Shoreham Incident.
I fly from Shoreham. The airfield has full ATC. Permission to make a crosswind join has to be requested from ATC and such permission granted before joining.
The DA-40 was based at Shoreham so it is 99.9% certain that he had been cleared by ATC to join crosswind.
The DA-40 was based at Shoreham so it is 99.9% certain that he had been cleared by ATC to join crosswind.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like overhead joins as they provide for a longer time to get established, gives you the opportunity to see the field and the windsock (which is invaluable at uncontrolled fields) and keep you separated from the downwind traffic by altitude. I use it here in the US with my Aero Commander on smaller fields as well, as it provides time for it to slow down. I even asked for it at Stockton last time, which is very much controlled and has two long parallel runways, and got it. The 45 degree join in the US is a suggestion or recommendation - you can ask for whatever you want.
The 45 degree join works fine if you're set up beforehand for it. If you're descending into the downwind on your 45 degree, then I'd argue it's more dangerous than an overhead join as you're now descending into traffic that could be behind or below you with no way of spotting them. This happens daily in the US - rarely do you see people being established at pattern altitude at the 45. Therefore in reality, the English systems is safer, I think.
I think the safest way would be to climb to pattern altitude, i.e. come in lower on the 45, but that's obviously not very practical.
The 45 degree join works fine if you're set up beforehand for it. If you're descending into the downwind on your 45 degree, then I'd argue it's more dangerous than an overhead join as you're now descending into traffic that could be behind or below you with no way of spotting them. This happens daily in the US - rarely do you see people being established at pattern altitude at the 45. Therefore in reality, the English systems is safer, I think.
I think the safest way would be to climb to pattern altitude, i.e. come in lower on the 45, but that's obviously not very practical.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if the Vans was making a maximum performance climb at take off and was likely to be at circuit height by the end of the runway at a towered field, then a) ATC should have known about it and made the DA40 aware or instructed something else, b) the Vans pilot should have been aware of crosswind joining traffic. What was the reason for the steep rate of climb? There is no terrain to clear....
Shoreham often clears people to join on a left crosswind for 20. You could argue that he should have checked clear above and even looked left and right a bit. Can't really fault the DA40 crew in that case as he would have been approaching from about the only blind spot a DA40 has - below and left.
Good effort by the DA40, if this is what happened.
Shoreham often clears people to join on a left crosswind for 20. You could argue that he should have checked clear above and even looked left and right a bit. Can't really fault the DA40 crew in that case as he would have been approaching from about the only blind spot a DA40 has - below and left.
Good effort by the DA40, if this is what happened.
Last edited by englishal; 5th Jul 2011 at 18:57.
Moderator
Are we getting a little carried away with expounding the perfect circuit and entry here? Yes they are possible, no, they don't happen often. I have no idea what happened here, other than the reported outcome.
We are best reminding ourselves about the need for ever vigilence for traffic. Much more than that, in terms of enless armchair investigating for an accident like this, I cannot see as being helpful. We must remind ourselves that all aircraft have blind spots, and it is always possible to have zero relative motion traffic. I had one a month or so ago, just one bug spot on the windsheild getting bigger, where the others were not. Head on. By the time I believed what I was seeing, it was time for quite an evasive turn. I don't think I was seen at all by the other aircraft - it never altered course.
Let's not beat up on ATC. They, more than we pilots, are bound by the procedures of their jobs. They do what they are supposed to do, and are not supposed to offer other services, not matter how temping, or well meaning. I'm sure there is a Shoreham controller who feels terrible. Let's support that person. We pilots have all of the opportunity for collision prevention, by any means, and the most interest in success too!
As for
Ooo, Ooo.... Ooo, I know this one! Because he could! I've done it, when I was flying a capable aircraft. Who among us would deny doing it!
I've flown from Shoreham (thank you, friend). There is a lot of "detail" on the ground all around there. That can make a small relative motion "target" much more hard to spot as traffic - it just blends into the background. Vigilence!
Perhaps there was fault, perhaps not, perhaps we'll never know. Just sad, and a reminder for us to follow patterns other pilots will anticipate, and keep our eyes open.
We are best reminding ourselves about the need for ever vigilence for traffic. Much more than that, in terms of enless armchair investigating for an accident like this, I cannot see as being helpful. We must remind ourselves that all aircraft have blind spots, and it is always possible to have zero relative motion traffic. I had one a month or so ago, just one bug spot on the windsheild getting bigger, where the others were not. Head on. By the time I believed what I was seeing, it was time for quite an evasive turn. I don't think I was seen at all by the other aircraft - it never altered course.
Let's not beat up on ATC. They, more than we pilots, are bound by the procedures of their jobs. They do what they are supposed to do, and are not supposed to offer other services, not matter how temping, or well meaning. I'm sure there is a Shoreham controller who feels terrible. Let's support that person. We pilots have all of the opportunity for collision prevention, by any means, and the most interest in success too!
As for
What was the reason for the steep rate of climb?
I've flown from Shoreham (thank you, friend). There is a lot of "detail" on the ground all around there. That can make a small relative motion "target" much more hard to spot as traffic - it just blends into the background. Vigilence!
Perhaps there was fault, perhaps not, perhaps we'll never know. Just sad, and a reminder for us to follow patterns other pilots will anticipate, and keep our eyes open.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems that the kangaroo court has reached a verdict and passed sentence before any real evidence has been submitted. Speculation built upon speculation, that attributes blame and negligence to the deceased before any facts are really known. The press picks up on this stuff you know. A lot of you should know a lot better.
Every post appears to accept a plane climbs, fast or not, straight on, right up to circuit height. So what's going on ??
AFIR one was taught to climb to 500 ft then make a (left) turn and continue climbing till at 1000 ft, ready for a downwind leg at circuit height.
So have the rules changed without me noticing, or has Shoreham a non standard circuit climb pattern ?
When joining an airfield crosswind I fly over the upwind end of the runway at (usually) 1000 ft - should anyone unnoticed be climbing out I'd expect them to turn crosswind too 500 ft below me & continue to 1000 ready for downwind if circuit training.
ATC normally will accomodate alternative approaches/departures depending on the traffic density, when high volumes one is usually requested to use the conventional O/H join, descend to circuit height on the dead side etc.
mike hallam.
AFIR one was taught to climb to 500 ft then make a (left) turn and continue climbing till at 1000 ft, ready for a downwind leg at circuit height.
So have the rules changed without me noticing, or has Shoreham a non standard circuit climb pattern ?
When joining an airfield crosswind I fly over the upwind end of the runway at (usually) 1000 ft - should anyone unnoticed be climbing out I'd expect them to turn crosswind too 500 ft below me & continue to 1000 ready for downwind if circuit training.
ATC normally will accomodate alternative approaches/departures depending on the traffic density, when high volumes one is usually requested to use the conventional O/H join, descend to circuit height on the dead side etc.
mike hallam.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by soaringhigh650
But separation is collision avoidance, is it not?
If you're not separate from each other, you must be joined. Therefore you've collided.
If you're not separate from each other, you must be joined. Therefore you've collided.
Depending on the class of airspace and the flight rules that the aircraft are flying under, the controller will either be required to separate two aircraft or not. If separation is not required the controller will have some responsibility to provide information to help the pilot(s) to avoid a collision. There is no minimum distance by which a pilot needs to miss the other - this is collision avoidance. The amount of information that ATC must provide varies, again depending on the class of airspace and local practice.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFIR one was taught to climb to 500 ft then make a (left) turn and continue climbing till at 1000 ft, ready for a downwind leg at circuit height.
Personally I would expect traffic to turn crosswind not earlier than the end of the runway, and perhaps not earlier than about half a mile on upwind.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Mike, yes, I was trained, and I still believe this is the procedure, climb ahead to 500', then left/right turn climbing to circuit height,1000', join the pattern. Standard calls all the way, which nowadays appear to be quite random.
On joining o/h 2000' to descend deadside,turning as you descend, pref away from pattern, then crosswind at 1000' over the numbers, position reports again,keeping a very good lookout.
I do not think any of this has changed???? Or has it?
On joining o/h 2000' to descend deadside,turning as you descend, pref away from pattern, then crosswind at 1000' over the numbers, position reports again,keeping a very good lookout.
I do not think any of this has changed???? Or has it?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikehallam: Unless I'm missing something, you're rather assuming that one is staying in the circuit - in my experience, if the runway heading is suitable, it is not at all unusual to climb and depart on runway heading.
Generally one climbs at Vy initially at least for the purpose of getting some air beneath you - in a performant type, such as the RV somewhere with a long runway you'll hit that 500ft well before the upwind threshold. I confess I'll normally flatten off a bit and continue a 'cruise' climb at that point, but I never was completely clear about the early turn - turn crosswind at 500ft after takeoff and you'll have aeroplanes on crosswind at all sorts of distances - I've always considered it to be more of a geographic consideration.
So far, I'm thinking I'll be more careful about using available climb performance, more aware of the crosswind join, and more diligent about lowering the nose every so often in the climb. As an aside, I do wonder if the presence of 'ATC', might be prone to making people relax the lookout a little too much in the assumption that they are 'separated'. I don't know whether the typical tower has a radar picture, but I tend to believe they're in a worse position to observe all the traffic than I am..
Generally one climbs at Vy initially at least for the purpose of getting some air beneath you - in a performant type, such as the RV somewhere with a long runway you'll hit that 500ft well before the upwind threshold. I confess I'll normally flatten off a bit and continue a 'cruise' climb at that point, but I never was completely clear about the early turn - turn crosswind at 500ft after takeoff and you'll have aeroplanes on crosswind at all sorts of distances - I've always considered it to be more of a geographic consideration.
So far, I'm thinking I'll be more careful about using available climb performance, more aware of the crosswind join, and more diligent about lowering the nose every so often in the climb. As an aside, I do wonder if the presence of 'ATC', might be prone to making people relax the lookout a little too much in the assumption that they are 'separated'. I don't know whether the typical tower has a radar picture, but I tend to believe they're in a worse position to observe all the traffic than I am..
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we missing something
This thread was about a very unfortunate incident where a crash has occurred and someone has died as a result. Not good.
As I read through, and contributed, the thread has become a discussion on aerodrome/pattern procedures, some of which are appearing slightly alien to me, and whilst I witness a lot of what I am reading, some contributors appear to totally misunderstand the arrival/depart sequence at GA airfields.
The thought of someone in a high performance, high climb aeroplane, as a matter of course, blasting up through a crosswind join procedure, and then wondering why there was an airprox, gives me the shudders. I stated in an earlier post, fine, if circuit inactive, no one about, great. If the circuit is active then, clear intentions to all and sundry about what you are about to do, is/should be mandatory. The process is there for safety, of all.
A high performance climb out could be considered an aero manoeuvre in some
circles
As I read through, and contributed, the thread has become a discussion on aerodrome/pattern procedures, some of which are appearing slightly alien to me, and whilst I witness a lot of what I am reading, some contributors appear to totally misunderstand the arrival/depart sequence at GA airfields.
The thought of someone in a high performance, high climb aeroplane, as a matter of course, blasting up through a crosswind join procedure, and then wondering why there was an airprox, gives me the shudders. I stated in an earlier post, fine, if circuit inactive, no one about, great. If the circuit is active then, clear intentions to all and sundry about what you are about to do, is/should be mandatory. The process is there for safety, of all.
A high performance climb out could be considered an aero manoeuvre in some
circles
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, noted, I have toned down my comment.
But I would be seriously pissed off if someone climbed like a bat out of hell into my prop from a blind spot and nearly killed me and possibly my family because they didn't see me....when they didn't need to climb like that and hadn't got "the big picture", and may have been doing it "just because they can". Sure do it, but make damn sure no one is in the way.
I'd also be well pissed off if someone I knew was killed by someone barrel rolling at 50' because they wanted to show off to someone on the ground....like has happened before.
I am just going by comments previously posted, and I apologise if this transpires not to be the case, but from what has been posted the RV climbed as fast as possible into the DA40.
But I would be seriously pissed off if someone climbed like a bat out of hell into my prop from a blind spot and nearly killed me and possibly my family because they didn't see me....when they didn't need to climb like that and hadn't got "the big picture", and may have been doing it "just because they can". Sure do it, but make damn sure no one is in the way.
I'd also be well pissed off if someone I knew was killed by someone barrel rolling at 50' because they wanted to show off to someone on the ground....like has happened before.
I am just going by comments previously posted, and I apologise if this transpires not to be the case, but from what has been posted the RV climbed as fast as possible into the DA40.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 42
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a member of FlyingTime and now fly regularly in one of their PA28's. I have spoken with the guys at FlyingTime, firstly to make sure that everyone there is ok, but also to find out some details as obviously I am a little shaken to hear of such a serious incident so close to home.
As to be expected they are not allowed to mention any specific details as the situation is currently being investigated by the AIB and the Sussex Police, but what I have been told is basically what you can read on the BBC website, which is that the FlyingTime DA40 was traveling from West to East on the X-wind leg when the other aircraft climbed out from runway 20 and the 2 aircraft collided.
I do not know if the DA40 was joining the X-wind leg or simply passing the airfield (I have assumed it was joining the X-winf leg as it would seem the DA40 was at circuit height). I do not know if it was joining X-wind wide or over the numbers either.
In any case, the fact of the matter here is that there was a major incident and someone has lost their life as a result. Also, the pilots of the DA40 will no doubt be running this scenario over in their minds to work out if indeed they had any part to play in this tragic event. I would also imagine that the person on ATC at the time is also questioning their actions so undoubtedly this event has not only caused a death but will also affect the other pilots and ATC for the rest of their lives. We need to be considerate of this fact and try not to draw any of our own conclusions (even though it is human nature to do so) until the official AIB conclusions are published.
What I can say is that the whole team at FlyingTime are extremely professional and I have thoroughly enjoyed being with the club and dealing with the people who work there. This is a freak, tragic accident and my thoughts go out to all involved, and the family of the deceased.
All we can do is use this as a reminder of the potential hazards to aviation and ensure that we all fly safe and remain constantly aware of the movement of other aircraft.
As to be expected they are not allowed to mention any specific details as the situation is currently being investigated by the AIB and the Sussex Police, but what I have been told is basically what you can read on the BBC website, which is that the FlyingTime DA40 was traveling from West to East on the X-wind leg when the other aircraft climbed out from runway 20 and the 2 aircraft collided.
I do not know if the DA40 was joining the X-wind leg or simply passing the airfield (I have assumed it was joining the X-winf leg as it would seem the DA40 was at circuit height). I do not know if it was joining X-wind wide or over the numbers either.
In any case, the fact of the matter here is that there was a major incident and someone has lost their life as a result. Also, the pilots of the DA40 will no doubt be running this scenario over in their minds to work out if indeed they had any part to play in this tragic event. I would also imagine that the person on ATC at the time is also questioning their actions so undoubtedly this event has not only caused a death but will also affect the other pilots and ATC for the rest of their lives. We need to be considerate of this fact and try not to draw any of our own conclusions (even though it is human nature to do so) until the official AIB conclusions are published.
What I can say is that the whole team at FlyingTime are extremely professional and I have thoroughly enjoyed being with the club and dealing with the people who work there. This is a freak, tragic accident and my thoughts go out to all involved, and the family of the deceased.
All we can do is use this as a reminder of the potential hazards to aviation and ensure that we all fly safe and remain constantly aware of the movement of other aircraft.
Moderator
Just 'cause I'm trying to follow in context here... is it an estabished fact that an aircraft involved in the collision was in a place in the circuit, which was not where they should have been? Obvioulsy two aircraft were in the same place, but was either in the wrong place, were the other not to have been there? Are there any facts?
At a controlled airport, I can see how this works, but then you have a controller who is aware that you are doing something unusual, and has "controlled" the airspace to safely enable it. I extend to the controllers (I think Shoreham is positively controlled?) the belief that if they had known there was a prospect of conflict, would have advised.
One of those MD500's could depart on the runway heading, manage a climb better than the RV-X, and probably be even harder to see while doing it. Would the MD500 pilot be wrong to accomplish a maximum performance climb on the runway axis? Is there a limiting procedure for this? I've never seen one. Indeed, the reverse at some airports, "no turns until X feet AGL". Let's get the noise as far up as possible, as fast as possible, Particularly for helicopters, 'cause the airport has neighbours, and we pilots are trying to mitigate annoyance.
At an uncontrolled airport, how would you ever know if the circuit is inactive? I think that is an assumption which can never be made. I fly a nordo aircraft into an uncontrolled airport from time to time. I spend the entire time watching out like crazy, and flying something predictable as a pattern. I never assume the circuit is inactive! Indeed this airport has two simultainious parallel circuits, one to the right, the other to the left, and it works quite well, as long as you assume both are active, and fly accordingly.
Just my opinion..... but...All of the circuit procedure posturing here is only touching a part of the real world circumstances, while other realities are being completely overlooked. While flying a helicopter into a controlled airport, no controller has ever asked me to conform to the airplane circuit, even though palnes were in it. When I tried, it seemed to introduce confusion!
if circuit inactive, no one about, great. If the circuit is active then, clear intentions to all and sundry about what you are about to do, is/should be mandatory
One of those MD500's could depart on the runway heading, manage a climb better than the RV-X, and probably be even harder to see while doing it. Would the MD500 pilot be wrong to accomplish a maximum performance climb on the runway axis? Is there a limiting procedure for this? I've never seen one. Indeed, the reverse at some airports, "no turns until X feet AGL". Let's get the noise as far up as possible, as fast as possible, Particularly for helicopters, 'cause the airport has neighbours, and we pilots are trying to mitigate annoyance.
At an uncontrolled airport, how would you ever know if the circuit is inactive? I think that is an assumption which can never be made. I fly a nordo aircraft into an uncontrolled airport from time to time. I spend the entire time watching out like crazy, and flying something predictable as a pattern. I never assume the circuit is inactive! Indeed this airport has two simultainious parallel circuits, one to the right, the other to the left, and it works quite well, as long as you assume both are active, and fly accordingly.
Just my opinion..... but...All of the circuit procedure posturing here is only touching a part of the real world circumstances, while other realities are being completely overlooked. While flying a helicopter into a controlled airport, no controller has ever asked me to conform to the airplane circuit, even though palnes were in it. When I tried, it seemed to introduce confusion!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think So cal was commenting on my comment, thinking I was referring to this incident, which I have tried to make pains not to
I feel very strongly on this issue. I used to own and display a YAK50, a very powerful aeroplane. I could be at 2000' by the end of the runway if I so wished.
I never did. Regardless of type, one should leave the pattern in safe and sensible manner. The same on entry.
You only have to google or you tube, to see the disasters of not paying attention in the pattern. Arriving and leaving is the pattern.
I feel very strongly on this issue. I used to own and display a YAK50, a very powerful aeroplane. I could be at 2000' by the end of the runway if I so wished.
I never did. Regardless of type, one should leave the pattern in safe and sensible manner. The same on entry.
You only have to google or you tube, to see the disasters of not paying attention in the pattern. Arriving and leaving is the pattern.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly obviously a plane joining crosswind at the right place is not going to collide with a plane which is departing in accordance with normal procedures (and a climb to 1100ft at the numbers is definitely not "normal procedures"; if you are into aerobatics then you do them well away from an airport unless pre-arranged).
Local reports (which could be wrong) suggest that the collision took place after the RV had departed and turned east, either to depart to the east or to fly a circuit. At this point the two converged into close proximity (which is why some early eye witness reports, in the papers, spoke of two planes flying in an apparent formation) and the DA40 prop cut off the tail of the RV6, rendering it uncontrollable except for some roll capability which would not have been relevant to its trajectory.
It is obvious that the location of the prop (on Shoreham beach) is nowhere near the crosswind point for 20. I don't know if that is relevant in this case, but I have seen many pilots joining "crosswind" at the same time as I am doing so, but when I (being over the numbers) have finally found them it turns out they are way out over the beach, which puts them at risk from another plane departing on 20 with a high rate of climb whose pilot, being at Vx or so, is not going to have much (or any) forward visibility. And I don't think a prop that's been ripped out of the gearbox is going to fly laterally on its own very far...
When I depart on 20 I cross the beach at about 500ft, which should be safe, but what if somebody is joining "crosswind" a mile offshore? People have done that too. Such a pilot is likely to collide with somebody who has departed and has turned east and is climbing.
If the DA40 lost its prop over the numbers then a deadstick landing ought to have been easy. If the DA40 lost its prop over the beach (as appears to be the case) then making it back is also consistent with them being at say 1100ft. What would not be consistent is e.g. the DA40 losing its prop over the beach at the sort of height most people reach when departing, at that point, which is only a few hundred feet.
The winds were very light so not really helping somebody to do a rapid climb:
METAR EGKA 041450Z 20005KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041520Z 16004KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041550Z 17005KT CAVOK 19/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041620Z 16005KT CAVOK 19/11 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041650Z 18004KT CAVOK 19/10 Q1017
I cannot believe there is any ATC issue here. Once ATC clear you to join crosswind, you are 100% responsible for doing it correctly. They also have no control over departing traffic, how it climbs, where it goes after takeoff, etc.
I think it is important to learn from these things. Waiting for the AAIB report is no good because everybody except those immediately affected will have forgotten about it by then.
Local reports (which could be wrong) suggest that the collision took place after the RV had departed and turned east, either to depart to the east or to fly a circuit. At this point the two converged into close proximity (which is why some early eye witness reports, in the papers, spoke of two planes flying in an apparent formation) and the DA40 prop cut off the tail of the RV6, rendering it uncontrollable except for some roll capability which would not have been relevant to its trajectory.
It is obvious that the location of the prop (on Shoreham beach) is nowhere near the crosswind point for 20. I don't know if that is relevant in this case, but I have seen many pilots joining "crosswind" at the same time as I am doing so, but when I (being over the numbers) have finally found them it turns out they are way out over the beach, which puts them at risk from another plane departing on 20 with a high rate of climb whose pilot, being at Vx or so, is not going to have much (or any) forward visibility. And I don't think a prop that's been ripped out of the gearbox is going to fly laterally on its own very far...
When I depart on 20 I cross the beach at about 500ft, which should be safe, but what if somebody is joining "crosswind" a mile offshore? People have done that too. Such a pilot is likely to collide with somebody who has departed and has turned east and is climbing.
If the DA40 lost its prop over the numbers then a deadstick landing ought to have been easy. If the DA40 lost its prop over the beach (as appears to be the case) then making it back is also consistent with them being at say 1100ft. What would not be consistent is e.g. the DA40 losing its prop over the beach at the sort of height most people reach when departing, at that point, which is only a few hundred feet.
The winds were very light so not really helping somebody to do a rapid climb:
METAR EGKA 041450Z 20005KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041520Z 16004KT 9999 FEW040 18/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041550Z 17005KT CAVOK 19/12 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041620Z 16005KT CAVOK 19/11 Q1017
METAR EGKA 041650Z 18004KT CAVOK 19/10 Q1017
I cannot believe there is any ATC issue here. Once ATC clear you to join crosswind, you are 100% responsible for doing it correctly. They also have no control over departing traffic, how it climbs, where it goes after takeoff, etc.
I think it is important to learn from these things. Waiting for the AAIB report is no good because everybody except those immediately affected will have forgotten about it by then.
Last edited by IO540; 5th Jul 2011 at 19:56.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR - I think we are on the same wavelength here. Not sure about the Canadian procedures, however, a number of our busy GA airfields are air/ground. in that whilst there is a 'controller', a guy on the ground who will give airfield information, they are not 'controlling'. Nor are the positioning. The are informing. It is all pilots responsibility to position according to active pattern, and there are reasonably set procedures on how to do this. The most important aspect is r/t and look out from the pilots.
Similarly leaving an airfield, was, before I started reading some comments here, relatively straight forward. Now I am not so sure.
Similarly leaving an airfield, was, before I started reading some comments here, relatively straight forward. Now I am not so sure.