How rude

[Echo Romeo]

Much to do about, well, nothing really, the Pitts pilot saw an opportunity and took it, maybe should have made a radio call, but hey ho.

[Pitts2112]

A couple of hours spent watching the Microlight Fly-in arrivals at Popham and you'll learn a lot about relaxing and just getting on with things. There's a group that fly for fun and aren't too put out by one another. Never saw a rule book quoted or anyone pulled up for minor inconveniences, unlike much of the Group A group who seem to want to throw the book at others quite a lot.

GA could learn quite a bit from the attitude of the microlight community.

[Halfbaked_Boy]

glush,

... ever heard the legend that goes something like, "nothing so useless as runway behind you"?

Agreed completely.

Ok, somewhere like Bournemouth/Birmingham etc may dictate a different (sensible/logical) approach, but my standard procedure is to use every metre of runway available to me.

I don't have thousands of hours, but have done enough flying to see the difference between what the theory says we should do and what we sometimes ACTUALLY do.

I've beat up runways lower than I should have and other such things, my point being I'm not one of these holier than thou types who doesn't know the difference between legality and safety (not always the same). But I know what it's like to lose power after unstick and needing that extra 50 metres or so.

I wasn't in the OP's shoes and I think it's impossible to judge these situations unless you were there. It doesn't sound unsafe to me - in fact I can imagine everybody was trying to find an opportunity, and I'm sure the Pitts pilot didn't intentionally try to upset you. I'm speculating because I have done 'this' to other pilots before to utilise a spacing opportunity, but only if I was sure it wouldn't inconvenience anyone and I really was ready to roll immediately.

Just a shame you guys were taking off as opposed to landing - then you could have spoken to him and found out what was going on!

[Justiciar]

Isn't the only issue one of whether the Pitts pilot advised his intentions on the RT? If he did then it would appear to be entirely his own decision as to whether to take off from the intersection as opposed to backtrack. He does not appear to have done anything illegal or dangerous and indeed it sounds safer than having taken off following a slower aircraft which had a inferior rate of climb

[hatzflyer]

I think the question that is missing here really is " did the Pitts pilot , { who nipped in on the quick} have time to have a real lookout before taking off , given his speed of action and the poor lookout available from a biplane configuration ? "
That would be my main concern under those circumstances.

What you should have done was opened up and outclimbed him, rolled inverted 2M above his cockpit whilst simultainiously taking a polaroid with one hand and giving him "the bird" with the other.
(probably wouldn't do much for safety but would ensure a place in any remake of top gun though) !

[GK430]

C'mon, I have visited Leics about once or twice a year over the past three years and have nearly always departed Rwy 10.

Our moaning friend says he backtracked......20m to avoid departing with usable Rwy behind.
Take a closer look - the actual available Rwy from the holding point requires somewhere akin to > 250m backtrack to make full use of the licensed paved length.

No further comment.

[Zulu Alpha]

Glush does seem to be maintaining radio silence.

Was he in a Piper PA28-151?
Was he backtracking 20 or 250 mtrs?
Did he miss the Pitts radio call?

Perhaps, Glush entered the runway for a 250 mtr backtrack and missed the quick radio call from the Pitts who did an intersection departure while G-LUSH was blocking the runway.

[hatzflyer]

G lush may not have been flying G-LUSH. My moniker is Hatz flyer but I haven't flown a Hatz for 6 years or so.

[Fuji Abound]

More often than not I find these threads a little strange (and a waste of time) for exactly this reason; the OP proclaims a great injustice but is unwilling to submit to the scrutiny of PPRuNe or answer some of the questions raised.

The danger is we are left wondering whether the injustice was as claimed or the post was made for some other reason.

The OP may have been in error and the back track may have been much longer (or the Pitts expected it to be longer) and / or the OP may having be flying a high perfromance aircraft but we just dont know.

[UV]

The radio operator calls my aircraft up asking if we're ready for departure and my student replies in the affirmative

Err... no you were not ready for deeparture... you were ready for a backtrack.

Student then announces 'lining up'.... We roll out onto the runway, and backtrack about 20m.

Err....no he wasnt lining up... he was backtracking! You said so yourself!

Perhaps if more accurate RT had been used, indicating what you were actually doing, the Pitts pilot would have been more in the loop. Im sure he didnt expect a mere 20m backtrack!

[dope05]

either the backtracking aircraft missed two radio calls, one from the Pitts requesting an immediate with backtracking in sight and one from the tower then advising of traffic lining up in front, or the pitts was guilty of piss poor airmanship.

[Anonystude]

Or c), it's an a/g field and he doesn't have to ask 'permission' from anyone, leaving one call to be missed...

[dope05]

common courtesy, safety and good airmanship me thinks

[Zulu Alpha]

common courtesy, safety and good airmanship me thinks

... to have let the Pitts go ahead of you if you were going to backtrack?

[dope05]

absolutely, as long as they had asked, especially with a student pilot, thus demonstrating the real world and the need for situational awareness and at least one ear on the radio.

[eharding]

It's no good - every time I read the thread title I imagine Jar Jar Binks sitting in the PA28, harumphing away at the impertinence of the Pitts driver.

And then I found this....



Sorry.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So in the absence of ATC it's OK to enter and take off from an occupied runway is it?

You learn something every day.

[maxred]

You Tube

Following on in this quite fascinating thread, the video wonder You Tube be is full of aviation disasters where two aeroplanes collide on runway, generally resulting in non surviveable incidents.

Now we are not privy to ATC Comms on these postings, however, I would hazard a quess that communication, and situational awareness is probably the cause in a lot of them.

There is never any excuse for runway incursion, without adequate and confirmed communications between participating aircraft. End of.

i.e. confirms by the backtracking aircraft that he is happy, and knows about, the others intentions on entering the active. Everyone happy, and safe

[mur007]

So in the absence of ATC it's OK to enter and take off from an occupied runway is it?

Apparently it is to be encouraged if it saves a minute or two of waiting at the hold!

[mur007]

The worrying thing is that the powers that be in light aviation seem to find the "land after" unacceptable and issue a go around order at the drop of a hat, it seems that the only place that I now regularly get a land after clearance is at Gatwick.

Well technically it's not a clearance; Biggin offer them fairly regularly - I've had two myself there that I can remember off the top of my head. On one occasion when waiting at the hold, I observed an American (going by his accent) on short final in a jet being given a land after and he had absolutely no idea what the controller meant. He flew down the runway asking 'land after what?' or words to that effect. Eventually when the other traffic had exited the runway he was cleared to land and then he touched down. He was then asked to contact the tower once he had shut down! Maybe that partially explains the reluctance to use it at other ATC fields?