Multiple Runways in use at a NonCert/Non Towered Aerodrome.... Question...

[Guest davidh10]

05-23 is not maintained i.e. it is not a runway. The bit between the two sealed runways is used as a taxiway so that would do you in a strong wind. The rest of it looks uninviting -...

From the context, Kaz was referring to 05/23 at YYWG which is not identified on the DAP except to label it "Ultralight Operations". It isn't a REG runway, apparently due to a tree in the paddock just left of the runway line on RWY 23. I don't think the farmer wants to cut it down, and while it isn't really an issue, you do cop some mechanical turbulence from it on mid final for RWY 05 with the right wind direction.

By the way. Nice photo of the glider with the smoke trails :-)

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...the only mandatory radio call in CTAFs how is any call you need to make to avoid a conflict... .

I know this has been debated before and there is a lot of confusion over what is required, although personally I don't see why.

What you have said is what the regulation states, however the CAAP 166-1, which is CASA's guidance on how to comply with the regulation, lists calls that are "expected" to be made at non-towered aerodromes:-

 

• Intention to take-off, before or during taxiing.
   
   
  
• Intention to enter runway.
   
   
  
• 10nm (or earlier, commensurate with a/c performance) inbound.
   
   
  
• Intention to join the circuit.
   
   
  
• 3nm final if conducting a straight-in approach
   
   
  
• Intention to join Base.
   
   
  
• Intention to fly through the vicinity (within 10nm) but not land at an aerodrome.
   
   
  

 

 

Makes good reading, Redozbris.

 

 

[Mazda]

David I know very well what the intention of the regulation is. It is in line with the US system which is airmanship based.

 

There is absolutely no need for someone on their own farm strip in the middle of nowhere to make all those calls, and they don't - which is why it can't be mandated because it is unenforceable. If it is really busy it also may not be possible to make the calls because someone else might be making a more important call.

 

The rule is based on airmanship. If making a call does not add to the picture of others at the field, or will stop someone making an important call, don't make it. If making the call adds to the situational awareness of those there, and isn't blocking the frequency for no reason, make the call. And always, always, make a call if you believe it will resolve a conflict.

 

 

[djpacro]

From the context, Kaz was referring to 05/23 at YYWG ...... By the way. Nice photo of the glider with the smoke trails :-)

Ok, if kaz isn't coming to see me then I won't walk around out on the airfield - I'm easily confused. Licensed airfields have requirements for runways etc etc and somewhere I'm pretty sure there's a rule about only landing on those runways at such an airport (GA anyway, I dunno about RAA).Some years ago I returned to Moorabbin where there was a very strong westerly and I didn't like the xwind after a couple of attempts so announced that I was returning to Berwick. I was surprised to get an invitation to use R27 - the grass beside the northern boundary.

 

 

[Foto_Flyer]

It must also be noted that rwy 24 at YCAB is not supposed to be used for take off's. However, unlike some heavier GA types, most of us flying RA aircraft can be at 500 ft before the end of the rwy, little lone the built up area and the hospital on the other side of the highway (the reason why ERSA says, "no takeoffs rwy 24 except in emergencies or inclement weather") We can also argue that inclement weather includes cross winds that are beyond our or our aircraft's ability. Hence, when the "westerlies" are blowing at YCAB, you're going to have people using both 30 and 24, depending on what they are flying.

 

Just part of the fun at Caboolture and good as a training environment, it gets you thinking and looking more than at other places and sharpens your skills. If you can fly there, you can fly anywhere!

 

 

[turboplanner]

What I posted earlier should have had most people asking at least a few questions.

 

CASA have reformed the regulation to suit the Public liability era

 

Under the old prescriptive regulations you were off the hook in a lawsuit if you were complying with the regulation and a collision occurred, but in some cases the regulation itself could have been seen as the cause so CASA could become a defendant.

 

Under the prescriptive regulations, you might incur a $2500.00 fine if they caught you, but they couldn't be everywhere in Australia every day.

 

So situations like use of mulitple intersecting runways could grow until people thought it was normal and it became part of the culture.

 

Now it is much cleaner, the owner of the land, the manager of the airfield, the CFI, the instructors the owners of the aircraft and the pilots, in fact everyone who has been involved in putting an aircraft in the air over the aircraft has a Duty of Care to ensure total safety.

 

We live by the Donoghue vs Stevenson precedent, so if we do something and someone is hurt, even though we didn't intend it, we failed in our duty of care.

 

CASA have been clever, restating the "Take of and Land into wind" clause, but throwing the onus on to us with "pilot believes it is safe to do so"

 

So if you make a judgement to take off or land in any direction other than into wind, you have the duty of care.

 

The powerful byproduct of public liability law is that if the result is damaged aircraft, injuries or a body lying on the ground you are stuffed because you failed in your duty of care.

 

So if you hit a charter aircraft and 12 people were killed you would be up for around $24 million

 

If, say you decided to organise or take part in gliding activities on an intersecting runway other that the into wind runway, you would have the liability for ALL accidents with aircraft on the into wind runway whether up in the circuit, landing, or taking off.

 

Under these regulations, after the first incident, which hopefully is a minor damage one, these activities usually cease overnight.

 

The same applies to the radio changes, I would think anyone who doesn't give turn calls is NUTS! . In the beginning new public liability announcements seem to give long desired freedoms, but you are soon brought down to earth by the need to ensure duty of care, and how can you do that in a high wing aircraft and be sure a low wing hasn't just joined your circuit with you in his blind spot.

 

Many people become dismissive, because the applicable Department no longer has to supervise by sending out inspectors, issuing fines etc., and while nothing happens nothing happens; it's almost like there are no regulations - freedom!

 

Then the first accident occurs, and suddenly someone's up for a couple of hundred thousand dollars in legal fees etc.

 

It takes a bit to get your head around the duty of care principle at first, take the case of the Shire of Wentworth.

 

Wentworth is a small town near Mildura, with a lot of country roads, and one particular night a couple had attended a barbeque where both drank solidly through the night hours until the sun started to rise, when they decided to go into Mildura for breakfast.

 

Although the guy was paralytic they both got into their 4x4 which had bald tyres, and was clearly unroadworthy and drove to town.

 

After breakfast they decided to go back to the party, but the guy decided he was too paralytic so the girl drove.

 

There was some light fog and she missed a turn, rolled the 4x4 and the guy's back was broken.

 

They sued the Shire for failing to provide a curve warning and won the case.

 

The Shire had spent three quarters of a million dollars in legal fees trying to defend the case to no avail.

 

They'd missed signposting this one turn. A person of reasonable intelligence driving along that road in the fog and seeing curve warning signs on all the sharp corners has a reasonable expectation that that will continue.

 

The one I found hardest to understand was the case where a guy dived into the Murray River, hit a snag and became a quadriplegic then sued the Shire of Cobram.

 

"The Murray has been there for tens of thousands of years" I thought "How could someone hold the town responsible for THAT"

 

The site had been a popular swimming hole for years, but a sunken tree had drifted into it. The Shire's mistake was to put up some infrastructure, perhaps a parking lot and bins, and advertise the site for tourists. Once they did that they had a duty of care to keep the swimming hole clear of snags.

 

The costs are roughly $50,000 when someone loses a limb, $2 million for a death and up to $7 million for a quadruplegic, then the legal costs are on top of that, so you need deep pockets if you put yourself in a position where you are required to exercise duty of care.

 

There is public liability, which usually costs around $1500.00 per year and I would presume everyone has that. The next thing is to see what it covers - are you covered for flying?

 

Now let's say you are one of the people who decides "nothing is going to happen to me, with my skills" and you push ahead with a landing on a conflicting runway, knowing someone is about to take off on the into wind runway.

 

The resulting accident becomes Culpable Negligence and you face a manslaughter charge. Recent penalties have averages 6 1/2 years in prison.

 

So while public liability laws initially look very relaxing, they quickly clean up an industry with almost no cost to the government.

 

How does this effect us? Well I certainly will be more inclined to frequent towered aerodromes and small country strips and avoid regional airfields where there could be more than two aircraft in the circuit.

 

Note: None of this is legal advice, you do your own research, and the detail facts of the above cases were from memory and may have inaccuracies. If this come as a surprise to you I would VERY strongly recommend you spend a couple of hundred dollars for a detailed briefing with a Public Liability Lawyer.

 

 

[Mazda]

CAR 166 is more harmonised with the FAA rules, and the USA is a very litigious society. If there were legal problems in not making particular calls, the US would have changed them long ago. Plus the old rules were not enforceable, so what is the point in having them? People flying from their own sheep station were joining base or on a shorter straight in approach, and not making all the calls, do they all need to be prosecuted? Or is it better to make the rules more practical?

 

Call me NUTS 'cause I make calls as required. I sure don't make 'turning' calls on every leg of every circuit. Imagine my 'turning downwind' call prevented a transmission by others which might have prevented a collision? In my view, the duty of care is to remain situationally aware enough to make calls as required, rather than doing them parrot fashion.

 

 

[Guernsey]

A consideration for gliders at some airfields is that they go on long flights and by the time they get back home the battery is low so transmissions are weak at best.

Perhaps they should fit a wind generator......sorry....what a terrible suggestion to pure glider pilots.

Alan Marriette.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mazda, the good thing about Australia's legislation is authorities, and us, don't have to worry about the attitude people take, the events take care of themselves.