Airmanship and a few random queries
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship and a few random queries
I happened to be at a regional airfield today and saw a few things, one in particular, that raised some questions for me and others viewing.
- Simultaneous ops on runways 05 and 33
- Runway 05 is paved 900 metres
- Runway 33 is 500 metres gravel surface
- Wind is a 15 knot approximate direct 90 degree crosswind on 05, therefore almost straight down 33
- No duty runway as such, aircraft are using both runways, non-towered aerodrome
- Aircraft on 33 is a high speed homebuilt
- Aircraft on 05 is a Seneca
- Seneca joins 05 on downwind
- Homebuilt does a straight-in on 33
- Aircraft on final for both these runways simultaneously
- Who gives way?
Random question:
- What is the maximum number of passengers in a Seneca keeping in mind that some may be children and seat sharing etc is taken into consideration? (MTOW would not be an issue in this instance)
- Does one pilot have the right to force another pilot to provide his ARN number under any circumstances?
- Simultaneous ops on runways 05 and 33
- Runway 05 is paved 900 metres
- Runway 33 is 500 metres gravel surface
- Wind is a 15 knot approximate direct 90 degree crosswind on 05, therefore almost straight down 33
- No duty runway as such, aircraft are using both runways, non-towered aerodrome
- Aircraft on 33 is a high speed homebuilt
- Aircraft on 05 is a Seneca
- Seneca joins 05 on downwind
- Homebuilt does a straight-in on 33
- Aircraft on final for both these runways simultaneously
- Who gives way?
Random question:
- What is the maximum number of passengers in a Seneca keeping in mind that some may be children and seat sharing etc is taken into consideration? (MTOW would not be an issue in this instance)
- Does one pilot have the right to force another pilot to provide his ARN number under any circumstances?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft doing the straight in approach must give way to aircraft in the circuit.
How about the guy on 05 has to giveway to the aircraft on his right which is the one in 33 final? Just an afterthought that one.
It would seem the only thing missing here is good manners!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the moon
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem the only thing missing here is good manners!
As far as the black and white stuff reads:-
(I can't copy/paste the AIP, and I cant be
typing it all out) An aircraft shall give way to other aircraft in the circuit at the aerodrome. I think the key word is "aerodrome"As far a which is the duty runway, it's the most into wind runway. However I can't see the Scenica getting in on 500 metres. AIP ENR 48.3
By the sounds of this aerodrome it sounds quite busy with traffic on both runways. I'd suggest that a straight-in might not be such a great idea.
As far a which is the duty runway, it's the most into wind runway
Are you really certain that the homebuilt really was doing a straight-in? That is not easy to establish, in a legal sense, strange as it may seem.
Having been involved in trying to sort more of this kind of allegation than I care to remember, it is more often than not impossible to reconcile the competing stories of the two pilots involved, without a full tape of the comms., witnesses statements almost always conflict, and even with a tape, you wind up with some wide interpretations, having related the timing to aircraft estimated position.
The types of aircraft are not relevant, same rules apply to all, especially "Regional" airlines.
In balance, the aircraft landing into wind probably had priority.
Who was demanding who's ARN, and no, you don't have to reveal it (identify yourself) to other than an authorized person.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Leadsled.
The Seneca pilot insisted on gathering this information. Not only that but also belittling the PPL and his lesser aircraft formed part of the abuse. (note that the homebuilt was much faster and more expensive than the dirty old Seneca)
Perhaps the pilot of the Seneca felt he was in a regional airline with two engines.
That's what I was thinking, but it does seem a little grey.
Yep.
The worst display of airmanship witnessed in 20 years based on the ensuing conversation instigated by the Seneca pilot.
How many passengers (total souls) can one carry in a Seneca assuming that some of them are low weight children?
Who was demanding who's ARN, and no, you don't have to reveal it (identify yourself) to other than an authorized person.
The types of aircraft are not relevant, same rules apply to all, especially "Regional" airlines.
In balance, the aircraft landing into wind probably had priority.
Are you really certain that the homebuilt really was doing a straight-in? That is not easy to establish, in a legal sense, strange as it may seem.
The worst display of airmanship witnessed in 20 years based on the ensuing conversation instigated by the Seneca pilot.
How many passengers (total souls) can one carry in a Seneca assuming that some of them are low weight children?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you have the sneeka's rego, look up the registered operator and write to them. Point out the person flying that day has some serious behaviour issues and probably should not be flying such a prized high performance aeroplane.
If you feel that strongly about it.
If you feel that strongly about it.
CAR 166, I say knick both of them!
- The Seneca, not landing as close as possible to wind direction.
- The homebuilt - not giving way.
- Both of them for a complete lack of common sense!
- The Seneca, not landing as close as possible to wind direction.
- The homebuilt - not giving way.
- Both of them for a complete lack of common sense!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How many passengers (total souls) can one carry in a Seneca assuming that some of them are low weight children?
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just having a quick read through CAO 20.16.3, seven if it is a six seater, or nine if it is a seven seater. I though there was a requirement for these seats not to be adjacent to an emergency exit, but can't seem to find the reference, other than for infants.
Cheers, HH.
PS: If you were witness to the incident and are concerned about it, report it.
Reference: CAO 20.16.3, section 12 & 13 apply.
Cheers, HH.
PS: If you were witness to the incident and are concerned about it, report it.
Reference: CAO 20.16.3, section 12 & 13 apply.
It's pretty obvious that the 'Sneca' driver was going for the sealed strip of greater length & the 'homey' was going straight in most likely due convenience. The two situations have relevance as individual cases. CAR rules are fine & applicable at all times (due legal reasons) but & yes there's always a 'but' commons sense can't be written into some rule book, people have to be the common sense part of the 'rules'. What lacks here in this case as we all can see is poor airman-ship, little thought for our fellow aviator & good 'old fashion curtious behavior in the air , the latter rarely seen these days especially on our insane roads!
With the cost of aviation being so high these days we can see the 'thinking' of both pilots here. the Sneca driver didn't want to land on a gravel strip due possible prop damage & performance considerations due a short strip. The 'homey' wanted to land straight in due less time airborne making it cheaper overall.
The fix for future situations? Education perhaps? Nope that never works humans are not good at doing as they are told especially in this country. Punitive actions? Nope we never learn from being 'smacked', the jails are full of 'smacked' people. So where does this leave us? Apart from years of exposure to such events & building that now lack of airman-ship & respect for others we are in the poo as it's an unifx-able situation completely but we can lesson the chances. You can make 10 airframes identical,perform exactly the same as each other but no so humans, we shall always show individuality even in the face of stupidity!
Simply be alert out there. Do as I do on the roads when you see daily the idiots out there just let them pass/by, I'd rather have the fools in front of me where I can see them & make life saving adjustments where necessary than have them behind me out of control!
Wmk2
With the cost of aviation being so high these days we can see the 'thinking' of both pilots here. the Sneca driver didn't want to land on a gravel strip due possible prop damage & performance considerations due a short strip. The 'homey' wanted to land straight in due less time airborne making it cheaper overall.
The fix for future situations? Education perhaps? Nope that never works humans are not good at doing as they are told especially in this country. Punitive actions? Nope we never learn from being 'smacked', the jails are full of 'smacked' people. So where does this leave us? Apart from years of exposure to such events & building that now lack of airman-ship & respect for others we are in the poo as it's an unifx-able situation completely but we can lesson the chances. You can make 10 airframes identical,perform exactly the same as each other but no so humans, we shall always show individuality even in the face of stupidity!
Simply be alert out there. Do as I do on the roads when you see daily the idiots out there just let them pass/by, I'd rather have the fools in front of me where I can see them & make life saving adjustments where necessary than have them behind me out of control!
Wmk2
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wmk2... I'd rather be in front of the accident than be caught up in it... unless they're a real d!ckhead and insist on going first, then I give them a wide berth, and often find an alternate route so that I still don't get caught in their lunacy!!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think manners are required any more.
The other day I witnessed a 182 jump pilot doing a straight in get 'cut off' by a PPL 172 doing a circuit. The 182 orbited then landed after the 172.
On the ground however the jump pilot was out of his aircraft almost before the prop stopped spinning, ran across the ramp straight under the wing of the PPL pilot, opened the ajar door and started laying into him.
I kept out of the argument but spoke to the 172 pilot afterwards and it turned out he had tuned CTAF on com 2 and forgot to select it as the active radio causing the incident.
Even tho it was the ppl pilots fault for not being on the right freq I don't see where the jump pilot acted appropriately by belittling the other pilot the way he did over a rookie mistake.
The other day I witnessed a 182 jump pilot doing a straight in get 'cut off' by a PPL 172 doing a circuit. The 182 orbited then landed after the 172.
On the ground however the jump pilot was out of his aircraft almost before the prop stopped spinning, ran across the ramp straight under the wing of the PPL pilot, opened the ajar door and started laying into him.
I kept out of the argument but spoke to the 172 pilot afterwards and it turned out he had tuned CTAF on com 2 and forgot to select it as the active radio causing the incident.
Even tho it was the ppl pilots fault for not being on the right freq I don't see where the jump pilot acted appropriately by belittling the other pilot the way he did over a rookie mistake.
172 actually had right of way
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish pilots would not rely on their radios, especially at non towered aerodromes!! It gives a false sense of security.
The 172 certainly did have right of way, no arguments there.
The 172 certainly did have right of way, no arguments there.