Bathurst races this weekend
 

It's on again this coming weekend. The link below is to the AIP SUP, and both YBTH and in particular YMMM FIR NOTAMs need to be checked as well.

Fly Safe

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...ups/h42_03.pdf

That includes learjet pilots? :uhoh:

No - Learjet pilots always have right of way. ;)

Why should Learjets get the right of way????:confused:

A number of people apparently asked the same question in the holding pattern in IMC a few years ago... :eek:

It's all class G.

If some guys want to fly holding patterns all day then that's up to them.

But that doesn't then mean that everyone else has to fly holding patterns all day.

BIK 116.80 ... Actually it does when the wx is cr@p, and EVERYBODY is having to do the approach. In 2000, there were a/c stacked up to FL150 doing holding patterns.

Compressor Stall's remark WAS pertinent, to the point that two professional pilots went head to head in IMC because the one in the lear didn't want to fit into the hold like everybody else!

Just cos you drive a jet, it doesn't give you carte blanche approval to f**k up everybody else.

And with rain forecast again, is it going to be another sh!tfight ? Is the "bow wave" going to appear on the titan again ? Is the LUFTEX circus going to appear again?

G’day apache,

Would you care to provide a regulatory reference to support that statement? I don’t believe there is one.

It’s class G – every man for himself. :ok:

If you were inbound to Bathurst from the south and were aware that six aircraft in a row had gone around from the NDB approach due to low cloud to the north of the aerodrome would you see much point in going to the north of the aerodrome to do an NDB approach? I wouldn’t.

If there was a GPS arrival on or close to your initial inbound track from the south wouldn’t you consider trying that instead? I would.

Their choice I guess - although I really don’t understand why others kept attempting the NDB after the first three or four guys missed out. I would have thought it should have been obvious that the weather to the north of the aerodrome was below the NDB approach minima. I don’t know why those pilots didn’t go and do a GPS arrival from some other direction. Perhaps the aircraft were not GPS equipped, or perhaps the pilots were not suitably trained?

Either way, I’d rather get it on the ground and go watch the race than fly round and round in circles for hours. Each to their own I guess.

If either pilot was concerned that there was a collision hazard then they should have altered course. Where’s the problem?

Yes – all three rings, all beautifully co-ordinated by the usual ringmaster. :ok:

BIK 116.80 , so you would be quite happy for me to just do an approach, tell you to "get stuffed" if you are attempting the NDB, and just barrel in despite what you are telling me ?

From what I understand, the learjet did just that.

In the years that I went there, I did not have an IFR GPS on board, therefore NDB was the only option. ALSO, just cos the wx is below the minima when ABC does the approach, doesn't mean it will be below the minima when XYZ does his/her approach!

Also, I never said that anyone missed out, people WERE getting in off the NDB approach

PS, the "ringmaster" is a legend... always does a great job, very professional, and loved by both pilots and passengers!, goddonya R.O:ok:

G’day again apache, :ok:

I can only fly one aeroplane at a time. If I were concerned that there was a collision hazard then I would manoeuvre to avoid the other aircraft. If someone else flying another aircraft were concerned that there was a collision hazard then I would expect them to do the same – but that’s up to them.

So the reason that aircraft were stacked up to FL150 was because they had outdated avionics. I bet the owners were glad they saved a few bucks, eh? :rolleyes:

Sure – I think the accepted industry euphemism is “fluctuating about the minima” ;) ;) ;)

At the relevant time on the day in question several successive approaches had resulted in go-arounds.

BIK 116.80...
Fair enough, and how many times you would stand for this ? I mean, there is such a thing as professional courtesy aka AIRMANSHIP.

YES... I agree that one must manoeuvre to avoid hazards, but my real point is that that F*****t in the learjet SHOULD have waited his turn, like everybody else.

This is the only place I have heard of, OCTA, where one doesn't hold for another a/c doing an approach!

Using your argument, "person with the most expensive equipment has right of way" ... I do not believe that we have the same AIP's.
Let us change the scenario... SAY the learjet had just pushed into the NDB approach... would THAT make it ok ? SAy he cut in front of you on base.. would THAT make it ok ? Imagine you were rolling from full length, and this clown decides to line up from the intersection.. would THAT be ok ?
well... if this it what it takes to drag operators into the 21st century, then so be it!

well well well
 

All,
check out BIK's posts on this thread...then look at the reams of drivel about NAS and the wonders of G airspace, see and avoid and getting rid of ATS, no need for anyone helping, Up you Jack I'm all right type of airmanship.

He wonders why professionals don't take him seriously.

ps yes playing the man a bit, but he does leave himself open to it,

Hope all instructors out there print these contributions out for instructional purposes.

With the wide variation of traffic / holding / approach procedures
involved I would be very interested to see how you handle teaching it to your students.

Mind you if the Lear crew negotiated the approach with the lowest stacked aircraft then it could work out as BIK says.

But as I understand this was not the case.

Has the Lear crew ever made any contribution via the forum on this subject?

Apache is spot on on this one.
 

I listened from the ground, as I had snuck in just before the wx closed in, and the goat show was in full effect.

The stack was impressive until the particular Lear decided to do its thing. One of the most unpro thing I have seen in a long time.

BTW Pach, you still on the Bandit? :suspect:

G’day apache,

I’m sorry but I don’t understand. Say again? :confused:

Absolutely! :ok:

But what is discourteous about manoeuvring to the south of the aerodrome when another aircraft is manoeuvring to the north of the aerodrome?

Here’s the charts :

BTH Aerodrome Chart (Note : chart date after October 2000)
BTH GPS Arrivals (page 1) (Note : chart date after October 2000)
BTH GPS Arrivals (page 2)
BTH RWY 17 NDB
BTH RWY 17 GPS

I disagree.

Let’s consider a road transport analogy.

There are two toll gates on a two-lane motorway. One is a traditional toll gate that is staffed by a person collecting cash. The other toll gate is a more modern automatic drive-thru type that uses a transponder in each vehicle for electronic billing. Only vehicles fitted with a suitable transponder can use the automatic toll gate.

I arrive at the toll complex in my transponder equipped vehicle. There is a slow moving queue of about 30 cars at the manned toll gate, but traffic is driving through the automatic toll gate at about 80 km/h. I have to decide which lane to use.

Does “professional courtesy” dictate that I should line up behind the 30 cars at the manned toll gate, even though my vehicle is suitably equipped to use the more expeditious automatic toll gate? I think not.

I’m going to drive through the automatic toll gate at 80 km/h.

Those that don’t have a vehicle transponder (and perhaps those with an over-riding sense of “professional courtesy”) can continue to wait in the slow lane.

In a similar way, I suspect that the vast majority of aircraft that were “stacked up to FL150 doing holding patterns” found themselves in that situation because the aircraft owners were too tight-fisted to fit an IFR GPS. As you said earlier, for these aircraft the “NDB was the only option”.

But why should the crew of an aircraft that is able to carry out a GPS arrival from the south feel obligated to suffer the same delays as those with outdated avionics?

If there was only one instrument procedure at Bathurst then it would be like a one-lane motorway and arriving aircraft would be obliged to join the end of the queue.

But since there are multiple instrument procedures at Bathurst it’s more like a multi-lane motorway – one where not all vehicles are suitably equipped to use all lanes.

I can understand the frustration that pilots going round and round in the holding pattern that day must have felt, but one must be careful not to misdirect that frustration towards the pilots of aircraft with more capable avionics. It’s not the fault of the Lear crew that the aircraft in the hold were not fitted with an IFR GPS.

Then you need to get out more.

I’m not aware of any regulation that would dictate that kind of constraint.

I’ve never made that argument.

I don’t believe that this was a question of “right of way”.

But in any case, to an extent, it’s each aircraft owner’s right to choose to fit whatever level of avionics they wish to pay for. But such decisions must be taken in the knowledge that there will be times when aircraft with limited navigation equipment will experience operational constraints that will not be experienced by aircraft with more capable equipment. Those operational constraints may include delays and even diversions.

Such is life.

Those are hypotheticals. I’ll leave those for someone else.

I suspect that we are on the same wavelength on this particular point.

piniped,

I’ve never been a big advocate of “see and avoid”.

megle2,

I fail to understand how the “lowest stacked aircraft” owned the airspace any more (or any less) than the Lear pilots owned the airspace. I suggest that it’s best to announce your intentions and let others make their own decisions. You can only fly one aircraft at a time – usually it’s the one that you are sitting in.

BIK

Correct, the lowest stacked aircraft does not "own" the airspace, just the pattern he is in.

But he is the guy you are most likely going to conflict with so sought it out with him and go for it.

I guess the Lear thought he was doing a legal approach using his approved FMC / FMS!!

I liked the motorway thing, you just left one thing out after the toll gates the lanes then merge back into one lane (i.e msa, holding alt etc) so you are now merging with all that traffic into the one lane and doing all this whilst you have NO visability and travelling at a couple of hundred km/h. fun huh let me try:P

in 2000 gps npa's were still very new i don't think many GA aircraft had equipment approved for them at that stage.

I could be wrong here as it was a few years ago and i only heard about it after the event from the guys at bth when i was doing my bankrun (and we all know how bankrunners and couriers exagerate) but didn't the lear miss out also, good to see that the High tech equipment saved him all that money!!! saved haveing to hold! just did a missed app then shot across to bk for more fuel, pitty he didn't have the perscribed seperation.

No legislation in the regs hey, look closer, it may not specifically talk about approaches but there is stuff on seperation, and manouvering below the msa whilst in IMC which some clown recomended everyone do to get out of the lears way.

come on, you guys are an embarrasment to proffesional pilots if you think that this sort of thing is ok, how was he going to ensure seperation from the other aircraft in the approach???? must have had those Xray vision gogles, shame they didn't help him see the ground at the minima. If the airfield has 2 different approaches that DONT conflict fine do one while some one else does another but there aren't many of those around.

if he was proffesional and wanted to do the gps appr here is an idea, talk to the blokes in the stack on the way in, reduce speed to arrive at the IAF at a time that allows the next aircraft to do the app and have the next aircraft hold 1000ft above the msa so if you do miss out you arent trying to dodge the other guy with a blind fold on, slowing down also allows you to reduce power whilst high to help out on the fuel situation, which could have been a contributing factor to the rushed approach.

This is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever heard. It would be more suitable if you were talking about Sydney with parallel runways and twin ILS's.

I think that we may have been talking about different things here, if this is what you think is what happened. What REALLY happened is that the learjet conducted the GPSNPA onto rwy17, whilst other traffic was queued up to do the RWY17 NDB!!! And there is the conflict!

Anyway, enough said methinks.... so how did the races go this year ??? any dramas ?

Has anybody thought how this would work with E airspace with a base of 1200 (or lower)?

Aircraft stacked at vertically separated levels, nobody within 1000FT of the missed approach level until number 1 reports landed. First come, first served. Departures? Wait or go VFR.

Will this help or infuriate?