Vortex wake in the circuit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North England
Age: 51
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution, beer fuelled post.
In the situation presented, a sensible pilot would listen to ATC.
PPL's fly for fun, and are therefore not pro's. ATCO's on the otherhand have undergone extensive training and do what they do for a living. Face it, they know best. They don't have to help us PPL's, but they do. Please don't think I mean to undermine the more experienced PPL's or even the ATCO's that are PPL's but I, for one, owe a lot of ATCO's a beer for the help I have had over the past few years. Not just in the circuit but all the unnecessary trouble they have gone too to help out a PA28 wanting a simple FIS when they have 'real' traffic to deal with as well.
If it was up to me, you guys would all have medals and free beer for life.
A bit off track there, sorry. (rant off).
PPL's fly for fun, and are therefore not pro's. ATCO's on the otherhand have undergone extensive training and do what they do for a living. Face it, they know best. They don't have to help us PPL's, but they do. Please don't think I mean to undermine the more experienced PPL's or even the ATCO's that are PPL's but I, for one, owe a lot of ATCO's a beer for the help I have had over the past few years. Not just in the circuit but all the unnecessary trouble they have gone too to help out a PA28 wanting a simple FIS when they have 'real' traffic to deal with as well.
If it was up to me, you guys would all have medals and free beer for life.
A bit off track there, sorry. (rant off).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Land of the Northern Lights
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Not my problem'
Justafew has a valid point 'NMP' is not going to look good at any enquiry especially if the pilot aint around to explain his actions.
Controllers have a duty of care and whilst you can argue that arriving vortex is recommended not mandatory its a pretty thin argument. The pilot may well be displaying poor airmanship but to say nothing seems just as foolhardy.
The bit in the Mats1 that SRG like so much is : 'A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach'
I 4 one wouldn't like to explain at an enquiry why i watched and did nothing. Thats not a dig at anyone just my own view on the subject. Might not be everyones take on it but the Mats 1 is vague in places it would be laughable if it were not such a serious subject.
R@B
Justafew has a valid point 'NMP' is not going to look good at any enquiry especially if the pilot aint around to explain his actions.
Controllers have a duty of care and whilst you can argue that arriving vortex is recommended not mandatory its a pretty thin argument. The pilot may well be displaying poor airmanship but to say nothing seems just as foolhardy.
The bit in the Mats1 that SRG like so much is : 'A landing aircraft, which is considered by a controller to be dangerously positioned on final approach, shall be instructed to carry out a missed approach'
I 4 one wouldn't like to explain at an enquiry why i watched and did nothing. Thats not a dig at anyone just my own view on the subject. Might not be everyones take on it but the Mats 1 is vague in places it would be laughable if it were not such a serious subject.
R@B
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This duty of care gets us every which way going. The pilot is VFR and i can assure you most do not want to be over controlled either in the circuit or not.
What about duty of care when it comes to FIS, next we will be expected to pass traffic information on all aircraft.
We have to realise that the pilots are ultimately commanders of their own aircraft, they can do what they want provided they follow the rules, we are not up there to fly the aircraft for them and many of us do not have pilots licenses and the new guys don't I think even get a minimum amount of time now flying.
We have passed the information, we have told them the recommended spacing, we may even reiterate the spacing to them , if they are going to get us on that in a subsequent board of enquiry we might as well just throw away the rule book now and tell Pilots they are no longer commanders of their own aircraft.
What about duty of care when it comes to FIS, next we will be expected to pass traffic information on all aircraft.
We have to realise that the pilots are ultimately commanders of their own aircraft, they can do what they want provided they follow the rules, we are not up there to fly the aircraft for them and many of us do not have pilots licenses and the new guys don't I think even get a minimum amount of time now flying.
We have passed the information, we have told them the recommended spacing, we may even reiterate the spacing to them , if they are going to get us on that in a subsequent board of enquiry we might as well just throw away the rule book now and tell Pilots they are no longer commanders of their own aircraft.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most airfields these days have an ATM (aerodrome traffic monitor), if it looks as though a pilot is going to turn too soon or be too near to the aircraft of a higher vortex category, I use it to tell them so.
Equally, if an aircraft is downwind and No.2 to the same aircraft, I will use the ATM to tell them that their current track distance exceeds the vortex wake recommendations, (bearing in mind that they may, of course, turn in early).
I know its not one the listed uses for an ATM, perhaps it should be, but I've done it with SRG present, and not had any negative comment.
Equally, if an aircraft is downwind and No.2 to the same aircraft, I will use the ATM to tell them that their current track distance exceeds the vortex wake recommendations, (bearing in mind that they may, of course, turn in early).
I know its not one the listed uses for an ATM, perhaps it should be, but I've done it with SRG present, and not had any negative comment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know its not one the listed uses for an ATM
Sounds legit to me. But....
And what if that same a/c was circuit bashing at night ?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London FIR
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flower - the issue of Duty of Care has to be combined with "reasonableness" which means if it is/was reasonable that you as an ATCO knew something or should know something, and that it is/was reasonable that you could do something, and didn't, you're guilty of a failure of Duty of Care. A Court would ultimately decide on "reasonableness".
So, in the context of recommended vortex wake separation, after having passed the criteria and having had the pilot acknowledge it, if that pilot OBVIOUSLY turns final with less spacing than the criteria (and an ATM can give a very accurate indication), it's reasonable that ATC should repeat the warning and receive an acknowledgement. Thereafter, it's also reasonable that the pilot should make the decision as to whether or not to continue the approach (Duty of Care again...) and unless ATC becomes aware of some additional factor and fails to communicate it (e.g. wind shear report from the landed aircarft), any subsequent accident would probably be put down to poor airmanship.
However, it could be a Court decision if civil litigation for damages was pursued by the pilot or occupant(s) or if deceased, their relatives.
Sadly, adherence to MATS Part 1/MATS Part 2 or JSPs no longer always protects your "six o'clock" (cf. the debate on ATSOCAS) so make sure you've always got a good lawyer available.
If you can't afford one, join GATCO (or Prospect or Unison) and take advantage of their legal representation insurance!!
So, in the context of recommended vortex wake separation, after having passed the criteria and having had the pilot acknowledge it, if that pilot OBVIOUSLY turns final with less spacing than the criteria (and an ATM can give a very accurate indication), it's reasonable that ATC should repeat the warning and receive an acknowledgement. Thereafter, it's also reasonable that the pilot should make the decision as to whether or not to continue the approach (Duty of Care again...) and unless ATC becomes aware of some additional factor and fails to communicate it (e.g. wind shear report from the landed aircarft), any subsequent accident would probably be put down to poor airmanship.
However, it could be a Court decision if civil litigation for damages was pursued by the pilot or occupant(s) or if deceased, their relatives.
Sadly, adherence to MATS Part 1/MATS Part 2 or JSPs no longer always protects your "six o'clock" (cf. the debate on ATSOCAS) so make sure you've always got a good lawyer available.
If you can't afford one, join GATCO (or Prospect or Unison) and take advantage of their legal representation insurance!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole issue of vortex wake is a bit nebulous and vague at any rate....
What about this one....
A small or larger category aircraft departs, with a light helicopter hovertaxiing to an intermediate holding point. Isn't the heli just as susceptible to the effects of vortex, even if he is waiting for the required 3 minutes before departure?
Ooooh, the irony....
What about this one....
A small or larger category aircraft departs, with a light helicopter hovertaxiing to an intermediate holding point. Isn't the heli just as susceptible to the effects of vortex, even if he is waiting for the required 3 minutes before departure?
Ooooh, the irony....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, tubby my old mucker, I guess that's where the duty of care and controller professionalism stuff starts to come in. If you think that where the heli is hover-taxying to might be ripe for a wake turbulence encounter, are you really going to clear him to go there?
Feel free not to answer and I'll draw my own conclusions.
Feel free not to answer and I'll draw my own conclusions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch, Spitoon. Very ouch.
So now I can't even taxi an R22, or the pipeline Jetranger, or the helimed, or anything khaki, to my intermediate holding point, until the vortex wake from the previous departing anything has disipated? By which time, my next IFR is landing, or the next schedule is ready to go, or....
Suddenly, my 5-minute window of opportunity has become a half-hour wait before he can even taxi.
Granted, safety always comes before expedition and always will, but we still have to keep 'em moving....
So now I can't even taxi an R22, or the pipeline Jetranger, or the helimed, or anything khaki, to my intermediate holding point, until the vortex wake from the previous departing anything has disipated? By which time, my next IFR is landing, or the next schedule is ready to go, or....
Suddenly, my 5-minute window of opportunity has become a half-hour wait before he can even taxi.
Granted, safety always comes before expedition and always will, but we still have to keep 'em moving....
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just love the comments along the lines of - most GA pilots would have dificulty making the required judgements. 
My friend is a 10,000+ hour BA Captain who plays in microlights from time to time. He constantly tells stories about "pompus air traffic personnel and pilots who make assumptions along those lines (until they find out who they are talking to)".
It is the CAA who certify pilots as fit to command an aircraft and it is not for ATS providers to delve into the CAAs area of responsibility.
The ICAO studies into wake vortex have come up with some sensible criteria and recomendations. The UK for the most part publishes the same recomendations although it alters the recomended spacings.
The pilot in command is responsible for the safety of the flight at all times and in all cases. Having warned the pilot of the recomended separation, ATC has fulfilled it's duty of care. If however the controller thinks that the pilot is flying too close then they can issue a second warning about the recomended searation.
I believe that the pilot would only be able to claim failure of ATCs duty of care if they asked for more spacing and were refused or for example in a busy arrivals stream, they were held so long that their ability to divert and land with the required minimum fuel reserve was compromised.
However, if ATC insist that a pilot make a missed approach because despite warnings, they believe that the aircraft is in danger as a result of the pilot turning in too close behind a heavier category aircraft then they are obliged to make a report of a suspected breach on legislation (recklessly endangering an aircraft).
Wouldn't ATC just love the following scenario - a light aircraft turns final at 8nm as the B747 touches down and then flys at a groundspeed of 40Kt along final approach.....would have to be a quiet backwater to not have a problem with that!.........that is the whole reason for the ICAO and CAA recomendations about how to avoid vortex wake and thus avoid the need for such large lateral separations.
Anyone who has operated in formations will be only too aware that even light aircraft create significant wake turbulence if one flys close enough behind and just below!
Regards,
DFC
My friend is a 10,000+ hour BA Captain who plays in microlights from time to time. He constantly tells stories about "pompus air traffic personnel and pilots who make assumptions along those lines (until they find out who they are talking to)".
It is the CAA who certify pilots as fit to command an aircraft and it is not for ATS providers to delve into the CAAs area of responsibility.
The ICAO studies into wake vortex have come up with some sensible criteria and recomendations. The UK for the most part publishes the same recomendations although it alters the recomended spacings.
The pilot in command is responsible for the safety of the flight at all times and in all cases. Having warned the pilot of the recomended separation, ATC has fulfilled it's duty of care. If however the controller thinks that the pilot is flying too close then they can issue a second warning about the recomended searation.
I believe that the pilot would only be able to claim failure of ATCs duty of care if they asked for more spacing and were refused or for example in a busy arrivals stream, they were held so long that their ability to divert and land with the required minimum fuel reserve was compromised.
However, if ATC insist that a pilot make a missed approach because despite warnings, they believe that the aircraft is in danger as a result of the pilot turning in too close behind a heavier category aircraft then they are obliged to make a report of a suspected breach on legislation (recklessly endangering an aircraft).
Wouldn't ATC just love the following scenario - a light aircraft turns final at 8nm as the B747 touches down and then flys at a groundspeed of 40Kt along final approach.....would have to be a quiet backwater to not have a problem with that!.........that is the whole reason for the ICAO and CAA recomendations about how to avoid vortex wake and thus avoid the need for such large lateral separations.
Anyone who has operated in formations will be only too aware that even light aircraft create significant wake turbulence if one flys close enough behind and just below!
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
tubby, you raise an interesting point. Without knowing where you're working it's hard to know whether you're havin' a larf at my expense. Do your helis have to use the runway? Can they not set down at the holding point? If they don't need the runway but only want to cross it why not lift and turn away from the runway to climb abit before setting course? If they're only taxying across why not route via the upwind end of the runway if something is landing (and vv for a departure).
No doubt some of these options will not be to everyone's liking but if it enables you to shift the traffic more quickly and with confidence that it's safe pilots will do it.
Surely there must be options....
No doubt some of these options will not be to everyone's liking but if it enables you to shift the traffic more quickly and with confidence that it's safe pilots will do it.
Surely there must be options....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spitoon
No offence meant. But if wake vortex is an issue to helis hover-taxiing, will it affect them before they reach the holding points, or are the holding points considered adequately spaced from the runway for vortex not to be a problem?
At my unit, helis are required to use the runways for departure (with some exceptions not applicable here), and the intermediate holds are that much closer to the GA aprons.
We are all told vortex wake spreads down and out, but how far out exactly?
No offence meant. But if wake vortex is an issue to helis hover-taxiing, will it affect them before they reach the holding points, or are the holding points considered adequately spaced from the runway for vortex not to be a problem?
At my unit, helis are required to use the runways for departure (with some exceptions not applicable here), and the intermediate holds are that much closer to the GA aprons.
We are all told vortex wake spreads down and out, but how far out exactly?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: At home
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on whether or not you trust the pilot of the light aircraft. If he's experienced, he'll just stay above the B747's path, land farther down the runway, and avoid all turbulence. (Of course, much depends on winds, etc. etc.) If, however, the tower controller feels the pilot hasn't a clue, he'd have a moral responsability to save him from a disaster.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NW of SE.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helis hover-taxiing
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder what it would feel like to get to close to this......
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...=828680&size=L
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...=828680&size=L
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a hole in the fence
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when a departing aircarft passes and a helicopter is at a holding point, the only effect is a slight gain in height.
