Crosswind joins (uncontrolled)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
I think the most important things are to communicate in good time and to look out. Listen out as well as transmitting intentions in order to build up a good mental picture of all the other aircraft in the circuit - if not sure ASK! Most of the conflicts/problems in circuit joining come from not doing so. Provided that both are done, one can safely fit into a circuit just about anywhere, subject to any over-riding local procedures of course.
For many years the RAF has taught a "standard join" for a busy circuit, which consists of running at circuit height parallel to the runway in use, just offset to the deadside. This allows flexibilty in turning downwind to fit in with other traffic. Any extension of the pattern occurs upwind, rather than messing up the pattern for others by extending the downwind leg. The procedure starts over "initials" which is a point just on the deadside, about 2 miles out from the threshold. Obviously, one does need to get the correct runway.....
BTW, the "run and break" which people get all bunched up about, is just a modified standard join, using more speed to run in and join and a lot of bank and airbrakes on a closed throttle during a more punchy turn to downwind.
For many years the RAF has taught a "standard join" for a busy circuit, which consists of running at circuit height parallel to the runway in use, just offset to the deadside. This allows flexibilty in turning downwind to fit in with other traffic. Any extension of the pattern occurs upwind, rather than messing up the pattern for others by extending the downwind leg. The procedure starts over "initials" which is a point just on the deadside, about 2 miles out from the threshold. Obviously, one does need to get the correct runway.....
BTW, the "run and break" which people get all bunched up about, is just a modified standard join, using more speed to run in and join and a lot of bank and airbrakes on a closed throttle during a more punchy turn to downwind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, ShyTorque, and having experienced both (I now fly from an RAF club based on an RAF field) I prefer the military circuit and particularly the initials join. Indeed that was what I did when I got home after the crosswind incidents!
Tim
Tim
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,605
Received 466 Likes
on
246 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
Ive been known to get nosebleeds at 1000ft......
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slipslider
Yes I had missed the nuance of the point - I often join crosswind at circuit height from the deadside but over the upwind numbers, I have to say that joining TRUE crosswind sounds risky
!
Yes I had missed the nuance of the point - I often join crosswind at circuit height from the deadside but over the upwind numbers, I have to say that joining TRUE crosswind sounds risky
!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the whole thread but I don't understand the fascination with that wonderful olde English institution, the overhead join. It's pretty dangerous to be at 2000ft agl, with four others known to be also joining overhead, and you are visual with two of them.
In any other situation of known traffic in very close proximity and at the same level, one would leg it. And the same people will post here saying they would never fly in IMC without an RIS....
In any other situation of known traffic in very close proximity and at the same level, one would leg it. And the same people will post here saying they would never fly in IMC without an RIS....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about these situations at North Weald over the weekend?
Traffic just turning up and appearing in front of you short finals, with the tower saying they are not in radio contact with said aircraft. (Maybe Stapleford was?)
Or micro lights, that decide to transit the airfield at 1400 feet on a QNH setting that puts them at circuit height........
Traffic just turning up and appearing in front of you short finals, with the tower saying they are not in radio contact with said aircraft. (Maybe Stapleford was?)
Or micro lights, that decide to transit the airfield at 1400 feet on a QNH setting that puts them at circuit height........
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tmmorris,
How do you know that the other arriving aircraft did not join overhead and simply do a wider descending turn then you. That would put both aircraft in the relative positions you describe.
The only thing I see wrong with the other aircraft's arrival is the said large circuit. They were ahead, the rules of the air gave them priority. Get over it!
----
Mike Cross,
I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?
If that is what you believe than remember all that guidance your instructor gave you about flying the aircraft. Do you ignore their guidance about landing or the simple guidance that crashing is not good for you?
Regards,
DFC
How do you know that the other arriving aircraft did not join overhead and simply do a wider descending turn then you. That would put both aircraft in the relative positions you describe.
The only thing I see wrong with the other aircraft's arrival is the said large circuit. They were ahead, the rules of the air gave them priority. Get over it!
----
Mike Cross,
I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?
If that is what you believe than remember all that guidance your instructor gave you about flying the aircraft. Do you ignore their guidance about landing or the simple guidance that crashing is not good for you?
Regards,
DFC
Guest
Posts: n/a
DFC
I find your posting style to be aggressive and lacking in thought.
Reading TMM's first post, it is clear that he heard the other aircraft call with the intention of joining crosswind.
If TMM was briefed that the standard join was overhead, then one can only conclude that the other pilot was either not briefed or decided to make a non standard join.
If a pilot joins a circuit without getting an adequate briefing, then IMHO, that is poor airmanship. Equally, if a pilot decides to make a non standard join (which is perfectly legal), then, again IMHO, s/he must take responsibility for avoiding conflicts with aircraft following the standard procedure and not to do this is poor airmanship.
Finally, I dislike your suggestoin that TMM should get over this incident.
Any reasonable person reading TMMs post can see that it is safety concerned and sending a safety related message to the GA community.
As such, in my opinion, it is serving a valuable purpose, unlike you, so I have added you to my ignore list.
I find your posting style to be aggressive and lacking in thought.
Reading TMM's first post, it is clear that he heard the other aircraft call with the intention of joining crosswind.
If TMM was briefed that the standard join was overhead, then one can only conclude that the other pilot was either not briefed or decided to make a non standard join.
If a pilot joins a circuit without getting an adequate briefing, then IMHO, that is poor airmanship. Equally, if a pilot decides to make a non standard join (which is perfectly legal), then, again IMHO, s/he must take responsibility for avoiding conflicts with aircraft following the standard procedure and not to do this is poor airmanship.
Finally, I dislike your suggestoin that TMM should get over this incident.
Any reasonable person reading TMMs post can see that it is safety concerned and sending a safety related message to the GA community.
As such, in my opinion, it is serving a valuable purpose, unlike you, so I have added you to my ignore list.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
I hinted at no such thing.
You misinterpret my point. What concerns me is LASOR's failure to distinguish between that which is advice/best practice and that which is law. It would IMHO be better if LASORS clearly presented the LAW and then discussed it rather than presenting the author's opinion as though it was a legal requirement. An example would be this from LASORS F 1.4
FI's will no doubt take the above as a requirement, however none of the above wording appears either in JAR or UK legislation.
"FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement " Eh? JAR-FCL says
"(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test ."
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.
Another example would be the AIC (now withdrawn) that laid down the content of the 1 Hr training flight as being that of the JAA Proficiency Check, which it absolutely is not.
This sort of thing leads to confusion, and confusion erodes safety.
Mike
Mike Cross,
I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?
I think you said that things in LASORS such as safety leaflets were simply guidance - hinting perhaps they one could ignore at will with no consequences?
You misinterpret my point. What concerns me is LASOR's failure to distinguish between that which is advice/best practice and that which is law. It would IMHO be better if LASORS clearly presented the LAW and then discussed it rather than presenting the author's opinion as though it was a legal requirement. An example would be this from LASORS F 1.4
The Training Flight
The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.
The FI should make the purpose of the training flight clear at the outset. His function is to ascertain the applicant’s knowledge and skills, and interject if necessary to improve on these. If the primary purpose of the flight was for some other training then the FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement and brief how these will fit into the profile for the purpose of the applicant’s revalidation request.
Where the aim is achieved the FI will sign the applicants logbook, append his/her licence number and identify the ‘Training Flight’ for the examiners purpose.
"FI must select suitable items of general handling to fulfil the purpose of the JAR-FCL requirement " Eh? JAR-FCL says
"(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test ."
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.
Another example would be the AIC (now withdrawn) that laid down the content of the 1 Hr training flight as being that of the JAA Proficiency Check, which it absolutely is not.
This sort of thing leads to confusion, and confusion erodes safety.
Mike
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would IMHO be better if LASORS clearly presented the LAW and then discussed it rather than presenting the author's opinion as though it was a legal requirement.
How true.
You could write this about the other organ of the CAA that gets mailed to their G-INFO database addresses: GASIL (or is it GASCO, thankfully I don't receive either of them anymore). Full of opinion presented as law, and responsible for so much of the cr*p that goes around GA, the bogus "illegality" claims about GPS usage being a prime example.
How true.
You could write this about the other organ of the CAA that gets mailed to their G-INFO database addresses: GASIL (or is it GASCO, thankfully I don't receive either of them anymore). Full of opinion presented as law, and responsible for so much of the cr*p that goes around GA, the bogus "illegality" claims about GPS usage being a prime example.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: essex
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we are on the subject of standard methods of joining (overhead or otherwise) It would be nice if we had more "standard" circuits at airfields (not talking Tower controlled airports here)
If you look at many small airfields they have constructed very specific local procedures (some of which you need a magnifying glass or microscope to follow). E.G. Report the red telephone box inbound, if it's thursday after 1pm do a wide circuit to the north but after 1pm tight circuit to the south, join on runway heading at 1400qfe then enter crosswind. Not licensed after 4:45 Must get PPR via telephone, no landings before 4pm must be gone by 4:45 - bring wads of cash and don't annoy the people in the red cottage who live on Short Final
Sounds a bit far fetched doesn't it ? but have a look at Pooleys and you will see very unique recommendations for individual places - Now before people jump down my throat and tell us that everywhere has local noise complainers (why do they alwats move into a new house on the threshold of a very established airfield ?) - that each place has unique local geography etc etc etc
We could and should ! get rid of local nonsense - be it radio, circuit procedures or quaint customs because a proper "standard" circuit would enhance flight safety and lead to better airmanship
Steps down off soap box !
If you look at many small airfields they have constructed very specific local procedures (some of which you need a magnifying glass or microscope to follow). E.G. Report the red telephone box inbound, if it's thursday after 1pm do a wide circuit to the north but after 1pm tight circuit to the south, join on runway heading at 1400qfe then enter crosswind. Not licensed after 4:45 Must get PPR via telephone, no landings before 4pm must be gone by 4:45 - bring wads of cash and don't annoy the people in the red cottage who live on Short Final
Sounds a bit far fetched doesn't it ? but have a look at Pooleys and you will see very unique recommendations for individual places - Now before people jump down my throat and tell us that everywhere has local noise complainers (why do they alwats move into a new house on the threshold of a very established airfield ?) - that each place has unique local geography etc etc etc
We could and should ! get rid of local nonsense - be it radio, circuit procedures or quaint customs because a proper "standard" circuit would enhance flight safety and lead to better airmanship
Steps down off soap box !
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens,
Here is what he said;
I heard someone else call for join who I thought might arrive at around the same time so at 2 miles I called again just to let him know my range. What did he do? He cut just in front of me as I completed my deadside descending turn
Says nothing there about exactly where the other aircraft arrived from or what it did before being in front of him as he descended deadside.
However, unless he could see that the aircraft was joining from way out on the deadside then he has no way of knowing exactly what the aircraft did.
Of course if he could see the other aircraft when well away then he could have perhaps safely fitted in ahead.
The safe thing to do would be to do what the overhead join is for - observe the signal square, the runway in use then windsock and the traffic. Perhaps a delay before descending deadside until the other aircraft was in sight would have been the safe thing to do especially thinking of the visibility from most GA cockpits in a descending turn.
Sorry but while this indeed starts a good debate about safety when joining and it indeed highlighted the problems with large circuits, it does unfortunately (perhaps unintentionally) to a small extent smack of the airbourne version on the road rage we have in the UK on a daily basis.
---------
Mike,
I have highlighted the bit in your own quote that erquires an FI to be involved
As for opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Given a choice between the CAA's published opinion and your personal opinion, which do you think carries the most weight?
Regards,
DFC
Here is what he said;
I heard someone else call for join who I thought might arrive at around the same time so at 2 miles I called again just to let him know my range. What did he do? He cut just in front of me as I completed my deadside descending turn
Says nothing there about exactly where the other aircraft arrived from or what it did before being in front of him as he descended deadside.
However, unless he could see that the aircraft was joining from way out on the deadside then he has no way of knowing exactly what the aircraft did.
Of course if he could see the other aircraft when well away then he could have perhaps safely fitted in ahead.
The safe thing to do would be to do what the overhead join is for - observe the signal square, the runway in use then windsock and the traffic. Perhaps a delay before descending deadside until the other aircraft was in sight would have been the safe thing to do especially thinking of the visibility from most GA cockpits in a descending turn.
Sorry but while this indeed starts a good debate about safety when joining and it indeed highlighted the problems with large circuits, it does unfortunately (perhaps unintentionally) to a small extent smack of the airbourne version on the road rage we have in the UK on a daily basis.
---------
Mike,
"(C) a training flight of at least one hour’s duration with a FI(A) or CRI(A). This flight may be replaced by any other proficiency check or skill test ."
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.
It says nothing about general handling, nor does it say an FI has to be involved.
As for opinion, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Given a choice between the CAA's published opinion and your personal opinion, which do you think carries the most weight?
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
My opinion carries very little weight. My point is that the CAA says in LASORS "FI will sign the applicants logbook" while JAR-FCL (as quoted in your post) says that the flight has to be with a FI or a CRI. There is no requirement under JAR-FCL that the instructor MUST hold a FI rating.
You know and I know and the JAA knows that the flight has to be signed off in the log book by the instructor and that the instructor can hold a FI or a CRI rating. The author of LASORS may have written something different but that doesn't change the law or the regulations.
What point is it you are trying to make?
Mike
My opinion carries very little weight. My point is that the CAA says in LASORS "FI will sign the applicants logbook" while JAR-FCL (as quoted in your post) says that the flight has to be with a FI or a CRI. There is no requirement under JAR-FCL that the instructor MUST hold a FI rating.
You know and I know and the JAA knows that the flight has to be signed off in the log book by the instructor and that the instructor can hold a FI or a CRI rating. The author of LASORS may have written something different but that doesn't change the law or the regulations.
What point is it you are trying to make?
Mike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've quite enjoyed watching the arguments on here...
Said aircraft had just reported its position over a nearby disused airfield. I have no doubt that he joined crosswind. My 2-mile call was intended to suggest gently that perhaps he should join overhead too, so we could see each other...
The airfield has a FISO so there was no need to observe the signals square, and I was of course looking for the other traffic but as he was lower than me he was hard to see until close.
T
Originally Posted by DFC
owever, unless he could see that the aircraft was joining from way out on the deadside then he has no way of knowing exactly what the aircraft did.
The airfield has a FISO so there was no need to observe the signals square, and I was of course looking for the other traffic but as he was lower than me he was hard to see until close.
T
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 'Chuffer' Dandridge
one of the reasons for the huge circuits we see nowadays is that Instructors extend the circuit out to enable them to debrief the previous pi$$ poor landing
NS
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by tmmorris
The airfield has a FISO
TMM, I'm also intrigued by your account of encountering someone joining crosswind just as you reached circuit height on climbout. I think you said he was at the correct position for joining crosswind. If that's the case then you must have been flying a very high performance aircraft and there must have been a stiff headwind, because reaching 1000ft over the upwind numbers is pretty damned hard! Either he was very wide - i.e. joining way upwind of the runway - or you had not taken account of the relationship between your climb performance and the joining traffic. Brings us back to the FISO - "TMM take off at your discretion, surface wind blah di blah, traffic information there's a XXXX shortly joining crosswind."
NS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NS
Unfair both to me and the FISO! First, the FISO doesn't have to look out of the window (though he was in a tower, actually). And I knew about the crosswind joiner, as he told me about him.
But, the crosswind joiner was nowhere near where he should have been: I was only in a PA28-181 and we were 3-up so we weren't rocketing skywards. I would say we were at least 1 mile upwind of the numbers when we 'encountered' each other.
T
Unfair both to me and the FISO! First, the FISO doesn't have to look out of the window (though he was in a tower, actually). And I knew about the crosswind joiner, as he told me about him.
But, the crosswind joiner was nowhere near where he should have been: I was only in a PA28-181 and we were 3-up so we weren't rocketing skywards. I would say we were at least 1 mile upwind of the numbers when we 'encountered' each other.
T