Run and Breaks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Back in the USSR
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Run and Breaks
Maybe this has been done before, probably after the N Weald collision but I couldn`t find it.
Sitting at a hold waiting behind a super meticulous low hour student departure, a couple of Yak-52s rejoin via R+Bs effectively doing 2 approaches apiece - used rather a lot of tacho time.
Not the end of the world but is there really that much energy to dissipate after an aeros session?. Can`t you just rejoin like anything else; overhead, downwind, base?.
Not knocking the 52 brigade they look like fun.
GH
Sitting at a hold waiting behind a super meticulous low hour student departure, a couple of Yak-52s rejoin via R+Bs effectively doing 2 approaches apiece - used rather a lot of tacho time.
Not the end of the world but is there really that much energy to dissipate after an aeros session?. Can`t you just rejoin like anything else; overhead, downwind, base?.
Not knocking the 52 brigade they look like fun.
GH
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hope that the north weald crash would make the yak 52 pilots very carefull about CCT entry via the R+B it is not some thing to do when you have the rest of the pilots expecting standard CCT,s to be flown.
Most light aircraft pilots have no idea how the R+B works and so do not know where best look to avoid such trafic this cuts down the "efective lookout effort" in the CCT and leaves the pilot flying the R+B with the sole set of 100% efective eyes and in practical terms 100% responsability to avoid ALL other trafic.
I have strong views on this subject as a mate of mine was killed in the above crash and would have hoped that the practice of R+B CCT entry would have stopped when other aircraft are in the CCT.
Most light aircraft pilots have no idea how the R+B works and so do not know where best look to avoid such trafic this cuts down the "efective lookout effort" in the CCT and leaves the pilot flying the R+B with the sole set of 100% efective eyes and in practical terms 100% responsability to avoid ALL other trafic.
I have strong views on this subject as a mate of mine was killed in the above crash and would have hoped that the practice of R+B CCT entry would have stopped when other aircraft are in the CCT.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not every Yak 52 pilot flys run & breaks (I don't because there is no need) however, some would argue that there is a need when in formation. That, of course, is up to them - the BIG proviso being that this type of circuit join is not a civilian procedure.
Pilots flying R & B joins should realise that they may be doing something that is totally unfamiliar with others. Furthermore, on busy day it may simply not be possible to fly such a join.
Not all Yak 52 pilots are ton-up hooligans - lots of other pilots make all sorts of strange attempts at circuit joins and patterns.
Fly safe
Pilots flying R & B joins should realise that they may be doing something that is totally unfamiliar with others. Furthermore, on busy day it may simply not be possible to fly such a join.
Not all Yak 52 pilots are ton-up hooligans - lots of other pilots make all sorts of strange attempts at circuit joins and patterns.
Fly safe
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a longish thread on this last year, just after the AAIB report on the Yak vs Cessna tragedy, under the title "Gloomy News from North Weald". You might still be able to find that although I don't know how far back the archives go.
EDIT: The previous thread is at http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=53&t=000197
The R&B procedure is described in the AAIB report.
I enjoy watching and listening to high powered aircraft performing run and breaks, but, if you are not in a hurry to get on the ground because people are shooting at you and/or because you need to re-fuel and re-arm in a hurry, and/or if you are not in a heavy jet with lots of energy and inertia and a slow spooling engine, surely the manoeuvre is done purely for fun and effect?
Some would say that the run and break has no place outside the military or air display environments. I wouldn't go as far as that. OK, you shouldn't expect to have to look out for Hunters at initial when you are lobbing into Denham or some such place, but maybe PPLs should be briefed on the procedure and the airfield details for places such as North Weald and Duxford should indicate that this sort of thing goes on there. Duxford's website does indeed do this.
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
EDIT: The previous thread is at http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimat...&f=53&t=000197
The R&B procedure is described in the AAIB report.
I enjoy watching and listening to high powered aircraft performing run and breaks, but, if you are not in a hurry to get on the ground because people are shooting at you and/or because you need to re-fuel and re-arm in a hurry, and/or if you are not in a heavy jet with lots of energy and inertia and a slow spooling engine, surely the manoeuvre is done purely for fun and effect?
Some would say that the run and break has no place outside the military or air display environments. I wouldn't go as far as that. OK, you shouldn't expect to have to look out for Hunters at initial when you are lobbing into Denham or some such place, but maybe PPLs should be briefed on the procedure and the airfield details for places such as North Weald and Duxford should indicate that this sort of thing goes on there. Duxford's website does indeed do this.
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, so please brief us PPLs who don't know what you're talking about..... 
[Edited because I just noticed FNG's comment that this is described on Duxford's site. I'm of to this site now to read up on it...]
[Edited again because I can't find Duxford's site - any chance of a URL? I found notes to pilots on the Imperial War Museum site, but nothing about R+B]
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: FlyingForFun ]
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: FlyingForFun ]
[Edited because I just noticed FNG's comment that this is described on Duxford's site. I'm of to this site now to read up on it...]
[Edited again because I can't find Duxford's site - any chance of a URL? I found notes to pilots on the Imperial War Museum site, but nothing about R+B]
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: FlyingForFun ]
[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: FlyingForFun ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Expat Kiwi living in London
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At North Weald, run and breaks are no longer permitted on certain days (eg Saturdays when the market is in operation on the eastern side of the main runway).
Run and breaks are not always done "purely for fun and effect". For example, with a formation of aircraft - and there is a lot of formation flying done in Yaks as well as other civilian aircraft - a run and break to join is quite simply the safest way of taking the formation and getting all of the formation aircraft on the ground quickly.
The alternative is to break the formation up away from the airfield and then have multiple aircraft joining - a much longer process with those aircraft then creating a very busy sky - eg 7 individual aircraft joining in rapid succession.
Naturally, when bringing a formation into the circuit, the leader must be cognisant of all the other circuit traffic, (no difference from any circuit joining there), and it is usually to the benefit of all other traffic for the formation to enter the circuit as a single identifiable unit and then to get on the ground and out of everyone's way as soon as possible. I think one would usually find that aircraft performing a run and break will where possible fly a tight brief circuit to land rather than a "cross-country" circuit perhaps forcing other faster traffic to fly a non-optimal circuit at low power etc etc - itself a practice which has its dangers but which you can find at any given airport on any given day).
Obviously, one needs to time a circuit entry differently when leading a formation as opposed to being a single aircraft - if the circuit is crowded, you won't find large formations wandering in and breaking to land regardless of other traffic - common sense really.
There is a strong case, certainly in my opinion, for run and break procedures to be flown at airfields that will permit it. I agree though that it would be helpful for airfields that permit the procedure to write it up for the enefit of those many other pilots for whom the procedure is otherwise a mystery.
Run and breaks are not always done "purely for fun and effect". For example, with a formation of aircraft - and there is a lot of formation flying done in Yaks as well as other civilian aircraft - a run and break to join is quite simply the safest way of taking the formation and getting all of the formation aircraft on the ground quickly.
The alternative is to break the formation up away from the airfield and then have multiple aircraft joining - a much longer process with those aircraft then creating a very busy sky - eg 7 individual aircraft joining in rapid succession.
Naturally, when bringing a formation into the circuit, the leader must be cognisant of all the other circuit traffic, (no difference from any circuit joining there), and it is usually to the benefit of all other traffic for the formation to enter the circuit as a single identifiable unit and then to get on the ground and out of everyone's way as soon as possible. I think one would usually find that aircraft performing a run and break will where possible fly a tight brief circuit to land rather than a "cross-country" circuit perhaps forcing other faster traffic to fly a non-optimal circuit at low power etc etc - itself a practice which has its dangers but which you can find at any given airport on any given day).
Obviously, one needs to time a circuit entry differently when leading a formation as opposed to being a single aircraft - if the circuit is crowded, you won't find large formations wandering in and breaking to land regardless of other traffic - common sense really.
There is a strong case, certainly in my opinion, for run and break procedures to be flown at airfields that will permit it. I agree though that it would be helpful for airfields that permit the procedure to write it up for the enefit of those many other pilots for whom the procedure is otherwise a mystery.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: London
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southern Cross, nice reply. I fly JPs at North Weald, and the run + break join is a very good way of joining the circuit to land in many different ways, which I will briefly try to explain...
1 A jet weights considerably more than a light piston, so takes longer to slow down.
2 If a jet slows down to its' circuit speed and joins the circuit in a conventional way, the downwind leg will be flown at 90% power setting, which is very loud from 1000' away and lasts a long time as the a/c is only doing 115Kt.
3 Because the jet is doing 115Kt, it has to avoid light a/c who may well be doing 65/70 Kt downwind, which may well cause a go-around and even more noise!
A run and break will only use about 25% of the downwind leg and the engine will probably (depending on wind and the speed joined at) be at idle until a spool-up on a descending base to approx 70%.
I will only defend the r+b manuouvre at civillian airfields only by the following:
Anyone flying a high performance ex-military jet such as a JP, in civillian airspace, should have sufficient spare capacity to know where all the circuit traffic is presently, and to acquire them visually before entering the circuit. If they do not have all the other traffic visually, they should be prepared to pull-up out of the pattern and fit in with the traffic accordingly. It is wholly down to the r+b traffic to navigate his way around the visual circuit safely. In my view, this protects the average civilian pilot from ever having to know what a r+B is (better if they do - of course).
As a jet operator at North Weald, I would welcome comments on the subject.
NH
1 A jet weights considerably more than a light piston, so takes longer to slow down.
2 If a jet slows down to its' circuit speed and joins the circuit in a conventional way, the downwind leg will be flown at 90% power setting, which is very loud from 1000' away and lasts a long time as the a/c is only doing 115Kt.
3 Because the jet is doing 115Kt, it has to avoid light a/c who may well be doing 65/70 Kt downwind, which may well cause a go-around and even more noise!
A run and break will only use about 25% of the downwind leg and the engine will probably (depending on wind and the speed joined at) be at idle until a spool-up on a descending base to approx 70%.
I will only defend the r+b manuouvre at civillian airfields only by the following:
Anyone flying a high performance ex-military jet such as a JP, in civillian airspace, should have sufficient spare capacity to know where all the circuit traffic is presently, and to acquire them visually before entering the circuit. If they do not have all the other traffic visually, they should be prepared to pull-up out of the pattern and fit in with the traffic accordingly. It is wholly down to the r+b traffic to navigate his way around the visual circuit safely. In my view, this protects the average civilian pilot from ever having to know what a r+B is (better if they do - of course).
As a jet operator at North Weald, I would welcome comments on the subject.
NH
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noisy Hoolie, I don't disagree with what you say about operating jets, and I can see Southern Cross's point about recovering formations (certainly if there are as many as 7 aircraft). Isn't the point of the thread, however, to question the use of run and breaks by rorty piston singles operating on their own, in circumstances where a run and break is not mandated by the considerations applicable to jets, formations, and piston warbirds engaged in warfare?
NB as I hope should be clear from my post above and on the previous thread I'm definitely not trying to stop people running and breaking at places like NW, Dux and similar (Kemble?), and would encourage fellow PPLs to acquaint themselves with the procedure, on the basis that you should expect to adjust your flying to the environment in which you are operating,just as you would when setting off from a farmstrip base to land at a big commercial airport. It's surprising how many GA flyers seem to expect every airfield to be just like the one they learned at, whether it was Liverpool or Little-Sleepy-on-the-Wold.
Part of me says "yaaaaay, r&b, do another one, wheeeeeee", the other part says, "yes but...."
Better shut up now before this posting becomes any more schizo.
NB as I hope should be clear from my post above and on the previous thread I'm definitely not trying to stop people running and breaking at places like NW, Dux and similar (Kemble?), and would encourage fellow PPLs to acquaint themselves with the procedure, on the basis that you should expect to adjust your flying to the environment in which you are operating,just as you would when setting off from a farmstrip base to land at a big commercial airport. It's surprising how many GA flyers seem to expect every airfield to be just like the one they learned at, whether it was Liverpool or Little-Sleepy-on-the-Wold.
Part of me says "yaaaaay, r&b, do another one, wheeeeeee", the other part says, "yes but...."
Better shut up now before this posting becomes any more schizo.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noisy Hooligan.....
I regularly fly airliners into busy international airports, and rarely find it necessary to perform run and breaks to achieve my goal, despite having several single pistons circuit training at the same time.
It is purely a one-upmanship practice, that has already claimed three lives......why bother.
High performance types.....behave! J.P's are not what you would like to think they are. One or two friends operate turbo props into the regional airports, mixing with allsorts of traffic, experiencing no problems at all......other than you lot playing your war games.
Rant over.
I regularly fly airliners into busy international airports, and rarely find it necessary to perform run and breaks to achieve my goal, despite having several single pistons circuit training at the same time.
It is purely a one-upmanship practice, that has already claimed three lives......why bother.
High performance types.....behave! J.P's are not what you would like to think they are. One or two friends operate turbo props into the regional airports, mixing with allsorts of traffic, experiencing no problems at all......other than you lot playing your war games.
Rant over.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, apples and acorns a little bit.
Whilst flying a jet airliner into an international airport you also eat up loads of extra track milage - if NH can do a run & break without conflicting with other traffic then I think the technique is valid for noise and efficiency reasons.
The other problem with 'Weald is that there is no dead side and no overhead joins. Also the STN zone is at 1500' overhead the field therefore everyone is forced into a narrow slot of airspace.
At least if NH is doing a R&B join I know where he is. I'd rather he did that than blaze around the circuit overtaking folks.
Incidentally, the accident was not caused by a run and break.
Whilst flying a jet airliner into an international airport you also eat up loads of extra track milage - if NH can do a run & break without conflicting with other traffic then I think the technique is valid for noise and efficiency reasons.
The other problem with 'Weald is that there is no dead side and no overhead joins. Also the STN zone is at 1500' overhead the field therefore everyone is forced into a narrow slot of airspace.
At least if NH is doing a R&B join I know where he is. I'd rather he did that than blaze around the circuit overtaking folks.
Incidentally, the accident was not caused by a run and break.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M14P, you might know where NH is, but I don't 
A few people have said that when doing a R+B, you must take on 100% of lookout responsibility because other people won't be looking for you. Sounds sensible to me, but one pair of eyes is never perfect, and in the airspace around an airfield I'd be happier if I knew where to look for people.
Of course, if someone could tell me what a R+B actually is, I might be able to make some more informed comments
FFF
-----------
A few people have said that when doing a R+B, you must take on 100% of lookout responsibility because other people won't be looking for you. Sounds sensible to me, but one pair of eyes is never perfect, and in the airspace around an airfield I'd be happier if I knew where to look for people.
Of course, if someone could tell me what a R+B actually is, I might be able to make some more informed comments
FFF
-----------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly - if the procedure was published along with all of the funny radio calls it would be far more useful.
By denying overhead joins and dead sides then the only thing left is just to arrive from all points of the compass. As well as being poor for the spatial awareness of other aviators this also has the downside of denying the pilot a look at the windsock and lie of the land as well as other good reference features useful for operating at airports such as fuel facilites, taxiways etc.
By denying overhead joins and dead sides then the only thing left is just to arrive from all points of the compass. As well as being poor for the spatial awareness of other aviators this also has the downside of denying the pilot a look at the windsock and lie of the land as well as other good reference features useful for operating at airports such as fuel facilites, taxiways etc.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a published procedure at NW which is to join downwind, but the problem is that most people ignore it and join straight in or on a right or left base according to which direction they've come from. I know, I used to myself but have tried to be good recently. I wonder if the NW procedure could be revised. During Aerofair the temporary ATC had us joining in the overhead at 1400 and descending into the circuit. This worked OK despite the zillions of aircraft which were joining, and not just because of the (excellent but overworked) ATCOs: most people kept a good lookout and maintained safe spacing. At White Waltham, with Heathrow airspace above the field, an overhead join at 1300 QFE with a deadside descent to 800 feet works just fine. There is, however, more vertical separation from the CAS available at WW, whereas at NW you are pretty close to Stansted's air if in the overhead above the circuit, so it may be that the present system is the best that can be devised.
PS: The R&B procedure is described in the AAIB report on the midair. I take the point that the manouevre performed during that incident was not a standard run and break.
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
PS: The R&B procedure is described in the AAIB report on the midair. I take the point that the manouevre performed during that incident was not a standard run and break.
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skydriller et al
The R&B is almost as described by yourself.
I am happy to be corrected by any current mil pilots - but in precis, this is what I recall;
A/C inbound generally calls INITIAL (IP) normally 1nm from the field.
prior to this he has "generally" broadcast intentions to run and break.
the aircraft flies on the dead side but parallel to r/way ( mil flying rarely below 500') and pulls a high G turn (without altitude gain) bleeds off speed rapidly and allows flaps and u/c to be activated and in short puts the aircraft at the start of the Spitfire Curved Approach or constant aspect turn late-ish downwind.
I fly a Pitts Special and have never needed to R&B. However if given the "option", prevalent in the States or have been invited to do so, have always R&B'd because it is a blast!!
Stik
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: stiknruda ]
The R&B is almost as described by yourself.
I am happy to be corrected by any current mil pilots - but in precis, this is what I recall;
A/C inbound generally calls INITIAL (IP) normally 1nm from the field.
prior to this he has "generally" broadcast intentions to run and break.
the aircraft flies on the dead side but parallel to r/way ( mil flying rarely below 500') and pulls a high G turn (without altitude gain) bleeds off speed rapidly and allows flaps and u/c to be activated and in short puts the aircraft at the start of the Spitfire Curved Approach or constant aspect turn late-ish downwind.
I fly a Pitts Special and have never needed to R&B. However if given the "option", prevalent in the States or have been invited to do so, have always R&B'd because it is a blast!!
Stik
[ 20 July 2001: Message edited by: stiknruda ]
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here I am based at NCL, flying according to the approach guidance and being a quiet chap. I get on the ground and then see a group of Harriers/Hawks etc whoever is visiting for a cheap lunch, proceed to rip the place to pieces and make a huge noise - what's that all about then ? Don't even get me started about the R & B's that the Prima Donna's do at Trumpton either !
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I've just started on a Yak-52 and though I can't comment on formation circuits, whats the need for a R&B in a Yak-52/50, even in a restricted airspace area?
Not saying it isn't a 'fun' way to join the cct, but is it really necessary?
Feedback/comments?
I've just started on a Yak-52 and though I can't comment on formation circuits, whats the need for a R&B in a Yak-52/50, even in a restricted airspace area?
Not saying it isn't a 'fun' way to join the cct, but is it really necessary?
Feedback/comments?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: err not tellin anymore
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a formation it saves a lot of hassle and delay getting down (as described above)
For fast jets it's the only tactical way to land i.e. shortest possible time flying slow in a circuit, hence the need for fast jets to practice it (although when they do it at civvy fields it's possibly just coz it looks punchy
).
Thers is no need for civvy aircraft to do it (unless they're in formation) but it's bloody good fun and it is another type of approach, can't do any harm to have another trick up your sleeve can it?
For fast jets it's the only tactical way to land i.e. shortest possible time flying slow in a circuit, hence the need for fast jets to practice it (although when they do it at civvy fields it's possibly just coz it looks punchy
).Thers is no need for civvy aircraft to do it (unless they're in formation) but it's bloody good fun and it is another type of approach, can't do any harm to have another trick up your sleeve can it?