Run and break when will they learn ?
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
The Run In And Break is a joining manoeuvre, any aircraft joining should not break into the circuit until the pilot has all the other aircraft in the circuit in sight. He/she should know how many are in, as the controller normally tells him 'X aircraft ahead' at initials. This is what was the practice when I used to instruct the RIAB in military aircraft.
As the procedure is primarily designed for reducing energy prior to the downwind leg (with a secondary advantage of minimising your exposure to groundfire), it's pretty pointless in any aircraft doing less than 200 knts.
But my main point is that everyone in the circuit should know where initials is so they know where the threat is coming from if the RIAB procedure is to be used. If people don't know - then it doesn't really have a place at that airfield.
As the procedure is primarily designed for reducing energy prior to the downwind leg (with a secondary advantage of minimising your exposure to groundfire), it's pretty pointless in any aircraft doing less than 200 knts.
But my main point is that everyone in the circuit should know where initials is so they know where the threat is coming from if the RIAB procedure is to be used. If people don't know - then it doesn't really have a place at that airfield.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
Some points:
1. This is a Military procedure carried out at Military Airfields.
2. Most if not all such Military Airfields have an ATC Service, an ATZ and thus a known traffic environment.
In the civil world, unless there is controlled airspace, it can not be taken as a known traffic environment.
Perhaps, pilots operating at uncontrolled airfields should voice their objections (if they have any) on the R/T when they hear the call "run and break".
DFC
1. This is a Military procedure carried out at Military Airfields.
2. Most if not all such Military Airfields have an ATC Service, an ATZ and thus a known traffic environment.
In the civil world, unless there is controlled airspace, it can not be taken as a known traffic environment.
Perhaps, pilots operating at uncontrolled airfields should voice their objections (if they have any) on the R/T when they hear the call "run and break".
DFC
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
This topic certainly raises temperatures. Flash why are you unwilling to name where you carry out this military joining procedure? I shall continue to exercise my privileges as a pilot and not stay in my car. I merely wish to avoid any unnecessary dangers from pilots who want to do their own thing in a circuit pattern. You can of course go to your nearest military airfield and ask if you can play at being a FL pilot there. Equally if your own airfield has no pattern traffic you may do as you wish within the rules of the airfield. To say "they cannot disallow them" is something you may wish to clarify with the airfield management.
Lawyer - I think that my concerns are that we need to avoid getting the CAA involved. The fact that some pilots need to do this in a circuit with existing traffic is surely more likely to get the CAA involved than avoiding it. As I have said above - I believe pilots should be free to do what they want BUT not where it is LIKELY to endanger others. I am a most fervant supporter of GA and believe we all have a role to play in being seen to be responsible.
Lawyer - I think that my concerns are that we need to avoid getting the CAA involved. The fact that some pilots need to do this in a circuit with existing traffic is surely more likely to get the CAA involved than avoiding it. As I have said above - I believe pilots should be free to do what they want BUT not where it is LIKELY to endanger others. I am a most fervant supporter of GA and believe we all have a role to play in being seen to be responsible.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,414
Likes: 2
From: Europe
Come on folk,
It is bad enough without infighting.
Having priviliges means also having responsibilities, flash. WH you will have to accept that people like doing these things and that there is a time and a place for all of this.
Can we just stick to the rules of the air and all have a slice of the cake and enjoy it.
Never done a R&B but assume they can be good fun if done in a professional manner in an aeroplane capable of doing one.
Not more red tape please.
FD
BTW are babygrows compulsory for those performing them?
It is bad enough without infighting.
Having priviliges means also having responsibilities, flash. WH you will have to accept that people like doing these things and that there is a time and a place for all of this.
Can we just stick to the rules of the air and all have a slice of the cake and enjoy it.
Never done a R&B but assume they can be good fun if done in a professional manner in an aeroplane capable of doing one.
Not more red tape please.
FD
BTW are babygrows compulsory for those performing them?
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
Well said, Flyin'Dutch'.
No, babygrows aren't compulsory but, if you've never worn one, it won't do any harm if the instructor who demonstrates or teaches you the manoeuvre has at some point.
WorkingHard
It isn't the topic which has raised temperatures, but your attitude to it. I confess my reaction was influenced by reading your (now merged) thread in which you described the manoeuvre as "irresponsible behaviour", and suggested listing airfields which allow them.
The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances. The idea of yet another 'ban' or restriction, whether imposed by airfields or the CAA, fills me with horror. In 30 years or so flying, I've seen an increasing number of restrictions imposed upon our freedom to use our own judgment. Some are necessary; many are an unfortunate product of the 'nanny' culture in which we now live.
There was a tragic accident at North Weald, and lessons should be learned. But I know of no evidence (personal, official or anecdotal) to suggest there is a problem calling for the imposition of yet another restriction.
Is your experience different from mine? Have you been caused anxiety by such manoeuvres?
Our attitudes are inevitably formed by the type of flying we've done - in my case, mainly RAF, Tiger Club and the Old Flying Machine Company at Duxford. Like Flash, I've frequently been invited to do a RIAB when visiting airfields. Much depends upon type flown. When flying a Harvard or Yak 11, requests are common; not surprisingly, I've never been asked when flying a Piper or Cessna. Invitation or not, I wouldn't do so unless satisfied it was safe.
I don't seek to persuade you to my point of view. Having now read many of your contributions to various topics, I am entirely satisfied the only thing we have in common is that we both hold a pilots licence. I respect your right to fly as you wish, and have done a modest amount of s&l cross-country flying myself. Some of us have a more adventurous, but nonetheless safety-conscious, approach to our flying - but there's plenty of scope for us to co-exist happily and safely without the imposition of yet more rules.
No, babygrows aren't compulsory but, if you've never worn one, it won't do any harm if the instructor who demonstrates or teaches you the manoeuvre has at some point.
WorkingHard
It isn't the topic which has raised temperatures, but your attitude to it. I confess my reaction was influenced by reading your (now merged) thread in which you described the manoeuvre as "irresponsible behaviour", and suggested listing airfields which allow them.
The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances. The idea of yet another 'ban' or restriction, whether imposed by airfields or the CAA, fills me with horror. In 30 years or so flying, I've seen an increasing number of restrictions imposed upon our freedom to use our own judgment. Some are necessary; many are an unfortunate product of the 'nanny' culture in which we now live.
There was a tragic accident at North Weald, and lessons should be learned. But I know of no evidence (personal, official or anecdotal) to suggest there is a problem calling for the imposition of yet another restriction.
Is your experience different from mine? Have you been caused anxiety by such manoeuvres?
Our attitudes are inevitably formed by the type of flying we've done - in my case, mainly RAF, Tiger Club and the Old Flying Machine Company at Duxford. Like Flash, I've frequently been invited to do a RIAB when visiting airfields. Much depends upon type flown. When flying a Harvard or Yak 11, requests are common; not surprisingly, I've never been asked when flying a Piper or Cessna. Invitation or not, I wouldn't do so unless satisfied it was safe.
I don't seek to persuade you to my point of view. Having now read many of your contributions to various topics, I am entirely satisfied the only thing we have in common is that we both hold a pilots licence. I respect your right to fly as you wish, and have done a modest amount of s&l cross-country flying myself. Some of us have a more adventurous, but nonetheless safety-conscious, approach to our flying - but there's plenty of scope for us to co-exist happily and safely without the imposition of yet more rules.
Mess Your Passage
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: Temporarily Unaware......
As you say FL outside aviation there are enough enemys why fight each other ?
Perhaps a knee jerk reaction to something i feel should be kept alive.
The point i'm making is accidents happen and why should a RIAB be banned after a collision. and an approach to land not be? I'm sure the approach is a bigger killer.
Like i say we take the risk.
And wannabe topguns i agree get them out the sky and onto their computers....!
Perhaps a knee jerk reaction to something i feel should be kept alive.
The point i'm making is accidents happen and why should a RIAB be banned after a collision. and an approach to land not be? I'm sure the approach is a bigger killer.
Like i say we take the risk.
And wannabe topguns i agree get them out the sky and onto their computers....!
Last edited by Flash0710; 15th February 2003 at 22:22.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The point i'm making is accidents happen and why should a RIAB be banned after a collision. and an approach to land not be? I'm sure the approach is a bigger killer.
I can't wait for demo at Farnbourough. What will you be flying Flash?
...smoke me a kipper and all that jazz...
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 220
Likes: 11
From: UK
Is the R&B:
In the PPL syllabus?
In the Instructor syllabus?
Part of the CPL?
Part of the ATPL?
Described in the AIP ('Air Pilot')?
Described in CAP 413 (R/T Manual)?
No? Then perhaps you should conclude that it has no part in civil aviation and it is a military procedure. Go and do it in the military at military airfields.
In the PPL syllabus?
In the Instructor syllabus?
Part of the CPL?
Part of the ATPL?
Described in the AIP ('Air Pilot')?
Described in CAP 413 (R/T Manual)?
No? Then perhaps you should conclude that it has no part in civil aviation and it is a military procedure. Go and do it in the military at military airfields.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: South East
Please read flying lawyers post, it makes so much sense.
Hew Jampton---- Sorry friend but there are a lot of Manoeuvres not described on your list, that I do. Does it mean I can not loop!! Shall it be illegal to practice a spin. My attempt to roll on a Sunday afternoon be a thing of the past !!!. Do a Run and Break when the circuit is clear and you are affecting no one, it is after all just another method for joining the circuit. Treat your fellow aviators with respect.
And Flash on your next R&B at least do a tight circuit or are you trying for a 747 rating
Love Wide
Hew Jampton---- Sorry friend but there are a lot of Manoeuvres not described on your list, that I do. Does it mean I can not loop!! Shall it be illegal to practice a spin. My attempt to roll on a Sunday afternoon be a thing of the past !!!. Do a Run and Break when the circuit is clear and you are affecting no one, it is after all just another method for joining the circuit. Treat your fellow aviators with respect.
And Flash on your next R&B at least do a tight circuit or are you trying for a 747 rating
Love Wide
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
Do a Run and Break when the circuit is clear and you are affecting no one, it is after all just another method for joining the circuit.
IMHO, a run and break is different from aerobatics - if you fancy looping, then find a quiet bit of sky, tell whoever you are talking to what you are doing so they can tell other people to avoid you, and get on with it. A run and break is in the circuit environment. If it's empty, then fine, go ahead. If it's busy then give it a miss.
Places like North Weald aren't the problem - plan a flight there and you'll notice the warnings about high-performance aeroplanes and find out what is going on for yourself (I'd ask what they were likely to do when calling for PPR). The problem is at the places where nobody has a clue what a run and break is.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
From: UK
FL - I appreciate all you say and essentially we do not differ in our views of GA. My entire point was that I defend to the end a pilots right to do what is within the law and WITHOUT endangering others. I understand selective reading of a topic may draw one to the incorrect emphasis. You say quite correctly that such manoeuvres are safe at the right time and in the right place. We all seem to wholeheartedly agree with that. As you agree that a circuit that already has other traffic is not the place or time. I shall choose my form of word more carefully next time I feel strongly about an issue.
No more comment from me! (did I hear a cheer?)
No more comment from me! (did I hear a cheer?)
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,113
Likes: 1,087
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Having flown military jets during training, military helicopters and light fixed wing and carried out RIABs on all of them, I see RIAB as a punchy and extroverted way of joining the circuit in an expeditious way. The origins of the manoeuvre have already been mentioned.
There are risks in the manoeuvre, tragically demonstrated by the mid-air already mentioned. However, aircraft do collide in the circuit in other circumstances that all pilots would consider more "normal", irrespective of their experience and training. For example, two gliders collided on finals whilst landing at Camphill about 4 years ago.
The common thread is insufficient lookout, with perhaps a lack of awareness by one or both pilots. As far as I was taught, it is the responsibility of the pilot joining the circuit to fit in with other traffic already in the pattern and cause no inconvenience or danger, just like road traffic joining a roundabout, or driving / flying in general.
IMHO the North Weald mid air was the fault of the Yak pilot. He failed to safely carry out a manoeuvre that was beyond the experience of the other pilot.
BTW, military airfields always have a Flying Order outlining the procedure for a RIAB, giving details of the position of "Initials", radio calls etc etc.
There are risks in the manoeuvre, tragically demonstrated by the mid-air already mentioned. However, aircraft do collide in the circuit in other circumstances that all pilots would consider more "normal", irrespective of their experience and training. For example, two gliders collided on finals whilst landing at Camphill about 4 years ago.
The common thread is insufficient lookout, with perhaps a lack of awareness by one or both pilots. As far as I was taught, it is the responsibility of the pilot joining the circuit to fit in with other traffic already in the pattern and cause no inconvenience or danger, just like road traffic joining a roundabout, or driving / flying in general.
IMHO the North Weald mid air was the fault of the Yak pilot. He failed to safely carry out a manoeuvre that was beyond the experience of the other pilot.
BTW, military airfields always have a Flying Order outlining the procedure for a RIAB, giving details of the position of "Initials", radio calls etc etc.
Mess Your Passage
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: Temporarily Unaware......
Hello Wide,
Sorry bout the circuit but i think the only chance i shall have of flying a 747 is in wh's world on the pc
Hopefully b flying a vulcan this year at f'bro but think there is more chance of "smoking class " being introduced on the Hindenberg
Sorry bout the circuit but i think the only chance i shall have of flying a 747 is in wh's world on the pc
Hopefully b flying a vulcan this year at f'bro but think there is more chance of "smoking class " being introduced on the Hindenberg
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: Pfffft
I took a short video of a RIAB I did earlier on today. You can download it here;
RIAB Video
As you can see its not a particularly violent manoeuvre.
Just to note, the aircraft it is taken in is a Tutor.
ASI
RIAB Video
As you can see its not a particularly violent manoeuvre.
Just to note, the aircraft it is taken in is a Tutor.
ASI
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Lawyer got to the heart of the matter when he said
When confronted with this type of logic, is it any wonder that joe public takes the view that he doesn't give a f*ck about the semantics, just stop people in light aircraft flying over my house because it is DANGEROUS.
And there are many MPs who are only too happy to take up the anti GA cause, who understand how to argue a brief (and many of whom are or were lawyers.)
BTW, I'm not anti laywer, my own 'profession' of consultant fights for an equally lowly place in the mind of the public when asked to grade our probity.
John Fletcher Moulton said in another age that ethical behaviour was represented by 'obedience to the unenforceable.'
IMHO that's a pretty good premise for life and also RIABs.
The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances
And there are many MPs who are only too happy to take up the anti GA cause, who understand how to argue a brief (and many of whom are or were lawyers.)
BTW, I'm not anti laywer, my own 'profession' of consultant fights for an equally lowly place in the mind of the public when asked to grade our probity.
John Fletcher Moulton said in another age that ethical behaviour was represented by 'obedience to the unenforceable.'
IMHO that's a pretty good premise for life and also RIABs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been doing R & B's at my home field CYYJ for years, mostly when flying the Nanchang CJ 6 , but occassionally in a T 28 and
L 29 ( usually a high flat break ). Why do I do it ? Two reasons ; One -because its FUN ! and Two the CJ6 in particular has a very draggy gear but only a 100 kt Vle. A R & B allows me to bleed off speed and get the gear down without touching the throttle from my 550 humhugs approach manifold pressure setting . Since radial engines do not like low power high RPM/airspeed this is very desirable from a engine longevity point of view. I ask ATC for the manoever well outside the circuit and if it is not busy usually get it. The break is almost always in the opposite direction ( ie left break for the normal right hand circuit on the main runway ). As far as I know I have never bothered anybody and ATC and/or the Feds have never complained. All that been said I will not generally do R & B at a airport that does not have positive ATC.
At the end of the day I think this topic has nothing to do with the R & B it is purely an airmanship issue. Pilots that are creating problems are probably a pain in the A ** in the rest of their flying. By not behaving responsibly they are hurting th rest of us. BTW
I once overheard a PPL at my flying club disparage a nicely flown formation R & B that had just occured. He was quite vocal about how unsafe and irresponsible he considered the manoever he had just observed. We both headed out to our respective Spamcans for a local flight. Coincidentaly about a hour later we both rejoined the circuit. He was told to follow me in the downwind Number 2. I had to go around after he cut me off on final ....
L 29 ( usually a high flat break ). Why do I do it ? Two reasons ; One -because its FUN ! and Two the CJ6 in particular has a very draggy gear but only a 100 kt Vle. A R & B allows me to bleed off speed and get the gear down without touching the throttle from my 550 humhugs approach manifold pressure setting . Since radial engines do not like low power high RPM/airspeed this is very desirable from a engine longevity point of view. I ask ATC for the manoever well outside the circuit and if it is not busy usually get it. The break is almost always in the opposite direction ( ie left break for the normal right hand circuit on the main runway ). As far as I know I have never bothered anybody and ATC and/or the Feds have never complained. All that been said I will not generally do R & B at a airport that does not have positive ATC.
At the end of the day I think this topic has nothing to do with the R & B it is purely an airmanship issue. Pilots that are creating problems are probably a pain in the A ** in the rest of their flying. By not behaving responsibly they are hurting th rest of us. BTW
I once overheard a PPL at my flying club disparage a nicely flown formation R & B that had just occured. He was quite vocal about how unsafe and irresponsible he considered the manoever he had just observed. We both headed out to our respective Spamcans for a local flight. Coincidentaly about a hour later we both rejoined the circuit. He was told to follow me in the downwind Number 2. I had to go around after he cut me off on final ....
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
IMHO we are looking at the run and break from the worng angle.
For those who complain that they do not wish to be restricted from completing a loop or roll or spin, can I simply point out the HASELL check and remind that the "Location" must be clear of various places including active airfields.
For those who worry about having more red tape and rules, can I point out the rules of the air with regard to circuit procedures and recent CAA comments about circuit joining procedures at uncontrolled airfields.
For those who enjoy the manoeuvere, can I point out that I also do but in the correct environment.
A pilot who completes a run and break is no different from a pilot who reguluarly joins straight in on final...........no problem provided they do not affect anyone else in the circuit or cause noise complaints from the neighbours.
However, one very important point.....since a run and break is not a standard civil manoeuvere, completing one especially in response to a request or in order to impress, would require a display authorisation. Thus run and breaks will only be completed by pilots holding display authorisations.
The second very very very important point is that a run and break is not an approach to land. Thus there is no exemption from rule 5. This means that at a busy airfield, the appropriate part of rule 5 will have to be applied..................run and breaks are not so exciting when completed at or above circuit height!!..........500ft QFE is rarely an option due to man made objects.....parked aircraft, gates, water towers etc
Regards,
DFC
For those who complain that they do not wish to be restricted from completing a loop or roll or spin, can I simply point out the HASELL check and remind that the "Location" must be clear of various places including active airfields.
For those who worry about having more red tape and rules, can I point out the rules of the air with regard to circuit procedures and recent CAA comments about circuit joining procedures at uncontrolled airfields.
For those who enjoy the manoeuvere, can I point out that I also do but in the correct environment.
A pilot who completes a run and break is no different from a pilot who reguluarly joins straight in on final...........no problem provided they do not affect anyone else in the circuit or cause noise complaints from the neighbours.
However, one very important point.....since a run and break is not a standard civil manoeuvere, completing one especially in response to a request or in order to impress, would require a display authorisation. Thus run and breaks will only be completed by pilots holding display authorisations.
The second very very very important point is that a run and break is not an approach to land. Thus there is no exemption from rule 5. This means that at a busy airfield, the appropriate part of rule 5 will have to be applied..................run and breaks are not so exciting when completed at or above circuit height!!..........500ft QFE is rarely an option due to man made objects.....parked aircraft, gates, water towers etc
Regards,
DFC