Run and Breaks
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone can hide behind some fancy pseudonym on here and claim to be whatever.
Most professional jet pilots I have met though are nice and erudite happy to talk to non jet pilots in a professional manner taking into account the latter's lack of specific knowledge.
Yet to meet one that has to resort to the sort of language and attitude that some self proclaimed experts display on here.
As TheAerosCompany has already pointed out, TJFC's explanation of the accelerated stall is not what most people understand it to be.
RIABs at non military fields are an emotive subject due to the accident at North Weald a few years back.
It is therefore not surprising that some are anxious about this procedure; maybe especially if it is done by non(ex)military pilots.
Most professional jet pilots I have met though are nice and erudite happy to talk to non jet pilots in a professional manner taking into account the latter's lack of specific knowledge.
Yet to meet one that has to resort to the sort of language and attitude that some self proclaimed experts display on here.
As TheAerosCompany has already pointed out, TJFC's explanation of the accelerated stall is not what most people understand it to be.
RIABs at non military fields are an emotive subject due to the accident at North Weald a few years back.
It is therefore not surprising that some are anxious about this procedure; maybe especially if it is done by non(ex)military pilots.
Well, when teaching formation flying in our PA28s, we also teach breaking formation to join the circuit. No high energy manoeuvre this, it is simply a level turn from the deadside onto downwind with each aircraft in the echelon delaying the break from formation by the briefed interval.
The AoB and interval used for the break must be the same for all members of the formation; you can start with a gentle 30 deg turn at 5 sec spacing and, as experience is gained, tighten it up to about 45 deg and 3 sec.
There should be no need to use more than about 1.4 g to break a formation of light aeroplanes into the circuit.
The AoB and interval used for the break must be the same for all members of the formation; you can start with a gentle 30 deg turn at 5 sec spacing and, as experience is gained, tighten it up to about 45 deg and 3 sec.
There should be no need to use more than about 1.4 g to break a formation of light aeroplanes into the circuit.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*takes deep breath*
Ok, a couple of points to put to bed.
My whole "argument" was based on the fact that an accelerated stall can take place at a higher IAS than a less experienced would expect due to the effects of G. Now that we have the correct definitions of the phenomenon (cheers TAC), I don't think anyone is in any doubt about what they are. I was trying to expand on the point first raised by HWD and I accept that my comment reagarding varied AoA was confusing and incorrect. However the whole conversation has raised the issue of linking IAS, wing loading and stalling amongst the GA commuity here, which can only be a good thing. Indeed in an article about stalling, Brian Lecomber describes the classic stall accident as "...a slightly accelerated stall, the aircraft weighing more under G..."
Secondly, WorkingHard it is clear from your posts that you enjoy being antagonistic and are yourself not immune from throwing insults. My comment was rather in the heat of the moment at your whole attitude and nothing whatsoever to do with being "unstable". As a result it has now been retracted from my post. I am sure SRG medical division would welcome your comments if you are concerned about a licensed person's mental state.
Flyin'Dutch' - Quite a sweeping statement regarding "self proclaimed experts" and attitudes on PPRuNe. My comments were not intended to be elitist or patronising, and I apologise if that is how they came across. I have to say though that there are many aircrew, and other aviation "professionals" who DO conduct themselves in a petulant manner both on PPRuNe, and in person or the RT. It's not as rosey out there as one might think..just have a look on some of the other threads on here, and in CHIRP!
Anyway..hopefully we have all learned something...
regards
TJFC
Ok, a couple of points to put to bed.
My whole "argument" was based on the fact that an accelerated stall can take place at a higher IAS than a less experienced would expect due to the effects of G. Now that we have the correct definitions of the phenomenon (cheers TAC), I don't think anyone is in any doubt about what they are. I was trying to expand on the point first raised by HWD and I accept that my comment reagarding varied AoA was confusing and incorrect. However the whole conversation has raised the issue of linking IAS, wing loading and stalling amongst the GA commuity here, which can only be a good thing. Indeed in an article about stalling, Brian Lecomber describes the classic stall accident as "...a slightly accelerated stall, the aircraft weighing more under G..."
Secondly, WorkingHard it is clear from your posts that you enjoy being antagonistic and are yourself not immune from throwing insults. My comment was rather in the heat of the moment at your whole attitude and nothing whatsoever to do with being "unstable". As a result it has now been retracted from my post. I am sure SRG medical division would welcome your comments if you are concerned about a licensed person's mental state.
Flyin'Dutch' - Quite a sweeping statement regarding "self proclaimed experts" and attitudes on PPRuNe. My comments were not intended to be elitist or patronising, and I apologise if that is how they came across. I have to say though that there are many aircrew, and other aviation "professionals" who DO conduct themselves in a petulant manner both on PPRuNe, and in person or the RT. It's not as rosey out there as one might think..just have a look on some of the other threads on here, and in CHIRP!
Anyway..hopefully we have all learned something...
regards
TJFC
Mess Your Passage
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Temporarily Unaware......
Age: 25
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right Jag fan type, WorkingHard should have worked harder at school, as a prowler around these parts for a number of years, he has shown himself to be totally anti military (check out his low flying posts) and to have several, rather well defined chips on his shoulder. Even though, I seem to recall that he claims to be ex militray himself. (Bluntie no boubt)
Ignore him, he will no doubt be getting all hot and bothered reading my post, trying to think of some (un)witty retort.
I am all ears
DS
Ignore him, he will no doubt be getting all hot and bothered reading my post, trying to think of some (un)witty retort.
I am all ears
DS
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi again TJFC,
Well yes, the discussion is with merit, as is any exchange leading to a clarificationand (just checkout the Carb Heat thread for a prime example 
)at least now I better appreciate that there maybe different definitions knocking about
However the whole conversation has raised the issue of linking IAS, wing loading and stalling amongst the GA commuity here, which can only be a good thing. Indeed in an article about stalling, Brian Lecomber describes the classic stall accident as "...a slightly accelerated stall, the aircraft weighing more under G...""
)at least now I better appreciate that there maybe different definitions knocking about
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well DS sorry to disappoint but I am not likely to get hot and bothered. TJFC very magnanimous and truly appreciated, my comments also retracted. I do have opinions as do all of us and I try and keep "personal" out of it. I am ex mil (very long time ago) and do not agree with low flying all over the UK and I have always made that clear. Similarly I have always made clear the blaming of everyone but the military for the woeful inadequacies of the equipment, the supply chain et al is also something with which I disagree. So DS there you have it, a candid history if it really intrigues you.
TJFC I referred earlier to radar from the perspective that this would better enable a complete vision of traffic in the area for your proposed re-join. I have never done it, don't want to and still think that it should be at places where traffic is very restricted or non existant. just my opinion.
TJFC I referred earlier to radar from the perspective that this would better enable a complete vision of traffic in the area for your proposed re-join. I have never done it, don't want to and still think that it should be at places where traffic is very restricted or non existant. just my opinion.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540 wrote
Put simply, a military manouevre to reduce the chances of being shot down whilst on a long straight final.
The pilot will fly at high speed along the runway, either from a low level approach or from a dive from the overhead, before breaking off into an abbreviated circuit of oval shape.
The idea is that a fast moving object is hard to hit, and once on the oval downwind/base/final is never in a straight line long enough to get a decent aim for any enemy fire.
There will be those that say this is too simplistic but there we go
The high G part is where the pilot hauls back hard on the stick at the end of the initial high speed approach, in a steep climbing turn onto mid downwind.
What is a Run and Break?
The pilot will fly at high speed along the runway, either from a low level approach or from a dive from the overhead, before breaking off into an abbreviated circuit of oval shape.
The idea is that a fast moving object is hard to hit, and once on the oval downwind/base/final is never in a straight line long enough to get a decent aim for any enemy fire.
There will be those that say this is too simplistic but there we go
The high G part is where the pilot hauls back hard on the stick at the end of the initial high speed approach, in a steep climbing turn onto mid downwind.
"Put simply, a military manouevre to reduce the chances of being shot down whilst on a long straight final"
Funny enough it has an additional purpose these days in heavily impacted areas, noise abatement. A Fighter dragging it in from the initial all dirtied up makes a loud, long footprint. Coast in from the initial from a high altitude at fast speed and you reduce the number of times the duty officer has to pick up the noise abatement hot line.
Funny enough it has an additional purpose these days in heavily impacted areas, noise abatement. A Fighter dragging it in from the initial all dirtied up makes a loud, long footprint. Coast in from the initial from a high altitude at fast speed and you reduce the number of times the duty officer has to pick up the noise abatement hot line.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another very valid reason for a run and break which I haven't seen addressed here (if it has been, I missed that post) has to do with situational awareness in a formation. In a close formation, the lead pilot knows where the formation is in space and where the airfield and other traffic is, etc. The other pilots know where Lead is and that's about it. They may have periferal awareness of their location over the ground, but may not have total awareness of the active runway, where they are in relation to it as they approach, other aircraft in the circuit or approaching.
By leading the formation to disassemble via a run and break, Lead hands the pilots off to their own navigation from a known point - over the runway. They therefore know excatly where they are going to be when Lead calls for the break and they know what they need to do to get on the ground safely - because it's the same every time (left or right traffic not withstanding).
To try to break up a formation otherwise, especially if the flight doesn't go off exactly according to the brief, would probably require esoteric radio-hogging descriptions of angles and distances to the runway and a pretty loose and wooly seperation of the aircraft in the vicinity of the airfield. I was forced to do that at an airfield when someone not associated with the formation I was leading decided he knew our situation better than I and denied us a run and break. It took 10 minutes of maneuvering and radio calls to get the other guys to the airport and properly sequenced for landing. And then he bitched me out for all the chatter on the radio.
Having done it plenty of times both ways, I much prefer a run and break because I know where I'll be when I break from the formation. I've done the "seperation away from the field" bit and couldn't actually find the runway until I was on final behind the preceeding aircraft - not great for establishing complete awareness of the airport and other traffic.
Just another thread to this thread's bow!
Pitts2112
By leading the formation to disassemble via a run and break, Lead hands the pilots off to their own navigation from a known point - over the runway. They therefore know excatly where they are going to be when Lead calls for the break and they know what they need to do to get on the ground safely - because it's the same every time (left or right traffic not withstanding).
To try to break up a formation otherwise, especially if the flight doesn't go off exactly according to the brief, would probably require esoteric radio-hogging descriptions of angles and distances to the runway and a pretty loose and wooly seperation of the aircraft in the vicinity of the airfield. I was forced to do that at an airfield when someone not associated with the formation I was leading decided he knew our situation better than I and denied us a run and break. It took 10 minutes of maneuvering and radio calls to get the other guys to the airport and properly sequenced for landing. And then he bitched me out for all the chatter on the radio.
Having done it plenty of times both ways, I much prefer a run and break because I know where I'll be when I break from the formation. I've done the "seperation away from the field" bit and couldn't actually find the runway until I was on final behind the preceeding aircraft - not great for establishing complete awareness of the airport and other traffic.
Just another thread to this thread's bow!
Pitts2112
Guest
Posts: n/a
At risk of getting shot down in flames, I have seen both 'Run and Break' and the more standard 'civil' joining procedures. IMHO that neither is inherently more risky than the other. The key aspect in both situations is that everyone knows and plays by the rules. From a military perspective, there is no better way of expeditiously joining the cct, fitting into the pattern and then landing. It is safe, expeditious and minimises noise footprint.
Picking-up on the previous noise footprint point, I once saw a VC10 do a run and break at a particularly environmentally sensitive German airfield. Ordinarily, the Ten would have peaked the noise meters at about 95db when dragging itself along on a 3deg ILS; the run and break produced 82dbs.
Regarding the North Weald incident, I find it quite astounding that anyone can relate a properly performed run in and break with this mid-air.
Picking-up on the previous noise footprint point, I once saw a VC10 do a run and break at a particularly environmentally sensitive German airfield. Ordinarily, the Ten would have peaked the noise meters at about 95db when dragging itself along on a 3deg ILS; the run and break produced 82dbs.
Regarding the North Weald incident, I find it quite astounding that anyone can relate a properly performed run in and break with this mid-air.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, presumably because that's not what the Yak pilot did. The direct cause of the accident was neither pilot seeing the other until it was too late. The Yak pilot initially called visual on the Cessna, but lost sight of it not while performing a RIAB, but while he was doing whatever he was doing in the vicinity of his house at 100 feet. The AAIB report suggests that if the Yak pilot had done a standard RIAB in accordance with his intentions expressed on the radio, the Cessna pilot would have known where to look. The A/G operator would have also had a better idea of what was going on, which understanding may or may not have influenced subsequent matters, but the absence of which cannot have helped. And if the Yak pilot had not broken off from a standard RIAB to become involved with some very low-level flying unrelated flying in the vicinity of his house, and not explained by his RT calls, it is reasonable to assume that the Yak pilot could have maintained visual contact with the Cessna.
Quote: "The Yak pilot declared his intention to carry out a 'run and break' with a time frame of 'thirty
seconds to initial'. It was thus possible for others listening on the frequency to be aware of his
intended flight path, which was to descend and make a right turn in order to align his aircraft with
the runway before carrying out the run down the runway and then break right to join the circuit
downwind. By making the left turn and descending to such a low height, he deviated from that
flight path and placed his aircraft in a position relative to the Cessna, which was not expected by
the Cessna pilot or by the radio operator."
Quote: "The Yak pilot declared his intention to carry out a 'run and break' with a time frame of 'thirty
seconds to initial'. It was thus possible for others listening on the frequency to be aware of his
intended flight path, which was to descend and make a right turn in order to align his aircraft with
the runway before carrying out the run down the runway and then break right to join the circuit
downwind. By making the left turn and descending to such a low height, he deviated from that
flight path and placed his aircraft in a position relative to the Cessna, which was not expected by
the Cessna pilot or by the radio operator."
Guest
Posts: n/a
he AAIB report suggests that if the Yak pilot had done a standard RIAB in accordance with his intentions expressed on the radio, the Cessna pilot would have known where to look.