octave

AUF 1980-1990 and RAAus 2007 - present

I am yet to decide, but I think the "being on the wrong frequency" argument is frankly lame. In what other area of aviation would we say some people make mistakes so lets forget it. When I am inbound to my local aerodrome how do I see our local skydive aircraft at 13000 feet and 1 minute from drop. If we are going to be scientific in our analysis we can't just compare the number CTAFR accidents with CTAF without factoring in different traffic densities , also it is hard to quantify the number of accidents avoided. I flew in the late 80s (thruster without radio) and now in CTAFR (with radio of course). I think this question is a little vague, if you were to say radio should not be mandatory anywhere (ie no CTAFR) I would strongly disagree but I would have some sympathy with the notion that there are many areas where it may not be required. The "pilots will rely on the radio and not keep a good look out" is also in my view lame, perhaps a pilots will fail to maintain thier airspeed because after all they have a stall warning device. Having said that I am very sympathetic to the keeping our flying costs down but please do not try to convince me with the "radios make people incapable of looking out" or that "an aircraft may be on the wrong frequency" this was stressed to me whilst I was training both in a theoretical sense on one occaison in a practical sense.

If RA theory does not cut it (and I am yet to make up my mind) how does this manifest itself in practice?

During my training my instructor encouraged me to leave the circuit, this being essential in order to practise things like stalls, turns circuit departures and entries etc. During my training we covered a lot of the surrounding 25nm. Although I have got 70 hours up now I have not done (for various reasons ie work, money, time) my xcountry yet (although I have done much of the required theory). If I had stayed in the circuit for 70 hours I probably would have quit by now I really can't see that what Brett is proposing is so outragous as long as it is within the regs and the rental agreement and is carried out in a safe manner and with due regard to the weather.

Went solo in a Thruster in 1988 did about 40 hours then gave it away. Started again 2 years ago in a Gazelle and now have another 37 hours. I have got my PAX but I am having a little trouble getting motivated to study for x country,...... one of these days!

T Turbo I find this assertion offensive. I think you are deliberately misinterperating what I have said re interacting with RPT. You are suggesting that I am avoiding getting experience in the circuit with RPTs, I suggest you re read what I have said. The first point is the RPT is SELDOM INTHE CIRCUIT, how can I interact with it? All I have said is that adjusting spacing so as to facilitate another aircraft on final is no big deal, if I had to cause a RPT to go around I WOULD but I would not do this just to assert my rights. Today I left the circuit because the skydivers were 3 minutes to drop, no worries did some circuits when I got back.Dids you ask your CASA contact about extending downwind? You dont know anything about my experience. I have sharred the airspace with everything from a Cessna Citation to Southcare Heli etc. I find your assertions offensive to me and the instructors that taught me. I have just returned from flying today. The wind started out about 3 knots from the south east. 3 other aircraft were setting out at the same time, the first 2 selected 05 meaning around about a 2 knot xwind I was airfcraft number 3, this was clearly not the most into the wind runway, I am supposing you think I should not have followed them but rather taxied 2/3 of the way down 05 then bactrack on 18 for 1500 metres effectively stopping all traffic for 5 or 6 minutes. Instead I took 05 to be the duty runway even though it had a 2 knot crosswind. After I returned from my flight I had a chat to a pilot that had just arrived from Canberra (and used 05) I asked him if he had any problem with selecting 05 when 18 was indicated (by the windsock). His veiw was that when approaching the circuit area his duty was to determine the wind direction AND THE DUTY RUNWAY - after all the we all agree that there are a whole list of reasons that the into the wind runway may not be being used, slope has been disscused but we will chosoe the runway perhaps early in the morning to avoid the rising sun or even to avoid the local houses early on a sunday morning (there is a local group that would like the airport closed).I would suggest that "operational reasons" are not listed in the regs for a reason. The law is a blunt instrument and that is why CASA puts out clarifying educational material such as "Operations at Non towered aerodromes" as well as RAAUs material. What is your opinion on these documents, I know that they do not over ride regs, but why do they exist? Nothing I have said is at odds with these documents but you still make assertions about the safety of my flying. Re downwind, we all agree that there is a whole host of reasons that can over ride the wind direction, I am not in the practice of landing or taking off downwind, you will find nothing im previous posts to suggest this., what I did say was that some aircraft will for legitimate or illegitimate reasons land downwind, I was taught that it is foolish to assume an aircraft will only come from the upwind end. Well I think I have had enough of this debate, there have been those on both sides that have strayed into the area of being offensive and I know turbo you have been on the recieving end of some of this but I have always tried to put my veiw in a polite way and not attack anyones skills or integraty. If you feel so strongly about this it would be a simple matter to gather evidence of dangerous practices and present it to CASA.l

Great post Tony, this is what recreational flying is about, in my opinion. For me debates about the exact legal meaning of the word "practicable" or the idea the one should consult legal practioner are a real flying passion killer. I am looking forward to flying tomorrow knowing that after I should be able to say that "Nothing Happened & Lots Happened" Cheers

I am wondering how this impacts on crosswind landings. If one strip is the most into the wind strip, can one practice xwind landings on the other runway ie the not "most into the wind strip" The above quote doesn't mention downwind only that one should land and takeoff on the most into the wind runway. If we take the above quote literaly it would seem to prohbit practicing xwind landings as well as downwind, or would this come under the loop hole of "operational reasons"

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

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

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

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 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?

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.

Gday Turbo, I am not sure who your advice re litigation is directed to. I can see that a RPT pilot or any other pilot on a downwind probably has an increased exposure to litigation if they cause an accident. If I leave the circuit when an RPT is on it's way in, I surely have the same rights an responsabilies and must take the same precautions that I always must take when ever departing. If I leave the circuit incorrectly and hit someone then I may be exposed to litigation. Once I am aware that an RPT is inbound contrary to the circuit direction (as it must if we are using the short strip), I am wondering what your suggested course of action would be? Do we just keep the circuit going whilst SAAB tries to find a slot? or do we adjust our circuit pattern to allow the SAAB to get down and out of the traffic equation? Also remember the rules for >55knts. I am wondering how this fits in with CAR166 from Frequently Asked Questions "Question: Why do ultralights with a maximum speed of 55KTS have to give way to all other aircraft? Answer: The new procedures for operations at non-towered aerodromes do not change the current regulations with regard to Rules of the Air and Right of Way. The previous priorities that ultralights and all other aircraft had when in the circuit, remain unchanged and aircraft on straight in approaches are still required to give way to aircraft already established in the circuit. Ultralights with a maximum speed of 55KTS are those ultralights that are not capable of more than 55KTS calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight. Ultralights in the <55KTS circuit speed category are generally small and difficult to see. However, they are highly manoeuvrable and as such in the best position to prevent a conflict arising in the circuit, by giving way. It does not mean that an ultralight with <55KTS circuit speed has any less right to use the airspace or the runway than any other aircraft, and it does not mean that these aircraft have a lower priority for runway use at an aerodrome." So here we have CAR166 and contrary advice in eductaional material aimed at pilots. Could it be that the authorities know that flying only by referance to CARs would be unworkable. I have never "given way" to an RPT or any other aircraft in a way that is illegal or upredictable. It is not me who is making the approach contrary to the circuit, I am simply dealing with the situation in the most efficient, safe and legal way I can. The day I feel it necessary to consult a Public liability law specialist in order to fly will be the day I hang up my headphones for the last time.

Gday Turbo, I wasn't suggesting that anyone thought a straight in was illegal rather, I was saying that whether we think it is a good idea or not we have to deal with it as it is. The other point I was trying to make is that we all agree that runway slope can overide wind direction, therefore the windsock is not the whole story. cheers

The conversation seems to be narrowing in on the desirability or not of the straight in approach whether downwind or not , remember you may be expecting an aircraft to approach from upwind but, do you know the slope of the runway?, this must have the same importance as the wind direction. Perhaps the wind direction is ill defined as is often the case at my strip the main runway (only runway available to larger aircraft) usually has a crosswind fluctuating between favoring one end or the other but not a definitive predictor of circuit direction. Looking both ways before entering a runway in my opinion is like calling "CLEAR PROP" before starting up, I may know there is no one around but I still do it anyway. The straight in approach seems to be the main area of contention here. The fact is it is legal in Australia and many other countries (all though not all). We may not like it but that is how it is, one could put ones energy into into lobbying for change but in the mean time we must cope with the situation as it is not as we would like it to be. I have not addressed scenarios put forward because I think generally they have been addressed or they are framed too loosely to answer without much back and forth messaging, but would be happy to if called upon. An RPT missing an approach and going around could occur with a standard overfly and circuit entry also, but in the most recent scenario you can see that something has to give, it is no ones interest for a RPT making one or more missed approaches. I can understand the idea that 4 aircraft in a circuit can't just all leave the circuit at the same time but at busy times even without an incoming RPT circuit exit can be and is achieved safely. Now my next comments refer to ctaf r . Some people on this board may have misunderstood my comments re giving way or managing traffic. In the latest scenario posted I would be thinking about whether to do my circuits now in a busy traffic pattern or later when the traffic has reduced. Often I will hear the 10 straight in call and make my decision as to whether to head off down the coast or not, this is not really giving way but more leaving a crowded traffic area. I think people have the idea that I am suggesting that when an RPT is coming in that the rest of us scatter like flies swatted away from a picnic table, this is not the case. We also deal with a very busy skydive school, this does involve co operation, and flexibility. This does not mean that the skydive pilots are pushy, quite the opposite. It doesn't really mean making the situation unpredictable btu rather workable. One of my concerns is the angry pilot whether they fly RA GA or RPT, I am sure we have all experienced them, the ones that need to prove that they wont be pushed around . If I can safely alter my circuit within the natural variability of circuit size in order and get a SAAB on the ground and out of our hair, then I don't really see the problem. I will of course discuss this our CFI as should everyone who has any doubts about there procedures Fly safe and don't fly angry. cheers

Here is the source of the quote I used earlier -note these are not regs. It is worth reading the whole page as it does mention some of the points we have covered ie RPT ops and ag ops Landing Burlc I dont think anyone is talking about slavishly giving way to every RPT. Let me turn the situation around. 4 RA or GA on the cross strip, wind is straght down the cross strip, by definition the cross strip becomes the duty runway. REX reports inbound,straight in approach for the main strip (by definition is not the duty strip) REX reaches 1 nm from strip. Legally REX must give way to established circuit traffic. In theory if the 4 RA anf GA take the attitude that they have the right of way (which legally they do) and if they are not prepared to give an inch we have a situation that is in no ones interests. I would suggest that if one were to pickup the road rules and regs, read and memorize it and then drive using only these rules and regs down to the letter , would it work in the real world. cheers

Re "People who have been handing off their right of way to other traffic such as RPT might want to take a close look at this." Planning ones arrival time at the circuit cleary is not "handing off right of way" I take off and start a random number of circuits, I hear that REX is inbound or the skydive plane is reaching th top of its climb in order to use my flying time efficiently I leave the circuit in the approved manner deciding I will do a couple of circuits on my return. Clearly not "handing off right of way" I might be doing circuits on the cross strip, I hear REX is on a straight in approach, I report that I am doing circuits on the cross strip. When rex is 1nm out. I realize that we that if we both proceed we could have an unhappy meeting at the intersection, so I extend my downwind leg to provide adequate spacing. If you are saying that extending the downwind leg in order to provide better spacing is "handing off my right of way" I can't for the life of me see why the publication "Operations at Non Towerered Aerodromes" actually uses this method as an example. Check page 20 http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...m/pdf/40pp.pdf I say again I am not advocating unsual or unpredictable actions. I dont think anyone has suggested "assisting traffic flow" by unpredictable or dangerous methods. In another of my postings I talked about the need to actually turn the the plane (both ways) just before the intersection instead of stopping at the intersection and looking upwind but only seeing the undersurface of the wing (in a high wing plane). Also looking downwind. Let me just elaborate on why I think this is a good idea. 1) Wind may suggest a direction in which traffic is likely to arrive but what if the slope is contrary to this 2) At my srtip the main runway is paralel to the coast and nearly always has a crosswind, you can see the windsock bobbing towards one end and then the other. I would suggest that sometimes it is a tough call to clearly define upwind and downwind better to check both ways. When I cross a one way road I still look the other way, for the driver perhaps reversing back to a carpark or the little old lady who is just driving down the road the wrong way. In another post I said I didn't have a problem with RPTs making a straight in approach, this was a statement of personal preference and I dont think I ever suggested that there were no downsides to this, mearly that it causes the minimum disrtuption to sports aviation activities, flight training and skydiving etc. I am not suggesting that downwind landings should be allowable (except for operational reasons ie runway slope or noise abatement procedures, emeregencies,training) but even if this rule were inforced with large fines it is still going to occur at times. What I find slightly annoying is when the points a have I made exagerated or extrapolated to support their arguement. I will certainly discuss this our CFI to see what he thinks

I think giving way RPTs is a fairly normal and accepted not just at the local level. The publication "Operations at non towered Aerodromes" available here http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/40pp.pdf here is an example Page 20 Approaching base, the Cessna pilot sees the SAAB approaching fi nal and hears the SAAB’s broadcast “3 mile fi nal runway 17”. Although the Cessna has the right of way, in this situation the pilot gives way to HUP, extends downwind, and broadcasts: “Bathurst traffi c, Cessna 152 TEB extending downwind runway 17, number 2 to the SAAB.” This is not one of the recommended calls but good airmanship dictates that when such a confl ict is likely the radio can be used to resolve it. A short broadcast is sufficient and no response from the SAAB is required. My point is that it is not an unusual procedure. I am sure that many pilots have extended downwind to accomodate a faster or slower aircraft. Cheers

Gday Turbo, I dont think that there is anything legally "murky" about the three methods I described. I can leave the circuit (by the approved method) to some point outside the circuit area if I wish. I will check but, I was led to believe that extending downwind was a legitimate way of ensuring spacing between traffic. I agree that downind landing is less desirable. Getting back to the original subject,I think we all agree that when approaching a runway intersection that we need to check for traffic both ways. Often giving way at my strip occurs because the most commonly used duty strip is the short cross strip (due to the usual prevailing winds) If a SAAB is approaching for the lonegest srip (normaly has a crosswind) and there are 3 RA or GA doing circuits on the into the wind but too short for SAAB strip at some stage the SAAB has to land. It is more of a question of shall I do 3 or 4 circuit before heading off down the coast or I am 3nm inbound and a SAAB is 10nm inbound we may both arrive at the circuit area at the same time I can slow up or stay outside the circuit are for a few minutes. We are not really talking about waving the guy at the stop sign through. Cheers

GD'ay Turbo When you say "Non standard ciruit" I am not sure if you are refer to giving way to an RPT on a straight in approach I dont think there is anything non standard about delaying my arrival at the circuit area, exending downwind or leaving the circuit (by an approved method) and returning and entering (by the approved method). If a RPT is making a straight in approach (from either direction) I cant stop that all I can do is deal with it in the safest an most efficient manner. The downwind landing may not be kosha (although of course runway slope is a factor) I am not going to force my right of way, having a SAAB make a missed approach is not in anyones interest.

ummm that was my point, what I was saying is that just taxiing up to the line and looking both ways is not enough in a high wing aircraft. The thing I was disagreeing with was the idea that you can only check after you stop. At my strip you need to turn about 45 degrees to see final on the main runway an then you need to swing the other way to check the other way and you need to do this before you stop at the intersection. am not sure why you say " Not having a go at you, Octave If you know you have a blind spot you bleeping well clear it before you put yourself in harms way" My post was all about the need to turn the aircraft to clear the blind spots not just stop at the line and accept what ever view you have cheers

ah turbo although I usually hang on your every word, I must admit I missed #68 cheers

Lets say I am doing circuits on 05 so 05 is the active runway REX SAAB arrives on the scene (straight in or otherwise) it cannot land on 05 (too short) REX has to land on 36/18, at some stage I am going to have get out of his way unless we want to meet at the intersection. This is all I am saying whether or not REX lands downwind or upwind it doesnt take much, maybe extending the downwind or leaving the circuit area ,other aircraft have done this for me also. It seems like common sense to have me orbitng outside the circuit area whilst REX lands rather than a high speed SAAB circling whilst I land As to the legality or not of downwind landings it is not an issue for me because I don't do them myself but it is a fact of life that some RPTs do therefore I expend as much effort looking upwind as well as downwind (sometimes when there is no wind, and no one in the circuit you need to check every direction before entering the runway) If peolpe feel strongly about it and are convinced that it is illegal then why not talk to CASA

I would agree skybum except on 1 point "After you stop, uncontrolled aerodrome clear both ways" If I stop at least in the Gazelle I can't really see both ways due to the high wing, I was taught to, whilst on the move turn to the right, check for traffic, turn to the left and check the other end. I recall during my training stopping just before the intersection point and looking both ways, my instructor pointed out that I could not possibly see final (to the right in this case) all I could really see was wing. Stopping may be a good idea but not at the expense of a clear unobstructed veiw. I was taught to broadcast my intention to enter the runway but not necessarily to stop although I certainly will consider this next time but only after a bit of an s turn to clearly see both ends. Cheers