Stopping at Runway Holding Position Markings

[octave]

Re 55 knts if you click on the link

 

Frequently Asked Questions

 

it will take you to the source.

 

This also appears in the eductaional pg 17 Operations at Non Towered aerodromes - A guide to the new procedures effective from 24 November 2005

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/40pp.pdf

 

As I pointed out earler these are not Regs but educational material put out to suggest how the system may work in the real world . Wondering why these docs exist if CAR166 is the only requiremant whilst flying.

 

Also this is interesting, especially 12.4

 

Landing

 

Another thing that I was taught whilst learning is that the downwind end is worth checking not just for landing aircraft but for backtracking aircraft as well.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Another thing that I was taught whilst learning is that the downwind end is worth checking not just for landing aircraft but for backtracking aircraft as well.

Yes, been a good wake up call for me.

 

 

[turboplanner]

2. When you leave the circuit at the approved methods before the RPT arrives, you really aren't involved in the conflict we are discussing, you've just made a choice to go somewhere.

Octave, I'm sorry, I got carried along by your freeze frame example, and should have thought of the potentially dangerous byproduct of this practice. Someone else also told me his instructor taught him to vacate the circuit when an RPT was coming in, so this is not aimed at you, just the practice.

 

I've previously mentioned that when I flew at Moorabbin you didn't have any option but to join the circuit or stay in it even if a citation was coming in, and it became quite easy to do this with practice.

 

However I'm aware of some pilots moving out to the surrounding airfields because the pressure was too much for them, or they had a human factors problem and had difficulty keeping ahead of the aircraft with the additional workload and it may be that some pilots, for the same reasons, or who have difficulty placing the higher speed aircraft from it's inbound calls and judging the distances opt to vacate the circuit area when they hear the RPT inbound call (I'm not saying you do it for any of these reasons Octave).

 

This means the pilot is not keeping up his recency for this type of ciruit sharing, and he is never going to get better at it, his distance, vector, proximity judgements are never going to be honed, and he will definitely have trouble going to a city airport.

 

HOWEVER, if this pilot, who just likes flying and vacates the circuit every time an RPT comes in gets a real life situation, which Motzartmerv posted, where an RPT comes in broadcasting on the wring frequency, he's going to be in the circuit with the RPT, he's short on know how, short on recency and runs a chance of killing someone.

 

 

[octave]

I know you are not aiming this solely at me, but I will answer it from my own training and experience. The first point I would make is that where I fly the RPTs DO MAKE straight in approaches, it is not a question of avoidng being in a circuit with a RPT, the RPT very rarely becomes a part of the circuit. I have no control over this I can't make the RPT fly a circuit. Leaving the circuit is actually often not required but if I am on my way out after a few circuits maybe I will do 4 instead of 5.

 

I would still like to know CAR166s solution to the scenario I posed earlier, that is perhaps 4 GA or RA aircaft doing circuits on the short cross strip. The short cross strip is by definition the is the active runway, by what means does the main runway become the active runway? Does the RPT wait for the circuit to become empty?

 

I am not suggesting that us RA pilots should be subserviant to RPTs it is more a question of circuit spacing.

 

I would suggest that extending downwind is not outragous and is just part of normal spacing procedures. If I am in a circuit with a slower aircraft (yes yes I know that is unlikely in a Gazelle) and I am catching up with the slower aircraft in front and we run the risk of turning final at the same time, I was taught to extend downwnind , by what other means could we achieve good spacing?

 

I

 

've previously mentioned that when I flew at Moorabbin you didn't have any option but to join the circuit or stay in it even if a citation was coming in, and it became quite easy to do this with practice.

It is not a question of wanting avoid being in a busy circuit that happens all the time, last week 2 skydive planes plus visting cross countries plus 2 training aircraft. This is not unusual but add a missed approach from a SAAB because the short strip is the active does not seem to be in anyones interest or add to safety.

 

I am sure that I will not sway you at all but all I can say is this is what happens.

 

I can't make the RPT do a standard circuit, I see no reason to cause and RPT to maked a missed approach if by the means that would normally occur in the circuit ie extend downwind, the spacing can be improved.

 

Am I the only person on this forum that was taught to extend downwind to facilitate traffic spacing?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Simultanious cct ops are the norm at alot of strips in Australia. At camden its a normal day to have 06, 10 (grass) and 06 glider all active and FULL.. 3 or 4 cessna's, 1 or 2 libery's on the sealed 10, a couple of cotabria's and a few others on the grass 10, so your not only looking out for the guys in the cct with you, but the guys crossing your cct on downwind and short final.. The system works, so long as evryones on the ball.. Straight in's are not permitted at camden..

 

My problem isn't with the straight in... At moruya i can't see any need for concern should the RPT cct or straight in on the long runway while theres half a dozen planes useing the cross strip.. Like others have said, just keep the spacing, situational awareness of where the guys likely to be, and bobs ya uncle.

 

My concern is the straight in onto the downwind runway with the cct already occupied by other acft, radio eqp'd or not.

 

I suspect the term Operational requirements refeers to things like a short runway being unsuitable... just like at moruya.

 

I personally wouldn't leave the cct, just ensure spacing and keep the eyes peeled..

 

In the event the guy does need to go round, it would be much more helpfull to him (i think) if he could be reasonably sure of where evryone is which is the primary purpose of doing cct's in the first place.

 

 

[BigPete]

...you ain't. :big_grin:

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

(geez Merv, where did you come from. - this post is suposed to be after Destiny Flyer.)

 

 

[octave]

Gday Mozartmerv,

 

The leaving the circuit option is not really what I am talking about in terms of spacing, it is more a question of the order that I would do things, a normal flying session for instance would consist of a few circuits and mabye a fly down to Narooma, I can do the circuits before or after or maybe both, perhaps I may need to work on crosswind landings, should I do that now or later when the circuit is less crowded. Perhaps I have just taken off and the skydive plane reports 3 minutes to drop, ok no worries I will do some circuits when I get back.

 

As far as a downwind straight in goes I agree it is not the ideal but and I admit I am using my airstip as an example, the wind usally comes the sea, that is straight down the cross strip this means the main strip has a crosswind often gusting towards one end then the other, it is often not clear which is downwind it can change from minute to minute. On these days there is often not a definitive downwind direction.

 

cheers

 

 

[motzartmerv]

G'day,

 

Exactly, So a straight in is only gunna get it right half the time;)..

 

This is where we get back to the duty runway idea...

 

Hows it going down there..??... u nearly ready for a test??

 

 

[octave]

"Hows it going down there..??... u nearly ready for a test??"

Yep did test about 18 months ago plus passenger, got about 70 hours (although 30 of those were from the mid 1980s in a Thruster down your way actually learnt to fly the Thruster at the Oaks) just trying to get motivated to sit the xcountry

 

This is where we get back to the duty runway idea...

Yep be great to see if SAAB can pull up on 05 before the beach when the breeze is form the sea -lolcheers

 

Graham

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Oh ok.. sorry mate.. with all this talk of cct's i assumed you were still training...

 

Ive been teaching at Jaspers Brush for a while now aswell.. I often do nav's down to your part of the country.. Lovely spot, gorgeous strip right on the beach..great people...Love it..:thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

 

[octave]

yeah still like to do some circuits before a bit of sight seeing. I just love the coastal flying. I beleive Jaspers Brush is one of the places for cross country training from Moruya, might even see you there one day. (might even do straight in downwind just to annoy - lol )

 

cheers

 

 

[motzartmerv]

..thats ok, at jaspers they can come from anywhere.. we are all used to it...:thumb_up:

[ahlocks]

...yeah still like to do some circuits before a bit of sight seeing.

Absolutley agree! Circuits are one of life's simple pleasures....:thumb_up:

Lift off, a couple of turns and a landing all in about 6 minutes - Love it.

 

Then add a couple of go fasts doing straight ins and a couple of evil downwinders to get the mind ticking...Pure Bliss! :heart:

 

 

[turboplanner]

Captain, I've been to CASA and received this advice relating to Class G Non Towered Aerodromes where there are holding position markers.

 

When you face a solid line at an inactive runway there's no regulation which says you must stop.

 

However, (as also suggested by some people on this thread), it may be prudent to do so*, because someone could have determined it necessary to use that runway (under 166 (2) (f) etc) and can't use the radio to warn you because of work load. A good policy is never assume a Runway is inactive.

 

* (momentum could carry you out into the path of a landing aircraft).

 

I also have the answer to the legality of downwind landings - the answer is very simple, but I need some time to go back over our threads and make some explanations.

 

 

[Captain]

Captain, I've been to CASA and received this advice relating to Class G Non Towered Aerodromes where there are holding position markers.

Thanks for doing what you have done to clarify this Tubb.

 

I will never defile your forum name again.

 

Look fwd to your further advice on the other issues, and to the subsequent debate by others.

 

This is all good interesting stuff.

 

Regards

 

 

[turboplanner]

DOWNWIND LANDINGS

 

Because this is a major safety issue, quite a few RPT proximity incidents near airports feature in the ATSB reports, and because some of the posts indicated an attitude of ingrained rule flouting, I spent about 15 hours hitting the manuals and talking to experienced pilots, and visited CASA yesterday for some informed clarification.

 

DOWNWIND LANDINGS – THE LAW

 

The regulation applicable to this is Civil Aviation Regulation 166

 

Regulation 166 (2) states:

 

The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in

 

the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome must: (my emphasis)

 

then in 166 (2) (f) states:

 

"to the extent practicable, land and take off into wind"

 

This means, "if it can be done he must do it"

 

("Practicable" is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "that can be done", feasible.)

 

So what Motzartmerv posted and what I posted (as above) was correct – that’s the law

 

OTHER VERSIONS, LEGAL NESTING ETC

 

The advice from CASA is that the Act and the CAR’s are the defining Regulations, and any other documentation is interpretation.

 

So 166 (2) (f) is what we have to comply with at all times.

 

Before anyone springs to the keyboard using “interpretation” as a get out, we discussed the contrary points you made, so please read on.

 

Version 1 – AIP ENR quoted by Youngmic

 

“64.3 The runway to be used for landing must be:

 

a. the most into wind runway; or

 

b. when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take-off traffic using the most into wind runway.”

 

As mentioned above, the AIP ENR is over ridden by the CAR so the word “operational” is subservient to “practicable” in the CAR.

 

The “operational” reason might be that it is not practicable for the aircraft to land into the wind because of a hill in the climb out area, but saving money or liking to do it is not an operational reason which complies with the CAR.

 

Version 2 – CASA Visual Flight Guide Version 2, 2007, Section 3, Non Controlled Aerodromes

 

“The runway to be used for landing must be:

 

• the most into-wind runway; or

 

• when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction

 

provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing

 

or takeoff traffic using the most into-wind runway; and”

 

Same wording, same result

 

VERSION 3 - RAA Ground school – Theory of Flight

 

This is overridden by the CAR, and really it is just warning in training material that you can expect some downwind traffic (in line with the CAR). It’s not a regulation saying it’s legal to do downwind landings.

 

VERSION 4 – 55Kt aircraft in conflict with CAR 166

 

I didn’t find any conflict in the material and didn’t raise it.

 

I then went on to pose some specific examples:

 

Example 1 – “Some of us like to do downwind landings”

 

Can’t do this if it is practicable to use the most into wind runway

 

Example 2 - “Ag pilot making multiple pick ups – landing on the most direct strip saves time,

 

and with many landings during the day, saves a lot of money.

 

CASA checked with one of their Ag experts because there are Ag exemptions, but came back later with the same answer as example 1.

 

Example 3 - Melbourne RPT’s land on 05 and depart on 23, and Sydney RPT’s land on 23 and Depart on 05, regardless of wind.

 

CASA are of the belief that almost all RPT landings would comply with the conventional pattern, i.e. downwind/base/final or straight-in into wind.

 

Regular downwind landings could be in line with 166(2)(f) due to noise abatement requirements, terrain etc. which the private pilots are not aware of, but the requirements of 166(2)(f) still apply to RPT.

 

Given that a carrier recently made this statement indicating recognition of an increased level of danger, it’s quite possible there are legitimate reasons for this local pattern:

 

“Where reference is currently made to “frequencies”, we will evaluate the potential benefit of specifically mentioning CTAF distinctly from other frequencies; and the inherant safety risk's involved with straight in approaches contrary to circuit direction;”

 

However, if there are not, and if the reason is to save time, then all the people participating in this activity are going to have to extricate themselves as best they can.

 

IMPLICATIONS RELATING TO CAR 166

 

If CASA have evidence of an infringement there’s nothing to stop them prosecuting the pilot(s).

 

A Regulation 166 infringement is 25 Penalty Points which vary from State to State but at $105.00 per penalty point would amount to $2,625.00.

 

CASA don’t have hordes of inspectors roaming the airfields, so as someone said the chances of that are somewhat remote.

 

However, when there is an accident it’s a different matter because the accident is investigated against the law applying, and CASA suggested that if it was found that a pilot had contravened CAR 166 his insurance company may not pay out, which is something else to think about.

 

Then there is negligence and the public liability claims where there’s somewhat of a reversal of role.

 

Under Prescriptive Legislation as in infringing CAR 166, you are fined for doing something you shouldn’t have done (and usually have to be caught at it).

 

Under Self Regulation you will be sued and prosecuted for not doing something you should have done to discharge your Duty of Care (the evidence will usually be lying on the ground).

 

THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE

 

This relates to Civil Action for damages

 

The Precedent is a House of Lords case - DONOGHUE v STEVENSON (1932) AC 562

 

A ginger beer manufacturer sold a bottle of ginger beer in an opaque bottle to a retailer.

 

The retailer then resold it to a customer who purchased the bottle for a friend to drink.

 

Unfortunately for the friend, the bottle contained not only ginger beer by also a badly decomposed snail.

 

The snail had found it’s way into the bottle at the factory.

 

The woman who drank the contents became ill and sued the manufacturer for negligence.

 

The court held that the manufacturer owed her a duty of care to ensure that the bottle did not contain matters capable of causing harm. The defendant had acted negligently and was obliged to compensate the plaintiff.

 

The important lesson from this precedent is it was just an accident – the manufacturer in no way intended to harm the victim, all he wanted to do was make ginger beer.

 

So if all you wanted to do was fly, and you just decided to come in downwind, this one could catch you nicely for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.

 

CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE

 

A simple (not necessarily the full legal) definition of this is:

 

“A person of reasonable intelligence knows that what he/she is doing is wrong”

 

This might apply to someone who had read this thread, decided to land downwind anyway, and killed someone. This would be prosecuted under the Crimes Act as Manslaughter and the sentences have been around 6 1/2 years.

 

Coping with the Negligence laws is not difficult if you study the laws applying to your activity and apply a go/no go principle, but the old days of “let them catch me at it if they can” are gone

 

Note: the information in this post is not formal legal advice – for this see a lawyer.

 

THREAD COMMENTS

 

In the interest of younger/newer pilots not picking up lifetime attitudes which could harm them or misunderstanding:

 

“Slavish dependence on the rules tends to result in accidents that didn't have to happen.”

 

This statement would apply in a case where you saw a converging aircraft, but because you had right of way, you decide to enforce it, teach someone a lesson etc. and everyone gets killed.

 

However it’s not a safe policy to adopt if it means regularly doing your own thing instead of keeping up to date with upgrades, and generally following safety rules. There are public liability implications here.

 

In the case of CAR 166 the word “practicable” eliminates any pressure to land an aircraft beyond it’s specification envelope, airfield specification (slope, obstacles) and so on, so it already has a safety factor built in.

 

“The term "to the extent practicable" is legaleese at it's best, and is a highly flexable statement, and much open to interpretation.”

 

That can sometimes be the case, but not here. CAR 166 is very precise, spelling out that you must comply unless.... and spelling out what the unless is, and even that is very precise. It means that if an accident occurs, the Pilot in Command who landed downwind has to be able to prove that it was not possible for him to land on the upwind runway(s). I believe the example given fitted the practicable definition, so all was well there.

 

How do you remain current at downwind landings/takeoffs ??....you do one now and then, OK.....it's not a big deal, and something every "safe" pilot should have in his operational bag of tricks

 

Things have changed with the public liability laws and I’m not so certain of this one. If there was an accident and you said you’d been practising it could be argued that that implied you may be below the safe standard and therefore the practice should be under the control of a Qualified Instructor, and even international pilots are subjected to check flights with an experienced check pilot, so what is described here may not qualify as a training defence. These days we have to do a lot of things differently.

 

EXAMPLES

 

Some people have given examples not relevant to downwind landings, others have given a scenario which could have a different result with just a small change (e.g. if the example of Port Hedland was one of many other Australia airports with suitable cross strips. Others have hung their hats on the fact that they can see and hear the others in the circuit.

 

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of possible dangerous combinations, so to understand the logic of Regulation 166 (some people were just anti regulations) it’s better just to look at the bigger picture.

 

In the circuit area:

 

You are more likely to have an accident with someone you didn’t see and didn’t hear

 

You are less likely to have an accident when all the aircraft in the circuit are where you expect them to be (Note that some could be at 1500 feet, some at 1000 feet, some at 500 feet and on wide or tight patterns) rather than coming from an unexpected direction.

 

You are more likely to have an accident when an aircraft is coming towards you on a converging course.

 

If you have to scan 360 degrees rather than 180 degrees, the quality of your scan is more than 50% lower.

 

Under all of these circumstances it’s safer to keep the number of downwind landings to an absolute minimum.

 

SUMMARY

 

Because there can be legitimate downwind landings and because some people will continue to break this law, the statements about the need to scan all round, and defensive flying are very good advice.

 

 

[GraemeK]

Great work TP! Particularly the bit about the Act and CARs having priority, people sometimes forget that. There's a good chart in the VFR Flight Guide (page 2) which shows the hierarchy.

 

 

[Thx1137]

Great post turboplanner. While your post was basically how I thought of it I was unsure how, um, definite the word 'practicable' was. The problem with being new to something is that we will often defer to the more experienced. Sometimes that is wise, sometimes it isn't, it is hard for newbies to know which until it is maybe too late. That makes this thread and your post invaluable in my eyes. :-)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Great Job Turbo.. I'm glad you finally got to the bottom of it.. Have printed the post and will be useing it to further educate future students on the matter..

 

Exellent stuff:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Turbo,

 

very comprehensive post. Can you please confirm for the readers whether you are a lawyer or not. It's important for the interpretation of your post.

 

Can I start by saying that I am NOT advocating downwind landings, indeed I agree to a fair degree with your post. However:

 

1. The premise of your post is the dictionary definition of the word "practicable" which you then leverage to create the premise that by and large there is no excuse. However it would be interesting to see whether there is case law with respect to this word. If, as you assert is possible, a person or body corporate is sued as a result of an accident then I am sure there will be substantial argument in court about the precise meaning. Indeed that leads to my next point;
    
    
   
2. Whilst CASA may assert that most RPT circuits are multi-leg circuits I'm afraid that the evidence of this thread and indeed a range of other sources of information suggest that CASA are at best engaging in wishful thinking and at worst deluded. That then brings along the distinct possibility that someone intent on defending an action would lead evidence on the matter of "operational" and no doubt would rely on operational practise.
    
    
   

 

 

So whilst a prudent aviator would take the regs at face value and simply not land downwind, I'm afraid that I think it is inevitably more complex in practise than you suggest. As an example I suggest you visit the Berrima District Aero Club site where pilots are encouraged to land downwind in certain circumstances at Mittagong. The aero club are the operators. What then? Does that meet the interpretation of "operationally practicable" and indeed that raises a further point. The relevant definition is not the word "practicable" rather it is the phrase "operationally practicable" I think. And that offers far more scope for the barristers!!

 

BTW does the legislation offer interpretation of the phrase?

 

I suspect this is really a barristers' picnic, though as you correctly point out if you don't do it you won't end up in court!!

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

 

[turboplanner]

Pelorus

 

1. I'm not a lawyer as I said in the post, and I previously

 

recommended that people should speak to a lawyer

 

for legal advice. What I presented is not legal advice.

 

2. I didn't say people and organizations are not breaching this

 

Regulation; it's clear that a lot are. Weight of numbers

 

doesn't count when there's an accident, and is a pitiful

 

argument against adhering to a law.

 

3. There is no mention of "operationally practicable" in the

 

regulation - they are your words.

 

4. This is not a new regulation, dating at least as far back as

 

1988 and I don't know if there's any case law for the Tort.

 

However, I wouldn't rely on that - don't forget you may also

 

have to get past the Magistrate, and he's not likely to hang around debating such a precise regulation as this.

 

Attached is a news clipping on a recent case relating to welding, and I would have thought there was more scope for debate in the definition of welding, but you can see the result of the case.

 

I've previously mentioned that it takes about 7 years for a public liability case to roll through and this one's following that trend.

 

Another thing to bear in mind if anyone decides to tough it out by fighting over a definition is that in most cases your lawyer will not be running your case, your Insurer's lawyer will. I can recall one case where our own lawyer intended fighting a case based on the plaintiff breaching club rules, but the Insurer's lawyer turned up at our Administrator's house with a Court Order to hand over all files, and settled out of court.

 

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Turbo,

 

to your points by number:

 

1. I think what you said in the post was that we should seek legal advice, rather than that you are not a lawyer, it was ambiguous.
    
    
   
2. You quoted CASA as saying most RPTs do multi leg circuits. I wasn't advocating that it was therefore OK - pitiful isn't a useful approach on your part.
    
    
   
3. My error.
    
    
   
4. I wasn't talking about case law for this reg, rather the much broader issue of case law for the word "practicable" - we are after all a common law country. Repeatedly we see the regulators asserting an interpretation for legislation which subsequently is not upheld by the courts. I am suggesting that rather than your definition, or CASA's definition the courts will form their own view. My recent experience is that courts tend to take a practical view rather than a black letter view and are indeed intolerant of the kind of quibbling that this thread has tended to from time to time.
    
    
   

 

 

Whether or not you or your insurers choose to fight is another matter entirely.

 

To be clear, I'm not a lawyer but spend my days instructing lawyers and settling matters.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

Pelorus1. I'm not a lawyer as I said in the post, and I previously

recommended that people should speak to a lawyer

 

for legal advice. What I presented is not legal advice.

 

2. I didn't say people and organizations are not breaching this

 

Regulation; it's clear that a lot are. Weight of numbers

 

doesn't count when there's an accident, and is a pitiful

 

argument against adhering to a law.

 

3. There is no mention of "operationally practicable" in the

 

regulation - they are your words.

 

4. This is not a new regulation, dating at least as far back as

 

1988 and I don't know if there's any case law for the Tort.

 

However, I wouldn't rely on that - don't forget you may also

 

have to get past the Magistrate, and he's not likely to hang around debating such a precise regulation as this.

 

Attached is a news clipping on a recent case relating to welding, and I would have thought there was more scope for debate in the definition of welding, but you can see the result of the case.

 

I've previously mentioned that it takes about 7 years for a public liability case to roll through and this one's following that trend.

 

Another thing to bear in mind if anyone decides to tough it out by fighting over a definition is that in most cases your lawyer will not be running your case, your Insurer's lawyer will. I can recall one case where our own lawyer intended fighting a case based on the plaintiff breaching club rules, but the Insurer's lawyer turned up at our Administrator's house with a Court Order to hand over all files, and settled out of court.

[turboplanner]

Pelorus, you're quite right, I said I wasn't a lawyer in another post somewhere, however I would really like you to look more at the moral side of this - this is a regulation to improve safety, one we should be trying to encourage rather than pick to pieces.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Pelorus, you're quite right, I said I wasn't a lawyer in another post somewhere, however I would really like you to look more at the moral side of this - this is a regulation to improve safety, one we should be trying to encourage rather than pick to pieces.

Read my post of 1834 today:

 

Can I start by saying that I am NOT advocating downwind landings, indeed I agree to a fair degree with your post.

What I have objected to all along in this thread is the illusion that this is a black and white matter. It is not.Of course it is clear what the "right" thing is and indeed if you read the first reply to this thread - mine - you will see adherence to what is sensible airmanship and the right thing rather than slavish and nit picking adherence to the regulations. Which was by the way substantially the same answer as you subsequently got from CASA on that matter.

 

I value your work on the regs however let's be clear that the regs alone won't stop us dying. Sound knowledge of the regs, together with a high level of defensive airmanship is much more likely to keep us alive.

 

I fear that this thread has tended towards positing a view that will give pilots a false sense of security through slavish adherence to the "right" of the regs.

 

I've tried to broaden the view to suggest that it's the regs and more.

 

If it were otherwise then we would simply program a FMS with, inter alia, the regs and then sit back as it made all the right decisions. That's not sensible of course.

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest brentc]

The fact remains that at some airfields a downwind landing is an operational requirement for some aircraft in certain conditions, eg Apollo Bay and Lakes Entrance due to the runway gradient. That fits in here - when operational reasons justify

 

So if you can claim something like that a prosecution would be almost impossible to enforce.