Never appreciated before how boasting about one's earnings would make one's aviation arguments look more credible.

Bit like 16 year olds comparing lengths in my opinion.

:eek:

FD (non-consultant)

I agree.
Unlike Alty, I don't fly for BA so F3G earns about twice as much as me. Suppose he thinks that means my opinion on aviation matters is only worth half his.
Don't know why he wanted to tell us he was a 'consultant' in the first place.
What a prat! :rolleyes:

Final 3 Greens: couldn't lend me a couple of grand could ya?;)

I only earn a sixth of F3G's salary, so a question from the minor leagues...

I remain unclear as to how this RIAB thing works. As has been pointed out already, the manoevre is not taught or even documented in any part of the civilian syllabi. At the moment, as a student at a large airfield, it doesn't really matter that I don't understand - but one day I may well want to fly in to somewhere like Duxford (scratch that, I will definitely want to visit Duxford!) and you can never know too much, can you? The problem I have is visualisation. Is anyone aware of a diagram anywhere? A quick search on google revealed mostly wrestling websites...
:confused:

I don't know of any graphics, but if you read the 'run in and break' thread on the Mil Aircrew forum there are a number descriptions.
Some are quite technical referring to fast jets, but others give a very clear description of the manoeuvre.

This is almost too obvious to mention but I shall anyway:
Don't try it yourself until you've got lots of hours and have been properly taught by an instructor knows how to do it - either ex-Mil or a good aerobatics man.

Also, in case the worriers are concerned I've forgotten:
Right Time, right place, right aircraft and right pilot are all crucially important for reasons which have already been given.

If I recall correctly, the AAIB report on the North Weald collision included a diagram of a run and break pattern (as mentioned above, the Yak involved in the tragic event did not fly the usual run and break pattern). No-one should be put off from visiting Duxford or similar places by the possibility that someone might run and break: it's not happening all of the time, and most circuits at Duxford are standard. The FISOs there have a good view and are very helpful.

Heliport/Flying Dutch

I didn't say I earned £150K pa - just that I was the type of consultant that did ... must resist the trolling urge in the future, although it's funny to read the pompous claptrap that resulted.

Rattsarse

If I did, I would, but see above comment! :O

virgin

I hope your ability to gather, analyse data and draw conclusions is better in your day job than it is here. I made a comparison between the perceived probity of lawyers and consultants from the perspective of the general public. What bot of this don't you understand?

Might be a good time to revisit your Human Factors material and review the parts concerning incorrect conclusions based on emotional reactions.

Perhaps you could raise your income by joining BA as cabin crew if it is an issue? (just joking before you take it seriously.)

alty meter
 

As you quite rightly conclude I dont want to see the R&B banned , what I do want to see is a bit more of what was once called airmanship.

The flying lawer has very clearly layed down the conditions under which can be safely carried out if you cannot meet these then a normal join should be made.

There seems to be an assumption that as North Weald or Duxford a R&B is OK because "every one knows what is going on" this is NOT the case the Jeppesen VFR airfield manual makes no referance to R&B joins so you cant be sure that i visiting pilot has the first idea of what is going on (after all he has properly briefed himself from the airfield plate) , remember that the "lookout" from the other pilot may be the "lookout" that saves you so why do something that leaves the other guy with no idea of what direction to look to maintain seperation ?.

I do fly in a military enviroment and the R&B is a safe way of joining but only when all the pilots in the area know what is taking place.

As for allthe talk of what is leagal and what is not , I dont give a damm what I dont want to see is another mid-air and more people killed because of non standard practices being used when it is not safe to do so.

A and C

Hear, Hear.

As another poster has already said, NW is further complicated by glider traffic.

There are complications arising from the lack of 'deadside' when gliding is active, but of course gliders do not always appear where you expect them to either and many are non radio, so cannot advise of their position and intentions.

This is not an attack on glider pilots, but a re-iteration of a serious point that Skylark 4 (an experienced glider pilot) made in another thread some time ago.

Parascending also occurs sometimes - I think we can discount the model aeroplane flying as being pretty safe though :D

So your comment about airmanship is spot on from my perspective.

I love to watch a well executed run and break by a good pilot, but we don't want any more tragedies as you rightly say.

F3G
 

I suggest you don't give up your day job; your impression of a comedian is pretty lousy.

And spend some more time at it, it may well pay off!

That was actually quite funny!

FD

At the expense of this perhaps falling on deaf ears because it's been over a week since the last posting, please let me say that, as a passenger who has been privileged to have been invited on a number of JP/Strikey flights over the past five or so years, a run and break is absolutely thrilling and a great climax to an already magical flight.

I have noted however that my pilot, who has a display ticket, has not always finished with one, it has often depended on his mood, time in hand, traffic, etc. It has also not been done to show off, more likely to hone his skills, already quite considerable. I'd also like to think that ATC at either NW or Duxford have been satisfied with his capability to perform one adequately. I guess it's also part of the reason for having such an expensive piece of machinery.

This does not lend anything to the discussion about for or against, but perhaps adds a perspective from the non-flying side.

Thanks for listening.

This is a rather late contribution but I only just heard about the thread, hopefully I haven't arrived after everyone has left the party. I'm one of the people that uses a VRIAB - but only at the end of aerobatic lessons and only when I can identify circuit traffic and fit in safely.

At my base airfield the VRIAB is restricted to aerobatic instructors, flown sensibly it is fun and safe but the military R/T and technique needs to be modified slightly ("high/long finals/base to break" rather than "initials") so that others know what's going on.

Aerobatic tuition is mostly done above 3000ft and nearish (but not too near) to the airfield so at the end of the lesson there is significant height to lose. The most efficient way of doing this is to set enough power to keep the engine warm (18-21") and descend continuously to a VRIAB. Approaching the airfield we get the airfield info and an idea of the number in the circuit, if appropriate we then call "run and break in x minutes". Positioning just to the dead side of the runway and, when close to the airfield, descending to below circuit height (to enhance visibility of circuit traffic) and then run down the airfield to a climbing break at an appropriate point and either descending curved approach to land or extend and join behind someone else - again, as appropriate.
Safe, efficient, good for the engine and saves the stude a bit of money. It is not a "beat up".

There are pitfalls if Bloggs tries it because of the low level accelerated stall risk but when flown sensibly and professionally I really don't believe there's a problem. A useful technique when appropriate UNLIKE STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES:mad: which I believe are dangerous at non-ATC fields and SHOULD be replaced by a level version of the VRIAB onto the crosswind leg or an overhead join.

BTW someone suggested a while back in this thread that people performing aerobatics should tell someone - unfortunately there's usually nobody worth telling so a 7004 squawk is all we can do.

(apologies for the bad grammar, typed in a hurry)

Dont start me off on this one again, PLEASE!

Hugh,

I question whether the need to lose height from 3000ft justifies a run & break. Its not that high...Maybe just a little excuse to buzz the field?

I also teach aerobatics, and if I need to lose height at the end of the sortie, I'd throw in a a few more manouevres to lose height, then transit back to the airfield. The stude gets more practice, and we dont mess up the circuit by arriving at Mach 2. However I do agree that straight-in approaches from 10 miles are not good, especially when the pilot calls "long finals" and then, expecting everyone to follow him in, moans about being cut up!

Run & Breaks are for fast jet arrivals, or for breaking up a formation prior to landing. What they ain't for is PPLs with toys such as the YAK 52 thinking they are fighter pilots.....

"Angels one five, bingo, buster, tally ho and all that, old chap"

I probably need to lose height from 3000 feet every time I come home. I've never felt the need to do a run & break, and wouldn't know how to. I keep it at 130 knots, pull back the power, and it goes down smoothly and calmly.

What kind of aircraft can't descend from 3000 feet in a "normal" way? My buddy flies a Yak and has never had any problem joining and flying a normal circuit with it. Spitfires and Gnats I can understand, but nothing less than those on the scale, surely?

Some facts regarding North Weald, in view of a few postings higher up this page:

North Weald has no ATC, just A/G radio.

Controlled airspace above North Weald is at 1500' amsl, about 1200' agl. Gliders have permission under a letter of agreement with Stansted/West Drayton to fly up to 2000' agl within a "tube" centred on NW, powered A/C don't. Any R&B's carried out there have some purpose other than spilling surplus height, it seems to me.

Gliders in general in the UK are not required to carry radio; under rules set by the landlord (Epping Forest DC) at North Weald, however, all gliders operating there do have radio, tuned to NW frequency, and all glider pilots acting as pilots in command have RT licences.

There is no dead side at NW. Power circuits are to the west of 02/20, gliders to the east when gliders are flying - which we have the right to do every day except a few reserved for special events. (We were there before any other GA, in case anybody thinks we are interlopers.) Normally, but not exclusively, gliders operate on Wednesdays all year round, and at weekends too during an extended winter period. Other times depend on various factors. I sincerely hope that when gliders are operating, nobody contemplating a VRIAB is trying to position themselves " . . . just to the dead side of the runway and, when close to the airfield, descending to below circuit height ".

Gliders once in circuit cannot do go-arounds, they are then committed to land, even if some power pilot is or believes him/herself to be no. 1 to land, and a glider may therefore have to cut in front of a powered aircraft on the approach. This happens particularly as glider circuits are invariably 3 minutes or less in duration, decending from 7-800 feet (or sometimes lower) and some power pilots take half of Essex to do a circuit with a final turn somewhere near Stapleford for 02 (or so it seems at times). I have known a pilot call finals from miles out when two gliders were in circuit, and then complain about being cut up - but we had to land before he reached the airfield boundary, let alone the threshhold. All, including glider pilots, have to call joining downwind and again turning finals, so it is a known environment, except for some people doing unusual things when the rest may have no idea what is going on.

Glider pilots at NW have no wish to stop people doing R&B's if that is their thing, provided they are done safely and, if necessary, aborted before causing an accident when somebody else is legitimately in the way - or even not legitimately for that matter.

This tolerance is notwithstanding any implications for a R&B conducted when our gliders and ourselves are stationed close to, not on, the runway in use - the words five, rule, feet and hundred come to mind in some order or other, but that is a matter for others, not us.

And after all, it was another power plane that was the victim of the R&B merchant in that NW fatal collision, not a glider. My reading of the accident report is that the innocent victims had no idea that the R&B pilot would end up in conflict with them. I think there might have been no conflict had it been a simple, well conducted R&B as described by some on this thread who claim to be proficient in that art - AIUI the end of the run turned into an excursion perhaps to look at something, not an immediate join into a conventional downwind leg, and that's what caused that particular collision.

Chris N.

Oops, the R&B pilot in the NW accident seems to have done his excursion before starting the run in, not after as I had wrongly remembered, although it was after he had called "Initial . . ." whatever that might mean to the uninitiated.

Hmmm, as a low houred nearly PPL kind of doode, all I can say is blimey, there’s a lot of slagging off of differing flying types, still just human nature I suppose!!

I agree that the world of GA needs fewer and not more rules and regs, but c’mon guys, you can’t seriously suggest that doing this sort of stuff in the circuit at a GA airfield is a good thing? I think the accident at North Weald demonstrates that it’s not and surely if an accident is caused by this sort of flying, doesn’t that just give the press more material to beat up GA with?

And, at the risk of upsetting all you military wallahs, isn’t doing this just a tinsy bit ego stroking?

Still, I have to admit that the guy who flew the MK19 into Bristol one day, when Filton was shut, looked pretty darn cool doing it ! !
:D

When I read that accident report, it sounded like the Yak pilot had either done his run in an opposite direction i.e. flown up runway 02, or that he did fly down rwy 20 but then started a left hand circuit.

In any case I got the impression that the accident was caused by the Yak pilot flying a left hand circuit while the C150 was flying a right hand circuit.

Can anyone clarify what actually happened ?

Mike

What the Yak did at NW seems clear from the accident report and the appended diagram, the latter being accessible via a link on the report on the AAIB website.

The report is here .

The Yak came back from Little Gransden via west of Harlow, round the south of Harlow, along what might have been a RH base leg for 20, but extended that leg to the proximity of his house.

He then turned 180 left (away from NW), effectively joining a LH base leg for 20, before turning L again for 20. He came to the Cessna which was doing a (conventional) RH circuit and their turns coincided and collided. It was concluded that they met belly to belly. One or both might have steepened/tightened the turns in a last second attempt at avoiding the collision.

In the course of the Yak's progress he mentioned on the radio "initial" (whatever that means), in three transmissions it seems, and also dived down to about 100 feet near his house and climbed away. I have no idea what those manoeuvres have to do with a R&B (or VRIAB).

It seems that some of you people are incapable of showing respect for those who lost their lives at North Weald. I have made the plea several times in the past that posters not continuously re-open that accident with their own conclusions or "expert" opinions of whose fault it was and why. It is pointless to do so and just repeatedly painful for the friends and relatives of those involved.

SC,

I appreciate that this can be difficult for those directly concerned, and I am certain that no one means any disrespect by discussing the issue. But I think it's important that it is discussed.

One of the multiple reasons why many of us are so concerned about the us of the run-in-and-break is that we are not familiar with it - we don't recognise the radio terminology associated with it, and when we hear the radio calls we do not know where to look for the traffic nor what to expect it to do. The only way of resolving a lack of education is to talk about the subject. To ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist will simply result in yet another generation of new pilots (and I include myself in this new generation) who are just as ignorant as the last, and will ultimately end up with a repeat of the incident.

It is sometimes hard for an outsider to understand the emotions involved, and I don't doubt that there has been a small degree of unintentionally insensitive posting. We would all do well to take heed of your request, and apply an appropriate level of sensitivity to the subject when we discuss it, but we must not let emotions prevent us from discussing important safety matters.

FFF
--------------

Zlin:
I repeat my view that, flown sensibly by experienced instructors and only when airfield conditions are appropriate, the VRIAB is a perfectly safe, efficient and fun way of getting back on the ground at a GA airfield.

Keef:
To be kind to your engine you are probably planning your TOD point at about 4nm per 1000ft, depending on speed; this is only applicable to cruise descent. I don't suggest that a VRIAB is essential; only that it is efficient, saves the stude money and is kind to the engine.

VFR800:
The accident report makes it plain that a VRIAB did not contribute to the accident but I agree with those that say we shouldn't discuss it any further.

ChrisN:
I agree wholeheartedly with the comment about R/T terminology, that's why I don't advocate the use of the term "initials".

My earlier contribution used the terms "when flown sensibly", "if appropriate" and "as appropriate". There are times when I believe it would not be appropriate and, having spent 5-10 years as a gliding instructor (and nearly the same time as a tug pilot) some years ago at a somewhat busier place than NW, I believe the presence of lots of gliders would constitute such a time - although tug pilots tend to return in a fairly non-standard and efficient way!


To others:
My one doubt in all this is that others with less experience and training will see and copy without a full understanding.
The technique is useful in some circumstances (we also use it if returning as a pair to break for a stream landing, if not appropriate to fly the break the circuit and landing are flown as a pair) but there are several potential pitfalls and it should definitely not be a "beat-up":
- ensure that the airfield management and CFI approve it for your level of experience
- ensure that you know how to do it safely (both for yourself and others)
- be considerate
- use plain R/T, as has been mentioned many times the term "initials" is not generally recognised

Following on from the comment about straight-in approaches, try to avoid them at uncontrolled fields. A far better technique (if an overhead join is not appropriate) is to join on the deadside at circuit height and then turn over the upwind end of the runway to join as a normal crosswind join. This is called a level break but just call joining deadside and everyone will understand.

And finally, most experienced instructors will tell you that with any join it's good to be slightly below circuit height if you are in doubt about seeing other circuit traffic, it's much easier to spot them against the sky than the ground.

To misquote Chamberlain: "peace and understanding in our time".

Recently observed:

XXX radio this is YYY formation (2 aircraft) inbound request run and break.

YYY formation, XXX radio this is only a radio service, I can not clear you to do anything the circuit is very active on runway.....

YYY fromation rodger will position for a run and break on runway....

Some moments later;

YYY formation bearking off the run and break due to aircraft on final we'll orbit on downwind for spacing.

Circuit continues to be busy and several attempts to make a run and break are broken off and formation continues to orbit just outside downwind.

Some minutes later;

ZZZ aircraft (one of the formation) "bingo fuel, bingo fuel, bingo fuel".

The two aircraft having already loaded the frequency unnecessarly, confirm that number 2 is low on fuel through more blocking of the frequency.

With little or no chance of making their run and break, the aircraft announce that they are breaking clear of the curcuit.

This is followed by the aircraft low on fuel cutting in on final approach on front of two aicraft in the pilot's haste to get their aircraft safely on the ground.

My points are;

1. There was no need to make a run and break

2. The circuit was too busy and if as many argue, it is ok provided the circuit traffic can be visually avoided, why was the run and break broken off so many times?

3. The only reason why the aircraft ended low on fuel was the wasted time spent holding for a run and break

4. Putting the aircraft in this situation could be endangerment.

5. Using military phraseology in a civil environment does nothing for helping pilots to understand what is going on. If the pilot simply said that they were short of fuel then they would have been afforded priority on final by the circuit traffic and would not have to cut up the circuit in a rush back to the ground.

6. When operating in the vicinity of an aerodrome, aircraft shall conform to the pattern or avoid it..........orbiting downwind and busting onto final is not conforming to the pattern.

If run and breaks are to be a new part of the circuit pattern then it is about time that the CAA issued some guidance for those pilots who may find themselves confronted with one.

Regards,

DFC

I have only seen a run and break performed once. That was at Bournemouth, which is in controlled airspace, and the manuover was flown by a Vampire and no other traffic was anywhere near the curcuit. Seemed a very sensible way to get the speed off and positioned correctly on downwind considering the way the aircraft approached the field. However, I do not see why this manuover is needed apart from the enjoyment factor. A bit of forward planning would remove the need.

So here we have one group saying it's a good practice and the other group saying it's dangerous. I know that I would feel very uncomfortable being in the circuit if somebody called their intention to do a run and break so I must fall into the latter group. Is airmanship something that only low houred pilots need in order to avoid more experienced pilots that insist on doing these manuovers? I consider my safety to be more important than your fun.

D

DFC:
That horror story sounds like a mixture of the inexcusable with the inept but unfortunately people do dumb and inept things in all aspects of life - it's not unique to this topic. During many journeys on the roads you are likely to notice someone doing something dumb or inept - but rarely it's ourselves! Strange that!

The call of "Bingo" is interesting as this is usually a pre-briefed "informational" fuel level rather than minimum fuel. There are a variety of formation R/T calls but none of them affect people outside the formation. If in doubt or urgency the sensible action, as always, is to use plain language.

I cannot help but agree. The run and break is the preferred method of people who seem to affect flying suits and aircraft have little purpose other than image.

That these wannbes can suggest it is a safe way of joining a circuit suggests some basic fault in their logic.

It is not a standard practice. Even the military do not use it routinely at civil fields. Doing it at airfields with air/ground and non-radio traffic might mean that there is no one to actually refuse them permission but it is still appalling 'airmanship'.

Keep it for displays and when you're trying to impress the military at their airfields (fat chance in a JP or Yak!!!).

Dufwer, I think you are totally right, but you have clearly not recognised the important operational necessity for run and breaks in the civil set up. I fly a reasonably high performance aeros machine and have to admit that a bit of airborne hooliganism is great fun, but as I do not want to end up dead it is in safe places at appropriate altitudes for whatever the hoolganism of the day is. I have also flown in formations, not quite the Mallory Big Wing league but formations none the less, and the only point of an R&B is because it is fun. It therfore has to be done only when nobody is around. This negates the point however for the flying egomaniac where the only pointis to let other people see them; the airborne equivelant of the Vauxhall Nova with added noise, it's the look at me factor, and as such has no place in safe aviation practice.

R&B even by the proficient exponents of the art, only encourge the less able to have a go, which is a bad thing. If it is possible for Concorde to slow down from Mach whatever to a sensible approcah speed, there is no reason whatsoever why even a large formation cannot disperse at a pre-planned rate and arrive individually at a sensible speed for an approach apropriate to the environment in which they intend to land. If as pilots they have so little control or situational awareness that this is not possible they should not be flying formations and should get some sensible training.

Too many A/G airfields are turning into the playground of mindless egotistical pilots who have either little regard for others or not enough skill and training to fit in with standard circuit practice. These people should be grounded until they learn some manners.
So there!

Another thing, is there any link bewteen pilots skill and the numbr of badges on their flying gear: in my experience there is an inverse link between them. Beware the flying suit full of badges.
:cool:

ChrisN,

Thanks, I didn't notice the diagram link before.

This confirms in my mind that the main reason for the accident was the two aircraft were flying "opposite" patterns.

At controlled fields, there will often be left/right base leg aircraft controlled by ATC. When I have been in that situation, the controller will repeatedly call traffic, and confirm that the pilots have each other in sight.

At an uncontrolled field, pilots really need to know what the circuit procedures are, and follow them.

If I were to lose sight of conflicting traffic, and couldn't resolve it quickly via RT, I would be leave the circuit, climbing above circuit height, then re-enter when I could determine where everyone was.

Most mid-airs do occur in VMC in the circuit, and pilots need to very aware of what is going on at all times.

Mike