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.

drauk
 

You are quite right AAIB reports do not apportion blame they just report the facts.

However the run and break has no practical use outside the military and so is not part of the normal training for the PPL.

This makes it very hard for the PPL holder to know what to expect and how to best maintain an effective lookout in this situation add to this a slow and unmanoeuverable aircraft in the hands of a low time pilot and all is set for an accident.

Wouldn't it be simpler if we were all just taught what a run and break manouevre looks like? Or perhaps took it upon ourselves to look it up in a book. Would seem to solve most of the problem without adding another restriction to the rule book.

That's fine - stick it in CAP413 and when someone calls "initial for the break" (or whatever Top Gun RT they decide on) the low-hours spamcanners like myself will have some clue what they are doing.

I've only ever heard it once, while student solo, and it was by some pillock in a PA-38 (seriously :rolleyes: ). My response, while turning base, was "Aircraft calling initials, where are you and what are you doing?". Maverick decided to do a normal circuit at that point...

It is of course an absolute fact that we all take risks BUT the very nature of aviation is to minimise any perceived risks. Now the R&B is a totally unnecessary risk to anyone in the circuit and as such should be banned absolutely. I have no objection to anyone performing whatever they like with their a/c but not when it puts others at risk and surely that is the real nub of this thread. If you want to play war games or pretend you are a FJ pilot the do it somehwere else or on MS Flight Sim

We fly the run & break at JEFTS in light a/c (Fireflies) as do the various UAS's in their Grobs HOWEVER it is the responsibility of the aircraft joining the circuit to give way to traffic already in the circuit and if the circuit is busy we don't fly a run & break.
As flown in light a/c: fly in parallel to and slightly on the deadside of the active runway at cruise speed and circuit height. Call 'initials, break' at approx 3nm out, descend to 500' (or lower if not subject to rule 5) then if circuit is clear turn into the circuit over the runway threshold and land as usual. If traffic is in the circuit extend upwind and turn in behind them in a polite manner, cursing gently at being denied the chance to play the hooligan but not breaking in front of them. Good fun but not really on if others are in the circuit already.

Workinghard

Once upon a time people were enthralled just at the sight of an aircraft leaving the ground

Now people are so spoilt that the romance and splendour of a golden age have been gobbled up by image seeking flying accountants.

You fly straight and level don't explore your personal envelope. Leave it to the people with the passion still in them.!

And people wonder why GA is dying?




:mad:

Thanks for the "no blame in an AAIB report" clarification.

People seem to be saying that the problem with this move is that private pilots don't know where to look or what to expect, but again my attention is drawn to the fact that the Yak pilot didn't do what was expected - he turned left instead of right. (Just so happens it was over his house, though of course this was probably just a coincidence.) So even if people knew where he should have been based on the radio calls he made, he may well not have been there. Again, maybe I missing something here.

Ignoring the predictable rearrangement of that sentence for a less than humourous effect, I don't see what that has to do with a PREDICTABLE circuit pattern.

Nothing wrong with aerobatics, nothing wrong with exploring one's envelope, just do it with minimal (if any) risk to anybody else...please!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

I can’t believe some of the responses in this thread. There are rules and common sense which dictate how we behave in the circuit. If we all did a r&b that would be fun and may even work – but we don’t, so we should all do the same. Would Mr. Flash thank me for going round the circuit the wrong way or the wrong height?
Gerry

I have read this R&B stuff on many threads now and for what it's worth, which is probably the square root of jack !!!! it seems to me to be a fight bewteen the hawks and the doves.

People die flying a/c that's the way it is, they also die driving cars. So what. When you are going to go, that's it. The problem here is really about the penis extention aviators, " look at me I didn't make fast jets but hey, I can R&B" and the flat cap car coat aviators pootling about in their hired spam can going for a £50 cup of coffee for the third time this year. The sky is a big place and both types are a pain in the arse to the other. Personally I would ban anyone that does circiuts outside the airfield boundary and cannot maintain 150 kts to the threshold, but as some one french and famous said, I would fight to the death to maintain their right not to do so!.

We need to live together. If you are a spam can hirer at an airfield where people do r&B find out what it means, if you do r&b's remeber what it was like at your first away landing during your ppl training. Give a bit. Just because you are faster don't assume you are right. It really doesn't matter to anyone at all if you kill yourself, we don't give a !!!!, but it matters like hell if you kill someone else.

If you want to gang up against anything in the circuit, I suggest a campaign against bomber command circuits and microlights.

I know you will all agree.

DB6 the only reason you are doing R & B in a light aircraft is cos you are training bods who will be doing it for real in jets.

IMHO the run & break has no place at a civilian airfield full stop. It is simply a pose. A Yak 52 is fully capable of flying a standard circuit as is a Delphin given reasonable forward planning. If a person can't plan that far ahead then they shouldn't have the stick in their hands. I fly for fun, I enjoy a fast low pass (well slow pass in an Auster) but I don't enjoy unexpected manouvers when I'm getting ready to land.

Flash - Perhaps you should read again what I actually said and not make assumptions. The consensus is, I believe, that pilots may do what they wish within the law AND without endagering others. Do not try and emulate the military in a civilian circuit; as has been seen this can lead to tragedy and more sadly, tragedy for those on the receiving end of a quite dubious practice. I have no idea of your kind of flying or what you do to explore your "personal envelope" but what I do know is that if you "explore" in any way that presents an unnecessary or unknown danger to others then you have no business being in control of any aircraft. Perhaps we should start a thread listing those airfields that allow such actions as R&B and then the rest of us can avoid and see what happens when economics takes over.

Interesting thread.

It seems to me that the rules of the air require a pilot to:

So.... if there is any other traffic at all, a run-and-break is out.

I never have bought the various arguments used relating to the speed and handling characteristics of jets. Perhaps I have been doing visual joins all wrong in my Citation all this time :D

Run & Break Airfields
 

I feel very strongly about the issues raised on another thread. I feel very strongly that I do not want my safety or the safety of fellow aviators or the public in general put at risk for the perceived "fun" by a few selfish pilots. I feel very strongly that this is the kind of irresponsible behaviour that brings GA into disrepute. I think it would be interesting therefore to list any airfields that allow such circuit joins so that those of us wish may avoid them totally.

LowNSlow,

Agree with you 100% I cannot see any requirement for or virtue in a R&B in a civillian environment or in a light aircraft save for those being used for military training. The R&B is a military manouvre designed for use during conflict when a returning aircraft may be damaged or under threat and as such is practiced during peacetime. It is not, however the only manner in which a military jet can approach and land hence a standard circuit may be flown or an SRA or the like performed.

In a civilian environment what purpose is served by an R&B? If you want to throw an aircraft around you have plenty of sky away from the circuit in which to do it. If you want to pose and/or fulfill some sort of military wannabe fantasy then IMHO you shouldn't be in an aircraft in the first place.

I have flown run in and breaks in military jets and I'll admit there is a degree of fun in them, especially a formation break but then there are a lot of things that are fun in a jet that simply don't translate into a piston single no matter how macho its pilot thinks his mount is. I also wonder how many non-military pilots know what a proper R&B is - most light aircraft will run out of speed too quickly to perform the manouvre properly. The fairly constant curve allowing the speed to bleed off simply turns into a shortened circuit in most light aircraft.

If you send me a private message as im not going to start naming publically i can let you know of three where i am actually asked if i would'nt mind doing a run.

Perhaps you should stay in your car it's dangerous outside.

Flash
Nothing wrong with his wish to avoid it.

Of course there's no requirement, but it's fun and completely safe in appropriate circumstances.

As for old WorryHard ... "the R&B is a totally unnecessary risk to anyone in the circuit and as such should be banned absolutely." :rolleyes: Why not go further and get the CAA to make it illegal?
Don't come to Duxford - you wouldn't enjoy it very much.

The important factors are time and place. A busy circuit when other traffic may be endangered is obviously not an appropriate time or place, but a total ban is silly.

Flash - I know what you mean. ;)

LowNSlow, quite so - and we can only just manage them in a Firefly. We don't do them elsewhere and I agree with others who say they don't really have a place at most civilian airfields (not all). My post was really just to NB the fact that basically with anyone else in the circuit a run & break is not advisable, and certainly not if others aren't expecting it

Well, I guess you should avoid all FIS and A/G airfields - they cannot disallow them... :)