Ozkosh at Narromine

[facthunter]

Not like a zipper . They always fail. Like a zipper's supposed to work like. Nev

 

 

[apm]

Broadcasting intentions to a Unicom is the failure here. Positive communication between PIC's with a possible conflict is the key.

 

 

[facthunter]

Unicoms are limited legally as to what function they can perform. Considered just advisory. I wonder how it would be viewed if , having noticed a situation developing, they did nothing about it and it ended up badly. I would make a call myself, which even if you were sitting in your aeroplane and observed something about to happen, I feel you are morally obliged to do. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Not like a zipper . They always fail. Like a zipper's supposed to work like. Nev

What are you doing to your zippers, Nev? I've had a pretty good run with them.

 

 

[Guernsey]

What are you doing to your zippers, Nev? I've had a pretty good run with them.

Obviously skilled at 'slotting in'.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

This just came in from Jill Bailey -

 

Hi X,

 

 

 

 

 

When interpretative information is required, as I am sure you know, CASA provides Civil Aviation Advisory Publications (CAAP) and for exactly this situation, CAAP 166-1(3) August 2014 is the source of procedural information all pilots should be referring to.

 

 

 

 

 

Having said that, coincidentally, RAAus is about to commence scoping for a video advisory for members to ensure circuit procedures and appropriate radio calls are understood, and sadly this is required not just for members, but on occasions for Instructors and CFIs. Part of the issue stems from Instructors teaching students preferred local procedures, rather than referencing the legislation and advisory documents.

 

 

 

 

 

Paragraph 6.7 of the CAAP provides clear guidance regarding straight in approaches. In this paragraph reference to CAR 166 (2)(b) is made, which clearly requires a pilot conducting a straight in approach to give way to any other aircraft established and flying in the circuit pattern (underline emphasis is mine).

 

 

 

 

 

The difficulty with forums is establishing the experience level, reference to legislation and expertise of the contributors. RAAus recommends members contact RAAus or CASA to receive accurate interpretation of regulations.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Jill Bailey

 

National Operations Manager

 

 

 

Serious fun, stay safe

 

 

I've responded, indicating I see her point but don't quite agree, and pointing out the opposing phrases in the CAAP -

 

Hi Jill,

 

 

 

Thanks for your response.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of the CAAPs and of the para 6.7 you reference and the part of it which refers to aircraft conduct SIAs giving way to all other traffic in the circuit. The question, though, is how that para relates to 6.7.6 which states "An aircraft established on the base or final leg for any runway has right of way over an aircraft carrying out a straight-in approach." indicating to me that an aircraft that was not established on the Base or Final leg when the SIA aircraft established on Final, does not have priority over the SIA aircraft, because he's on Final.

 

 

 

I think the point is that the Approach part of a SIA is concluded once that aircraft establishes on the Final leg of the circuit, and it then becomes just the same as any other aircraft on Final i.e. has right of way over all other aircraft in the circuit. There are many references to an aircraft on Finals having absolute priority over all others.

 

 

 

AND - what about the circumstances where an aircraft is established on 3Nm final, after conducting an SIA, and someone else joins the circuit on Base, does that new aircraft suddenly get priority over the aircraft on Final, and if he does, how does he know that, if perhaps he wasn't monitoring the frequency before the SIA aircraft reached the 3Nm point?

 

 

 

I'm a Commercial pilot of nearly thirty years and it's always been drummed into me, and others I've consulted, that once established on Final approach an aircraft has priority over all others, regardless of how they joined the circuit, and I, and many others, don't see in what way the CAR or the CAAP states otherwise, though they are certainly very ambiguous.

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

[facthunter]

OK once a small part separates they don't work. Hate them. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Could you explain the 'Caution' please Frank?

 

Following my response to Jill, I received another from her -

 

Hi X

 

 

 

Your more detailed response provides a slightly different scenario, further complicated by the addition of having an aircraft joining on base while the other aircraft is established on SIA. I think we are now into the common sense rather than legislative section of flight operations, where airmanship and collision avoidance along with recognition of fiscal imperatives for RPT or commercial operators over the recreational pilot can be considered. Operating at Temora as CFI, there were many occasions where the “bank plane” established on SIA, often contrary to the runway in use, and smart use of the radio and some leeway by either pilot (CPL or RAAus) as required generally ensured minimal disruption to either operation. However, this is not always the case at all airports.

 

 

 

Having said that, I understood an aircraft on SIA was not established as being on final unless 500 metres from the runway at 500 AGL, which appears to be what you are saying. From that point on, the aircraft on final has “jumped the queue” and is now number one in the circuit. Until the aircraft is in this position, it is still conducting a SIA and has to give way.

 

 

 

We will certainly add this scenario to our proposed training video and look forward to any further interesting suggestions from your experience as a CPL over the years.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Jill Bailey

 

National Operations Manager

 

The comment about "following my more detailed response" kinda indicates to me that none of them ever bothered to read the linked thread, or my original report in detail ...

 

And does anyone actually understand the first paragraph of this response? Aren't we supposed to be trying to help people to understand what to do? I do recall asking for a plain-speak mail-out so that all recreational pilots can safely mix it with the big boys - actually just normal-trained GA would be a start. Too much to ask perhaps? What will it take to convince people that recognised hazards must be addressed immediately at grass-roots level?

 

AND - before I take Jill to task on the second para, can anyone point me at a reference which creates a priority at 500m and 500ft that didn't exist before that? I don't recall one, it'd be mighty short final in a 767, you'd hope they could be confident of priority well before that, wouldn't you?

 

 

[frank marriott]

HIC

 

My fault, had to go back to see what you were talking about. Bloody iPhone and big thumbs - I have removed it. Sorry.

 

 

[storchy neil]

seneca

 

So 500 ft high

 

1600 ft from the keys

 

100 plus knots

 

Considered on final

 

How long to the keys

 

Drifter

 

500 ft high

 

1600 ft from keys

 

75 if your lucky knots

 

Considered on final

 

How long to keys

 

Now on my calculations the senica would have had lunch fueled up and ready to leave

 

If you was in the Seneca and he called final at 1600 ft from keys would you not walk home Neil