CTAF Circuit Joining - Bushflight (con't)
 

G’day werbil et al,
.
Interesting one this. An answer (in part) to gadude’s Q below:-
.
werbilI Agree, as I suspect the answer to your hypothetical would in part answer gadude’s Q
.
gadudeThe ‘relative bearing’ of the aircraft that WILL hit you is perpendicular (high closing rate), and stationary in your field of vision (less obvious as no movement to trigger a focused look).
.
You will have varying degrees of ‘relative bearing’ issues no matter where you and the other targets are in the circuit, the difference with entering the circuit directly on BASE is that several other things are in play i.e. the descent, the need to look (assuming a left circuit) left (at the downwind leg) and right (at the final leg) for target traffic whilst slowing up, flaps, gear, checks (which would otherwise be partly or in whole completed on downwind where the chance of high speed convergence is least) …. BUT! the biggest difference of all is the inability to manoeuvre once on base i.e. can’t turn right to follow one on final, can’t extend downwind to space, so the only option once on base and you find out you are not spaced, is a left turn, climb and join upwind!
.
It is one thing to make a mental picture before reaching the circuit, it is entirely another to have a fully accurate picture joining base particularly if there are more than one or two in the circuit at the time!!!
.
My 2c :)

Giday Scurv!

Another well thought out and reasoned answer http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/howdy.gif

J:ok:

gadude said (in previous thread) Furthermore to the above post, what happens on arrival to an aerodrome with a few ultralight aircraft not equipped with radio putting around the circuit?

The extra time afforded in the circuit by joining downwind instead of base helps you to build a complete picture of all traffic in the circuit, not just that inferred from radio transmissions. Add to this some students I've encountered in the past flying an hour of circuits at a busy NSW aerodrome with the VHF switched off, and surely more time in the circuit for see-and-avoid starts to make sense?

toronto_flyer

Gidday Jaba,

Have the other bits arrived yet for the new toy? :8

G'Day....
 

G'Day 'Scurves'.........

Its just plain bloody obvious you are not busy enough..........!

(Rapunzel Rapunzel says....Let down............NOW!)

:)

Scurvy - G'day - great idea to separate this thread.:ok:

TF,

Increasing time in the circuit by requiring extra legs in the circuit creates the following problems which increase the collision risk.
(i) it increases the time in the highest traffic density areas substantially, and
(ii) it increases the density of traffic (aircraft per volume of airspace)
where there is a significant proportion of arriving / departing aircraft.

Being able to optimize scanning techniques increases the effectiveness of see and avoid, but my question is does the three legs of the circuit rule optimize it enough to reduce the overall collision risk per movement. Objective / scientific data is what I am suggesting should be considered and not just gut feelings of pilots such as me. Without a doubt mandatory use of use of radio optimizes traffic scanning far better than the three legs rule.

My closest call in the circuit was at night at YMMB (tower closed) about twenty years ago - the joining aircraft's strobes whited out my instrument panel as it joined crosswind - I was completing circuits at the time.

IMHO the downwind join with a turn opposite the circuit direction is probably one of the worst places to join the circuit - it is at this position in the circuit that distraction of setting up for landing and completing the pre landing checks is most likely to keep pilots from effectively scanning for traffic outside the cockpit.

Werbil,

You make some good points. We really do need quantitative research before we can ever hope to end this debate, as everyone has their own views from experience and training.

But making broadcasts on CTAF frequencies mandatory for all aircraft would be a plus for everyone :ok:

toronto_flyer

Some good, well reasoned posts. But the question I like is: With 60 years or more of accident & incident reporting, why does it seem that CASA can't make a real world analysis.

If you're wondering what the effect of everyone joining on base might be, have a think about operations at Hoxton Park where it is mandatory to fly 4 legs of the circuit before landing (unless I am mistaken).

I would have thought that everyone cramming into join crosswind would be like everyone joining base simultaneously?

At least they will all becoming from the same place doing the same thing. Someone calls "joining" and you would know where to look because they can only be in one place.

There has been many fatal accidents in circuits in the past regarding joining the circuit at the incorrect altitude also. I can not see anyone pointing it out yet.
The Hoxton Park mid-air comes to mind where the Tomahawk from Bankstown attempted to join crosswind flying straight into the other aircraft on downwind. If he was 500 feet higher as required the accident could have been avoided.
So it is not only important to fly the published number of legs it is just as important flying them at the correct altitude also.

Safe flying :ok:

Altitude segregation is key until positioned to mimimise the possibility of swapping of paint/fabric :ok:
.
Accurate alerting (in whatever form) is also key!

Hey Grif, howsit hangin :ok:
.
... yeh I know, canna help myself .... day off, missus and kids off doin' their thing :} :E .. cows and sheep on autopilot ... all is well :)
.
Might be over there in the next little while, we should catch up, will keep ya posted!

Do i seriusly have to go back to school?

Quote""The Hoxton Park mid-air comes to mind where the Tomahawk from Bankstown attempted to join crosswind flying straight into the other aircraft on downwind. If he was 500 feet higher as required the accident could have been avoided.""

If i were to join xwind I would have to be AT circuit hight don't I??

When you join overhead you should be 500 feet over the circuit, decent to circuit hight NON traffic site.

I stand to be corrected.

:ok:

Yes, yes you do.

ppppffff :} :ok: ... spelllin police alert :E

gadude
 

Yes, you are correct. I should have said" attempted to overfly at circuit height ". He should have been 500 feet above and let down on the dead side to join crosswind at the correct height. :(

Still no excuse for your spelling though :E

:ok:

The analysises that Scurvy quoted in this post http://www.pprune.org/d-g-general-av...ml#post4519960 are very relevant to this discussion. Interesting to note that final approach is the highest risk area of the circuit (logical - greatest concentration of traffic and great visual reference to enable accurate tracking).

Also interesting to note was that collisions generally occurred in excellent weather conditions.

Yr right 'griffo', doggy boy has far too much time on his hands down there:E
As for the cts joining? Well it's been the way it currently is for many moons, it works, it's safe & it's in place for good safety reasons. Scurvy summed it up well. One main reason I see it being needed is to allow time for everyone to space manage within the circuit. As others have said, you get say 3 A/C sorted out within the circuit after some R/T chatting then someone joins base & stuffs up the whole thing, like they say, get in line mate!
Joing straight in these days even though has in my mind added dangers (due non R/T traffic) works well enough providing everyone sticks to the rules, there in lies the real problem, there's always someone who 'thinks' they know better!




CW

SMS777 That makes more sence.

And I can breath I little relaxed. I was a little worried that I also had the cross wind joining wrong, like I had with the base leg joining not being allowed.
As for my spelling, wel I just didn't learn it when I grow up like most off you guys did.
Never been very good at it in my native lingo either.

At least gives some off the guys here someting to pick on.:O

cheers:ok:

gadude .. this place is the school of hard knocks :ooh: :} :E .. but, the reality check is that most are prepared to provide the required knowledge along with a few barbs added here and there for good measure! :} :E
.
... as for Wal and Grif .. bit like the school yard trouble makers :E not at all like me of course :) .. but we love em all the same :ok: :D

While you mob carry on discussing it all Im gunna

*Listen to the CTAF from 20 nm
*Keep a extra GOOD lookout if its not CTAF (R)
*Listen to eveyone making all the mandatory calls with no reply (not suposed to respond these days eh..)
*Listen out for you guys making extra (non AIP calls) about the 2 guys with no radio and where they are in the sequence..
*Join on base with all the right calls if I can get a word in
*Be on the ground first if I can..

The least risk of a mid air has to be on the ground right ???

:E
... too little too late unless you are flyin' a handkerchief! :} :p .. best you do if it IS a CTAF(R) as well!! ;) .. and what if nothing heard?? .. does that mean there are 6 of you saying nothing because no one has said anything? :ooh: ... do you think radio equipped acft will tell you about no-radio nob's??? :hmm: .. good onya ... NOT! := ... yep. no worries, cause the meat and aluminium confetti will not obscure the runway as it (you and your spam can ... now in bits) will be about 2nm from the threshold yep!!! :} :E ... it depends on how you choose to arrive on the ground that counts!!! ;) :E

Werbil and SDD

I'll probably get shot for this revalation but it has long been my belief (and submission) that if we are serious about RPT safety at CTAF:
1. Every effort should be made to have RPT make SIA so they are then not exposed to circuit traffic that multiplies risk events, and,
2. Although CASA probably cannot make a rule that gives RPT ROW (even though that exists in CTA) there should be educational material to GA to do all possible to give ROW to RPT on SIA.

I have also suggested several times to CASA that GA VFR pilots should be checked on BASIC (emphasis) IFR procedures during their final PPL time and/or their AFR. Many don't understand the apparent 'non-conformance' of IFR RPT - so there's another accident waiting to happen.

Please don't any regional drivers get swollen heads at these suggestions - its for safety not your divinity :D

Quote ""*Listen to the CTAF from 20 nm""

It also pay's to listen on centre frequenty as I recently learned in Karratha.
You join the circuit after climbing up to circuit hight, joining xwind (good hey!!) after listing to CTAF for the last 20 nm. To discover there is a BIG wipper snipper flying down wind without making any calls.. And they seem to go a little slower that the old 210.
got me puzzled for a bit.

That happend twice and I figered out from then on that they must simply forget to switch back to CTAF frequentie after talking to centre.

I know he had to be around somewere as he did talk to centre before I was 20nm. And I do have a habit, like most off us i think, that I have centre tuned in, incase the engine goes a bit quiet.

At least that way I might have a change to talk to someone.

Cheers:ok:

WTFITSTM?

(Decode: What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?)

AUaCB :E

Erm..
 

Give

"Right Of Way to Regular Public Transport on Straight In Approaches"

And remember to wash your hands before eating - AUACB ;)

DIVOSH!

Try going into Kununurra during the dry season, with up to 20 GA types returning from the Bungles. The standrad calls become a pain, trying to sort out traffic, especially if you enter the runway between some ones calls and find yourself half way down the runway with some one turning base. This procedure of just making the required calls and looking out doesn't really work in a high traffic CTAF(R). I would hate to have to operate there all the time.

'4X' don't worry the likes of "gold" get caught eventually.
It won't be by CASA either sadly more like when he collects another trying to doing the RIGHT thing!:ugh:


CW

Ahhh...

You guys bite so easily !!

The AIP says by 10 nm.. so I double it to be safe and Im still in trouble...!
I could actually be in more trouble from Wally cause Ive now done something in the interest of safety that is not as per the AIP (para 63.1 "should..." by 10 nm)

Join on base with all the right calls... god Im a demon that CASA should hang..!!

Ok push that base out a mile or two and make me a regional turboprop with lights and radios blaring and all of a sudden Im a legit straight in approach and everyone should give way to me cause Im the big kid on the block ??

I am actually allowed to do this in my "hankerchief" as well.. until scurvey runs me down cause "cct traffic has right of way"

As already stated I think CAR 166 is the governing regulation and there aren't any "Shoulds" in that.

FMC.

You're allowed to do this in your "hankerchief" because why?

If you're referring to RA-Aus, then the same rules apply to you too.

yep.. my point exactly..

The same rules apply.. I dont need to join the cct at all.. I can conduct a straight in approach in anything from a "hankerchief" to the sapce shuttle.. so long as i broadcast, give way etc etc..

and yes it is by 10 nm for broadcast etc .. as already stated I intend to do that but in scurvys opinion its "... too little too late unless you are flyin' a handkerchief!

So which one is it... I join base and get shot down for being a reckless rule breaker... I broadcast/listen at 10 nm as per the rules and Im recless anyway !!!

I doubt SDD's "reckless" carries a strict liability penalty.

Desist joining base - fly at least one metre of the downwind leg, then join base ;)

all aircraft operating in and out of a ctaf or ctaf r should have to have a vhf fitted - they are not expensive and make it a lot safer for everybody

Correct Big Nasty! :D

However there are a few folk, and some of them on here that think its their GOD given right to have everything for free. You breathe the air for free but you can't fly in it that way! :ugh:

J

Agree SHOULD.

My belief is it is not assisted by reducing the VHF one can use.

If a Microair works in a Jabiru (good signal I have found) - why not in a C172?

If you do so make sure you broadcast joining very, very late downwind so that other pilots can optimise their visual scan to spot you (or just have the balls and be honest by broadcasting joining base).

If CASA starts prosecuting pilots from recordings of the CTAF where pilots broadcast joining base the end result will be that most of the pilots that currently join base will continue to do so but will either broadcast incorrect details or say absolutely nothing - great safety improvement.:D

And for those sanctimonious IFR pilots out there - remember in VMC CAR 166 generally requires you to fly three legs of the circuit if you can't comply with the requirements for a straight in approach. VMC is clearly defined in the AIP (as legislated by the CARs) - minimum distance from cloud and minimum visibility - so it can be pitch black in rain under a solid overcast on a moonless night with no visible ground lighting apart from the runway lights and it is still legally VMC (definitely not smart conditions to attempt to fly VFR) and you are legally required to comply with the above circuit entry procedures.

The really bad news is CAR 166 is one of the regulations with strict liability attached - this means that even if the only permitted ways of joining the circuit are downright dangerous (dark night, restricted visibility, low cloud base, terrain requirements etc) and you join using an alternate and far safer method you can still be prosecuted.

IMHO, the biggest problem with CAR 166 is it applies the same requirements to a busy training airfield, to an airfield with no circuit traffic and limited operations, to an aerodrome with RPT operations, to a basic strip that is only used by agricultural aircraft. Even CASA has acknowledged to some extent that this one solution fits all does not work by issuing exemptions to parts of CAR 166 for ALL seaplanes.