Airmanship and mixed types in the circuit
Moderator
Thread Starter
Airmanship and mixed types in the circuit
All thoughts on this appreciated. I'm being honest about the position, but excluding some salient details so as not to point too clearly at anybody.
Scene was yesterday, I was out at a busy GA airfield somewhere in England. The task was flight testing a microlight, which for this sortie, I was doing solo. I'm familiar with the type (150 hours or so on an unmodified version of same), weather is perfect bar some slightly iffy viz (7-8km), wind minimal, I'm reasonably familiar with the airfield. The aircraft belongs to a (microlight) PPL Examiner based there.
Having finished my task for the day, I joined crosswind, flew a tight downwind (slow aeroplane therefore small circuit to avoid displacing everybody else), with one aircraft (A PA28) in front of me. Call downwind No.2, PA28 lands at roughly the same time as another PA28 calls joining downwind, and I turn base.
Couple of facts here. The type I was flying flies in the circuit at about 50kn, and finals about 40 kn. A PA28 flies in the circuit around 80kn, and finals about 65kn. A PA28 probably flies a visual approach about 5°-10°, a microlight about 30-45°.
Move forward a minute or so, I have turned (and called) finals, I've perhaps half a mile / 1 minute to run (flying a standard microlight glide approach, so steep but on the centreline), when the PA28 calls finals. Tower (AFIS) calls (to PA28) you are "No.2 to the microlight, which is slow moving, you may wish to orbit, the circuit is clear behind you". PA28 calls "understand circuit clear ahead". Tower repeats it's original call.
Things then happened rather quickly. My head at this point is on gimbals trying to work out how long I have to live and what evasive action I can or should take. At about 300ft, the PA28 appears about 2 wingspans on my stbd wingtip, and as it passes me transmits "orbiting for separation, unsure of the microlight's intentions". In relief I do admit to the thoroughly unprofessional transmission on my part of "at-least he turned right".
So, I continue, fly a normal landing, and am met by the aircraft's owner who saw this and is more than a little irate (he teaches people on this airfield and is clearly from his comments thinking how a low hour student would have reacted to this, also a suggestion that this isn't a first-offence). We both stroll up to the tower for a chat.
Tower says they they also thought it looked very poor airmanship (the F word was used on both sides of the conversation) and invite us to discuss it directly with the captain of the PA28 who has now landed. Owner and I agree that this would be appropriate and stroll over to find him.
In subsequent discussion with PA28 Captain (who is at-least twice my age, and three times that of the owner of the microlight I was flying), which is mildly heated and somewhat unconclusive several points come out:-
- PA28 captain has 20,000 hours (first thing he says in fact)
- PA28 captain had no idea what I was doing, despite the fact he'd heard me call finals. He denied any knowledge of how finals look in a microlight.
- I was totally unreasonable in feeling aggreived since it was his duty to take avoiding action as the overtaking aircraft and (in his opinion) this was done in good time.
- A disagreement on separation. My perception was about 2 wingspans (20 yards or so) his was 50-100 yards. So, Presumably the truth is somewhere between the two.
- The aircraft owner was quite unreasonable (in the PA28 Captain's opinion) in feeling that one of his students would have been badly disturbed by meeting a light aircraft on their wingtips whilst on finals.
So, thoughts...
- Should I have initiated an early go-around when it was clear the PA28 was unaware of my position and intentions?
- Should I file an Airprox (which was the opinion of the owner of the aircraft I was flying), a CHIRP report (my current opinion) or just stop fussing over nothing (the opinion of the PA28 captain) ?
- Is there a widespread problem with mixed traffic not understanding each other's modes of flying (certainly suggested by this and the near-tragedy at Barton last year). If so, what needs doing about this?
And if I sounds somewhat peeved about the whole thing, this is entirely intentional.
G
Scene was yesterday, I was out at a busy GA airfield somewhere in England. The task was flight testing a microlight, which for this sortie, I was doing solo. I'm familiar with the type (150 hours or so on an unmodified version of same), weather is perfect bar some slightly iffy viz (7-8km), wind minimal, I'm reasonably familiar with the airfield. The aircraft belongs to a (microlight) PPL Examiner based there.
Having finished my task for the day, I joined crosswind, flew a tight downwind (slow aeroplane therefore small circuit to avoid displacing everybody else), with one aircraft (A PA28) in front of me. Call downwind No.2, PA28 lands at roughly the same time as another PA28 calls joining downwind, and I turn base.
Couple of facts here. The type I was flying flies in the circuit at about 50kn, and finals about 40 kn. A PA28 flies in the circuit around 80kn, and finals about 65kn. A PA28 probably flies a visual approach about 5°-10°, a microlight about 30-45°.
Move forward a minute or so, I have turned (and called) finals, I've perhaps half a mile / 1 minute to run (flying a standard microlight glide approach, so steep but on the centreline), when the PA28 calls finals. Tower (AFIS) calls (to PA28) you are "No.2 to the microlight, which is slow moving, you may wish to orbit, the circuit is clear behind you". PA28 calls "understand circuit clear ahead". Tower repeats it's original call.
Things then happened rather quickly. My head at this point is on gimbals trying to work out how long I have to live and what evasive action I can or should take. At about 300ft, the PA28 appears about 2 wingspans on my stbd wingtip, and as it passes me transmits "orbiting for separation, unsure of the microlight's intentions". In relief I do admit to the thoroughly unprofessional transmission on my part of "at-least he turned right".
So, I continue, fly a normal landing, and am met by the aircraft's owner who saw this and is more than a little irate (he teaches people on this airfield and is clearly from his comments thinking how a low hour student would have reacted to this, also a suggestion that this isn't a first-offence). We both stroll up to the tower for a chat.
Tower says they they also thought it looked very poor airmanship (the F word was used on both sides of the conversation) and invite us to discuss it directly with the captain of the PA28 who has now landed. Owner and I agree that this would be appropriate and stroll over to find him.
In subsequent discussion with PA28 Captain (who is at-least twice my age, and three times that of the owner of the microlight I was flying), which is mildly heated and somewhat unconclusive several points come out:-
- PA28 captain has 20,000 hours (first thing he says in fact)
- PA28 captain had no idea what I was doing, despite the fact he'd heard me call finals. He denied any knowledge of how finals look in a microlight.
- I was totally unreasonable in feeling aggreived since it was his duty to take avoiding action as the overtaking aircraft and (in his opinion) this was done in good time.
- A disagreement on separation. My perception was about 2 wingspans (20 yards or so) his was 50-100 yards. So, Presumably the truth is somewhere between the two.
- The aircraft owner was quite unreasonable (in the PA28 Captain's opinion) in feeling that one of his students would have been badly disturbed by meeting a light aircraft on their wingtips whilst on finals.
So, thoughts...
- Should I have initiated an early go-around when it was clear the PA28 was unaware of my position and intentions?
- Should I file an Airprox (which was the opinion of the owner of the aircraft I was flying), a CHIRP report (my current opinion) or just stop fussing over nothing (the opinion of the PA28 captain) ?
- Is there a widespread problem with mixed traffic not understanding each other's modes of flying (certainly suggested by this and the near-tragedy at Barton last year). If so, what needs doing about this?
And if I sounds somewhat peeved about the whole thing, this is entirely intentional.
G
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been a while since I was last in the circuit with a microlight - it was at Sywell. I was in a C150 and was no.2 on final to a microlight, who I could see very clearly. Guessed he was tootling along quite slowly so took an early decision to go around. No debate really, and if I wasn't able to see him I would have gone around anyway just to be sure. Can't see how your intentions would have been difficult to understand.
Not sure I would be bothered to go the extent of an airprox, but I would be tempted to do a CHIRP. Also find it hard to see how this can be a problem beyond application of common sense/good airmanship, but if it saves some lives then I'm all for better understanding of the topic.
Not sure I would be bothered to go the extent of an airprox, but I would be tempted to do a CHIRP. Also find it hard to see how this can be a problem beyond application of common sense/good airmanship, but if it saves some lives then I'm all for better understanding of the topic.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just reading that, I'm scared.
To answer your questions:
- Should you have gone around? Yes, in my opinion. I'd have got away from the centre-line as soon as realised the other guy didn't know what I was doing.
- Should you file an Airprox/CHIRP? Tough one. I'd say that if you felt safety was seriously compromised, then file an Airprox. CHIRP is intended to be confidential, I can't see any need for confidentiality in this one - not on your part, anyway, since you've clearly done nothing wrong. (I'm basing that not just one your account, but also on the fact that it seems that a qualified AFISO agrees that you've done nothing wrong.)
- Is there a problem with mixed-mode traffic? Well, I think there's lack of understanding, but it doesn't nee to be as unsafe as this. I didn't know that microlights fly as steep an approach as that until I read your post - but even without knowing that, the PA28-driver had enough information to be able to keep out of your way, but chose to ignore that information. I know the first time I shared a circuit with an airship I was very confused about what he was trying to do. But by keeping my eyes open and my options open, both me and the airship landed perfectly safely less than a minute apart. All it takes is a bit of intelligence.
Drivers are taught to "drive defensively" - in other words, assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot who's about to pull out in front of you, and decide before it happens what you're going to do about it. Pilots aren't generally taught that, because very few pilots are complete idiots. But there's always an exception to the rule.
Anyway, well done for getting everyone onto the ground safely, somehow!
FFF
----------------
To answer your questions:
- Should you have gone around? Yes, in my opinion. I'd have got away from the centre-line as soon as realised the other guy didn't know what I was doing.
- Should you file an Airprox/CHIRP? Tough one. I'd say that if you felt safety was seriously compromised, then file an Airprox. CHIRP is intended to be confidential, I can't see any need for confidentiality in this one - not on your part, anyway, since you've clearly done nothing wrong. (I'm basing that not just one your account, but also on the fact that it seems that a qualified AFISO agrees that you've done nothing wrong.)
- Is there a problem with mixed-mode traffic? Well, I think there's lack of understanding, but it doesn't nee to be as unsafe as this. I didn't know that microlights fly as steep an approach as that until I read your post - but even without knowing that, the PA28-driver had enough information to be able to keep out of your way, but chose to ignore that information. I know the first time I shared a circuit with an airship I was very confused about what he was trying to do. But by keeping my eyes open and my options open, both me and the airship landed perfectly safely less than a minute apart. All it takes is a bit of intelligence.
Drivers are taught to "drive defensively" - in other words, assume that everyone else on the road is an idiot who's about to pull out in front of you, and decide before it happens what you're going to do about it. Pilots aren't generally taught that, because very few pilots are complete idiots. But there's always an exception to the rule.
Anyway, well done for getting everyone onto the ground safely, somehow!
FFF
----------------
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
It isnt clear from your posting whether the FISO got a correct acknowledgement to his second attempt to get the PA28 driver to understand his information about your presence. If he did get a correct reply then the PA28 driver appears to have not really understood what was said or just plain didnt see you until it was too late.
Also from your posting it would appear the PA28 driver was of advancing years. Not wishing to run down our elder members but I do sometimes have concerns regarding old age pensioner pilots, particularly those who have had a lot of past flying experience. We are all going to get old one day and its a straight fact that you do not remain so mentally nimble as the years advance. You can rely a lot on your past experience to keep you out of trouble but when things start getting out of shape oldies are often slower to react. When they drive cars on public roads they normally drive more slowly than the youngsters so that they can assimilate the information they are receiving and still have time to react.
As for mixing different types....well there is a limit to what can be mixed. If you get some large machines flying around you have to allow for vortex wake as well as speed differences. This can totally disrupt a nice orderly circuit pattern.
Regards
TMC (getting older every day)
It isnt clear from your posting whether the FISO got a correct acknowledgement to his second attempt to get the PA28 driver to understand his information about your presence. If he did get a correct reply then the PA28 driver appears to have not really understood what was said or just plain didnt see you until it was too late.
Also from your posting it would appear the PA28 driver was of advancing years. Not wishing to run down our elder members but I do sometimes have concerns regarding old age pensioner pilots, particularly those who have had a lot of past flying experience. We are all going to get old one day and its a straight fact that you do not remain so mentally nimble as the years advance. You can rely a lot on your past experience to keep you out of trouble but when things start getting out of shape oldies are often slower to react. When they drive cars on public roads they normally drive more slowly than the youngsters so that they can assimilate the information they are receiving and still have time to react.
As for mixing different types....well there is a limit to what can be mixed. If you get some large machines flying around you have to allow for vortex wake as well as speed differences. This can totally disrupt a nice orderly circuit pattern.
Regards
TMC (getting older every day)
Moderator
Thread Starter
The PA28 overhauled me just after the AFISO made his second call, the PA28's response was calling (after passing me) that he was orbiting. There wasn't a readback to the AFISO's second call. All the exciting stuff probably happened within 20 seconds or so, so this last is understandable.
Just as an aside, I'm not quite sure in my own mind why I didn't initiate a go-around, probably the reasons are a combination of preferring to maintain a constant flight path so that, if the PA28 driver had seen me, he was less likely to fly into me that way (which in retrospect was probably true), and partly the assumption that the PA28 driver would have responded to the AFISO's call (which he didn't).
G
Just as an aside, I'm not quite sure in my own mind why I didn't initiate a go-around, probably the reasons are a combination of preferring to maintain a constant flight path so that, if the PA28 driver had seen me, he was less likely to fly into me that way (which in retrospect was probably true), and partly the assumption that the PA28 driver would have responded to the AFISO's call (which he didn't).
G
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G t E,
Having read a few of your posts, one has to respect your aeronautical knowledge and presumably ability.
I personally consider microlights to be my worst nightmare at low level. No offence to those that take pleasure in them, but you are mighty exposed and not the most visible. I generally get tranxfixed trying to work out which direction you are going in, if your track is not actually crossing mine.
I was in a PA-34 last Sunday and to be honest the horizontal viz was so poor, I would never have seen a microlight cross country - makes you think.
In the instance you relate to, my hope would have been that the AFISO had tried to reiterate your position to the PA-28 and would have appreciated the speed differentials and had his head out looking to see the PA-28 closing on you.
I remember being at the hold at SEN last year cursing that I was waiting to line up behind a microlight that had been on finals into a 15 kt headwind for what seemed like an age. A B.58 had been crosswind and was right up the chuff of the Microlight on finals in a very shortspace of time - the TWR told the Baron to go-around.
Would loved to have seen the expreesion on your face when the Cherokee came abeam you!
Having read a few of your posts, one has to respect your aeronautical knowledge and presumably ability.
I personally consider microlights to be my worst nightmare at low level. No offence to those that take pleasure in them, but you are mighty exposed and not the most visible. I generally get tranxfixed trying to work out which direction you are going in, if your track is not actually crossing mine.
I was in a PA-34 last Sunday and to be honest the horizontal viz was so poor, I would never have seen a microlight cross country - makes you think.
In the instance you relate to, my hope would have been that the AFISO had tried to reiterate your position to the PA-28 and would have appreciated the speed differentials and had his head out looking to see the PA-28 closing on you.
I remember being at the hold at SEN last year cursing that I was waiting to line up behind a microlight that had been on finals into a 15 kt headwind for what seemed like an age. A B.58 had been crosswind and was right up the chuff of the Microlight on finals in a very shortspace of time - the TWR told the Baron to go-around.
Would loved to have seen the expreesion on your face when the Cherokee came abeam you!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: don't know, I'll ask
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis,
Flying in mixed performance circuits is a real pain in the bum, especially if you are the faster a/c., but it need not be dangerous if everyone is is in control and cooperating. I flew for a number of years at an airfield with a busy microlight school, a major R22 dealersip and school with opposite circuits 200 feet lower than the f/w circuit, and generally it works most of the time. The real problem is a/c on final. My aircraft has a stall speed which is greater than the circuit flying speed of some microlights! so get behind one on a 2 mile final and it is a nightmare, especially if as was the case, the bomber command circuits flown by many takes you over a town. This is a big no no in a pfa a/c.
The other problem is joining traffic. If one joins over the numbers at 1000 feet, it is quite possible to meet either a slow moving but steep climbing microlight at 1000 feet, or a high performance aircraft at the same point.
My pleas would be for people to fly sensible circuits sizes ie tight in, so that the faster a/c can overtake without leaving the atz, a bit more co-operation, (the aforesaid microligt school was very good at saying G whatever can take number one to us if he wants) and get rid of the stupidly long final.
Ideally ban everything that cannot maintain at least 120 knts to the threshold
As far a filing an airmiss is concerned, if the other guy makes the right noises, and I felt that he was fully situationally aware and everything was cool, but close, I wouldn't bother: life's too short for hassle. If on the other hand he was an arsehole, and clearly had a attitude which made him tempermentally unsuitable to be incommand of a guided missile, I would report, cuz twats should be groundbased. People who just make a mistake are, well, human.
Flying in mixed performance circuits is a real pain in the bum, especially if you are the faster a/c., but it need not be dangerous if everyone is is in control and cooperating. I flew for a number of years at an airfield with a busy microlight school, a major R22 dealersip and school with opposite circuits 200 feet lower than the f/w circuit, and generally it works most of the time. The real problem is a/c on final. My aircraft has a stall speed which is greater than the circuit flying speed of some microlights! so get behind one on a 2 mile final and it is a nightmare, especially if as was the case, the bomber command circuits flown by many takes you over a town. This is a big no no in a pfa a/c.
The other problem is joining traffic. If one joins over the numbers at 1000 feet, it is quite possible to meet either a slow moving but steep climbing microlight at 1000 feet, or a high performance aircraft at the same point.
My pleas would be for people to fly sensible circuits sizes ie tight in, so that the faster a/c can overtake without leaving the atz, a bit more co-operation, (the aforesaid microligt school was very good at saying G whatever can take number one to us if he wants) and get rid of the stupidly long final.
Ideally ban everything that cannot maintain at least 120 knts to the threshold
As far a filing an airmiss is concerned, if the other guy makes the right noises, and I felt that he was fully situationally aware and everything was cool, but close, I wouldn't bother: life's too short for hassle. If on the other hand he was an arsehole, and clearly had a attitude which made him tempermentally unsuitable to be incommand of a guided missile, I would report, cuz twats should be groundbased. People who just make a mistake are, well, human.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree with FFF on this one. In my opinion continuing the approach was the best course of action. I'm sure that if Genghis had turned in the same direction as his PA-28 'friend' then in a few months time we'd be reading AAIB reports on the unfortunate occurance. Genghis changing direction/flight path in any way would have increased the risk. I get the impression that the PA-28 pilot did have the microlight in sight and he did take avoiding action. No need to complicate the situation further.
What I see as the problem here is the PA-28 creating the situation in the first place. As the chap was obviously not agreeable on the fact that Genghis felt he had been put in a dangerous situation, somebody needs to apply a bit a presure on him. Submit an airprox and get the CAA (or whichever body looks at these things) on your side. Don't let him use his hours or his age to bully his way out of the situation. If he was at fault he needs to be told.
D
What I see as the problem here is the PA-28 creating the situation in the first place. As the chap was obviously not agreeable on the fact that Genghis felt he had been put in a dangerous situation, somebody needs to apply a bit a presure on him. Submit an airprox and get the CAA (or whichever body looks at these things) on your side. Don't let him use his hours or his age to bully his way out of the situation. If he was at fault he needs to be told.
D
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G the E
Surely because you were in front the PA28 driver should have apologised profusely and had it been me I would have been embarrassed to tell you how many hours I had after being such a plonker.
I regularly fly in to Popham in my PA28 (I wasn't up yesterday!!!!) and I accept that it is predominantly microlights in the air so make way for them. It isn't difficult to judge the timings of a circuit and I work on the basis that an a/c travelling at twice the speed should fly a circuit twice the size to keep everything running smoothly.
I have never been in a microlight (would love to) but can imagine it's quite daunting feeling rather exposed when other GA a/c are buzzing about especially at weekends.
I still think half the problem is the unspoken snobbery that some PPL (A) pilots have about flying. Most of the time these PPL (A) pilots don't own the a/c they are flying whereas the "mike" pilot does. Therefore, where's the room for snobbery there? Some might think it takes more skill to fly a Piper than a Pegasus, I doubt it.
There are a lot of airfields that don't allow microlights to visit.
All PPL(A) pilots know this so should therefore respect that fact when they visit a place like Popham where microlighting is the "base" activity. I'm not having a go at fellow PPL(A) bretheren but I think the whole arrogance that some flyers adopt should be turned round into a "Live and let Live" one.
Surely because you were in front the PA28 driver should have apologised profusely and had it been me I would have been embarrassed to tell you how many hours I had after being such a plonker.
I regularly fly in to Popham in my PA28 (I wasn't up yesterday!!!!) and I accept that it is predominantly microlights in the air so make way for them. It isn't difficult to judge the timings of a circuit and I work on the basis that an a/c travelling at twice the speed should fly a circuit twice the size to keep everything running smoothly.
I have never been in a microlight (would love to) but can imagine it's quite daunting feeling rather exposed when other GA a/c are buzzing about especially at weekends.
I still think half the problem is the unspoken snobbery that some PPL (A) pilots have about flying. Most of the time these PPL (A) pilots don't own the a/c they are flying whereas the "mike" pilot does. Therefore, where's the room for snobbery there? Some might think it takes more skill to fly a Piper than a Pegasus, I doubt it.
There are a lot of airfields that don't allow microlights to visit.
All PPL(A) pilots know this so should therefore respect that fact when they visit a place like Popham where microlighting is the "base" activity. I'm not having a go at fellow PPL(A) bretheren but I think the whole arrogance that some flyers adopt should be turned round into a "Live and let Live" one.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly a flexwing microlight and these days instruct in mainly PA28s.
In my opinion there's no reason why the two shouldn't co-exist quite happily and safely.
The speed difference can be taken care of quite easily by flying different size circuits so that the timing around the circuit remains similar - just like you might have to do for a fast conventional aeroplane compared to, say, a C150.
There's a bit of argument over how steep a PA28 approach should be on this newsgroup and others from time to time, but the typical teaching in the UK is to fly the approach with power a bit shallower than you suggest at about 3 or 4 degrees. Microlight approaches are typically flown without power and so are rather steeper - but probably not as steep as your post suggests unless the microlight has the glide qualities similar to a brick.
Anyway..., the point I'm trying to make (badly) is that all these differences are not really so different and one can experience similar sorts of differences between types and piloting styles of conventional aeroplanes in the same circuit anyway.
In this case, if the facts are as reported, then the PA28 pilot made a mistake and excercised bad judgement. It's hard to believe that a good forward thinking pilot should make this mistake but people do make mistakes and there's no point pretending otherwise.
Given that you both survived his mistake, the remaining unresolved problem as reported is that the pilot is sufficiently arrogant as not to acknowledge his mistake and so not to learn from it - I consider that to be unforgiveable and you shouldn't feel any guilt at all in pushing the matter. It's just possible that you'll save someone elses life by doing so.
I would suggest that you file the airprox.
Also, you infered that this wasn't an isolated incident at the airfield - is it a general problem or is it the same offender each time. If it's the same offender then I would suggest that you make sure that the airfield operator is aware of the incident so that they can, if they choose, either get the pilot concerned to think a bit more or to fly from somewhere else. A fatal accident could be really bad for the airfield operator's business.
In my opinion there's no reason why the two shouldn't co-exist quite happily and safely.
The speed difference can be taken care of quite easily by flying different size circuits so that the timing around the circuit remains similar - just like you might have to do for a fast conventional aeroplane compared to, say, a C150.
There's a bit of argument over how steep a PA28 approach should be on this newsgroup and others from time to time, but the typical teaching in the UK is to fly the approach with power a bit shallower than you suggest at about 3 or 4 degrees. Microlight approaches are typically flown without power and so are rather steeper - but probably not as steep as your post suggests unless the microlight has the glide qualities similar to a brick.
Anyway..., the point I'm trying to make (badly) is that all these differences are not really so different and one can experience similar sorts of differences between types and piloting styles of conventional aeroplanes in the same circuit anyway.
In this case, if the facts are as reported, then the PA28 pilot made a mistake and excercised bad judgement. It's hard to believe that a good forward thinking pilot should make this mistake but people do make mistakes and there's no point pretending otherwise.
Given that you both survived his mistake, the remaining unresolved problem as reported is that the pilot is sufficiently arrogant as not to acknowledge his mistake and so not to learn from it - I consider that to be unforgiveable and you shouldn't feel any guilt at all in pushing the matter. It's just possible that you'll save someone elses life by doing so.
I would suggest that you file the airprox.
Also, you infered that this wasn't an isolated incident at the airfield - is it a general problem or is it the same offender each time. If it's the same offender then I would suggest that you make sure that the airfield operator is aware of the incident so that they can, if they choose, either get the pilot concerned to think a bit more or to fly from somewhere else. A fatal accident could be really bad for the airfield operator's business.
Genghis I think you were correct to continue with the approach as at least one of you was where they were supposed to be. I also agree with Dufwer that turning away when unsure of the location of the PA-28 could have been a turn into him.
I had a similar problem flying into Cranfield last year. I was carved up by a Tomahawk whilst on final in an Auster. I would have thought I would have been easy to see as I was slightly above him when he turned onto finals 100' in front of me. If I had been in a low wing type I wouldn't have seen him at all.
When I flew a Cub, I routinely flew as tight a circuit as possible (within published noise abatement etc procedures of course) and then carefully slotted myself in on the base leg amongst the C150s etc which were imitating Vulcans I felt it was better that students in the circuit didn't have to think about how to avoid the slow yellow thing in front of them and I felt a whole lot safer too.
Best of all was the red Hunter which came whistling up from the South coast of a certain island to do a low pass over a certain airfield there. Not a problem as I could see him coming after hearing him call the A/G operator. I would have not been concerned at all but, after calling the said A/G Op and telling him of my position, the A/G Op told the Hunter driver that there was no traffic in front of him. Yoiks
The Hunter passed 100' below and 2-300 yds to my right. As I was silhouetted against the sky from his viewpoint, I'm sure the Hunter bod saw me..........
I had a similar problem flying into Cranfield last year. I was carved up by a Tomahawk whilst on final in an Auster. I would have thought I would have been easy to see as I was slightly above him when he turned onto finals 100' in front of me. If I had been in a low wing type I wouldn't have seen him at all.
When I flew a Cub, I routinely flew as tight a circuit as possible (within published noise abatement etc procedures of course) and then carefully slotted myself in on the base leg amongst the C150s etc which were imitating Vulcans
I felt it was better that students in the circuit didn't have to think about how to avoid the slow yellow thing in front of them and I felt a whole lot safer too. Best of all was the red Hunter which came whistling up from the South coast of a certain island to do a low pass over a certain airfield there. Not a problem as I could see him coming after hearing him call the A/G operator. I would have not been concerned at all but, after calling the said A/G Op and telling him of my position, the A/G Op told the Hunter driver that there was no traffic in front of him. Yoiks
The Hunter passed 100' below and 2-300 yds to my right. As I was silhouetted against the sky from his viewpoint, I'm sure the Hunter bod saw me..........
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Age: 44
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the first part of your question, I'd say that you did the correct thing and continued with final with my understanding being that the "overtaking" aircraft doesn't have right of way - especially in this situation.
At Redhill, I get the impression that there is a bit of an anti -microlight attitude in Tower which can lead to irritating problems on the RT. I had a situation the other day where I was catching up with one of the Shadows ahead of me and was given the optioin of orbiting from the Tower, I declined and had a bit of practice in slow flight instead which worked a treat.
I appreciate that your approach speed is pretty much a given but I can't for the life of me see why other pilots can't regulate their speed. I understand you may have more of a problem in a fast twin (or whatever) but why not make circuits more interesting and get some slow flying in as well.
At Redhill, I get the impression that there is a bit of an anti -microlight attitude in Tower which can lead to irritating problems on the RT. I had a situation the other day where I was catching up with one of the Shadows ahead of me and was given the optioin of orbiting from the Tower, I declined and had a bit of practice in slow flight instead which worked a treat.
I appreciate that your approach speed is pretty much a given but I can't for the life of me see why other pilots can't regulate their speed. I understand you may have more of a problem in a fast twin (or whatever) but why not make circuits more interesting and get some slow flying in as well.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ludwig,
160 to 4 and no complaints - but come on, 120 over the Thr!!
Some runways aren't long enough and if they were, I really don't think Microlights should be in there mixing it
160 to 4 and no complaints - but come on, 120 over the Thr!!
Some runways aren't long enough and if they were, I really don't think Microlights should be in there mixing it
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK430, not sure I understand your last post - are you saying that microlights shouldn't use long runways???
Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of watching a gyro-coptor take off from Exeter International in front of me. (Well, I say "watching" but he departed off an intersection at least a mile and a half from the end of the runway, where I was lined up in turn - I'd have needed binoculars to get a good view!) Didn't cause any problems, and there's no reason why it should have done.
I seem to be in the minority regarding Genghis's decision to go around or not. I agree that he had right of way, and was not obliged to go around. But I was always taught that if something isn't right, go around first and ask questions later. The only good reason I can see for not going around in this case is, as Dufwer suggests, the possibility of him turning into the path of the PA28. But the steep approach path of the microlight would have meant that Genghis would have been above the PA28 already - going around would have put him even higher, so vertical seperation should have been assured. I will certainly agree that there is room for debate, though - I can see the merits of the arguments that landing was the correct thing to do.
FFF
-------------
Not too long ago, I had the pleasure of watching a gyro-coptor take off from Exeter International in front of me. (Well, I say "watching" but he departed off an intersection at least a mile and a half from the end of the runway, where I was lined up in turn - I'd have needed binoculars to get a good view!) Didn't cause any problems, and there's no reason why it should have done.
I seem to be in the minority regarding Genghis's decision to go around or not. I agree that he had right of way, and was not obliged to go around. But I was always taught that if something isn't right, go around first and ask questions later. The only good reason I can see for not going around in this case is, as Dufwer suggests, the possibility of him turning into the path of the PA28. But the steep approach path of the microlight would have meant that Genghis would have been above the PA28 already - going around would have put him even higher, so vertical seperation should have been assured. I will certainly agree that there is room for debate, though - I can see the merits of the arguments that landing was the correct thing to do.
FFF
-------------
Moderator
Thread Starter
I didn't think I had this
My morning has been spent writing the report - not on the incident but on the actual test flight preceding it. I thought my voice recorder (plumbed into the intercom) would have run out of tape before rejoining, but it actually ran out just after I vacated the runway. So, for those interested, here's the transcript - I started the stopwatch on this transcript as I called join, and the runway is N-Easterly (rather not give the actual number to keep this semi-anonymous).
I've used the callsigns "G-Me" and G-Him" in the transcript, neither is correct. The Cherokee I refer to is another one, in front of me".
0:00 G-ME: G-ME joining 0X Right crosswind over the numbers
0:05 AFISO:G-ME Roger
1:20 G-ME: G-ME downwind to land, contact one Cherokee on final
AFISO: G-ME Roger, Report Final
2:20 G-HIM: G-HIM downwind
AFISO: G-HIM report final, two reported ahead
G-HIM: G-HIM two ahead
2:40 AFIS: (callsign unclear) Land at your discretion, surface
wing 080 / 7kn
3:30 G-ME, voice tape only I'll fly this approach 50 since it's fairly gusty, on a calmer day I could get away with less, I see no justification for it. OK, the Cherokee has just turned off the runway.
4:05 G-ME: G-ME Final to land
AFIS: G-ME land at your discretion, surface wind 070/12 kn
4:20 G-HIM: "IM" On finals over the (unclear)
AFIS: G-HIM roger, one ahead, surface wind 080 / 10kn
G-HIM: Copy
4:35 AFIS: G-HIM, do you wish to orbit for spacing, there's nothing reported behind you and (unclear) on finals
G-HIM: G-HIM understand nothing ahead
AFIS: There is one ahead but he's very slow
5:10 G-ME: (After being overhauled by G-HIM) (Uncertain whether this was transmitted or on voice tape only) Well, at-least he turned right.
5:15 G-HIM: G-HIM is orbiting on final, not sure what his
intention are
AFIS: Station transmitting, say again your callsign
G-HIM: G-HIM, I'm orbiting to the right three-sixty, ahhh,
not sure he's set out his intentions. G-HIM
5:40 G-ME (voice tape only) It's quite gusty, going up to 55.
5:50 G-ME (voice tape only) 50, 45,
6:05 G-HIM: G-HIM on Finals
AFIS: G-HIM Surface wind 070/8kn
6:15: G-ME (voice tape only) Touch down at 35 full stall landing
6:25 AFIS: G-HIM Land at your discretion, 080/5kn
Interesting how things all happened rather slower than my perception.
G
I've used the callsigns "G-Me" and G-Him" in the transcript, neither is correct. The Cherokee I refer to is another one, in front of me".
0:00 G-ME: G-ME joining 0X Right crosswind over the numbers
0:05 AFISO:G-ME Roger
1:20 G-ME: G-ME downwind to land, contact one Cherokee on final
AFISO: G-ME Roger, Report Final
2:20 G-HIM: G-HIM downwind
AFISO: G-HIM report final, two reported ahead
G-HIM: G-HIM two ahead
2:40 AFIS: (callsign unclear) Land at your discretion, surface
wing 080 / 7kn
3:30 G-ME, voice tape only I'll fly this approach 50 since it's fairly gusty, on a calmer day I could get away with less, I see no justification for it. OK, the Cherokee has just turned off the runway.
4:05 G-ME: G-ME Final to land
AFIS: G-ME land at your discretion, surface wind 070/12 kn
4:20 G-HIM: "IM" On finals over the (unclear)
AFIS: G-HIM roger, one ahead, surface wind 080 / 10kn
G-HIM: Copy
4:35 AFIS: G-HIM, do you wish to orbit for spacing, there's nothing reported behind you and (unclear) on finals
G-HIM: G-HIM understand nothing ahead
AFIS: There is one ahead but he's very slow
5:10 G-ME: (After being overhauled by G-HIM) (Uncertain whether this was transmitted or on voice tape only) Well, at-least he turned right.
5:15 G-HIM: G-HIM is orbiting on final, not sure what his
intention are
AFIS: Station transmitting, say again your callsign
G-HIM: G-HIM, I'm orbiting to the right three-sixty, ahhh,
not sure he's set out his intentions. G-HIM
5:40 G-ME (voice tape only) It's quite gusty, going up to 55.
5:50 G-ME (voice tape only) 50, 45,
6:05 G-HIM: G-HIM on Finals
AFIS: G-HIM Surface wind 070/8kn
6:15: G-ME (voice tape only) Touch down at 35 full stall landing
6:25 AFIS: G-HIM Land at your discretion, 080/5kn
Interesting how things all happened rather slower than my perception.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 28th Mar 2003 at 21:39.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
I think you can count me into your minority, and for the same reasons you so splendidly put forward!
I am absolutely not implying that Genghis did something wrong in any way, only reflecting my personal preferences, and not indicating this is the "one and only truth". Just the fact that Genghis is still posting proves his option was not wrong!
What I think we really are discussing here is the very complex process of being in command of a craft, taking inputs, knowing your options and making decisions based on this. Very often in aviation, the speeds involved forces us to accept the "good enough" solutions, because we do not have the time to calculate the "perfect" solution.
Just some toughts in between work....
Cheers,
I think you can count me into your minority, and for the same reasons you so splendidly put forward!
I am absolutely not implying that Genghis did something wrong in any way, only reflecting my personal preferences, and not indicating this is the "one and only truth". Just the fact that Genghis is still posting proves his option was not wrong!
What I think we really are discussing here is the very complex process of being in command of a craft, taking inputs, knowing your options and making decisions based on this. Very often in aviation, the speeds involved forces us to accept the "good enough" solutions, because we do not have the time to calculate the "perfect" solution.
Just some toughts in between work....
Cheers,
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My biggest dread is the aircraft behind me that I can't see (we have no rear view mirror). I get paranoid when I hear someone call final when I'm on final and can't see him/her. I think I'd carry on in a very straight line and have an urgent word on the radio.
I reckon G did exactly the right thing in keeping on - but I think I'd have been more vocal on the RT. I'd file an airprox, too, if I were on final and had called it, and then got "overtaken".
I don't like mixing it with microlights - had a scare at Popham last year when one cut in front of me doing a very tight base and final.
I reckon G did exactly the right thing in keeping on - but I think I'd have been more vocal on the RT. I'd file an airprox, too, if I were on final and had called it, and then got "overtaken".
I don't like mixing it with microlights - had a scare at Popham last year when one cut in front of me doing a very tight base and final.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a definite lack of communication here. 
Go around or continue? Impossible to be sure, unless you know where the other aircraft is, and what his intentions are...and you didn't. I think I'd have asked the chap in the PA 28 if he could see me, and taken it from there.
As for what you should do now, I'd file an airprox and CHIRP it too; it can't do any harm, and might do some good. The PA28 pilot is dangerous...and I don't care how many hours he's got; he obviously hasn't learned anything from them. If it's true... I can say I've got 20,00 hours too, if I feel like it, and who'd know any different without seeing my log book. And I don't see what his age has got to do with it, one way or the other; in fact, I don't see why you mentioned everyone's age anyway; it's completely irrelevant to anything.
Go around or continue? Impossible to be sure, unless you know where the other aircraft is, and what his intentions are...and you didn't. I think I'd have asked the chap in the PA 28 if he could see me, and taken it from there.
As for what you should do now, I'd file an airprox and CHIRP it too; it can't do any harm, and might do some good. The PA28 pilot is dangerous...and I don't care how many hours he's got; he obviously hasn't learned anything from them. If it's true... I can say I've got 20,00 hours too, if I feel like it, and who'd know any different without seeing my log book. And I don't see what his age has got to do with it, one way or the other; in fact, I don't see why you mentioned everyone's age anyway; it's completely irrelevant to anything.
Moderator
Thread Starter
You know me well enough Whirly to know that age ain't all that relevant to me, but you should have seen the chap's face when my colleague, probably younger than some of the PA28 pilot's grandchildren said "erm, I'm actually one of the instructors here". Probably the same expression that was on mine when I found myself being overtaken on late finals 
G
G