Light AC "Hold on base leg " with airliner landing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear spitoon
thanks for letting ATC take such a burden off a humble pilot.
but you see, I'll keep both the BIG and SMALL picture in mind...because if YOU screw up I'm dead. But if I screw up, you are in a nice concrete building, getting fresh coffee or TEA in your case.
I remember one time when ATC had the big picture and cleared me for a takeoff while a fuel truck (bowser) was in the middle of the runway.
but being worried about ATC errors, I managed to control my extremities and kept the plane from getting close to the fuel truck.
let's see...IF ATC suddenly went away...there would still be a way to keep planes flying.
if planes and pilots went way far away...ATC could just sit in their tower as long as they like, and govt would figure out how to not pay you.
so...sit
but you see, I'll keep both the BIG and SMALL picture in mind...because if YOU screw up I'm dead. But if I screw up, you are in a nice concrete building, getting fresh coffee or TEA in your case.
I remember one time when ATC had the big picture and cleared me for a takeoff while a fuel truck (bowser) was in the middle of the runway.
but being worried about ATC errors, I managed to control my extremities and kept the plane from getting close to the fuel truck.
let's see...IF ATC suddenly went away...there would still be a way to keep planes flying.
if planes and pilots went way far away...ATC could just sit in their tower as long as they like, and govt would figure out how to not pay you.
so...sit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to make friends an influence people!! One day... just one day you might be very pleased indeed for ATC. If I had a quid for every clockwork mouse pilot I've helped out I'd be fairly well off.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't be too upset heathrow director...I wouldn't have said anything to be rude except for the guy who lectured me about how atc has the big picture and the little pilot shouldn't worry about it.
gee, we have TCAS now...but we don't have a way for atc to directly fly th eplane....hmmm
gee, we have TCAS now...but we don't have a way for atc to directly fly th eplane....hmmm
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: guess where...
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been posted before, there is no separation required between IFR and VFR in class D airspace, therefore just providing information is sufficient for the atco to be on the right side of the law.
However this does not mean that this is anywhere near the right side of safety, just that if metal bits start to rain on final approach, the atco will (probably) have his/her head out of the chopper...
This is an issue I do have regularly at my working place (small airport in Spain) since Aena considers only IFR to assess workloads stating as above that since I do not have to provide separation to them they are not a burden to me.
If I were to allow takeoff of a PA34 and just as it crosses the threshold I'd clear a B737 for the same, I'd be absolutely clean in legal terms but I wouldn't want to be the one telling that to the widow and children
Anyway, isn't holding on base a bit short for wake turbulence? I usually have the first VFR holding at downwind abeam threshold in order to allow for 2 minutes separation...
However this does not mean that this is anywhere near the right side of safety, just that if metal bits start to rain on final approach, the atco will (probably) have his/her head out of the chopper...
This is an issue I do have regularly at my working place (small airport in Spain) since Aena considers only IFR to assess workloads stating as above that since I do not have to provide separation to them they are not a burden to me.
If I were to allow takeoff of a PA34 and just as it crosses the threshold I'd clear a B737 for the same, I'd be absolutely clean in legal terms but I wouldn't want to be the one telling that to the widow and children
Anyway, isn't holding on base a bit short for wake turbulence? I usually have the first VFR holding at downwind abeam threshold in order to allow for 2 minutes separation...
I would have thought (and happen to think) that, regardless of the airspace category, aircraft in the circuit at a controlled aerodrome are to be controlled in such a way that a collision is (should be) out of the question.
If the spacing was as suggested in the OP, it's too close by far.
If I (the aerodrome controller) get an aircraft to hold anywhere in the circuit that is not separated from the approach of another aircraft, except visually, then there is an expectation to monitor (visually) that there is no risk. Which means just that. And if the aircraft concerned starts to drift a bit close to final, to perceive the problem before it becomes a problem, and issue instructions to put it right.
It appears that at least one element of that wasn't done, here.
If the spacing was as suggested in the OP, it's too close by far.
If I (the aerodrome controller) get an aircraft to hold anywhere in the circuit that is not separated from the approach of another aircraft, except visually, then there is an expectation to monitor (visually) that there is no risk. Which means just that. And if the aircraft concerned starts to drift a bit close to final, to perceive the problem before it becomes a problem, and issue instructions to put it right.
It appears that at least one element of that wasn't done, here.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FL410
Age: 22
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, isn't holding on base a bit short for wake turbulence? I usually have the first VFR holding at downwind abeam threshold in order to allow for 2 minutes separation...
Do you have a regulation regarding the 2 minute separation you refer to?
As long as the following aircraft remains above the flight path of the preceding and lands beyond the touchdown point of the preceding, there is no wake turbulence.
In the "old days," when I was flying a lot of smaller aircraft, I could also depart directly following the large aircraft, as my take-off roll was much shorter, then make an immediate turn. This permitted the controller to line up the next big guy.
Had an interesting departure at EBBR the other day. We departed from the midfield intersection, while ATC lined up the next airliner from the end. No big deal there, but what did impress me (seriously, no irony) was that when we passed the departure end of the runway, said airliner was cleared for take-off.
Very efficient use of the runway, as he was essentially doubling up the runway capacity by having the business jets off from the intersection (we had 2500 feet more runway than needed anyway) which was closer to the GA parking, while the airliners were getting their departures from the end (close to the terminal) lessening the cluster of aircraft on the taxiways and doubling capacity.
I have never seen this so systematized. Quite cool.
Do you have a regulation regarding the 2 minute separation you refer to?
As long as the following aircraft remains above the flight path of the preceding and lands beyond the touchdown point of the preceding, there is no wake turbulence.
In the "old days," when I was flying a lot of smaller aircraft, I could also depart directly following the large aircraft, as my take-off roll was much shorter, then make an immediate turn. This permitted the controller to line up the next big guy.
Had an interesting departure at EBBR the other day. We departed from the midfield intersection, while ATC lined up the next airliner from the end. No big deal there, but what did impress me (seriously, no irony) was that when we passed the departure end of the runway, said airliner was cleared for take-off.
Very efficient use of the runway, as he was essentially doubling up the runway capacity by having the business jets off from the intersection (we had 2500 feet more runway than needed anyway) which was closer to the GA parking, while the airliners were getting their departures from the end (close to the terminal) lessening the cluster of aircraft on the taxiways and doubling capacity.
I have never seen this so systematized. Quite cool.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Birmingham, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Priority on approach
Almost identical situation, with a non-radio Tiger Moth flying base leg into Cambridge. On the descent prior to turning finals, I spotted an airliner on long finals, about 5 miles distant. My speed was around 55 knots, his was around three times that. I could have made it to the runway in good time and turned off on to the grass without causing the airliner to overshoot. Immediately prior to turning on to finals I spotted a red flare fired from the signals caravan on the starboard side of the runway so immediately did a sharp turn to port and commenced an orbit, clear of the approach. After the airliner landed I was given a steady green Aldis clearing me to land. Enquired with the signaller who said he thought I was too close to cut in front of the airliner but my question remains "Does a light aircraft (non-radio) joining finals at half a mile from touch down, have priority over an airliner at 5 miles on long finals? OK, I concede the airliner had been cleared for long finals prior to my turning finals from my base leg.
Last edited by tiger449; 23rd Mar 2013 at 10:03.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Cambridge was a pretty switched on place but you mean they allow non-radio clockwork mice to mix it with airliners? The word "insanity" keeps flashing before me!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Birmingham, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early Long finals v. late short finals; who has priority
The Tiger Moth I was flying was not equipped with a radio so I had to use the Mk.1 eyeball and make use of the runway controllers caravan. The turboprop only appeared as I was about to turn left on to finals. At this stage he was around 5 miles away, whereas I was half a mile from touchdown and quite willing to land on the grass to the left of the runway. I was approaching at around 55 kts, whereas the turboprop was around 180 kts. The controller clearly decided in favour of letting the turboprop in first. That was their perogative. I suppose long finals might well have priority over someone a lot closer turning on to finals from downwind at half a mile.
Yet in a different scenario, this time at Edinburgh Turnhouse, I had been doing pleasure aerobatics over the North Sea where the weather was CAVOK, yet had deteriorated to 8/8 NS at 600 ft., with VIZ approx 150 ft. I then had to call for help on my VHF and wait for a shepherd aircraft to arrive and visually escort me back to the field. I had to fly around 75 ft. away from him which was a LOT closer than 4.5 miles at Cambridge. We maintained COM between us on the standard VHF of 123.45 which was also monitored by APP. Then landed as a pair. Now converted on to ultralights which requires CAVOK over open countryside and maintaining visual with the ground at all times. No built-up areas, controlled or congested airspace.
Yet in a different scenario, this time at Edinburgh Turnhouse, I had been doing pleasure aerobatics over the North Sea where the weather was CAVOK, yet had deteriorated to 8/8 NS at 600 ft., with VIZ approx 150 ft. I then had to call for help on my VHF and wait for a shepherd aircraft to arrive and visually escort me back to the field. I had to fly around 75 ft. away from him which was a LOT closer than 4.5 miles at Cambridge. We maintained COM between us on the standard VHF of 123.45 which was also monitored by APP. Then landed as a pair. Now converted on to ultralights which requires CAVOK over open countryside and maintaining visual with the ground at all times. No built-up areas, controlled or congested airspace.
