked to grade our probity.

John Fletcher Moulton said in another age that ethical behaviour was represented by 'obedience to the unenforceable.'

IMHO that's a pretty good premise for life and also RIABs.

[big pistons forever]

I have been doing R & B's at my home field CYYJ for years, mostly when flying the Nanchang CJ 6 , but occassionally in a T 28 and
L 29 ( usually a high flat break ). Why do I do it ? Two reasons ; One -because its FUN ! and Two the CJ6 in particular has a very draggy gear but only a 100 kt Vle. A R & B allows me to bleed off speed and get the gear down without touching the throttle from my 550 humhugs approach manifold pressure setting . Since radial engines do not like low power high RPM/airspeed this is very desirable from a engine longevity point of view. I ask ATC for the manoever well outside the circuit and if it is not busy usually get it. The break is almost always in the opposite direction ( ie left break for the normal right hand circuit on the main runway ). As far as I know I have never bothered anybody and ATC and/or the Feds have never complained. All that been said I will not generally do R & B at a airport that does not have positive ATC.

At the end of the day I think this topic has nothing to do with the R & B it is purely an airmanship issue. Pilots that are creating problems are probably a pain in the A ** in the rest of their flying. By not behaving responsibly they are hurting th rest of us. BTW
I once overheard a PPL at my flying club disparage a nicely flown formation R & B that had just occured. He was quite vocal about how unsafe and irresponsible he considered the manoever he had just observed. We both headed out to our respective Spamcans for a local flight. Coincidentaly about a hour later we both rejoined the circuit. He was told to follow me in the downwind Number 2. I had to go around after he cut me off on final ....

[Flyin'Dutch']

Just to note, the aircraft it is taken in is a Tutor

Indeedy not very violent in that!

:D

FD

(Nice footage though!)

[DFC]

IMHO we are looking at the run and break from the worng angle.

For those who complain that they do not wish to be restricted from completing a loop or roll or spin, can I simply point out the HASELL check and remind that the "Location" must be clear of various places including active airfields.

For those who worry about having more red tape and rules, can I point out the rules of the air with regard to circuit procedures and recent CAA comments about circuit joining procedures at uncontrolled airfields.

For those who enjoy the manoeuvere, can I point out that I also do but in the correct environment.

A pilot who completes a run and break is no different from a pilot who reguluarly joins straight in on final...........no problem provided they do not affect anyone else in the circuit or cause noise complaints from the neighbours.

However, one very important point.....since a run and break is not a standard civil manoeuvere, completing one especially in response to a request or in order to impress, would require a display authorisation. Thus run and breaks will only be completed by pilots holding display authorisations.

The second very very very important point is that a run and break is not an approach to land. Thus there is no exemption from rule 5. This means that at a busy airfield, the appropriate part of rule 5 will have to be applied..................run and breaks are not so exciting when completed at or above circuit height!!..........500ft QFE is rarely an option due to man made objects.....parked aircraft, gates, water towers etc

Regards,

DFC

[Flying Lawyer]

Final3Greens
"When confronted with this type of logic" - you've lost me. Probably my fault, but could you expand? eg Flying aerobatics is not irresponsible. Flying aerobatics over a congested area would be. Hardly just semantics? What do you mean by "this type of logic"?

DFC
I'm afraid the "very important" point in your penultimate paragraph, and the "very very very important" point in your final paragraph are both just plain wrong in law.

[Hew Jampton]

DFC
Two excellent points about Display Authorisation and Rule 5. It's not landing in accordance with normal (civil) aviation practice. However, FL says you are wrong, I'm sure he can quote the relevant part of the ANO/Rules or case law.

[stiknruda]

I have resited from commenting so far for various reasons...

however,

so mellowed have I become, I implore you all to ask yourselves, "Can we not all learn to live with each other?"

If someone wants to do an RIAB and it affects no one else, fine.

If somebody does an RIAB and it p!sses someone else off - fine, speak to each other on the ground.

It is encumbent upon each and every one of us to keep a good lookout - that includes in the circuit. Failure to do so might cost lifes.

I fly because I can and in this Bliar-esque nanny state I think we all really have bigger things to worry about, for fox sake someone might even start a war.

Stik - Pitts pilot who has occasionally been asked to RIAB. :)

[Final 3 Greens]

Flying Lawyer

Sorry if I confused you - it was probably the Chateauneuf talking!

The point I was trying to make though, given the concerns in the thread about more restrictions, is that to argue a technical argument with an average red top reader NIMBY is pretty suicidal. (i.e. the manouevre isn't dangerous, the decision to do it is.) Most of our population judge what is right and wrong by standards that would last nanoseconds in court!

If the NIMBY is smart, they'll likely soon incite others by accusing us of talking 'weasel words' and spinning the case and, per Chomsky's famous statement that 'he did believe that there was a holocaust', an argument that shouldn't exist is made possible.

And it is these type of people who just want to get on with their own lives ... but can become the vox pox who galvanise the local MP, who know how to play the game etc etc.

I guess my point is that some things are best avoided and in this instance mutual common sense is the way forward, since we will all suffer if there are many more incidents like NW.

[Flying Lawyer]

Hew J
As you know from our dealings off forum, I'm always happy to help fellow pilots if they have a specific problem. But, just like everyone else who posts on this site, I only spend time in a discussion for as long as I find it interesting/productive/enjoyable. This thread, for me at least, no longer falls into any of those categories so I'm afraid my answer will be as brief as courtesy to you permits.

See:
ANO 2000, Article 70 'Flying Displays'
Article 129 (Interpretation)
Rule 5.

I entirely agree with the rationale behind A&C's post which started this discussion, but I draw a distinction between flying a RIAB when there is other traffic to be alarmed, inconvenienced or endangered and when there is not. The former is, at best, irresponsible (+ bad airmanship) and, at worst, illegal; the latter is, IMHO, not.
Final3G doesn't care for "this type of logic" and apparently considers it to be "semantics"; he's entitled to his opinion. If anyone had suggested ignoring a rule because it cannot be enforced, his Moulton quotation would have been relevant. No-one has suggested ignoring any rule, enforceable or otherwise.

Back to the day job ................................ :D


[Edit]
F3G - just seen your post whilst checking how mine had come out ...
I didn't say "the manouevre isn't dangerous, the decision to do it is.", or anything like it. That would indeed be absurd semantics. My point throughout has been that there is nothing inherently dangerous in flying a RIAB - it depends upon the circumstances. Busy circuit = irresponsible, bad airmanship and possibly illegal by reason of endangering.
Empty circuit = not irresponsible, not bad airmanship, no 'endangering', not illegal.

The fatal at NW was tragic, but I see nothing whatsoever wrong with RIABs provided the time and place allow the manoeuvre to be flown safely. I do not accept there is a problem which needs to be addressed by the imposition of a rule - either by airfield operators or by the CAA.

[Genghis the Engineer]

FL, within a post with which I otherwise entirely agree said...

I draw a distinction between flying a RIAB when there is other traffic to be alarmed, inconvenienced or endangered and when there is not. The former is, at best, irresponsible (+ bad airmanship) and, at worst, illegal; the latter is, IMHO, not.


Surely it's far more important to be safe than within the law? The preferable position is to be both, but given a choice of safety and illegality versus an unsafe but legal action, the former should take precedent. In such events, and they do occur, case law usually sorts the anomaly out sooner or later. But where you suggest that breaking the law is the worst event, after a reduction in safety, I have to disagree.

G

[Final 3 Greens]

FL

Sorry, I misquoted you, you said...

The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances

You seem to think that I do not like your logic.

This is not true, but what I am saying is that if the general public hear this argument IMHO it will not be received kindly.

Also the Moulton Fletcher quote was appropriate as it specifically says 'obedience to the unenforceable', which covers both aeros and RIABs when flown legally.

But it doesn't mean that it is smart to do these things 'just because you can' otherwise someone will surely argue that the privilege should be removed.

The last thing we need is more regulation, brought on by our own lack of forethought.

I don't really see what the problem is. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned, just that we all act in a mutually responsible manner.

[Flying Lawyer]

Well past one o'clock, time for a break......
Should I look at the thread? No. I've left it.
After browsing a few other threads which interest me ....
Well perhaps just a quick look, but I won't be drawn in whatever's been posted.
Mistake!

Genghis
Of course, if circumstances are such that a choice has to be made, it's far more important to be safe than within the law. I do not consider breaking the law is worse than compromising safety, any more than I consider breaking the law is necessarily unsafe.
I thought it was clear from my various posts that I attach great importance to the safety assessment which a pilot must make if considering flying a RIAB. If it wasn't, I'm grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position so that others don't misunderstand what I meant.

Final3G
Let's try an example away from RIABs.
Flying aerobatics over unpopulated areas is not irresponsible. Flying aerobatics over a town is.
Why would the general public hearing that argument not receive it kindly?
People argue all sorts of things, but how could anyone argue credibly that regulations should be introduced to remove our privilege to fly aeros in a safe place?
Back to RIAB:
I don't suggest it is smart to fly a RIAB 'just because you can'. I am saying there is nothing wrong with flying a RIAB unless it is done at a time and place which is unsafe, in which case there is a great deal wrong with it. ie In my opinion, provided it is executed safely (and legally) the manoeuvre is a non-issue.
"The last thing we need is more regulation, brought on by our own lack of forethought." I agree - but I don't accept that flying a safe RIAB demonstrates a lack of forethought likely to result in the introduction of more regulations.
"I don't really see what the problem is. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned, just that we all act in a mutually responsible manner." Agreed.


Makes mental note: Don't make the same mistake at the tea-time break. :)

[DFC]

Flying Lawyer,

I have checked out your references and agree that doing a run and break would not constitute a display thus no authorisations required.

However, with regard to Rule 5, I am not sure if I understand where you are approaching the matter from.

Let us consider that a pilot intends to complete a run and break at an airfield. The pilot descends to 500ft QFE some 1nm from the threshold and maintains that height until the upwind end of the runway whereup they complete a climbing turn to join the circuit.

Let us also consider that during the run in, the aircraft passed within 500ft of - A doubble decker bus on a road .5 mile from the airfield, A tractor near the airfield boundary and a pilot observing the action from the ground on the airfield.

Now IMHO, the run and break is not taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice. (Just like closing the throttle to simulate EFATO isn't either). Thus there is no exemption to the 500ft rule available so I would consider that the pilot above infringed the rule in all three cases.

I am sure that you have better understanding of rule 5 with regard to a run and break and would like to understand where my points above are wrong.

However, leaving the legalities aside, it is very funny to compare the following and the diffeent reactions:

A.
High speed aircraft joins at high speed into the overhead, completes wide fast circuit and missed approach at the threshold consisting of level flight at 50ft along the runway before climbing to rejoin the circuit (at a lower speed).

B.
Aircraft completes the same as above and calls it a run and brerak!!

I could bet that A. would not cause any reaction while B. gets everyone worried.

DFC

[DB6]

DFC, RAF rules state that civvy registered aircraft shall not carry out R&B's below 500 ft QFE. In your case above (a) the obstacles mentioned would have to be directly under the aircraft or they'd be further than 500 ft away, (b) you'd need a damn accurate set of measuring equipment to prove it and (c) you're just being picky anyway :rolleyes:

[Legalapproach]

FL

You stated

"I don't suggest it is smart to fly a RIAB 'just because you can'. I am saying there is nothing wrong with flying a RIAB unless it is done at a time and place which is unsafe, in which case there is a great deal wrong with it. ie In my opinion, provided it is executed safely (and legally) the manoeuvre is a non-issue."

You are, as usual, absolutely right but much of this thread is not talking about a pilot with your military training, skill, ability and experience. Nor are we dealing with the type of high performance aircraft which you fly and which not surprisingly result in requests for an R&B. [Although I do remember our immaculate RIAB at Valley several years ago in the Chipmunk being somewhat overshadowed by I think Stefan in the Gnat shortly after - it was fun from our seats but rather short on speed, noise and punch to impress those on the ground much!! :p ;) ]

God forbid that we have any more regulation but the danger is that we will unless individual pilots recognise that there is a time and a place and a second NW incident will result in the fun police stepping in. Right place, right pilot, right aircraft = brilliant fun
Wrong place, wrong pilot or wrong aircraft b#####s it up for the rest of us.

[flower]

Run And breaks simply do not exist in a civilian ATC environment, we are not instructed on them are not made aware of there existence and certainly have no appropriate RT for their use.

However I would have no problem if the traffic situation permits in allowing them.

As an ATCO I believe there has to be a certain amount of flexibility, and as GA pilots fly for pleasure why not when the situation arises let them have their fun.

[Wide-Body]

Wow DFC

A case of dissecting mouse turds if ever I saw one. :rolleyes:

Come on Chaps, use commonsense. If there is no one in the circuit, no noise issues and if EVERYONE know what is going on. What is the problem.

Perhaps it is not the flying it is the English. How about a 550 feet pass above the highest obstacle, for a runway inspection followed by a practice bad weather circuit. No sir it was not an R&B. It sounds a pile of rubbish, but it seems the pedants of the world would rather it so.

At the end of the day, respect fellow aviators and spend time enjoying our privileged status

Love

Wide
;)

[Final 3 Greens]

FL

Why would the general public hearing that argument not receive it kindly?

Several reasons why they may not receive it kindly, those I can think of quickly include:

1 - Some people are not rational
2 - Some people believe life is a conspiracy theory and the argument is a 'cover up'
3 - Some people are envious of rich layabouts who fly aeroplanes (see point #1)
4 - Some people are swayed by local opinion formers who incite anxiety through the 'safety' argument
5 - Some people have an environmental argument

e.g. a few months after we moved into our current house near Stansted (new build estate) a local activist knocked on the door to canvass for a petition to move the SID routes.

I asked her why and she said that local residents thought it was dangerous that airlines flew overhead.

'Wasn't the airport there when they bought their houses?' I asked.

Oh yes, she replied, but people did not realise how close the flight paths were.

In the local paper, a few weeks later, it transpires that the petition had gained several hundred supporters.

Well it got nowhere, as Stansted is ear marked for development, but all I am saying (and I am not against RIABs or aeros) is we need to act responsibly (and be seen to act responsibly) to protect our privileges.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Just an observation, but if you look at the AAIB report I think its pretty obvious that the Yak pilot did not do/was not positioning correctly for a RIAB. The implication is that he did an unauthorised flypast of his house then turned the wrong way up the base leg to reposition. If he had continued to initials, flown through deadside and broke into the downwind element of the cct at an appropriate time (having visually cleared the downwind leg) we wouldn't have been having this argument.

Regardless, as an aside, a RIAB is actually very safe as long as everyone involved knows where to look.

[FNG]

I was going to make the point just made by WB SATCO, but he got there first. If you fly to a field such as North Weald, Duxford, or Kemble, self briefing should indicate that some aircraft may be practising run and breaks. They may be normal (or, at least, not unusual) in a particular environment, and, as pointed out by several others above, are not inherently unsafe or inconsistent with GA. I agree, by the way, that although fun to watch and to do, they are not always needed by, for example, big pistons such as Warbirds and Yaks.

[Legalapproach]

An airfield beat up on the other hand.................:p ......

[Final 3 Greens]

Alty Meter

I'm not arguing with anyone, just pointing out that we have many powerful stakeholders outside our community.

If you are too dense to understand that public opinion may be different to pilot's opinion, then more fool you.

BTW I am the type of consultant who earns £150K pa, go figure.

[Heliport]

Final 3 Greens
And Alty Meter is the type of pilot who earns £150K pa, so it won't take you long to figure who he flies for, or how long he's been in aviation.
Curious coincidence - I remember WorkingHard (late of this thread), and another PPL, trying to patronise professional pilots on the Mil Forum by boasting how much he earned. I say 'trying' because it only made him look very silly. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[chrisN]

Whipping Boy's SATCO posted 18th February 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip] . . . If he had continued to initials, flown through deadside and broke into the downwind element of the cct at an appropriate time (having visually cleared the downwind leg) we wouldn't have been having this argument.
[snip]

I don't think there is a dead side at North Weald when gliders are operating, because all power is one side (west of 02/20) and gliders do circuits on the other (eastern) side.

I have yet to be convinced that a RIAB at North Weald is capable of being safe unless the pilot has established that no gliders are in circuit or about to join and hence needing to land during the run in - we can't go round again! I also don't see how one can be legal if there are gliders on or near the runway unless the RIAB is carried out at least 500 feet away from them. I don't profess to know what circumstances need to be checked on the power side to make it safe from their perspective.

This is not to say that RIAB's cannot be done, simply that some checks are necessary first, just like I can't do certain things at North Weald in my glider without ascertaining first that they won't cause a problem.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Never appreciated before how boasting about one's earnings would make one's aviation arguments look more credible.

Bit like 16 year olds comparing lengths in my opinion.

:eek:

FD (non-consultant)

[virgin]

I agree.
Unlike Alty, I don't fly for BA so F3G earns about twice as much as me. Suppose he thinks that means my opinion on aviation matters is only worth half his.
Don't know why he wanted to tell us he was a 'consultant' in the first place.
What a prat! :rolleyes:

[ratsarrse]

Final 3 Greens: couldn't lend me a couple of grand could ya?;)

I only earn a sixth of F3G's salary, so a question from the minor leagues...

I remain unclear as to how this RIAB thing works. As has been pointed out already, the manoevre is not taught or even documented in any part of the civilian syllabi. At the moment, as a student at a large airfield, it doesn't really matter that I don't understand - but one day I may well want to fly in to somewhere like Duxford (scratch that, I will definitely want to visit Duxford!) and you can never know too much, can you? The problem I have is visualisation. Is anyone aware of a diagram anywhere? A quick search on google revealed mostly wrestling websites...
:confused:

[Heliport]

I don't know of any graphics, but if you read the 'run in and break' thread on the Mil Aircrew forum there are a number descriptions.
Some are quite technical referring to fast jets, but others give a very clear description of the manoeuvre.

This is almost too obvious to mention but I shall anyway:
Don't try it yourself until you've got lots of hours and have been properly taught by an instructor knows how to do it - either ex-Mil or a good aerobatics man.

Also, in case the worriers are concerned I've forgotten:
Right Time, right place, right aircraft and right pilot are all crucially important for reasons which have already been given.

[FNG]

If I recall correctly, the AAIB report on the North Weald collision included a diagram of a run and break pattern (as mentioned above, the Yak involved in the tragic event did not fly the usual run and break pattern). No-one should be put off from visiting Duxford or similar places by the possibility that someone might run and break: it's not happening all of the time, and most circuits at Duxford are standard. The FISOs there have a good view and are very helpful.

[Final 3 Greens]

Heliport/Flying Dutch

I didn't say I earned £150K pa - just that I was the type of consultant that did ... must resist the trolling urge in the future, although it's funny to read the pompous claptrap that resulted.

Rattsarse

If I did, I would, but see above comment! :O

virgin

Don't know why he wanted to tell us he was a 'consultant' in the first place.

I hope your ability to gather, analyse data and draw conclusions is better in your day job than it is here. I made a comparison between the perceived probity of lawyers and consultants from the perspective of the general public. What bot of this don't you understand?

Might be a good time to revisit your Human Factors material and review the parts concerning incorrect conclusions based on emotional reactions.

Perhaps you could raise your income by joining BA as cabin crew if it is an issue? (just joking before you take it seriously.)

[A and C]

As you quite rightly conclude I dont want to see the R&B banned , what I do want to see is a bit more of what was once called airmanship.

The flying lawer has very clearly layed down the conditions under which can be safely carried out if you cannot meet these then a normal join should be made.

There seems to be an assumption that as North Weald or Duxford a R&B is OK because "every one knows what is going on" this is NOT the case the Jeppesen VFR airfield manual makes no referance to R&B joins so you cant be sure that i visiting pilot has the first idea of what is going on (after all he has properly briefed himself from the airfield plate) , remember that the "lookout" from the other pilot may be the "lookout" that saves you so why do something that leaves the other guy with no idea of what direction to look to maintain seperation ?.

I do fly in a military enviroment and the R&B is a safe way of joining but only when all the pilots in the area know what is taking place.

As for allthe talk of what is leagal and what is not , I dont give a damm what I dont want to see is another mid-air and more people killed because of non standard practices being used when it is not safe to do so.

[Final 3 Greens]

A and C

Hear, Hear.

As another poster has already said, NW is further complicated by glider traffic.

There are complications arising from the lack of 'deadside' when gliding is active, but of course gliders do not always appear where you expect them to either and many are non radio, so cannot advise of their position and intentions.

This is not an attack on glider pilots, but a re-iteration of a serious point that Skylark 4 (an experienced glider pilot) made in another thread some time ago.

Parascending also occurs sometimes - I think we can discount the model aeroplane flying as being pretty safe though :D

So your comment about airmanship is spot on from my perspective.

I love to watch a well executed run and break by a good pilot, but we don't want any more tragedies as you rightly say.

[Flyin'Dutch']

I suggest you don't give up your day job; your impression of a comedian is pretty lousy.

And spend some more time at it, it may well pay off!

I didn't say I earned £150K pa - just that I was the type of consultant that did

That was actually quite funny!

FD

[atb1943]

At the expense of this perhaps falling on deaf ears because it's been over a week since the last posting, please let me say that, as a passenger who has been privileged to have been invited on a number of JP/Strikey flights over the past five or so years, a run and break is absolutely thrilling and a great climax to an already magical flight.

I have noted however that my pilot, who has a display ticket, has not always finished with one, it has often depended on his mood, time in hand, traffic, etc. It has also not been done to show off, more likely to hone his skills, already quite considerable. I'd also like to think that ATC at either NW or Duxford have been satisfied with his capability to perform one adequately. I guess it's also part of the reason for having such an expensive piece of machinery.

This does not lend anything to the discussion about for or against, but perhaps adds a perspective from the non-flying side.

Thanks for listening.

[hugh flung_dung]

This is a rather late contribution but I only just heard about the thread, hopefully I haven't arrived after everyone has left the party. I'm one of the people that uses a VRIAB - but only at the end of aerobatic lessons and only when I can identify circuit traffic and fit in safely.

At my base airfield the VRIAB is restricted to aerobatic instructors, flown sensibly it is fun and safe but the military R/T and technique needs to be modified slightly ("high/long finals/base to break" rather than "initials") so that others know what's going on.

Aerobatic tuition is mostly done above 3000ft and nearish (but not too near) to the airfield so at the end of the lesson there is significant height to lose. The most efficient way of doing this is to set enough power to keep the engine warm (18-21") and descend continuously to a VRIAB. Approaching the airfield we get the airfield info and an idea of the number in the circuit, if appropriate we then call "run and break in x minutes". Positioning just to the dead side of the runway and, when close to the airfield, descending to below circuit height (to enhance visibility of circuit traffic) and then run down the airfield to a climbing break at an appropriate point and either descending curved approach to land or extend and join behind someone else - again, as appropriate.
Safe, efficient, good for the engine and saves the stude a bit of money. It is not a "beat up".

There are pitfalls if Bloggs tries it because of the low level accelerated stall risk but when flown sensibly and professionally I really don't believe there's a problem. A useful technique when appropriate UNLIKE STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES:mad: which I believe are dangerous at non-ATC fields and SHOULD be replaced by a level version of the VRIAB onto the crosswind leg or an overhead join.

BTW someone suggested a while back in this thread that people performing aerobatics should tell someone - unfortunately there's usually nobody worth telling so a 7004 squawk is all we can do.

(apologies for the bad grammar, typed in a hurry)

[Zlin526]

Dont start me off on this one again, PLEASE!

Hugh,

I question whether the need to lose height from 3000ft justifies a run & break. Its not that high...Maybe just a little excuse to buzz the field?

I also teach aerobatics, and if I need to lose height at the end of the sortie, I'd throw in a a few more manouevres to lose height, then transit back to the airfield. The stude gets more practice, and we dont mess up the circuit by arriving at Mach 2. However I do agree that straight-in approaches from 10 miles are not good, especially when the pilot calls "long finals" and then, expecting everyone to follow him in, moans about being cut up!

Run & Breaks are for fast jet arrivals, or for breaking up a formation prior to landing. What they ain't for is PPLs with toys such as the YAK 52 thinking they are fighter pilots.....

"Angels one five, bingo, buster, tally ho and all that, old chap"

[Keef]

I probably need to lose height from 3000 feet every time I come home. I've never felt the need to do a run & break, and wouldn't know how to. I keep it at 130 knots, pull back the power, and it goes down smoothly and calmly.

What kind of aircraft can't descend from 3000 feet in a "normal" way? My buddy flies a Yak and has never had any problem joining and flying a normal circuit with it. Spitfires and Gnats I can understand, but nothing less than those on the scale, surely?

[chrisN]

Some facts regarding North Weald, in view of a few postings higher up this page:

North Weald has no ATC, just A/G radio.

Controlled airspace above North Weald is at 1500' amsl, about 1200' agl. Gliders have permission under a letter of agreement with Stansted/West Drayton to fly up to 2000' agl within a "tube" centred on NW, powered A/C don't. Any R&B's carried out there have some purpose other than spilling surplus height, it seems to me.

Gliders in general in the UK are not required to carry radio; under rules set by the landlord (Epping Forest DC) at North Weald, however, all gliders operating there do have radio, tuned to NW frequency, and all glider pilots acting as pilots in command have RT licences.

There is no dead side at NW. Power circuits are to the west of 02/20, gliders to the east when gliders are flying - which we have the right to do every day except a few reserved for special events. (We were there before any other GA, in case anybody thinks we are interlopers.) Normally, but not exclusively, gliders operate on Wednesdays all year round, and at weekends too during an extended winter period. Other times depend on various factors. I sincerely hope that when gliders are operating, nobody contemplating a VRIAB is trying to position themselves " . . . just to the dead side of the runway and, when close to the airfield, descending to below circuit height ".

Gliders once in circuit cannot do go-arounds, they are then committed to land, even if some power pilot is or believes him/herself to be no. 1 to land, and a glider may therefore have to cut in front of a powered aircraft on the approach. This happens particularly as glider circuits are invariably 3 minutes or less in duration, decending from 7-800 feet (or sometimes lower) and some power pilots take half of Essex to do a circuit with a final turn somewhere near Stapleford for 02 (or so it seems at times). I have known a pilot call finals from miles out when two gliders were in circuit, and then complain about being cut up - but we had to land before he reached the airfield boundary, let alone the threshhold. All, including glider pilots, have to call joining downwind and again turning finals, so it is a known environment, except for some people doing unusual things when the rest may have no idea what is going on.

Glider pilots at NW have no wish to stop people doing R&B's if that is their thing, provided they are done safely and, if necessary, aborted before causing an accident when somebody else is legitimately in the way - or even not legitimately for that matter.

This tolerance is notwithstanding any implications for a R&B conducted when our gliders and ourselves are stationed close to, not on, the runway in use - the words five, rule, feet and hundred come to mind in some order or other, but that is a matter for others, not us.

And after all, it was another power plane that was the victim of the R&B merchant in that NW fatal collision, not a glider. My reading of the accident report is that the innocent victims had no idea that the R&B pilot would end up in conflict with them. I think there might have been no conflict had it been a simple, well conducted R&B as described by some on this thread who claim to be proficient in that art - AIUI the end of the run turned into an excursion perhaps to look at something, not an immediate join into a conventional downwind leg, and that's what caused that particular collision.

Chris N.

Oops, the R&B pilot in the NW accident seems to have done his excursion before starting the run in, not after as I had wrongly remembered, although it was after he had called "Initial . . ." whatever that might mean to the uninitiated.

[VFR800]

Hmmm, as a low houred nearly PPL kind of doode, all I can say is blimey, there’s a lot of slagging off of differing flying types, still just human nature I suppose!!

I agree that the world of GA needs fewer and not more rules and regs, but c’mon guys, you can’t seriously suggest that doing this sort of stuff in the circuit at a GA airfield is a good thing? I think the accident at North Weald demonstrates that it’s not and surely if an accident is caused by this sort of flying, doesn’t that just give the press more material to beat up GA with?

And, at the risk of upsetting all you military wallahs, isn’t doing this just a tinsy bit ego stroking?

Still, I have to admit that the guy who flew the MK19 into Bristol one day, when Filton was shut, looked pretty darn cool doing it ! !
:D

[mstram]

When I read that accident report, it sounded like the Yak pilot had either done his run in an opposite direction i.e. flown up runway 02, or that he did fly down rwy 20 but then started a left hand circuit.

In any case I got the impression that the accident was caused by the Yak pilot flying a left hand circuit while the C150 was flying a right hand circuit.

Can anyone clarify what actually happened ?

Mike

[chrisN]

What the Yak did at NW seems clear from the accident report and the appended diagram, the latter being accessible via a link on the report on the AAIB website.

The report is here (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/dec00/gingr.htm) .

The Yak came back from Little Gransden via west of Harlow, round the south of Harlow, along what might have been a RH base leg for 20, but extended that leg to the proximity of his house.

He then turned 180 left (away from NW), effectively joining a LH base leg for 20, before turning L again for 20. He came to the Cessna which was doing a (conventional) RH circuit and their turns coincided and collided. It was concluded that they met belly to belly. One or both might have steepened/tightened the turns in a last second attempt at avoiding the collision.

In the course of the Yak's progress he mentioned on the radio "initial" (whatever that means), in three transmissions it seems, and also dived down to about 100 feet near his house and climbed away. I have no idea what those manoeuvres have to do with a R&B (or VRIAB).

[Southern Cross]

It seems that some of you people are incapable of showing respect for those who lost their lives at North Weald. I have made the plea several times in the past that posters not continuously re-open that accident with their own conclusions or "expert" opinions of whose fault it was and why. It is pointless to do so and just repeatedly painful for the friends and relatives of those involved.

[FlyingForFun]

SC,

I appreciate that this can be difficult for those directly concerned, and I am certain that no one means any disrespect by discussing the issue. But I think it's important that it is discussed.

One of the multiple reasons why many of us are so concerned about the us of the run-in-and-break is that we are not familiar with it - we don't recognise the radio terminology associated with it, and when we hear the radio calls we do not know where to look for the traffic nor what to expect it to do. The only way of resolving a lack of education is to talk about the subject. To ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist will simply result in yet another generation of new pilots (and I include myself in this new generation) who are just as ignorant as the last, and will ultimately end up with a repeat of the incident.

It is sometimes hard for an outsider to understand the emotions involved, and I don't doubt that there has been a small degree of unintentionally insensitive posting. We would all do well to take heed of your request, and apply an appropriate level of sensitivity to the subject when we discuss it, but we must not let emotions prevent us from discussing important safety matters.

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

[hugh flung_dung]

Zlin:
I repeat my view that, flown sensibly by experienced instructors and only when airfield conditions are appropriate, the VRIAB is a perfectly safe, efficient and fun way of getting back on the ground at a GA airfield.

Keef:
To be kind to your engine you are probably planning your TOD point at about 4nm per 1000ft, depending on speed; this is only applicable to cruise descent. I don't suggest that a VRIAB is essential; only that it is efficient, saves the stude money and is kind to the engine.

VFR800:
The accident report makes it plain that a VRIAB did not contribute to the accident but I agree with those that say we shouldn't discuss it any further.

ChrisN:
I agree wholeheartedly with the comment about R/T terminology, that's why I don't advocate the use of the term "initials".

My earlier contribution used the terms "when flown sensibly", "if appropriate" and "as appropriate". There are times when I believe it would not be appropriate and, having spent 5-10 years as a gliding instructor (and nearly the same time as a tug pilot) some years ago at a somewhat busier place than NW, I believe the presence of lots of gliders would constitute such a time - although tug pilots tend to return in a fairly non-standard and efficient way!


To others:
My one doubt in all this is that others with less experience and training will see and copy without a full understanding.
The technique is useful in some circumstances (we also use it if returning as a pair to break for a stream landing, if not appropriate to fly the break the circuit and landing are flown as a pair) but there are several potential pitfalls and it should definitely not be a "beat-up":
- ensure that the airfield management and CFI approve it for your level of experience
- ensure that you know how to do it safely (both for yourself and others)
- be considerate
- use plain R/T, as has been mentioned many times the term "initials" is not generally recognised

Following on from the comment about straight-in approaches, try to avoid them at uncontrolled fields. A far better technique (if an overhead join is not appropriate) is to join on the deadside at circuit height and then turn over the upwind end of the runway to join as a normal crosswind join. This is called a level break but just call joining deadside and everyone will understand.

And finally, most experienced instructors will tell you that with any join it's good to be slightly below circuit height if you are in doubt about seeing other circuit traffic, it's much easier to spot them against the sky than the ground.

To misquote Chamberlain: "peace and understanding in our time".

[DFC]

Recently observed:

XXX radio this is YYY formation (2 aircraft) inbound request run and break.

YYY formation, XXX radio this is only a radio service, I can not clear you to do anything the circuit is very active on runway.....

YYY fromation rodger will position for a run and break on runway....

Some moments later;

YYY formation bearking off the run and break due to aircraft on final we'll orbit on downwind for spacing.

Circuit continues to be busy and several attempts to make a run and break are broken off and formation continues to orbit just outside downwind.

Some minutes later;

ZZZ aircraft (one of the formation) "bingo fuel, bingo fuel, bingo fuel".

The two aircraft having already loaded the frequency unnecessarly, confirm that number 2 is low on fuel through more blocking of the frequency.

With little or no chance of making their run and break, the aircraft announce that they are breaking clear of the curcuit.

This is followed by the aircraft low on fuel cutting in on final approach on front of two aicraft in the pilot's haste to get their aircraft safely on the ground.

My points are;

1. There was no need to make a run and break

2. The circuit was too busy and if as many argue, it is ok provided the circuit traffic can be visually avoided, why was the run and break broken off so many times?

3. The only reason why the aircraft ended low on fuel was the wasted time spent holding for a run and break

4. Putting the aircraft in this situation could be endangerment.

5. Using military phraseology in a civil environment does nothing for helping pilots to understand what is going on. If the pilot simply said that they were short of fuel then they would have been afforded priority on final by the circuit traffic and would not have to cut up the circuit in a rush back to the ground.

6. When operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome, aircraft shall conform to the pattern or avoid it..........orbiting downwind and busting onto final is not conforming to the pattern.

If run and breaks are to be a new part of the circuit pattern then it is about time that the CAA issued some guidance for those pilots who may find themselves confronted with one.

Regards,

DFC

[Dufwer]

I have only seen a run and break performed once. That was at Bournemouth, which is in controlled airspace, and the manuover was flown by a Vampire and no other traffic was anywhere near the curcuit. Seemed a very sensible way to get the speed off and positioned correctly on downwind considering the way the aircraft approached the field. However, I do not see why this manuover is needed apart from the enjoyment factor. A bit of forward planning would remove the need.

So here we have one group saying it's a good practice and the other group saying it's dangerous. I know that I would feel very uncomfortable being in the circuit if somebody called their intention to do a run and break so I must fall into the latter group. Is airmanship something that only low houred pilots need in order to avoid more experienced pilots that insist on doing these manuovers? I consider my safety to be more important than your fun.

D

[hugh flung_dung]

DFC:
That horror story sounds like a mixture of the inexcusable with the inept but unfortunately people do dumb and inept things in all aspects of life - it's not unique to this topic. During many journeys on the roads you are likely to notice someone doing something dumb or inept - but rarely it's ourselves! Strange that!

The call of "Bingo" is interesting as this is usually a pre-briefed "informational" fuel level rather than minimum fuel. There are a variety of formation R/T calls but none of them affect people outside the formation. If in doubt or urgency the sensible action, as always, is to use plain language.

[gasax]

I cannot help but agree. The run and break is the preferred method of people who seem to affect flying suits and aircraft have little purpose other than image.

That these wannbes can suggest it is a safe way of joining a circuit suggests some basic fault in their logic.

It is not a standard practice. Even the military do not use it routinely at civil fields. Doing it at airfields with air/ground and non-radio traffic might mean that there is no one to actually refuse them permission but it is still appalling 'airmanship'.

Keep it for displays and when you're trying to impress the military at their airfields (fat chance in a JP or Yak!!!).

[Ludwig]

Dufwer, I think you are totally right, but you have clearly not recognised the important operational necessity for run and breaks in the civil set up. I fly a reasonably high performance aeros machine and have to admit that a bit of airborne hooliganism is great fun, but as I do not want to end up dead it is in safe places at appropriate altitudes for whatever the hoolganism of the day is. I have also flown in formations, not quite the Mallory Big Wing league but formations none the less, and the only point of an R&B is because it is fun. It therfore has to be done only when nobody is around. This negates the point however for the flying egomaniac where the only pointis to let other people see them; the airborne equivelant of the Vauxhall Nova with added noise, it's the look at me factor, and as such has no place in safe aviation practice.

R&B even by the proficient exponents of the art, only encourge the less able to have a go, which is a bad thing. If it is possible for Concorde to slow down from Mach whatever to a sensible approcah speed, there is no reason whatsoever why even a large formation cannot disperse at a pre-planned rate and arrive individually at a sensible speed for an approach apropriate to the environment in which they intend to land. If as pilots they have so little control or situational awareness that this is not possible they should not be flying formations and should get some sensible training.

Too many A/G airfields are turning into the playground of mindless egotistical pilots who have either little regard for others or not enough skill and training to fit in with standard circuit practice. These people should be grounded until they learn some manners.
So there!

Another thing, is there any link bewteen pilots skill and the numbr of badges on their flying gear: in my experience there is an inverse link between them. Beware the flying suit full of badges.
:cool:

[mstram]

ChrisN,

Thanks, I didn't notice the diagram link before.

This confirms in my mind that the main reason for the accident was the two aircraft were flying "opposite" patterns.

At controlled fields, there will often be left/right base leg aircraft controlled by ATC. When I have been in that situation, the controller will repeatedly call traffic, and confirm that the pilots have each other in sight.

At an uncontrolled field, pilots really need to know what the circuit procedures are, and follow them.

If I were to lose sight of conflicting traffic, and couldn't resolve it quickly via RT, I would be leave the circuit, climbing above circuit height, then re-enter when I could determine where everyone was.

Most mid-airs do occur in VMC in the circuit, and pilots need to very aware of what is going on at all times.

Mike