Talking to traffic in the circuit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it's all very well being told you're number in sequence but you may not be able to see everyone ahead of you.
It's quite an eye-opener with TCAS; how far away you can see other traffic and how close you can't!
It's quite an eye-opener with TCAS; how far away you can see other traffic and how close you can't!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying in the circuit at Nottingham some time ago. The vis was very poor, I was flying a PFA high wing machine and there were three others down wind behind me. I started to turn base, but caught something out of the corner of my eye, raised the wing and a PA28 shot past at my height not very far away. I called “Nottingham traffic, danger, aircraft at circuit height wrong direction”. This was the first thing, which came into my head. In the PA38 behind me was an instructor, who “broke right” and narrowly avoided a nasty end.
Are people going to suggest the radio rules should have come first in this case? Perhaps I should have taken my time; after all, he was behind me and not my problem.
Rod1
Are people going to suggest the radio rules should have come first in this case? Perhaps I should have taken my time; after all, he was behind me and not my problem.
Rod1
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are people going to suggest the radio rules should have come first in this case? Perhaps I should have taken my time; after all, he was behind me and not my problem.
Did you file an AIRPROX?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. I did not file.
Our intrepid visitor had mistaken Syerston for Nottingham, worked it out very late on, blundered through the then active Newton on his way to the real Nottingham, and then got the runway mixed up when he thought he was joining down wind, which he should not have been doing anyway. I had been aware of the radio traffic when he was calling over Syerston, but his appearance was something of a shock.
He had a long chat with the CFI, but no prosecution as far as I know.
Rod1
Our intrepid visitor had mistaken Syerston for Nottingham, worked it out very late on, blundered through the then active Newton on his way to the real Nottingham, and then got the runway mixed up when he thought he was joining down wind, which he should not have been doing anyway. I had been aware of the radio traffic when he was calling over Syerston, but his appearance was something of a shock.
He had a long chat with the CFI, but no prosecution as far as I know.
Rod1
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is saying don't look out! We're just discussing what to do when you've spotted someone, but they are about to go into your blind spot (because they will be behind you), and you're not sure that they have spotted you. And if they haven't spotted you, there maybe a risk of a collision.
No one is suggesting the radio is an alternative to a lookout. It's just that a lookout is not very effective for dealing with traffic catching you from behind.
dp
No one is suggesting the radio is an alternative to a lookout. It's just that a lookout is not very effective for dealing with traffic catching you from behind.
dp
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nottingham
a PA28 shot past at my height not very far away
Anyway, I kept well to the east, precisely so as to avoid blundering into the circuit flying in the wrong direction, and got a call "where on earth are you then?" having announced my intention to join several minutes earlier.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot, I agree. CM and Miserlou, I'm not sure why we are disagreeing on this. If you check posts on similar subjects made by paulo, dublinpilot, Evo, me and others you may see that we do not believe that the radio is a flight control, a navigational device, or an anti-collision failsafe. All that we are saying is that use of the radio, combined with lookout, and as an ingredient of airmanship, may in some circumstances help a little in the circuit, as elsewhere.
Rod1: good call.
Someone said above that "Traffic" calls should not be made, because they aren't in a book. There is no book dictating precisely how one should speak on the radio. It is a device for communication with the ground, and with other pilots, usually indirectly, but occasionally directly. I get fed up with PPLs, and some instructors, adding mystification to the radio by assuming that one has to learn by rote a particular thing to say at any given moment.
Rod1: good call.
Someone said above that "Traffic" calls should not be made, because they aren't in a book. There is no book dictating precisely how one should speak on the radio. It is a device for communication with the ground, and with other pilots, usually indirectly, but occasionally directly. I get fed up with PPLs, and some instructors, adding mystification to the radio by assuming that one has to learn by rote a particular thing to say at any given moment.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, "Paulo" had the other aircraft in sight and wanted to ask if the other aircraft had Paulo in sight.
a) What if the reply is NO......do you wast more R/T time trying to have a private conversation describing at length where you are and what you will do? or
b) What if the reply is YES.....and the aircraft continues to get closer and closer and closer.
In both cases, the R/T call is a waste of time that can be used to get your aircraft into a safe position.
Are we going to hear the following on London Information and thus making the frequency totally useless;
"G-ABCD mid channel 3000ft"
"G-ABCD this is G-XYZA do you have me in sight?"
"G-ABCD this is F-DFRT do you have me in sight and G-ZYZA wher are you should you have me in sight or should I have youi in sight or is this a wast of time better spent looking out the window?"
I have been on the receiving end of this "do you have me in sight" bleating on a few occasions. In order to shut the guy up, I eventually pointed out that I had just called final while he was still overhead and yes I did have him in sight 2000 ft above and 2 miles away!!!!! I have enough to do flying my aircraft I am not going to do your job as well!!!
There is Paulo looking out the back window talking on the radio driving his aircraft into the one in front.
Chilli is perfectly correct to be harsh...because standards are dropping and we will end up with nothing but Yak Yak where are you here I am what did you do for lunch old chap yak yak yak.
ZXC down wind contact 2 ahead / zxc final contact one on the runway / ZXC having a collision with the non radio final traffic / zxc leaving the airwaves.
Only ATC can decide or dictate the sequence.
At an AFISO or A/G service field, if G-ABCD calls downwind and correctly identifies 2 aircraft ahead at that time it is perfectly correct for another aircraft to position ahead and thus change G-ABCD's position in the sequence provided it is done safely. This instantly makes the out loud calling of sequence number a waste of time and an even bigger waste of time if it is repeatidly updated.
I personally think that some pilots believe that if they call downwind 2 ahead that no other aircraft can then get ahead of them - Not true.
Aviate, Navigate and Communicate by the book cause that is why it is there.
Feel free to suggest changes to the R/T book to the CAA so that we can all use them if they are safe.
Regards,
DFC
a) What if the reply is NO......do you wast more R/T time trying to have a private conversation describing at length where you are and what you will do? or
b) What if the reply is YES.....and the aircraft continues to get closer and closer and closer.
In both cases, the R/T call is a waste of time that can be used to get your aircraft into a safe position.
Are we going to hear the following on London Information and thus making the frequency totally useless;
"G-ABCD mid channel 3000ft"
"G-ABCD this is G-XYZA do you have me in sight?"
"G-ABCD this is F-DFRT do you have me in sight and G-ZYZA wher are you should you have me in sight or should I have youi in sight or is this a wast of time better spent looking out the window?"
I have been on the receiving end of this "do you have me in sight" bleating on a few occasions. In order to shut the guy up, I eventually pointed out that I had just called final while he was still overhead and yes I did have him in sight 2000 ft above and 2 miles away!!!!! I have enough to do flying my aircraft I am not going to do your job as well!!!
There is Paulo looking out the back window talking on the radio driving his aircraft into the one in front.
Chilli is perfectly correct to be harsh...because standards are dropping and we will end up with nothing but Yak Yak where are you here I am what did you do for lunch old chap yak yak yak.
ZXC down wind contact 2 ahead / zxc final contact one on the runway / ZXC having a collision with the non radio final traffic / zxc leaving the airwaves.
Only ATC can decide or dictate the sequence.
At an AFISO or A/G service field, if G-ABCD calls downwind and correctly identifies 2 aircraft ahead at that time it is perfectly correct for another aircraft to position ahead and thus change G-ABCD's position in the sequence provided it is done safely. This instantly makes the out loud calling of sequence number a waste of time and an even bigger waste of time if it is repeatidly updated.
I personally think that some pilots believe that if they call downwind 2 ahead that no other aircraft can then get ahead of them - Not true.
Aviate, Navigate and Communicate by the book cause that is why it is there.
Feel free to suggest changes to the R/T book to the CAA so that we can all use them if they are safe.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To go a little deeper, FNG, part of the reason many people fly is for the freedom. That freedom is restricted by the radio and, God knows, there are enough restrictions placed our flying already.
There was once an accepted gesture, I think I mentioned it earlier, waggling the wings; could mean anything you want it to mean. And a little waggle back in reply...being a member of the brotherhood of airmen and all that.
Why don't people do that any more?
There was once an accepted gesture, I think I mentioned it earlier, waggling the wings; could mean anything you want it to mean. And a little waggle back in reply...being a member of the brotherhood of airmen and all that.
Why don't people do that any more?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I entirely agree, Miserlou. I often fly without the radio, and always rock my wings on meeting other aircraft. It is a shame when people do not respond. Sometimes I think they have not seen me. Other times, I lament the fact that some products of PPL schools appear to be afraid to bank more than twenty degrees. Sometimes,I wonder if they are just flying on, having seen me, but assuming that they have right of way because their GPS (aka PIC) tells them so, and that my wing-rocking is a panicky "get me out of here" manouevre, rather than a way of saying "I see you, and hello, fellow pilot" . Bah, humbug.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a grey area. It is the pilots right and responsibility to question anything which might affect the safety of the flight. If an accident happens, its the Pilots responsibility.
Would you never question an instructor / captain sat next to you for fear of "putting his back up"? Thats a very dangerous game. ATC do a wonderful job, but do make mistakes (being vectored into a mountain springs to mind).
Would you never question an instructor / captain sat next to you for fear of "putting his back up"? Thats a very dangerous game. ATC do a wonderful job, but do make mistakes (being vectored into a mountain springs to mind).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paulo,
If in doubt - get out of harms way and talk about it later.!!!!
When you have and engine failure do you sort out the aircraft and make an R/T call or do you make the call and then sort out the aircraft?
------
einglshal,
This has nothing to do with ATC and I hope that I can rest assured that if one had doubts about an situation involving ATC that everyone would address the question to ATC and not to the other aircraft on frequency.
FISO and Air Ground Radio and for that matter ATC radio frequencies are for Air - Ground - Air communication. They are not for Air to Air communication.
The crux of this argument lies with the fact that Paulo had the other aircraft in sight and had the ability to ensure the safety of his aircraft (and the other aircraft).
If however, Paulo was observing an imminent collision between two other aircraft (who may not see each other) then he would be quite correct to issue a warning on the R/T. But I bet that he would be disapointed if after issuing the warning, the aircraft in possible danger did nothing other than make a radio call asking the other aircraft if his aircraft was in sight.
Regards,
DFC
If in doubt - get out of harms way and talk about it later.!!!!
When you have and engine failure do you sort out the aircraft and make an R/T call or do you make the call and then sort out the aircraft?
------
einglshal,
This has nothing to do with ATC and I hope that I can rest assured that if one had doubts about an situation involving ATC that everyone would address the question to ATC and not to the other aircraft on frequency.
FISO and Air Ground Radio and for that matter ATC radio frequencies are for Air - Ground - Air communication. They are not for Air to Air communication.
The crux of this argument lies with the fact that Paulo had the other aircraft in sight and had the ability to ensure the safety of his aircraft (and the other aircraft).
If however, Paulo was observing an imminent collision between two other aircraft (who may not see each other) then he would be quite correct to issue a warning on the R/T. But I bet that he would be disapointed if after issuing the warning, the aircraft in possible danger did nothing other than make a radio call asking the other aircraft if his aircraft was in sight.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transponders in the Circuit...
Dublinpilot
I like your example, and as an SR22 driver, it rings true to me.
This is a real risk.
Actually the SR22 pilot will be hearing "Traffic Traffic" in his ears if his SkyWatch is working!
Which brings me to a very important point, many old time pilots still switch their transponders off as part of their approach checks.
IMHO This is the most stupid habit anyone can ever practice, in the crowded area of an airport, having transponders on and TCAS systems fitted can very effectively help a pilot aquire visually all other aircraft in the close proximity of the airport.
If pilots out there do not want to have a mid-air with a fast Cirrus (and there are a lot of us around now) then please leave your transponders on!!! You will probably come out the worst afterall the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....
Ian
I like your example, and as an SR22 driver, it rings true to me.
This is a real risk.
On the other hand, if the SR22 pilot hasn't seen Paulo, he'll be catching the C150 very quickly indeed
Which brings me to a very important point, many old time pilots still switch their transponders off as part of their approach checks.
IMHO This is the most stupid habit anyone can ever practice, in the crowded area of an airport, having transponders on and TCAS systems fitted can very effectively help a pilot aquire visually all other aircraft in the close proximity of the airport.
If pilots out there do not want to have a mid-air with a fast Cirrus (and there are a lot of us around now) then please leave your transponders on!!! You will probably come out the worst afterall the Cirrus will pull its CAPS and walk away....
Ian
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If pilots out there do not want to have a mid-air with a fast Cirrus (and there are a lot of us around now) then please leave your transponders on!!!
Much as Valenii has a point, there is, as always, two sides to the coin:
Busy circuit, everyone squawking, many of the aircraft have no mode 'C'. Take this to be at any airfield outside CAS.
Now adjacent radar unit is working an aircraft under RAS which wants to route via this airfields overhead. This aircraft can be anywhere between FL50 and FL245. The airfield is far enough away that you can't see the primary returns, but because you can see the copious, garbling, SSR readout's, including lots of 'NMC' indications (no mode Charlie) then you have to give avoiding action on traffic which my be 20,000ft below.
If you're arriving then fine, leave the transponder on until landing. Don't have a problem with that as it's SOP for most people. However - if you're going into the circuit consider whether you actually need it on. 99% of the time the answer will be no.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ban mode A only transponders above 1500ft
Chilli Monster,
I agree the SR22 driver should be slowed to circuit speed, and thats easy in a Cirrus, she will happily fly along at 90knots!
I also agree that mode "alpha" is next to useless. It not only causes the ATC confusion you speak of but also causes us frights also!
Worst one I got was while I was practicing holds once, and suddenly got "Traffic Traffic" 0.3Nm 12o'clock.... no mode charlie!!!
Looked for ages for the traffic then noticed a helicopter starting his rotors in a field way way below me!!! If he had Mode C I would not even have seen a target on the scope (as the threat level would have been too low)
I would personally like to see "mode a" phased out and quickly. and as a start I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie. That way if we see a return with no altitude on our scopes, then we know he should be below 1500ft.
Anyone that refuses to fit mode C in their aircraft is probably more happy flying low anyway......
Okay now you can all "flame me".....
Ian
I agree the SR22 driver should be slowed to circuit speed, and thats easy in a Cirrus, she will happily fly along at 90knots!
I also agree that mode "alpha" is next to useless. It not only causes the ATC confusion you speak of but also causes us frights also!
Worst one I got was while I was practicing holds once, and suddenly got "Traffic Traffic" 0.3Nm 12o'clock.... no mode charlie!!!
Looked for ages for the traffic then noticed a helicopter starting his rotors in a field way way below me!!! If he had Mode C I would not even have seen a target on the scope (as the threat level would have been too low)
I would personally like to see "mode a" phased out and quickly. and as a start I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie. That way if we see a return with no altitude on our scopes, then we know he should be below 1500ft.
Anyone that refuses to fit mode C in their aircraft is probably more happy flying low anyway......
Okay now you can all "flame me".....
Ian
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would personally like to see "mode a" phased out and quickly. and as a start I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie. That way if we see a return with no altitude on our scopes, then we know he should be below 1500ft.
It's also fairly concerning if Cirrus drivers really believe that a midair, in the circuit or elsewhere, is more of a problem for someone else because they "will pull ... CAPS and walk away".
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying to figure out if this is intended seriously or is just a pure troll. I have never seen a convincing argument for not using mode Charlie in the cruise when it is fitted, but it's an odd argument to suggest that a huge portion of the UK fleet be forced down into the weeds so that the 1%, if that, of pilots with TCAS-type systems don't have to bother looking out of the window, safe in the knowledge that their gizmo will pick up all traffic for them. Forcing everything down low is daft, for both safety and noise reasons. Maybe in 2008 you'll have your wish for Mode-S in all aeroplanes, but I rather suspect that even then you'll still need to keep eyes outside when in the open-FIR; i'd be amazed if every microlight, glider and baloon has to have Mode-S, and I remain hopeful that parts of the PFA fleet will be exempt too.
I was quite serious. We are at a step change in the industry, where Technically Advanced Aircraft are now out selling traditional ones. As we go through the change, there will be those that "mock" the advantages of these planes and try to hold back progress. As an example about two years ago Pilot Magazine ran an editorial arguing that the CAPS system was just a waste of 100lb of payload. They failed to see that it was fitted in light of a "whole new design", and the other factors such as less drag etc actually made the "whole" aircraft more efficient than the old style - even with the CAPS!
Likewise people think that a Cirrus pilot depends on his TCAS system to save himself looking out the window.... This is rubbish, we are pilots trained in the same way as everyone else, like all pilots we push ourselves to look out the window and fly as safely as possible. However I have been in many many situations especially in the london area, when I have been looking as hard as I can, but not seen anything. 7 times out of ten, the TCAS system helps me find a real threat that I may not have otherwise found. The other 3 times out of ten I look just as hard, but due to the fact the target has no mode C I often fail to see him. I KNOW that other pilots DO NOT SEE half the traffic I look for....
Not having mode C does not just confuse aircraft with TCAS it also confuses ATC. Soon we will have to upgrade to mode S as you suggest, this will dramatically bring down the price of second hand mode C kit.
In my opinion mode A is just a pain. Why not have negative transponder or mode C?
My comment about the CAPS pilot "walking away" was tongue in cheek, but meant to highlight that the designers of Cirrus aircraft have deliverately tried to address issues that cause GA fatalities, namely CFIT, loss of control in VFR into IMC, inadvertant spins, Collisions, and Airframe failure.
I was good friends with Pete MacNeil who died in the C310 at Soloflight earlier in the year. I don;t know what happened but am sure if he was in a CAPS equipped aircraft he would be alive today.
Ian
BTW isn't a troll someone who hides his identity?? thats not me!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian - a troll is one who posts controversial views with the intention of provoking an argument. Your views can certainly be read as unconventional - especially as 'no mode Charlie' includes those with no transponder, not just those with only mode Alpha - and your closing statement of 'Okay now you can all "flame me"' made me uncertain if you were posting to get a reaction or were trying to make a serious point. I can agree when you say "In my opinion mode A is just a pain. Why not have negative transponder or mode C?", but it's not obvious that that was your point from your original posts. Sadly the troll is all too common online, so I hope you will forgive my response.
I would agree that glass-cockpit recreational (for want of a better word) aeroplanes will soon start to out-sell traditionally-instrumented aeroplanes, if they haven't already. I have no idea of the statistics, and would suspect that the healthy homebuilt and microlight markets probably mean that new registrations are still mainly traditional, but I imagine few people buying, for example, a new C182 would not buy a glass-cockpit, and the low-end market will surely follow as prices drop. However, the life of GA aeroplanes is long, and I imagine it will be a decade or more before anything other than a small fraction of the UK fleet has the sort of advanced instrumentation found today in a Cirrus, and the cost of equipment and ongoing maintenance will mean that a sizeable proportion will essentially never have it - i'm thinking of the PFA fleet here, but there is a joy to flying a basic, uninstrumented aeroplane that I suspect will only be lost if it is legislated away. Some people just want stick and rudder, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I have no doubt that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane; the benefits of the equipment are, I think, unarguable, and I would love to have access to one for when i'd like to go touring. However, you did say that "I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie" and I think it's unrealistic, and somewhat unhelpful, to expect the rest of aviation to change to fit equipment that most will not have for years, if ever.
Ben (aka Evo).
I would agree that glass-cockpit recreational (for want of a better word) aeroplanes will soon start to out-sell traditionally-instrumented aeroplanes, if they haven't already. I have no idea of the statistics, and would suspect that the healthy homebuilt and microlight markets probably mean that new registrations are still mainly traditional, but I imagine few people buying, for example, a new C182 would not buy a glass-cockpit, and the low-end market will surely follow as prices drop. However, the life of GA aeroplanes is long, and I imagine it will be a decade or more before anything other than a small fraction of the UK fleet has the sort of advanced instrumentation found today in a Cirrus, and the cost of equipment and ongoing maintenance will mean that a sizeable proportion will essentially never have it - i'm thinking of the PFA fleet here, but there is a joy to flying a basic, uninstrumented aeroplane that I suspect will only be lost if it is legislated away. Some people just want stick and rudder, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I have no doubt that the Cirrus is a great aeroplane; the benefits of the equipment are, I think, unarguable, and I would love to have access to one for when i'd like to go touring. However, you did say that "I propose that the CAA ban flight above 1,500feet if you have no Mode Charlie" and I think it's unrealistic, and somewhat unhelpful, to expect the rest of aviation to change to fit equipment that most will not have for years, if ever.
Ben (aka Evo).