Run and break when will they learn ?
 

I have just been looking on the military thread and a PPL holder is asking about the "run and break" manoeuver , it would seem that an aircraft was performing a run and break and he as another pilot in the circuit did not know what was going on or even were to look to see this run and break traffic.

Following the tragic accident at North Weald a few years back I would of thought that the lesson that the run and break is not a safe way to join a normal civil circuit would have been driven home hard as most of the other traffic has no idea (and why should they ?) of what is going on.

Is it not time that this practice was stopped when flyind in a circuit with traffic that has not been fully briefed to expect such manoeuvers , or will it take more deaths and leagal action to ban the practice ?.

Ok standing up for a pelting

I feel that it is unfair to relate what happened at North Weald whilst tragic beyond comprehension to be blamed solely on the run and break.

We could sit on our hands and say well shant go flying that might kill you.

Accidents happen at any time.

I enjoy carrying out run and breaks

I feel that as long as the approach to carrying out the manoeuvre is done in a resposible way ie listening out on frequency a long way out from the field to assess traffic levels/positions and getting the picture mentally.

Run and breaks IMHO if approached in a sensible and responsible way by the pilot ( we all are responsible and sensible of course ) Thereis little danger involved.

We all accept risk when we fly, another vital lesson that could be learned from the tragedy could also be that we should not only look out more but also listen out more.

Please can we not start campaigning for the banning things like this

What next activists against the loop?

What A&C said was...

time that this practice was stopped when flyind in a circuit with traffic that has not been fully briefed to expect such manoeuvers

With which I agree. I occasionally fly a run and break, usually during practice for the DA I still haven't got - and on an airfield with no other traffic and those on the ground know what I'm up to. I've nearly been wiped out landing a non-radio microlight (quite legally) on an airfield where a Yak started one having ascertained from the AFIS operator (who couldn't see the threshold) that there was nothing known on finals...

There is a time and place.

G

What's a run and break?

QDM

Not something that I'm expecting to have to encounter on a training flight

QDM, a run and break is described in the Mil forum here Run & break

The North Weald accident is here

Whilst it may not be understood by others on frequency is it not the commander carrying out the run and breaks responsibility to see and avoid?

Agree with time and place but that was kinda me point.

I think that officially both commanders are equally responsible.

FD

Flash,

I presume, from your last post, that if you're flying a (regular) circuit in, say, a C150, and you're late downwind when you hear, say, a PA23 call "downwind", that you make no effort to locate the faster aircraft and ensure he's not going to fly into the back of you?

No - of course you will look out for him. Even though it's his responsibility to avoid you in this instance, you still like to know where he is.

Likewise, I'd be uncomfortable if someone called "initial" while I was downwind. Less so having read about various run-and-break incidents on PPRuNe, but I've still never actually seen one, so I really wouldn't know where to look with any kind of certainty.

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

(FD - If an overtaking situation exists - and I'd say one aircraft doing a couple of hundred knots while the other is doing 70kts counts as overtaking - the aircraft being overtaken has right of way, and the responsibilty to avoid therefore belongs to the overtaking aircraft, as far as I'm aware.)

I am with A and C,

Having just read the North Weald report I have to say: "Why?" What is the point of these fancy pants manouvers other than to confuse everybody and add a lot of risk to the circuit? Just fly the circuit and do the smarty arse flying somewhere over the sea!

Sorry if I come across as abrupt and over-opinionated, but IMHO this is not even worthy of a debate!

Nothwithstanding what I've already said that I think is a little over-strong. If for example somebody is practicing a display routine which starts and ends on a runway then doing it over the sea isn't really possible. It's just that practicing it in a working circuit would be downright irresponsible. Balance is needed.

G

I think it is worthy of debate. Any area where there are valid views and differences is worthy of debate.

My view (and I accept it is no more valid than any other) is that there is more to flying than simply flying straight and level from A to B and carrying out a standard circuit at the end. Some people fly upside down, some fly close to others, some even upside down and close to others. All of these things are acceptable providing that they do not cause UNDUE danger to others. Run and break is reasonable providing the PIC does not simply expect everyone else in a five mide radius block to keep out of the way.
On the other hand the PIC of other aircraft ought also to be sensible and not sit there like the guy sitting at 70 in the outside lane.

Hi,

I posted the original question on the mil forum and I didn't realise I had touched on a contentious subject. I will read with interest the incident report and the other postings.

I would like to say that I may have led A and C astray by a poor use of words.

When I heard this manoeuver mentioned on the R/T it was quite a while ago now and I was NOT PIC and the commander of the aircraft I was in was a very experienced military pilot. He knew exactly what was going on but it happened so fast that I missed it. I asked for a description of "Run & Break" on the mil forum just so that I could picture it in my mind in slow time. Also I asked for the rationale behind such a manoeuvre just to add to my knowledge bank; I am not sure the rationale applies to a C172 bimbling from Biggin to Duxford ;)

Suffice it to say that I will now either keep well clear or make absolutely sure that the controller knows that he/she has a limited experience tyro in the circuit and he/she will be able to judge that permitting such a join could be dangerous.

I doubt whether it would happen as my flying has been to date always out of civilian airfields.

Any confusion caused was not intentional.

Regards

Andy

Sorry guys. Of course it is worthy of debate (well upto the point that everybody starts saying the same things again).

Quite right too. I guess my blood was boiling upon reading how tragically avoidable that North Weald accident was :mad:

I stand corrected.

I was under the impression that there is a practical requirement for the run and break in some aircraft. A hunter or L29 for example? Both of these kinds of aircraft fly from airfields without full ATC, so it is important to expect an R & B. Following on from this it is a good idea to understand the R & B and be prepared for it.

I personally have been in the circuit when a Yak did a R & B and it did not cause me any problems. I think on a day with good vis and not much traffic it can be done safely, and I imagine it is good fun to fly.

rod 1
 

The practical requirement for the run and break is a military one the object being to keep as much energy in the aircraft and there for the ability to manoeuver if attacked untill the last moment and to only slow up when over a well defended area when the local triple A should be able to ward off an attacker.

This is hardly a factor over most UK civil airfields.

I dont object to pilots performing a run and break BUT all the pilots in the circuit must know what to expect , if any any doubt exists then a normal circuit join should be performed.

If the run and break is part of a practice of a display then ATC should keep the circuit clear untill the practice has finnished.

The bottom line is that aircraft performing high energy manoeuvers and pilots in slow aircraft without a proper briefing cannot safely mix in the circuit.

Missing something from AAIB report?
 

I've just read the AAIB report for the North Weald incident and I have to wonder if I'm missing something. The conclusion is that the planes collided because they didn't see each other, which seems reasonable. What seems strange to me is that no greater responsibility for this is placed on the pilot of the Yak than on that of the pilot of the Cessna. This seems strange in that it also clearly states that the Yak pilot turned left instead of right as expected by the definition of the run & break he declared he was doing.

Is the point that I'm missing the fact that see and avoid is always the responsibility of both pilots, no matter what procedures are or are not being followed?

Or is it that AAIB reports don't apportion blame?

A & C,

I will bow to your greater knowledge, as I have never flown a Jet. It was however my understanding that the requirement was to do with jet engine spool up times and the potential to need to go round?

I have only seen seven or eight aircraft in this category land, but they all performed the R & B.

>>> If the run and break is part of a practice of a display then ATC should keep the circuit clear untill the practice has finnished.

A lot of this sort of flying goes on at non ATC airfields. I have come across such traffic at Duxford and Kemble, but I have always been well clear to start with.

The North Weald accident was in unlimited vis with a single aircraft in the circuit.

Yes! And what also seemed crucial is that the Yak pilot ASSUMED that everybody knew what he was doing.

drauk

Or is it that AAIB reports don't apportion blame?

Got it in one.