Airmanship and mixed types in the circuit
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
From: europe
I also think Ghengis was correct in continuing his approach. Had he done anything else, without knowing the position or intentions of the other aircraft, the added confusion could have been fatal.
While from what has been described the PA28 pilot either needed a new radio fit, or a deaf aid, the only thing an airprox would achieve would probably not include an attitude change by the PA28 pilot.
However, the question I have is why do microlights have to land on runways, can't they land on short parallel pistes, rather like helicopters do at mixed bases.
As far as differences in circuit speed is concerned, I am quicker than C150's, and enter patterns ready to overshoot if necessary.
I have long since stopped worrying about the fuel cost of an overshoot.
Likewise I have come down the glide path at 150 kts when asked to expedite to avoid holding up a jet.
What Ghengis appears to have encountered is a pilot with an attitude prblem.
While from what has been described the PA28 pilot either needed a new radio fit, or a deaf aid, the only thing an airprox would achieve would probably not include an attitude change by the PA28 pilot.
However, the question I have is why do microlights have to land on runways, can't they land on short parallel pistes, rather like helicopters do at mixed bases.
As far as differences in circuit speed is concerned, I am quicker than C150's, and enter patterns ready to overshoot if necessary.
I have long since stopped worrying about the fuel cost of an overshoot.
Likewise I have come down the glide path at 150 kts when asked to expedite to avoid holding up a jet.
What Ghengis appears to have encountered is a pilot with an attitude prblem.
Carbonfibre-based lifeform
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
From: London
Browsing through the 'GA Feedback' pamphlet which came with my copy of GASIL today, I noticed the following:
I think it is safe to assume that this is not the same chap as Genghis encountered.
I must say I would have done the same as Genghis, simply on the basis that since I couldn't see the other aircraft the safest thing would be to stick to my existing trajectory. Anything else would seem just as likely to take me into his path as out of it.
We are all the same, whether we are new boys or very experienced, only as good as our last landing, and whilst I have about 20,000 hours and over 40 years experience, I am just as likely to make a mistake as anyone else. In fact, due to my age, I am probably more likely to err than young, skilful pilots.
I must say I would have done the same as Genghis, simply on the basis that since I couldn't see the other aircraft the safest thing would be to stick to my existing trajectory. Anything else would seem just as likely to take me into his path as out of it.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: Biggleswade
Airprox or CHIRP?????????
Genghis,
I feel for you, you've obviously had a scare and fortunately, you've lived to tell the tale. In the air, there is never enough time or information to make the correct decision, one has to do the best one can with limited information and based on one's experience. 50-50 hindsight is all very well, but it has the advantage of more time, more information and less distraction - one is not trying to fly at the same time!
I believe you were correct not to go-around. In cases such as this, I believe it's best to stay predictable and keep doing what you said you would do. After all, what would have happened if you started a go-around and just as you did so, G-HIM did the same.......
Your incident deserves all the publicity it can get. File both an Airprox and a CHIRP. The latter will reach all GA pilot's eventually and the former will get to a wider audience.
Finally, be aware that the Airprox system does not allocate blame. All it does is analyse, report and publicise - which should help prevent the same incident from having a more catastrophic ending next time. Keep your tape - I'm sure you have anyway - it'll provide good evidence.
A
I feel for you, you've obviously had a scare and fortunately, you've lived to tell the tale. In the air, there is never enough time or information to make the correct decision, one has to do the best one can with limited information and based on one's experience. 50-50 hindsight is all very well, but it has the advantage of more time, more information and less distraction - one is not trying to fly at the same time!
I believe you were correct not to go-around. In cases such as this, I believe it's best to stay predictable and keep doing what you said you would do. After all, what would have happened if you started a go-around and just as you did so, G-HIM did the same.......
Your incident deserves all the publicity it can get. File both an Airprox and a CHIRP. The latter will reach all GA pilot's eventually and the former will get to a wider audience.
Finally, be aware that the Airprox system does not allocate blame. All it does is analyse, report and publicise - which should help prevent the same incident from having a more catastrophic ending next time. Keep your tape - I'm sure you have anyway - it'll provide good evidence.
A
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Thinking longer term... perhaps mixed types in the circuit are not a good idea. It SHOULD be OK; we're all sensible, we all have eyes, we all have radios. But I know from flying a helicopter that many people just don't seem to realise that helicopters slow down before they land.
And not all of us are perfect all of the time, and some probably shouldn't be allowed to fly!!! Now, while whirly things definitely don't need runways, a proportion of A/G operators and FISOs want everyone in the same circuit and using the same runway. In a similar situation, in a helicopter, I'd say damn the guy in the tower and what he wants, and I'd pull off well to the side and get out of the way...but microlights aren't quite that manoeuverable. So perhaps it would be sensible to have separate parallel grass runways for microlights and other slower aircraft. There's enough room to do it at practically every airfield I can think of, apart from very small ones that probably don't have the traffic to need to anyway. So...why isn't it happening?
And not all of us are perfect all of the time, and some probably shouldn't be allowed to fly!!! Now, while whirly things definitely don't need runways, a proportion of A/G operators and FISOs want everyone in the same circuit and using the same runway. In a similar situation, in a helicopter, I'd say damn the guy in the tower and what he wants, and I'd pull off well to the side and get out of the way...but microlights aren't quite that manoeuverable. So perhaps it would be sensible to have separate parallel grass runways for microlights and other slower aircraft. There's enough room to do it at practically every airfield I can think of, apart from very small ones that probably don't have the traffic to need to anyway. So...why isn't it happening?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
I wasn't present at your conversation with the PA-28 pilot, Genghis, but I don't think you should read too much into the attitude shown.
Presumably he'd not long since landed, may have got something of a shock close to the end of the flight, and may have been feeling somewhat embarrassed. He was then approached and confronted by two strangers who... well I don't know exactly how you phrased it but I read into your comments that you were assertive if not overtly confrontational.
In an ideal world of course, you'd all have analyzed what had happened rationally, with perfect recall as to the facts. In the real world, people tend to take entrenched positions, particularly when accusations start flying. You may be quite right to be aggrieved, but in the long run you may find that taking a magnanimous attitude to the perceived transgression reduces stress levels for everyone, including yourself.
Presumably he'd not long since landed, may have got something of a shock close to the end of the flight, and may have been feeling somewhat embarrassed. He was then approached and confronted by two strangers who... well I don't know exactly how you phrased it but I read into your comments that you were assertive if not overtly confrontational.
In an ideal world of course, you'd all have analyzed what had happened rationally, with perfect recall as to the facts. In the real world, people tend to take entrenched positions, particularly when accusations start flying. You may be quite right to be aggrieved, but in the long run you may find that taking a magnanimous attitude to the perceived transgression reduces stress levels for everyone, including yourself.
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
bookworm,
If someone had tried to kill me, I think I'd be annoyed, and I think I'd expect the other guy to apologise at least. Certainly if I'd inadvertantly misunderstood a simple radio call and not seen a microlight in front of me on final, I'm absolutely sure that I'd apologise.
Take a magnanimous attitude? I think you'd need to be a bloody saint to do so. And I think if it were me I'd find it far less stressful to get thoroughly and extremely annoyed. In fact, I can think of a lot of other things I might say and do to the other person to reduce the stress too...but maybe I shouldn't write them on here.
If someone had tried to kill me, I think I'd be annoyed, and I think I'd expect the other guy to apologise at least. Certainly if I'd inadvertantly misunderstood a simple radio call and not seen a microlight in front of me on final, I'm absolutely sure that I'd apologise.
Take a magnanimous attitude? I think you'd need to be a bloody saint to do so. And I think if it were me I'd find it far less stressful to get thoroughly and extremely annoyed. In fact, I can think of a lot of other things I might say and do to the other person to reduce the stress too...but maybe I shouldn't write them on here.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Sounds like a lack of communication to me.....
This may sound controversial , but I think having services like 'Radio' and 'Information' tend to exaserbate problems like this. If there was a Unicom frequency where pilots talked directly to each other rather than a third party, then communications would be smoother and clearer. In the US many 'uncontrolled' airfields are Unicom airfields, pilots provide Pireps, weather, prefered runway etc., to other pilots. In the circuit all aircraft chat directly, eg. 'N12354 short final'....'N12354 have you in sight'.....whatever. Even approaching the airfield, 'N12345 20 miles south of XXX at 4500 inbound for landing, request any airfield info'
In Gengisis case, he could have liased directly with the PA28 pilot, for example 'Do you have me in sight, now on short final'.......'ok going around, making a turn to the left' etc....Maybe the 20,000 hr PA28 pilot was treating the AFISO as a full ATC facility, and waiting to be told to orbit / go around.
Just my view.
Cheers
EA
This may sound controversial , but I think having services like 'Radio' and 'Information' tend to exaserbate problems like this. If there was a Unicom frequency where pilots talked directly to each other rather than a third party, then communications would be smoother and clearer. In the US many 'uncontrolled' airfields are Unicom airfields, pilots provide Pireps, weather, prefered runway etc., to other pilots. In the circuit all aircraft chat directly, eg. 'N12354 short final'....'N12354 have you in sight'.....whatever. Even approaching the airfield, 'N12345 20 miles south of XXX at 4500 inbound for landing, request any airfield info'
In Gengisis case, he could have liased directly with the PA28 pilot, for example 'Do you have me in sight, now on short final'.......'ok going around, making a turn to the left' etc....Maybe the 20,000 hr PA28 pilot was treating the AFISO as a full ATC facility, and waiting to be told to orbit / go around.
Just my view.
Cheers
EA
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis
Firstly, I'm pleased that you survived to tell the tale, it must have been a very scary experience.
Rather belatedly (have been away for some days) I'd like to comment about filing an airprox.
I've only filed one and that was because I didn't understand how the incident had happened - even though there was rather more separation than you experienced. (about 600m, but the other a/c was flying in the opposite direction when I was cleared to continue approach on a 2.5 mile final and we would have collided if I had n't taking avoiding action.)
In the subsequent report, a gap was found in the visibility from the a/p tower and recommendations made to deal with this.
In my case, filing an airprox was a win-win and I guess that you need to figure out what filing one would do for you - maybe give you a sense of closure, if nothing else?
Firstly, I'm pleased that you survived to tell the tale, it must have been a very scary experience.
Rather belatedly (have been away for some days) I'd like to comment about filing an airprox.
I've only filed one and that was because I didn't understand how the incident had happened - even though there was rather more separation than you experienced. (about 600m, but the other a/c was flying in the opposite direction when I was cleared to continue approach on a 2.5 mile final and we would have collided if I had n't taking avoiding action.)
In the subsequent report, a gap was found in the visibility from the a/p tower and recommendations made to deal with this.
In my case, filing an airprox was a win-win and I guess that you need to figure out what filing one would do for you - maybe give you a sense of closure, if nothing else?
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Thanks everybody for the feedback, which I've found very useful. I think my view remains that the correct approach is to file a CHIRP rather than airprox report. This is partly because having discussed it with the pilot of the other aircraft at the time, notwithstanding that I wasn't hugely impressed by his attitude towards the whole thing, not having expressed an intention to do so, it would arguably be seen as a somewhat vindictive action. Also, CHIRP reports get read by many more people anyway.
I've once before filed an Airprox (strangely, I was flying the same type, as was the other pilot, although little else was common to the circumstances) which was about 5 years ago whilst flying in Scotland. I was impressed by the thoroughness of the process, but don't feel it's the way ahead here.
A few further thoughts of my own. I don't believe that I and the aircraft owner were at-all confrontational in our discussions with the PA28 pilot, but it's hard for anybody - whether in the right or wrong - not to become defensive when somebody comes and wants to discuss your flying judgement, which is inevitably what we did. The fact that we were both clearly a lot younger than him probably didn't help in his mind at-least.
Regarding liaison with the other pilot on RT, I don't personally think that would have been appropriate given that the AFISO was already trying to tell him that somebody was in front of him and that he should orbit; in my opinion another voice would have added to the other pilots workload and probably increased rather than decreased the risk of something going wrong.
Finally my own view on mixed types in the circuit. I fly from Popham quite regularly (which isn't where the incident happened) where we routinely mix from retract-twins and Yaks, to single seat microlights, without incident. This works so long as the faster aircraft fly a wider circuit and the slower aircraft a tighter circuit, and nobody overtakes on circuit position, so that we're all taking about the same time around - it works at Popham and at Boscombe Down we used to share Air-Cadet mtorogliders and fast jets by a similar method, just requires good spacial awareness and airmanship. I did fly for a while at an airfield that had a separate (parallel) microlight landing strip, and it was a blasted nuisance. It meant that we couldn't fly proper circuits or touch-and-goes, some types you weren't sure which bit of grass they were lined up on because they were calling "XX-final" regardless; all things considered a nice idea that just didn't work in practice.
G
N.B. I wasn't scared, probably because I was too busy being annoyed.
I've once before filed an Airprox (strangely, I was flying the same type, as was the other pilot, although little else was common to the circumstances) which was about 5 years ago whilst flying in Scotland. I was impressed by the thoroughness of the process, but don't feel it's the way ahead here.
A few further thoughts of my own. I don't believe that I and the aircraft owner were at-all confrontational in our discussions with the PA28 pilot, but it's hard for anybody - whether in the right or wrong - not to become defensive when somebody comes and wants to discuss your flying judgement, which is inevitably what we did. The fact that we were both clearly a lot younger than him probably didn't help in his mind at-least.
Regarding liaison with the other pilot on RT, I don't personally think that would have been appropriate given that the AFISO was already trying to tell him that somebody was in front of him and that he should orbit; in my opinion another voice would have added to the other pilots workload and probably increased rather than decreased the risk of something going wrong.
Finally my own view on mixed types in the circuit. I fly from Popham quite regularly (which isn't where the incident happened) where we routinely mix from retract-twins and Yaks, to single seat microlights, without incident. This works so long as the faster aircraft fly a wider circuit and the slower aircraft a tighter circuit, and nobody overtakes on circuit position, so that we're all taking about the same time around - it works at Popham and at Boscombe Down we used to share Air-Cadet mtorogliders and fast jets by a similar method, just requires good spacial awareness and airmanship. I did fly for a while at an airfield that had a separate (parallel) microlight landing strip, and it was a blasted nuisance. It meant that we couldn't fly proper circuits or touch-and-goes, some types you weren't sure which bit of grass they were lined up on because they were calling "XX-final" regardless; all things considered a nice idea that just didn't work in practice.
G
N.B. I wasn't scared, probably because I was too busy being annoyed.
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
I think Genghis did the right thing in not manouvering or going around when on final - the PA28 had him in sight and any movement on Genghis's part could have taken him into the PA28's path.
Personally, I'd file the airprox, too.
SSD
Personally, I'd file the airprox, too.
SSD
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
More support for G.
A faster aircraft in the circuit has to space himself according to common sense and the speed of the traffic in front. Very slow traffic in a circuit (which G was by any measure), has a duty to keep it tight, so long as that can be achieved safely.
If you are being overtaken in contravention of the rules of the air on final, then you hold your course. A go around would have been a bad move and would have risked blurring who was wrong and who was right. The only time this goes out of the window is when you need to avoid a collision.
It is very true that over the last few weeks, the vis has been getting gradually worse, and this will contribute to a Microlight becoming almost invisible on final. It is worth sparing a thought for the pilots of much faster machines than PA28s. We find it very hard to spot Microlighters, and it is amazing how often they show up on or close to the instrument approaches near busy airports. It happens more in France than in the UK.
On the Airprox/CHIRP subject, by all means file both. An Airprox clearly occurred, and it will be down to the board to determine whose fault it was and whether a genuine risk of collision occurred. On the basis of your side of the story, the PA28 driver and the FISO risk getting their knuckles slapped - by my reading of the story - There are always 2 sides though.
CHIRP is a great channel to make a wider audience aware of a problem. Yours is not a new problem though, and similar things happen in circuits all over the UK on any sunny day in summer. I guess the questions I would be asking would be:
What specific new learning points would my CHIRP convey that would differentiate it from all the other occasions that somebody gets cut up in a circuit?
If it matters so much, and nobody's livelihood is involved, why does the incident need to be reported secretly?
Just my 2 Euros worth.
A faster aircraft in the circuit has to space himself according to common sense and the speed of the traffic in front. Very slow traffic in a circuit (which G was by any measure), has a duty to keep it tight, so long as that can be achieved safely.
If you are being overtaken in contravention of the rules of the air on final, then you hold your course. A go around would have been a bad move and would have risked blurring who was wrong and who was right. The only time this goes out of the window is when you need to avoid a collision.
It is very true that over the last few weeks, the vis has been getting gradually worse, and this will contribute to a Microlight becoming almost invisible on final. It is worth sparing a thought for the pilots of much faster machines than PA28s. We find it very hard to spot Microlighters, and it is amazing how often they show up on or close to the instrument approaches near busy airports. It happens more in France than in the UK.
On the Airprox/CHIRP subject, by all means file both. An Airprox clearly occurred, and it will be down to the board to determine whose fault it was and whether a genuine risk of collision occurred. On the basis of your side of the story, the PA28 driver and the FISO risk getting their knuckles slapped - by my reading of the story - There are always 2 sides though.
CHIRP is a great channel to make a wider audience aware of a problem. Yours is not a new problem though, and similar things happen in circuits all over the UK on any sunny day in summer. I guess the questions I would be asking would be:
What specific new learning points would my CHIRP convey that would differentiate it from all the other occasions that somebody gets cut up in a circuit?
If it matters so much, and nobody's livelihood is involved, why does the incident need to be reported secretly?
Just my 2 Euros worth.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
TvR,
What has the FISO done to deserve a knuckle-slapping? He's not responsible for aircraft in the air, he passed all the information he could reasonably be expected to, it's just that the PA28-driver either didn't hear him correctly or chose to ignore him.
FFF
----------
The PA28 driver and the FISO risk getting their knuckles slapped
FFF
----------
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Since neither of us were there, we can only take G's transcript at face value.
My assessment was based on the events around G's timing point 4:35, in which it is established that G-HIM has misheard/misunderstood the traffic position ahead of him. The FISO correctly acts to re-state the true position of the traffic, but then does nothing when the transmission is not acknoweldged by G-HIM. 25 seconds elapse before the incident, during which time the FISO will (one assumes) have observed the aircraft getting closer than one would hope and yet says nothing.
Whilst a FISO cannot instruct an aircraft in the air, more information could conceivably have been passed to avoid the risk that the situation gave rise to. The FISO could have been more pro-active in ensuring that G-HIM really did appreciate the position of other traffic in the circuit.
Once again though, we were not there, and I am basing these comments purely on what G has been good enough to share with us.
My assessment was based on the events around G's timing point 4:35, in which it is established that G-HIM has misheard/misunderstood the traffic position ahead of him. The FISO correctly acts to re-state the true position of the traffic, but then does nothing when the transmission is not acknoweldged by G-HIM. 25 seconds elapse before the incident, during which time the FISO will (one assumes) have observed the aircraft getting closer than one would hope and yet says nothing.
Whilst a FISO cannot instruct an aircraft in the air, more information could conceivably have been passed to avoid the risk that the situation gave rise to. The FISO could have been more pro-active in ensuring that G-HIM really did appreciate the position of other traffic in the circuit.
Once again though, we were not there, and I am basing these comments purely on what G has been good enough to share with us.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From: UK
Genghis - his issue is this simple
He was the lower a/c on approach and the PA28 driver had the onus on him to maintain seperation....which he clearly didnt otherwise Genghis wouldn't be posting this...
Fast / Slow a/c in the circuit can be quite tough...esp if you are the faster a/c in a busy circuit. Wide circuits are fine if you dont infringe noise abatement. Personally where I fly if I think I am getting too close to the slower a/c in front, I just take early flap down wind - at any rate (safe) slow flight is always good practice isnt it? I fly a PA34 which has a circuit speed downwind of about 120mph clean, so the flaps always come down midpoint whatever...dont rely on ATC to seperate you either....I've come unstuck like that before.
He was the lower a/c on approach and the PA28 driver had the onus on him to maintain seperation....which he clearly didnt otherwise Genghis wouldn't be posting this...
Fast / Slow a/c in the circuit can be quite tough...esp if you are the faster a/c in a busy circuit. Wide circuits are fine if you dont infringe noise abatement. Personally where I fly if I think I am getting too close to the slower a/c in front, I just take early flap down wind - at any rate (safe) slow flight is always good practice isnt it? I fly a PA34 which has a circuit speed downwind of about 120mph clean, so the flaps always come down midpoint whatever...dont rely on ATC to seperate you either....I've come unstuck like that before.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 292
Likes: 3
From: Ready to Depart
He was the lower a/c on approach and the PA28 driver had the onus on him to maintain seperation....
This really muddies the issues at an uncontrolled airfield, as the rules of the air state that the lower aircraft has priority - not the one who was establish first - even if they are gliding in!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Cheese-eating Surrender Monkey land
Dusty_B
I don't think that the water is particularly muddy on this point. In the UK, Rule 17 5(a) makes it pretty clear that an aircraft is required to conform with the traffic pattern at the field. This means that when two aircraft are on final, overtaking is not permitted, irrespective of the relative altitudes of the aircraft.
Or have I misread something?
I don't think that the water is particularly muddy on this point. In the UK, Rule 17 5(a) makes it pretty clear that an aircraft is required to conform with the traffic pattern at the field. This means that when two aircraft are on final, overtaking is not permitted, irrespective of the relative altitudes of the aircraft.
Or have I misread something?
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I've not yet written it up, but I'm going to CHIRP it, but not file an airprox. I'll include the tape transcript in my CHIRP report.
My reasons for the latter is that I discussed it with the other pilot, he didn't particularly accept that somebody was wrong, and it's unlikely that a call from the Airprox board will change that just create ill-feeling. CHIRP goes to a wider audience, is more thoroughly anonymous, and I hope that way some wisdom will get out there in a way that, I don't think an Airprox report would generate in this instance.
G
My reasons for the latter is that I discussed it with the other pilot, he didn't particularly accept that somebody was wrong, and it's unlikely that a call from the Airprox board will change that just create ill-feeling. CHIRP goes to a wider audience, is more thoroughly anonymous, and I hope that way some wisdom will get out there in a way that, I don't think an Airprox report would generate in this instance.
G
