Talking to traffic in the circuit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking to traffic in the circuit
I found myself trying to deconflict at Goodwood a few weeks ago (G-**AC, hello, thanks for confirming!).
Aside from wanting to curse overhead joins (let's all fly into each other, then work it out - grrr), what I didn't really know was, when you've got someone in your 'area' and you want to know, say, whether the've seen you, what to do with RT.
Do we do this cumbersome chat?
G-ME: Borton Tower, G-ME, request confirmation that G-THEM has traffic in sight.
Borton: G-THEM, Borton Tower, Do you have traffic in sight?
G-THEM: Traffic in Sight, G-THEM.
The "A asks B to ask C" idea seems daft. I had a garbled attempt at a shortcut....
G-ME: Can AC confirm traffic in sight? G-ME
Not sure it really worked though. What do you do?
Aside from wanting to curse overhead joins (let's all fly into each other, then work it out - grrr), what I didn't really know was, when you've got someone in your 'area' and you want to know, say, whether the've seen you, what to do with RT.
Do we do this cumbersome chat?
G-ME: Borton Tower, G-ME, request confirmation that G-THEM has traffic in sight.
Borton: G-THEM, Borton Tower, Do you have traffic in sight?
G-THEM: Traffic in Sight, G-THEM.
The "A asks B to ask C" idea seems daft. I had a garbled attempt at a shortcut....
G-ME: Can AC confirm traffic in sight? G-ME
Not sure it really worked though. What do you do?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to sound really negative but why would you want to and does it really matter?
Doesn't matter whether he's seen you. It's obvious from your post you're both on the frequency so you both know the other exists. So - eyes out of the cockpit, fly your circuit and concentrate on that. If there's an imminent danger of collision then open your mouth by all means but until that point it's not really necessary.
Doesn't matter whether he's seen you. It's obvious from your post you're both on the frequency so you both know the other exists. So - eyes out of the cockpit, fly your circuit and concentrate on that. If there's an imminent danger of collision then open your mouth by all means but until that point it's not really necessary.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paulo
It does seem cumbersome to address communications through the tower, but it's what I favour. This method is less likely to cause ambiguity than exchanges between individual pilots. The R/T should be providing a picture for everyone, and this can be compromised if aircraft speak to each other. I also think it's a bit discourteous to the ATCO/person in the tower.
It does seem cumbersome to address communications through the tower, but it's what I favour. This method is less likely to cause ambiguity than exchanges between individual pilots. The R/T should be providing a picture for everyone, and this can be compromised if aircraft speak to each other. I also think it's a bit discourteous to the ATCO/person in the tower.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chilli - it wasn't normal circuit stuff. This was about 200ft from behind and closing, so yup, I was getting jumpy.
I hasten to add this is not about the airmanship of the 'other guy'. We both arrived at the same time and that was the luck of the draw.
I hasten to add this is not about the airmanship of the 'other guy'. We both arrived at the same time and that was the luck of the draw.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was about 200ft from behind and closing, so yup, I was getting jumpy
If, as you say, it was that close and closing, and you were getting jumpy, then the other aircraft must have been flown in such a manner as to cause you concern for the safety of your aircraft.
That, believe it or not, is the definition of an 'AIRPROX'.
I don't for one minute believe that sort of scenario is 'the luck of the draw'. I've flown for years at an A/G airfield where the overhead join is the norm. Never had a problem or an incident where people were behaving sensibly. The whole idea behind it is you get a picture of traffic before you join, you keep your eyes open and you descend into the circuit not, with blatant disregard to the other joiners but in an orderly queue - merging with existing circuit traffic at circuit height. If you can't see the conflicting traffic at the point of overhead entry you stay in the overhead until one of you is descending out of the way - which then decides the order.
I would dare to suggest that one of you wasn't fully aware to have this situation develop - someone's at fault somewhere.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post was about RT in the circuit, not me or the other guy being a rubbish pilot
(although I hasten to add that I'm a
nightmare, spesh if you get queued up behind me. 
)
(although I hasten to add that I'm a
nightmare, spesh if you get queued up behind me. )
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about keeping your mouth shut and flying the aeroplane according to the rules. If one has seen the other then it doesn't make any difference. You can continue with right of way if (if you have it) and take avoiding action if the other bod hasn't seen you. It's not dangerous because YOU'VE SEEN HIM!
And one wouldn't want to make an airprox report just because some-one is flying close behind you, that's their responsibility.
If you want a sign, rock your wings.
The best functioning fields I've visited are non-radio or A/G only.
And one wouldn't want to make an airprox report just because some-one is flying close behind you, that's their responsibility.
If you want a sign, rock your wings.
The best functioning fields I've visited are non-radio or A/G only.
Have to agree totally with Chilli Monster on this one.
There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship. Yes the radio is a useful tool but it is only part of your armoury.
I recall the days when I started flying at a local GA airfield when at the weekend we often had up to 12 a/c airborne in the circuit with others joining. Everyone flew a standard overhead join and we never had any incidents and this was all done NON RADIO!
There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship. Yes the radio is a useful tool but it is only part of your armoury.
I recall the days when I started flying at a local GA airfield when at the weekend we often had up to 12 a/c airborne in the circuit with others joining. Everyone flew a standard overhead join and we never had any incidents and this was all done NON RADIO!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misterlou,
I think that is a bit harsh. Paulo hasn't really described his situation in any detail; probably because it wasn't relevant to his question, which was about how to communiate with another aircraft.
However lets imagine that Paulo was doing circuits, in a C150. Another faster aircraft, lets say an SR22 (just because I like 'em), joined the circuit. Paulo turns downwind, and the SR22 joining crosswind, slots in behing him. Now the SR22 is maybe 10 feet above Paulo. Now if the SR22 pilot has Paulo in sight he'll slow down, or over take, and everyone is safe. On the other hand, if the SR22 pilot hasn't seen Paulo, he'll be catching the C150 very quickly indeed, and probably try to correct his altitude difference, and an mid air is imminent. Given that the SR22 is above the C150, and close behind, the C150 will likely be hidden behind the nose of the SR22 (unless the pilot has already seen it and taken corrective action). Given that Paulo in front and is flying a high wing a/c, he is unlikely to be able to see anything behind and above him.
Now your advise is for Paulo to rock his wings, and continue on, and when the mid air collision happens, for him to point his finger at the SR22 pilot, and say "I had right of way!"????
I can certainly see why a pilot in those circumstances would want to know if the other aircraft had him in sight, irrespective of who was in the right or wrong. It's not one to leave the insurance companies sort out!!
If I've interperated your post as being harsher than you had intended, then please forgive me. But as I read it, it sounded very critical.
For what it's worth, I think something like this might be appropriate in those circumstances. "zzz Information, Gxx is just in front of Gyy, and 10 feet below, at 80kt". It gets the info to the other aircraft very quickly, without be discurtious to the ATC.
dp
I think that is a bit harsh. Paulo hasn't really described his situation in any detail; probably because it wasn't relevant to his question, which was about how to communiate with another aircraft.
However lets imagine that Paulo was doing circuits, in a C150. Another faster aircraft, lets say an SR22 (just because I like 'em), joined the circuit. Paulo turns downwind, and the SR22 joining crosswind, slots in behing him. Now the SR22 is maybe 10 feet above Paulo. Now if the SR22 pilot has Paulo in sight he'll slow down, or over take, and everyone is safe. On the other hand, if the SR22 pilot hasn't seen Paulo, he'll be catching the C150 very quickly indeed, and probably try to correct his altitude difference, and an mid air is imminent. Given that the SR22 is above the C150, and close behind, the C150 will likely be hidden behind the nose of the SR22 (unless the pilot has already seen it and taken corrective action). Given that Paulo in front and is flying a high wing a/c, he is unlikely to be able to see anything behind and above him.
Now your advise is for Paulo to rock his wings, and continue on, and when the mid air collision happens, for him to point his finger at the SR22 pilot, and say "I had right of way!"????
I can certainly see why a pilot in those circumstances would want to know if the other aircraft had him in sight, irrespective of who was in the right or wrong. It's not one to leave the insurance companies sort out!!
If I've interperated your post as being harsher than you had intended, then please forgive me. But as I read it, it sounded very critical.
For what it's worth, I think something like this might be appropriate in those circumstances. "zzz Information, Gxx is just in front of Gyy, and 10 feet below, at 80kt". It gets the info to the other aircraft very quickly, without be discurtious to the ATC.
dp
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Enniskillen
Age: 67
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to say "try flying at Weston" but thats not nice.
A few years ago I flew from Ireland to Holland to a small field called "Hilversum" in a 172. I was tired and just wanted to get on the ground, although I used to fly at a non radio airfiedl I had become conditioned to the tower giving me all the info I required at EGAA.
I called Hilversum radio for joining instructions and the reply came back in broken english "tis VFR" that was it, so I also say look out the window boys, if your number 2 or 3 and your not told by the tower then its up to you to tell.
"tis VFR"
There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship
I called Hilversum radio for joining instructions and the reply came back in broken english "tis VFR" that was it, so I also say look out the window boys, if your number 2 or 3 and your not told by the tower then its up to you to tell.
"tis VFR"
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people are being too harsh on Paulo. It's all very well saying things like
but there are times where you just don't see other traffic no matter how hard you look. Last weekend I arrived back at Goodwood from the north (in the RHS, with another Goodwood-based pilot flying) and traffic called overhead just before we joined overhead. Between us we've probably done that join a hundred times, we knew exactly where the traffic must be and we had two pilots looking... but it was against the backdrop of Chichester and we just could not see it. That's how it goes sometimes.
Surely good airmanship is using the resources available to you?We couldn't see the traffic, so we asked over the radio once we were deadside as the other traffic still hadn't called crosswind as requested and could still possibly be in the overhead, unseen by us. It's all very well saying that if we both played by the rules nothing would happen, but i'm not going to just continue blindly assuming that the other pilot is going to be correct - we've all screwed up the join at an unfamiliar airfield. We got a "crosswind" call back, which eased our nerves and we eventually saw it downwind once we were crosswind, it was a couple of miles ahead of us the whole time. In Paulo's case it sounds like it got a bit close and could have been sorted out earlier, but don't give the guy a slagging for asking.
How about keeping your mouth shut and flying the aeroplane according to the rules
There is far too much reliance on the radio these days and not enough on lookout and plain old airmanship
Surely good airmanship is using the resources available to you?We couldn't see the traffic, so we asked over the radio once we were deadside as the other traffic still hadn't called crosswind as requested and could still possibly be in the overhead, unseen by us. It's all very well saying that if we both played by the rules nothing would happen, but i'm not going to just continue blindly assuming that the other pilot is going to be correct - we've all screwed up the join at an unfamiliar airfield. We got a "crosswind" call back, which eased our nerves and we eventually saw it downwind once we were crosswind, it was a couple of miles ahead of us the whole time. In Paulo's case it sounds like it got a bit close and could have been sorted out earlier, but don't give the guy a slagging for asking.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm Dutch (never flown to Hilversum 
), so i'm not quite familiair with the overhead join.
So you fly overhead, look for traffic, then join. But a what altitude to you fly overhead? Aren't there a lot more pilot's flying overhead? "Yes, but you have to look out for them" people can argue.
But then why not make a 45 downwind entry or the like? I just don't see the point of the overhead join.
Somebody care to explain? Thanks!
), so i'm not quite familiair with the overhead join.So you fly overhead, look for traffic, then join. But a what altitude to you fly overhead? Aren't there a lot more pilot's flying overhead? "Yes, but you have to look out for them" people can argue.
But then why not make a 45 downwind entry or the like? I just don't see the point of the overhead join.
Somebody care to explain? Thanks!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading through the posts on this thread, I think there is some pretty harsh stuff being thrown at Paulo....Evo has some very good points.
I mean, come on!, this is not the 1930's, we are not all bombing around in Tiger Moths and we have VHF radio which is there for us to use. Its as simple as that!
See and be seen is one thing, but if you have a resource available (and already stated on here by someone) why on earth not use it? As long as it doesn't override a thorough and continuous visual scan and instead compliments it, I think it can only add to safety.
In my part of the world there are many uncontrolled airfields that have no A/G or FISO and "traffic" calls are mandatory in many places. They are invaluable and give one a good heads up on traffic in the area and its position / type. Having done a lot of flying in the UK, I have experienced several times some fairly close contact in some non radio situations. Assuming both parties had been happy to use some sort of reporting system, VHF could have helped a lot.
I mean, come on!, this is not the 1930's, we are not all bombing around in Tiger Moths and we have VHF radio which is there for us to use. Its as simple as that!
See and be seen is one thing, but if you have a resource available (and already stated on here by someone) why on earth not use it? As long as it doesn't override a thorough and continuous visual scan and instead compliments it, I think it can only add to safety.
In my part of the world there are many uncontrolled airfields that have no A/G or FISO and "traffic" calls are mandatory in many places. They are invaluable and give one a good heads up on traffic in the area and its position / type. Having done a lot of flying in the UK, I have experienced several times some fairly close contact in some non radio situations. Assuming both parties had been happy to use some sort of reporting system, VHF could have helped a lot.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, some pretty harsh critique going on IMHO, it was a sound question.
Class G "traffic" calls in the US/Canada are useful.
Bar Shaker:
'You could always call "XXXXXXXXX Traffic..."'
- excuse my ignorance, but you imply traffic calls over here are accepted R/T - is that true?
Class G "traffic" calls in the US/Canada are useful.
Bar Shaker:
'You could always call "XXXXXXXXX Traffic..."'
- excuse my ignorance, but you imply traffic calls over here are accepted R/T - is that true?
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeroen C, the overhead join is intended to allow positive identification of the active runway and a descent to circuit height on the dead (inactive) side of the airfield. You arrive overhead, usually 1000 feet above circuit height, and descend in a turn (all turns in circuit direction) so as to cross the upwind threshold at circuit height, joining the pattern crosswind. The system has its critics, but I think it works well. The main possibility for conflict occurs if two aircraft arrive in the overhead together, and another point for exceptionally careful lookout is as you turn downwind, as aircraft already in the circuit may be coming from a wider crosswind position.
As for the RT, maybe "G-ME [position] request G-THEM confirms visual"? Although there are standard calls for standard scenarios the RT manual is not an inflexible script.
As for the RT, maybe "G-ME [position] request G-THEM confirms visual"? Although there are standard calls for standard scenarios the RT manual is not an inflexible script.
Last edited by FNG; 30th May 2004 at 09:39.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi FNG
Nice explanation. Although the overhead bring aircraft together, you at least know where they are going to be so you can look out for them. Then use a bit of brain to sort out you own sequence (folow the CAP )It only goes pear shaped when people join direct in an overhead pattern.
As for VHF, I think common sense is the byword. I am a great fan of AG. Just try Booker (full ATC) and Waltham AG and see where you prefer to fly out of. OK I do take into consideration the gliding site at Booker adds complications.
Safe flying to all
Wide
Nice explanation. Although the overhead bring aircraft together, you at least know where they are going to be so you can look out for them. Then use a bit of brain to sort out you own sequence (folow the CAP
)It only goes pear shaped when people join direct in an overhead pattern.As for VHF, I think common sense is the byword. I am a great fan of AG. Just try Booker (full ATC) and Waltham AG and see where you prefer to fly out of. OK I do take into consideration the gliding site at Booker adds complications.
Safe flying to all
Wide
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..."follow the Cap"
But, Wide, I was following you, mate! Now we're going to get busted again for dogfighting in the overhead.
PS: Yesterday it was Bulldog 1, Cap 10 nil (low yo-yo), but I don't think the guy in the Cap was trying.
But, Wide, I was following you, mate! Now we're going to get busted again for dogfighting in the overhead.
PS: Yesterday it was Bulldog 1, Cap 10 nil (low yo-yo), but I don't think the guy in the Cap was trying.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Deutsch-Wagram, Austria
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
Interesting thread, really!
It kind of reminds me on the typical "gps or non-gps" discussions on our airfield. Some people say, it's better to have no GPS on Board and just navigate by looking out and some think it's better to have GPS.
I think it's all depending on the attitude of the user, not the technique itself. I love flying only by looking out, but it's a good thing to have a moving map on board, especially when it comes to "near CTR-border" flights.
Back to the VHF-discussion: in Stockerau (LOAU) it usually is procedure, that the aircraft in base calls "OE-COG on base as number 2, number 1 in sight". So he combines it with a usual call that has to be made during this phase of flight. For me, it's very good to know that he has noticed me. If he is number two and doesn't say that when he calls the aerodrome, Ground usually tells him "you're number two, do you have number 1 in sight"?
Never heard anything negative about that on our aerodrome and it's just safer than just flying there and not knowing if other planes see me. That's the point, when you see the other one's, it's good, but it's much better to know, that it is also the other way 'round.
Bernd
Interesting thread, really!
It kind of reminds me on the typical "gps or non-gps" discussions on our airfield. Some people say, it's better to have no GPS on Board and just navigate by looking out and some think it's better to have GPS.
I think it's all depending on the attitude of the user, not the technique itself. I love flying only by looking out, but it's a good thing to have a moving map on board, especially when it comes to "near CTR-border" flights.
Back to the VHF-discussion: in Stockerau (LOAU) it usually is procedure, that the aircraft in base calls "OE-COG on base as number 2, number 1 in sight". So he combines it with a usual call that has to be made during this phase of flight. For me, it's very good to know that he has noticed me. If he is number two and doesn't say that when he calls the aerodrome, Ground usually tells him "you're number two, do you have number 1 in sight"?
Never heard anything negative about that on our aerodrome and it's just safer than just flying there and not knowing if other planes see me. That's the point, when you see the other one's, it's good, but it's much better to know, that it is also the other way 'round.
Bernd
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying with an instructor at an AG field a while back he criticised me for calling "G-OB downwind, two ahead", saying that I was cluttering up the airwaves with nedless verbiage, but I responded that informing the aircraft ahead that I could see them might give them one thing fewer to worry about and so contribute in a small way to overall safety. We agreed to differ on this.