Proper pilots would never allow themselves to get so far behind the aircraft that they cannot definitively know that the runway they are on final approach for is the correct one in use.

Any instructor who spends a good chunk of their working life in the circuit at a small airfield will tell you that this type of stuff is "normal", and that it is almost a surprise to see a correctly performed join or a circuit flown anywhere near the published noise-abatement procedure. A complete lack of contrition from the guy who nearly hit you head-on in the circuit is also standard.

It's pretty depressing really but its hard to see how to fix it when "Captain Average" flies about 20 to 30 hours a year, may have trained decades ago and their only contact with officialdom is a biennial flight with an instructor which has no fixed format, syllabus or standard. I do my bit but you can only cover so much in an hour.

Had a call yesterday from an owner-pilot whose class rating had expired and wanted to reval by test. He wanted to book a date so that he could fly in for it .....

I agree. It's the "where do I start?" syndrome. So much to correct, so much to advise, but at the same time you are reluctant to ground someone that had no idea when they came to you that they had so many bad habits or gaps in knowledge/skill.

In a good club, there should be ample opportunities for refresher training, e.g. in a series of workshops combined with flying. But of course you can't force people to come, and it's often the ones that don't really need it that do come. Plus, even the ones that know they need it are very often loath to admit their need, especially in front of other club members.

And this does nothing for the owner-pilots who are not part of any club.

Guys, pay attention now. You need to read all the stories Piperboy has written about this guy to understand the language used.

I know who it is and the description is accurate. He should not be allowed out without his carer.

I'm laughing so hard at this and I know I shouldn't be.

How has he managed to avoid being Darwin'd?

Well I don't do twins (too many knobs and dials for my limited brain power) but I resolved a similar situation earlier this year with an orbit in the circuit direction at the start of the downwind leg, notified to the tower.
But then I'm a very relaxed chap and I wasn't pressed for time, fuel, daylight, rental cost or whatever, and nobody was up my behind.

SD

Why has nobody reported this reaming of the propeller to either the CAA or LAA depending on the aircraft involved, think of the potential danger to others, if or more likely when the propeller detaches in flight?

Yes plenty of indicators there suggesting he’s using the wrong traffic pattern. Although it does happen, even with runway numbers visible and I’ve even known people accidently take off on taxyways too.

I fully concur with @bingofuel: I would certainly report such a situation, if I came across, and could not persuade the owner/operator/pilot to correct the installation.

A pilot with good SA will have allowed for this when joining and spaced himself accordingly, if he still finds himself close up behind then he should go around. Just because you are in a faster machine you do not have the right to push in front.
As far as straight in approaches and non standard joins goes, no problem IF you can fit into the traffic without getting in anyone elses way, this needs good SA and unfortunately too many people are not capeable!

Theoretically yes, but for example, on a downwind leg this then means a turn towards the active runway, the overhead, or the climb out, not always the best place to be in a busy circuit.
And for example on base leg effectively means overtaking (possibly on the "wrong" side) and cutting up on final.
I don't fly twins any more but did find it all problematical.
Final solution, don't go to busy fly-ins in a twin.;)

A good start would be for the "authorities" to do away with some of the punitive taxes and bureaucracy that leads to the cost of flying in Europe being 2-3x the cost in the US, for absolutely no valid reason. Everyone would be much more current then...

Of course, safety is not what the authorities are interested in.

They're not called the Campaign Against Aviation for nothing... :ugh:

On the interesting subject of the effects of high cost on safety - concluding it therefore drives safety down.

a) Reduce cost, increases hours and perhaps proficiency (?). Result, fewer accidents per hour, but overall a potential increase in number per annum.

or

b) Raise cost even more, even fewer hours, in extreme zero hours flown = zero accidents !

mikehallam

Drop the tax and duties on avgas for flight schools like they do with farmers with Ag diesel or the tax breaks they give Google, Philip Green and oil companies etc for exploration credits.This will make training significantly more affordable and encourage both initial training for careers in aviation and recurring training for duffers like us who would hire planes and instructors for more than just ratings and reviews. It would get the flight school business back off its knees, encourage more foreign students (Chinese etc) create jobs and would make private ownership less desirable if flight schools had large rental fleets operated under their safety rules and give the UK GA and commercial aviation business the fresh wind of change it needs.

Bottom line, look at how much revenue the duties from avgas are bringing in, stop charging it, and deduct the shortfall to the public purse from the "drunken sailor" government programs like going on senseless wars, foreign aid to African dictators, development programs to countries that are in reality richer than ours, and if there really is a need for "democracy building" round the world instead of sending money and "experts" burn a few CD's of the US constitution and mail it to them 3rd class and end all the other touchy feely sanctimonious moral high ground bull**** projetcs our elected "leaders" feel the need to spunk our money on. RANT OVER

Sorted :ok: