Mid - Air @ Caboolture
@Advance
This midair has nothing to do with your claim. What is better/safer about the way the US does non-controlled airports than us?
Nobody can answer that without knowing the precise circumstances of the unfortunate events of the specific CAB accident.
But having flown in both countries I know which has the safer procedures
I'm not sure where your stats on Canadian MACs come from but a search of the TSB for the keywords "mid air" database shows 1-2 per year for the last few years. https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r...ion/index.html
Nobody can answer that without knowing the precise circumstances of the unfortunate events of the specific CAB accident.
For many years the statistics here have been way way worse than in the USA just as the CASA study and the FDR post demonstrate.
But having flown in both countries I know which has the safer procedures and ATS systems and over long periods the statistics are reliable.
For many years the statistics here have been way way worse than in the USA just as the CASA study and the FDR post demonstrate.
But having flown in both countries I know which has the safer procedures and ATS systems and over long periods the statistics are reliable.
In the screenshot below, the two aircraft are shown on the map with a relative position azimuth and elevation that assists in getting a visual contact. The rest of the information, in this case the aircrafts callsign and distance is shown clearly. selecting the traffic on the map brings up their course, groundspeed, height, and. their registration/type of aircraft dependent on their mode of output. Within Australia, Ozrunways traffic information display is also good, however it requires the cell coverage to get the uplink of the data. The display below operates independently of ground stations.
HOOSTEN
Do you actually have a pilot licence? I can hear you yelling at the screen.
There is no such thing as an active runway at a non controlled field. You have suggested the Pawnee was using the "non active" runway and hence has caused conflict with the jab on "the active". What makes the Jab's runway "the active"? If it was quiet, no other aircraft flying, and the Pawnee was going up and down for hours accepting a crosswind on 06 for convenience - (totally legal and allowable) , was 06 "the active" and he was being within guidelines, or despite him being the only one there, is the more into wind runway "the active" and he was being negligent?
If we further that - if he was using 06 with a cross or even tailwind for 3 hours and then the Jab taxis out for just one takeoff on 29, is all of a sudden 29 now "the active" and now all of a sudden the Pawnee pilot is a clown and negligent, unprofessional? No, of course he is not. There is a preferred runway for you, but not an active.
Its called airmanship mate. If the error has occurred because of the scenario posted earlier, the hold short issue, then consider this. I failed a guy on a check because we were on finals to one runway and a student on finals to a crossing runway. The student said she would land and hold short. My guy continued. I told him to go round and failed him. He was p!ssed off because he said it was all sorted. I then pointed out that nshe is a student, and like any pilot could, what if she flares late, bounces her landing, bounce, bounce, bounce, suddenly she is halfway down the runway and no braking has occured. Whoops, couldn't hold short. She can NOT guarantee a hold short or not going round.
Accepting someone else at a non controlled field saying they will hold short could get you in huge grief. Just because the lightie driver says he will hold short means nothing. Play it safe and wait until he HAS held short. YOU must be the professional who recognises and seperates the conflict. Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.
Do you actually have a pilot licence? I can hear you yelling at the screen.
There is no such thing as an active runway at a non controlled field. You have suggested the Pawnee was using the "non active" runway and hence has caused conflict with the jab on "the active". What makes the Jab's runway "the active"? If it was quiet, no other aircraft flying, and the Pawnee was going up and down for hours accepting a crosswind on 06 for convenience - (totally legal and allowable) , was 06 "the active" and he was being within guidelines, or despite him being the only one there, is the more into wind runway "the active" and he was being negligent?
If we further that - if he was using 06 with a cross or even tailwind for 3 hours and then the Jab taxis out for just one takeoff on 29, is all of a sudden 29 now "the active" and now all of a sudden the Pawnee pilot is a clown and negligent, unprofessional? No, of course he is not. There is a preferred runway for you, but not an active.
Its called airmanship mate. If the error has occurred because of the scenario posted earlier, the hold short issue, then consider this. I failed a guy on a check because we were on finals to one runway and a student on finals to a crossing runway. The student said she would land and hold short. My guy continued. I told him to go round and failed him. He was p!ssed off because he said it was all sorted. I then pointed out that nshe is a student, and like any pilot could, what if she flares late, bounces her landing, bounce, bounce, bounce, suddenly she is halfway down the runway and no braking has occured. Whoops, couldn't hold short. She can NOT guarantee a hold short or not going round.
Accepting someone else at a non controlled field saying they will hold short could get you in huge grief. Just because the lightie driver says he will hold short means nothing. Play it safe and wait until he HAS held short. YOU must be the professional who recognises and seperates the conflict. Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.
The following 6 users liked this post by rodney rude:
Rodney
The Ops Manual produced by the Aero Club talks about the ‘active runway’. Read, for example, the quote at post #55 in this thread.
It’s another example in what’s an undoubtedly well-intentioned document that’s nonetheless not part of the AIP saying things that may not be universally understood by users, even assuming it’s consistent with the CASRs.
Again, I’m not saying this has anything to do with this tragedy.
The Ops Manual produced by the Aero Club talks about the ‘active runway’. Read, for example, the quote at post #55 in this thread.
It’s another example in what’s an undoubtedly well-intentioned document that’s nonetheless not part of the AIP saying things that may not be universally understood by users, even assuming it’s consistent with the CASRs.
Again, I’m not saying this has anything to do with this tragedy.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 30th Jul 2023 at 07:59.
I do agree with Rod (for once)
The closest ERSA gets to calling a runway ‘active’ is….in nil wind COND use RWY ##
It is an interesting point, I do understand Aero Clubs specifically have many local procedures and so forth, not helpful for those who don’t know about it.
I recall an argument between two pilots on a CTAF only recently. Average vis and a crossing runway. One aircraft landed and advised ‘clear of the active runway’. Only thing was, he wasn’t. They exited the ‘active’ and entered to taxi along an apparent ‘non active crossing runway’. In my book they have just gone from one active to another active. Meanwhile old mate inbound picked this up and changed his arrival to the so called ‘active’. ‘Clear of the active ##’ was a pet hate of mine back in the day. Any FO who says that like one did only recently on an arrival, will receive a very sharp comment from myself.
The closest ERSA gets to calling a runway ‘active’ is….in nil wind COND use RWY ##
It is an interesting point, I do understand Aero Clubs specifically have many local procedures and so forth, not helpful for those who don’t know about it.
I recall an argument between two pilots on a CTAF only recently. Average vis and a crossing runway. One aircraft landed and advised ‘clear of the active runway’. Only thing was, he wasn’t. They exited the ‘active’ and entered to taxi along an apparent ‘non active crossing runway’. In my book they have just gone from one active to another active. Meanwhile old mate inbound picked this up and changed his arrival to the so called ‘active’. ‘Clear of the active ##’ was a pet hate of mine back in the day. Any FO who says that like one did only recently on an arrival, will receive a very sharp comment from myself.
The following users liked this post:
QUOTE=rodney rude;11476256]Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots.[/QUOTE]
True but how do you know if they are inexperienced? Also there are plenty of experienced pilots I would not trust. Safest thing to do is trust no one.
True but how do you know if they are inexperienced? Also there are plenty of experienced pilots I would not trust. Safest thing to do is trust no one.
The following 2 users liked this post by Cloudee:
The argument that not everyone has a transponder, and not all transponders work is quite valid, this doesn't reduce the obligations to meet all other communications and operational procedures, including the basic rules of the air, but it helps, a lot.
I think this particular incident it would probably not have helped as it sounds like both knew each other were there, had a plan, and it fell apart in a way things got overwhelming very fast. ACAS is generally inhibited when low to prevent spurious warnings or directions when terra firma is a much larger threat.
As for US/Euro/Botswanan airspace helping here, I really struggle to understand how any OCTA airspace model would have stopped this.
My view on the high rate of MAC in Australia is more along the lines of large amounts of nothingness, then suddenly arriving somewhere with lots of stuff. Most places you go in Australia are empty and you could fly with your eyes/ears shut without hitting anything, terrain, other planes etc... Then you suddenly dump yourself into an intense traffic situation on a weekend or good weather day and you are not used to practicing those separating skills. If you fly in the US or Canada you will see, hear and deal with much more traffic at much greater frequency. Dealing with traffic is a learned skill that is honed with practice and experience. It requires attention like an instrument scan or approach/landing proficiency.
The following 3 users liked this post by 43Inches:
Thread Drift -
@RODNEYRUDE - So you failed him for making a decision different to yours? Fair enough, to tell him to go around and explain your reasonings to him. But to fail him for that? Piss poor. If he was breaking an SOP like "NO LAHSO OPS Permitted", then perhaps yes. But if it wasn't illegal, failing him for that is ...... ridiculous.
Thread regained -
I knew Dave for many years, Flew with him for over a decade, and had comms with him while he was enjoying his retirement. I cannot vouch that he did not make an error on the day, but he was always the consummate professional and would have made all applicable radio calls and followed to the best of his powers, any procedures.
@RODNEYRUDE - So you failed him for making a decision different to yours? Fair enough, to tell him to go around and explain your reasonings to him. But to fail him for that? Piss poor. If he was breaking an SOP like "NO LAHSO OPS Permitted", then perhaps yes. But if it wasn't illegal, failing him for that is ...... ridiculous.
Thread regained -
I knew Dave for many years, Flew with him for over a decade, and had comms with him while he was enjoying his retirement. I cannot vouch that he did not make an error on the day, but he was always the consummate professional and would have made all applicable radio calls and followed to the best of his powers, any procedures.
The following 4 users liked this post by Capn Rex Havoc:
Are you claiming neither of the accident aircraft had made ANY of the required (or additional) radio transmissions? Given the backgrounds of the two pilots this is highly unlikely and a grossly inflammatory accusation of the two, one of whom is no longer able to speak up against you.
The following 8 users liked this post by Rataxes:
Do not blindly trust well intentioned inexperienced pilots
You seem to have a very personal, possibly irrational, emotional investment here
The following 2 users liked this post by Dora-9:
who would you like to blame?
Or maybe blame the design of the airport and have it redeveloped into a shopping centre.
Recreational flying at potentially hazardous airfields is optional, not mandatory.
Apologies slight thread drift.
Re #77.
What happened many years ago (how many years ago are we talking about?) at YBEV is irrelevant to the current tragic accident. That was then, this is now.
RWY 16/34 at YBEV is long (over 1,000 m). I was not there, however, the glider pilot most likely landed on RWY 08 because they were getting low, it was the more into wind runway, and was concentrating on aviating ("Aviate, navigate, communicate").
I have been involved in gliding since 1987. Yes, in the earlier days, gliders used 122.7 MHz. Limitations were technology (single channel VHF with small batteries) and non-requirement for a flight radiotelephone operator's rating when operating locally. When gaining a C-rating, getting a flight radiotelephone operator's rating was part of this. Yes, gliding was viewed with suspicion by GA.
Most of the glider pilots and tug pilots I know are NOT cowboys or reckless (and come from all areas of life experience, career experience, upto international airline pilots and ex-military pilots), so it is extremely unfair to tar them all with the same brush. Moral panic about any airspace user can be used (often with little basis in reality). Who next, airship pilots, balloonists...?
Fast forward to 2023.
YBEV has it's own CTAF now 126.85 MHz because 126.7 MHz was always saturated with calls from fields as far away as YBUN and this degraded safety and situational awareness for ALL operators at YBEV. (see: FAC-YBEV.fm (airservicesaustralia.com).
Nowadays, the glider training syllabus is incorporated into the GPC (Glider Pilot's Certificate), and includes radio ops, human factors, the works.
YBEV is a busy gliding training and cross-country operation, plus ultra-lights and GA, it is also visited by itinerant powered aircraft from YPJT doing training.
Nowadays, the technology is better (light weight better batteries providing better duration and signal strength), dual channel scanning VHF's are available to monitor CTAF and other frequencies.
Many gliders are now fitted with FLARM (because the biggest threat of a mid-air in a glider is another glider).
The use of ADSB (or integration with FLARM) is in gliding an area of active research, the main impediments being the weight penalty of the batteries and technology, but again watch this space.
Also, glider ops are noted on the WAC's, some cases VNC's and VTC's. Look for the double cross. Also a double cross will be displayed next to the windsock. All for good reason. Do users know what a double cross symbol with a "w" means when on a chart?
Also from #77:
"I have had a glider tug not on the CTAF at an aerodrome where it is compulsory to carry radio cut in front of me on short final without a word - no idea they were even in the area until he filled up my windscreen and not responding to any radio calls before or after the incident, which was a matter of feet away from a midair, so perhaps on the "glider frequency" again?"
Again this is provided with no context, was the tow plane in distress for some reason (partial power loss etc.). How do you know he was not on CTAF? How do you know your radio was working properly (wrong frequency selected, wrong radio-set selected out, your volume turned down). Were you on a straight in approach?
Going back to the YCAB fatality, from the facts emerging, a/c on different runways, PA-25 landing then ?did go around (for reason's that aren't clear yet), Jab departing on another runway, mid air happened between departing Jab and the PA-25 during it's go around.
I note noise sensitive areas in the YCAB ops manual, hence predicating particular runway use.
Re #77.
What happened many years ago (how many years ago are we talking about?) at YBEV is irrelevant to the current tragic accident. That was then, this is now.
RWY 16/34 at YBEV is long (over 1,000 m). I was not there, however, the glider pilot most likely landed on RWY 08 because they were getting low, it was the more into wind runway, and was concentrating on aviating ("Aviate, navigate, communicate").
I have been involved in gliding since 1987. Yes, in the earlier days, gliders used 122.7 MHz. Limitations were technology (single channel VHF with small batteries) and non-requirement for a flight radiotelephone operator's rating when operating locally. When gaining a C-rating, getting a flight radiotelephone operator's rating was part of this. Yes, gliding was viewed with suspicion by GA.
Most of the glider pilots and tug pilots I know are NOT cowboys or reckless (and come from all areas of life experience, career experience, upto international airline pilots and ex-military pilots), so it is extremely unfair to tar them all with the same brush. Moral panic about any airspace user can be used (often with little basis in reality). Who next, airship pilots, balloonists...?
Fast forward to 2023.
YBEV has it's own CTAF now 126.85 MHz because 126.7 MHz was always saturated with calls from fields as far away as YBUN and this degraded safety and situational awareness for ALL operators at YBEV. (see: FAC-YBEV.fm (airservicesaustralia.com).
Nowadays, the glider training syllabus is incorporated into the GPC (Glider Pilot's Certificate), and includes radio ops, human factors, the works.
YBEV is a busy gliding training and cross-country operation, plus ultra-lights and GA, it is also visited by itinerant powered aircraft from YPJT doing training.
Nowadays, the technology is better (light weight better batteries providing better duration and signal strength), dual channel scanning VHF's are available to monitor CTAF and other frequencies.
Many gliders are now fitted with FLARM (because the biggest threat of a mid-air in a glider is another glider).
The use of ADSB (or integration with FLARM) is in gliding an area of active research, the main impediments being the weight penalty of the batteries and technology, but again watch this space.
Also, glider ops are noted on the WAC's, some cases VNC's and VTC's. Look for the double cross. Also a double cross will be displayed next to the windsock. All for good reason. Do users know what a double cross symbol with a "w" means when on a chart?
Also from #77:
"I have had a glider tug not on the CTAF at an aerodrome where it is compulsory to carry radio cut in front of me on short final without a word - no idea they were even in the area until he filled up my windscreen and not responding to any radio calls before or after the incident, which was a matter of feet away from a midair, so perhaps on the "glider frequency" again?"
Again this is provided with no context, was the tow plane in distress for some reason (partial power loss etc.). How do you know he was not on CTAF? How do you know your radio was working properly (wrong frequency selected, wrong radio-set selected out, your volume turned down). Were you on a straight in approach?
Going back to the YCAB fatality, from the facts emerging, a/c on different runways, PA-25 landing then ?did go around (for reason's that aren't clear yet), Jab departing on another runway, mid air happened between departing Jab and the PA-25 during it's go around.
I note noise sensitive areas in the YCAB ops manual, hence predicating particular runway use.
Re #57:
FRP foam sandwich. Strong and lightweight. Part of composite construction (in planes, boats, everywhere) which often has load ratings better than aviation steel. Far from flimsy. Polystyrene may also be used pack spaces and hold form.
FRP foam sandwich. Strong and lightweight. Part of composite construction (in planes, boats, everywhere) which often has load ratings better than aviation steel. Far from flimsy. Polystyrene may also be used pack spaces and hold form.
Last edited by MALT68; 31st Jul 2023 at 03:03. Reason: Reference to previous post
It's always fascinating watching strongly-held but sometimes diametrically-opposed opinions being expressed by ostensibly very experienced aviators, without a single regulation being cited as authority for the opinion.
The ‘basic’ regulations for right of way and avoiding collisions at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes have been the same for decades. There’s been some fiddling around with how circuits must be joined and straight-in approaches and radio calls etc, but the ‘basic’ regs haven’t changed.
While it may be true to say that, as a general principle, a pilot can choose to operate on any runway available at a non-controlled aerodrome, there are some regulations that are relevant to that choice. One of those regulations is the one that makes it a criminal offence not to use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing. That offence is created by CASR 91.380(1).
Some might describe the most into wind runway at a non-controlled aerodrome as the ‘active runway’ or the ‘duty runway’ or ‘Stig The Wonder Llama Goes Quantity Surveying’ or whatever. That’s their choice. I choose to call it the ‘Rule 1 Runway’.
Rule 1 is simple: Use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing, or you commit an offence.
The safety basis for that rule can be found in any good BAK text and by chatting with pilots with experience in operations at non-controlled aerodromes where radios are either not mandatory or occasionally the subject of finger trouble.
However…
There are exceptions to most rules. Many of us have made many take-offs and landings using other than the most into wind runway, legally and safely.
CASR 91.380(2) says that CASR 91.380(1) does not apply if:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft allow the aircraft to land or take off downwind or crosswind; and
(b) the pilot is satisfied that traffic conditions at the [non-controlled] aerodrome enable such a landing or take‑off to be carried out safely.
But note well: The pilot bears the evidential burden in relation to (a) and (b). In other words, unless the pilot who chooses to land on or take-off from a runway other than the Rule 1 Runway establishes (a) and (b) to the requisite evidential standard (or one of the other ‘standard’ defences is made out), that landing or take-off is a criminal offence.
The stuff in (a) isn’t that hard to show, if – for example - the actual crosswind in which the pilot landed was not greater than the demonstrated crosswind in the aircraft paperwork. (Although the phrase “flight manual instructions” is perturbing. I can imagine hours of fun arguments about what the word “instructions” means in (a).)
The stuff in (b) is a little more complex. Note that (b) doesn’t say “weather” conditions or “wind” conditions or “runway” conditions. It says “traffic” conditions. That’s because of the very obvious point that other pilots may choose to, or may even be compelled to, use the Rule 1 Runway.
The pilot of the aircraft landing on or taking-off from other than the Rule 1 Runway must, if he or she is to avoid committing an offence, turn his or her mind to the traffic conditions, and be satisfied that those conditions enable the landing or take-off to be carried out safely. The onus is on the pilot using the non-Rule 1 Runway because that pilot will – or should – know that some or all of any other traffic in the vicinity is more likely to be using the Rule 1 Runway and the pilots of those other aircraft may not be aware that someone has chosen not to use the Rule 1 Runway. (Remember those no-radio and radio finger trouble ops out there…)
Of course, it gets a bit more complicated if there’s nil wind or a variable direction wind.
So bear this in mind when you next choose to use a runway other than the most into wind runway – if there is wind - for take-off or landing at a non-controlled aerodrome: If there’s some incident, you’d better be able establish the two elements of the defence in CASR 91.380(2).
Again, I’m not suggesting my point has any relevance to the tragedy the subject of this thread, but given the way in which the thread has been running, it may be of general interest.
The ‘basic’ regulations for right of way and avoiding collisions at or in the vicinity of non-controlled aerodromes have been the same for decades. There’s been some fiddling around with how circuits must be joined and straight-in approaches and radio calls etc, but the ‘basic’ regs haven’t changed.
While it may be true to say that, as a general principle, a pilot can choose to operate on any runway available at a non-controlled aerodrome, there are some regulations that are relevant to that choice. One of those regulations is the one that makes it a criminal offence not to use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing. That offence is created by CASR 91.380(1).
Some might describe the most into wind runway at a non-controlled aerodrome as the ‘active runway’ or the ‘duty runway’ or ‘Stig The Wonder Llama Goes Quantity Surveying’ or whatever. That’s their choice. I choose to call it the ‘Rule 1 Runway’.
Rule 1 is simple: Use the most into wind runway for take-off and landing, or you commit an offence.
The safety basis for that rule can be found in any good BAK text and by chatting with pilots with experience in operations at non-controlled aerodromes where radios are either not mandatory or occasionally the subject of finger trouble.
However…
There are exceptions to most rules. Many of us have made many take-offs and landings using other than the most into wind runway, legally and safely.
CASR 91.380(2) says that CASR 91.380(1) does not apply if:
(a) the aircraft flight manual instructions for the aircraft allow the aircraft to land or take off downwind or crosswind; and
(b) the pilot is satisfied that traffic conditions at the [non-controlled] aerodrome enable such a landing or take‑off to be carried out safely.
But note well: The pilot bears the evidential burden in relation to (a) and (b). In other words, unless the pilot who chooses to land on or take-off from a runway other than the Rule 1 Runway establishes (a) and (b) to the requisite evidential standard (or one of the other ‘standard’ defences is made out), that landing or take-off is a criminal offence.
The stuff in (a) isn’t that hard to show, if – for example - the actual crosswind in which the pilot landed was not greater than the demonstrated crosswind in the aircraft paperwork. (Although the phrase “flight manual instructions” is perturbing. I can imagine hours of fun arguments about what the word “instructions” means in (a).)
The stuff in (b) is a little more complex. Note that (b) doesn’t say “weather” conditions or “wind” conditions or “runway” conditions. It says “traffic” conditions. That’s because of the very obvious point that other pilots may choose to, or may even be compelled to, use the Rule 1 Runway.
The pilot of the aircraft landing on or taking-off from other than the Rule 1 Runway must, if he or she is to avoid committing an offence, turn his or her mind to the traffic conditions, and be satisfied that those conditions enable the landing or take-off to be carried out safely. The onus is on the pilot using the non-Rule 1 Runway because that pilot will – or should – know that some or all of any other traffic in the vicinity is more likely to be using the Rule 1 Runway and the pilots of those other aircraft may not be aware that someone has chosen not to use the Rule 1 Runway. (Remember those no-radio and radio finger trouble ops out there…)
Of course, it gets a bit more complicated if there’s nil wind or a variable direction wind.
So bear this in mind when you next choose to use a runway other than the most into wind runway – if there is wind - for take-off or landing at a non-controlled aerodrome: If there’s some incident, you’d better be able establish the two elements of the defence in CASR 91.380(2).
Again, I’m not suggesting my point has any relevance to the tragedy the subject of this thread, but given the way in which the thread has been running, it may be of general interest.
It's like roundabouts on the road. A lot of drivers have no clue on the actual, very simple rule for right of way on a roundabout, and that is whoever is on the roundabout has right of way, anyone entering the roundabout has to give way to vehicles already on the roundabout (at the point of entry). None of this give way to the right or anything else, simply who's on first wins. Now that being said, you can enter and pass in front of another vehicle if you are not going to impede their travel, that is create a collision risk or simply force them to deviate or slow down, so on a large roundabout you are quite legal to enter while another vehicle is on it as long as you have not impeded them, they just have right of way. Once you are all on the intersection, the over riding rule which says basically you must avoid a crash applies, so you can not use your right of way knowingly to create a collision or push somebody off the road.
So coming back to the aviation equivalent in the circuit pattern, the rules are there to promote who has right of way, and should be applied. Those using the most into wind have right of way, those landing have right of way over others taxiing or taking off and lower aircraft to land wins (except if you create this situation after the fact by diving). There is also specified separation requirements for continuing a landing or commencing a take-off to be satisfied. Then there's gliders, have right of way over powered aircraft, aircraft in distress have right of way and so on...
But it all goes out the window if you see a dangerous situation developing in that you must take action to avoid that situation, by law. If in doubt wait, stay clear and clarify what is happening.
If there's an aircraft taking off (rolling) with tail wind on 18 and i'm established on final for 36, into wind, I'm not going to 'assert' right of way and continue to land. My obligation to operate an aircraft safely (by law) compels me to take avoiding action as early as possible to diffuse a dangerous situation.
Also part of the reason for having a rule to be 'established' on final by a specific point is to give traffic on the ground sufficient lookout time to spot arriving aircraft, tight descending turns onto very close final will reduce the opportunity for sighting and reduce the ability for departing/taxiing aircraft to sight you. Apart from the obvious flight safety issues of stable approach and stall spin issues turning low and slow that is.
So coming back to the aviation equivalent in the circuit pattern, the rules are there to promote who has right of way, and should be applied. Those using the most into wind have right of way, those landing have right of way over others taxiing or taking off and lower aircraft to land wins (except if you create this situation after the fact by diving). There is also specified separation requirements for continuing a landing or commencing a take-off to be satisfied. Then there's gliders, have right of way over powered aircraft, aircraft in distress have right of way and so on...
But it all goes out the window if you see a dangerous situation developing in that you must take action to avoid that situation, by law. If in doubt wait, stay clear and clarify what is happening.
If there's an aircraft taking off (rolling) with tail wind on 18 and i'm established on final for 36, into wind, I'm not going to 'assert' right of way and continue to land. My obligation to operate an aircraft safely (by law) compels me to take avoiding action as early as possible to diffuse a dangerous situation.
Also part of the reason for having a rule to be 'established' on final by a specific point is to give traffic on the ground sufficient lookout time to spot arriving aircraft, tight descending turns onto very close final will reduce the opportunity for sighting and reduce the ability for departing/taxiing aircraft to sight you. Apart from the obvious flight safety issues of stable approach and stall spin issues turning low and slow that is.
Last edited by 43Inches; 31st Jul 2023 at 04:20.
Something else that seems to be emerging from this accident is that the collision may have happened with one aircraft conducting a go-round. It really is something you should consider on any approach, what will I do if I go round, and is the missed approach path safe. IFR it might be a thunderstorm in the MA path, hold until its clear, it might be traffic in the upwind path during a visual approach, terrain, wildlife, weather. Have a think and plan for what you will do to reduce the risks, if the plan is uncertain, don't approach until its clear, don't put yourself in a 'land or else' position....
Even during legal LAHSO operations the active/hold short aircraft is not committed to land, they can go around at any time and the tower is meant to give them traffic avoidance advice.
Do not perform quasi LAHSO OCTA, no problem saying you will hold short, and when you are stopped short of the other runway the other aircraft can depart, but definitely do not do it simultaneously assuming the other guy can stop, or wont go round.
Even during legal LAHSO operations the active/hold short aircraft is not committed to land, they can go around at any time and the tower is meant to give them traffic avoidance advice.
Do not perform quasi LAHSO OCTA, no problem saying you will hold short, and when you are stopped short of the other runway the other aircraft can depart, but definitely do not do it simultaneously assuming the other guy can stop, or wont go round.
Great words, 43!