UNICOM - Worse than useless?

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I've heard the word 'orbit' used in both senses - an orbit around the circuit, and a holding orbit.

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest browng]

I would have to say you are incorrect. In controlled airspace an orbit is a 360 degree turn while maintaining altitude

No I don't believe I am incorrect, an orbit for holding on ATC instruction, is an entirely different procedure to an orbit of the circuit, they serve a different purpose entirely, not least in the fact that the former can be (but is not always), an instrument procedure, not a solely visual one. I accept that my training is decades old, but I would be interested in what other people would consider the correct procedure in the example I gave earlier, i.e. Visual uncontrolled approach, one aircraft stationary on the runway, a second aircraft climbing out from a baulked approach due to the blocked runway, and a third faster aircraft behind it on finals, What would you do if you were the third aircraft? As an aside, back when I flew the Sopwith Triplane, requesting an orbit was a great way of doing a legal low pass at a towered airfield, and on arriving at fly-ins and airshows was virtually expected of 'interesting' aircraft.

 

 

[youngmic]

Orbit, from the Latin word orbicular meaning circular or spherical.

 

Used by ATC for separation in the circuit. Perhaps best to keep with consistency on phraseology.

 

Have never heard of its use to describe a missed approach or go around in OCTA ops. Would hate to see a new pilot head into a GAAP armed with the knowledge that an orbit means to go around for another circuit. Poor ATC guys would go into orbit themselves.

 

There is no reference to orbit within IFR procedures, it's just a holding pattern.

 

NASA have a slightly different usage for the word for the Space Shuttle crew when storms are forecast for their arrival.

 

Kaz and Mazda are on the money.

 

Mick

 

 

[Kaz]

browng,

 

In the situation you are explaining as the number 3 aircraft, what would the radio call be?

 

 

[Admin]

This has been a long and very enjoyable thread - lets watch how we word things when we disagree :big_grin:

 

 

[Kaz]

Thanks Ian, I re-read my post and it does sound a bit smart a#@$... if you could see my facial expression you'd see I am just confused!! We need web cam!!

 

 

[Guest browng]

browng,In the situation you are explaining as the number 3 aircraft, what would the radio call be?

I don't believe there is a standard call, at least not in Australia. The situation I described is not hypothetical, it last occurred for me at Bindoon just a couple of months ago. I was No2 to an RV6, who was in turn No2 to a non-radio Thruster. That runway (09) is a RH Circuit and has no access other than at the downwind threshold. Slow aircraft like the Thruster can usually land short, backtrack and exit quickly. In this case the Thruster made a very very long landing, almost to the upwind threshold, then turned to backtrack, blocking the runway. The RV extended downwind to give the Thruster more time to exit, but still arrived on short finals with the Thruster not clear of the runway, so he called a 'go-around' and started to climb out. I moved to the RHS of the runway, called "Bravo Oscar X-Ray, right orbit 09, one ahead going around". As I have said, my training is decades old, and not even originally Australian but British, I am happy to be corrected, that is how we learn, but I would still like to know what others would do in the above scenario, and why. Again back in the mists of time, I recall a 'Hold' was usually a rectangle, or a pattern, a different thing to an 'orbit about a point', but then I haven't held a current IFR rating for at least 20 years.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Hi Kaz and IanR,

 

Kaz, I think that you gave a great summation of the role of a UNICOM in contributing to the situational awareness of a pilot, thank you. IanR that's a useful set of information about the role also.

 

The reason I started this thread wasn't because I am for or against UNICOM. I started it because I was seeing some pretty outlandish claims about UNICOM as a universal specific for all ills. UNICOM is not that and I felt it would be good to have a discussion about UNICOM that, hopefully, would deliver a balanced view of their strengths and weaknesses.

 

In order to kick that off I intentionally took a polarised position.

 

I've enjoyed this thread so far, may it continue and may we have many more wide ranging discussions where we really listen to each other. There's a great heap of learning to be had.

 

Kind regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I don't believe there is a standard call, at least not in Australia. The situation I described is not hypothetical, it last occurred for me at Bindoon just a couple of months ago. I was No2 to an RV6, who was in turn No2 to a non-radio Thruster. That runway (09) is a RH Circuit and has no access other than at the downwind threshold. Slow aircraft like the Thruster can usually land short, backtrack and exit quickly. In this case the Thruster made a very very long landing, almost to the upwind threshold, then turned to backtrack, blocking the runway. The RV extended downwind to give the Thruster more time to exit, but still arrived on short finals with the Thruster not clear of the runway, so he called a 'go-around' and started to climb out. I moved to the RHS of the runway, called "Bravo Oscar X-Ray, right orbit 09, one ahead going around". As I have said, my training is decades old, and not even originally Australian but British, I am happy to be corrected, that is how we learn, but I would still like to know what others would do in the above scenario, and why. Again back in the mists of time, I recall a 'Hold' was usually a rectangle, or a pattern, a different thing to an 'orbit about a point', but then I haven't held a current IFR rating for at least 20 years.

I can only comment on what I have been taught: During a go around I was taught to climb out on the centreline or if there was other traffic on the runway or airborne off the runway then to displace slightly to the right in order that I could see them easily below me (me sitting in the LH seat).

 

As for the other terminology: an orbit is a 360 degree turn or part thereof roughly about a point. If I was to simply fly the shape of a circuit without landing that would be a circuit with a go around.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[slartibartfast]

I am happy to be corrected, that is how we learn, but I would still like to know what others would do in the above scenario, and why.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is what I provided - what I would do. You responded with

 

These procedures have been developed over many decades, 'improving' on them tends to result in smoking holes.

- the old man defence. I felt completely slapped down and reluctant to contribute again until I have another 900 hours experience. Am I too sensitive? (or perhaps too petulant:blush:)

At least a few others since appear to agree with me. Useful discussion though.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I'm about to correct my learning on G/A:

 

 

Live and learn.

 

That's for a GAAP - can't find it mentioned for CTAF.

 

Mike

 

 

[Admin]

Thanks Ian, I re-read my post and it does sound a bit smart a#@$... if you could see my facial expression you'd see I am just confused!! We need web cam!!

Kaz, I am getting so frustrated as there is so so so much I want to do here - this thread is one example of how good it would be if I could get the video/sound/text chat room working properly so we can have special event presentations/discussions on specific topics of interest - imagine if we could have a special event on this subject where we could invite a noterable guest to give a presentation and we can have live interactive discussions/questions etc - so much to do yet so little time

 

 

[Guest browng]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is what I provided - what I would do. You responded with - the old man defence. I felt completely slapped down and reluctant to contribute again until I have another 900 hours experience. Am I too sensitive? (or perhaps too petulant:blush:)

Err...yes I think maybe so

 

At least a few others since appear to agree with me. Useful discussion though.

I didn't intend to upset anybody mate, I believe I only disagreed with the "move to the right bit", I then explained why, opposing circuits, I then elaborated by saying it didn't need parallel runways for opposing circuits to exist. Pelorus32's posted diagram above demonstrates the issue clearly, i.e. you do not "move to the right", you move to the live side, which of course could be the right, but then again may not, you don't want to find out by colliding with an aircraft flying the opposing circuit, hence my "Smoking Holes" comment. That 'smoking holes' expression' was told to me by my instructor, God bless his dear departed soul, and I'm sure he was in turn told that. It had absolutely nothing to do with how many hours I had, or you had, it referred to decades of the development of aviation, all the way back to the Wrights.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Fair enough Browng. Thanks for that.

 

I am a bit of a snag, and it's not always easy to tell the tone of a post. For instance my "old man defence" jibe .

 

I do feel like a total newbie among you guys (coz I am - what's 25 years?) so I only occasionally stick my toe in the knowledge pool.

 

Live side definitely makes sense for the go around, but I'm still wondering about the actual pass of the slower number 2 aircraft. He won't have seen you, so I guess you just keep a good eye on him in case he starts his crosswind a bit early?

 

Mike - we definitely have to watch that we keep it friendly. If people are reluctant to contribute because of perceived attacks, the discussion is limited to those who are sure they are right. This is not ideal.

 

An online forum is a tricky beast to manage.

 

Ross

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Mike and some others,

 

You have to expect a bit of verbal rough and tumble when the subject mater under discusion can have a major impact on what may be a central part of some peoples lives.

 

Flying is a passion to me, so it probably comes out in my posts. I see a simular passion in other peoples posts as well, so I expect some heated discussion.

 

I find many times the best way to discover if I am a bit wrong headed, or mis-informed about something, is to say my piece. The differing opinions I receive on many occasions help further my education and correct any wrong thinking. I think that is what forums are all about.

 

I think Ian does a top job of keeping things from going overboard.

 

HPD

 

By the way, I have heard the term 'orbit' used in situations by pilots and ATC, that now appears was the incorrect terminologie.

 

 

[Guest browng]

Live side definitely makes sense for the go around, but I'm still wondering about the actual pass of the slower number 2 aircraft. He won't have seen you, so I guess you just keep a good eye on him in case he starts his crosswind a bit early?

That is a very good question, and does have a 'standard' answer, which unfortunately is probably not that helpful, i.e technically the higher aircraft must give way to the lower, which is why we moved aside in the first place. It is the responsibility of the PIC of the higher aircraft to 'see and avoid' the lower one.

 

Lets start by assuming the lower aircraft is slow, and climbing out at a fairly low rate, but a steep angle (like a Thruster). The faster aircraft making the 'orbit' (yes I acknowledge that may now be an obsolete term), may be quickly past the one climbing out, and may now have difficulty seeing him, but he is inside the crosswind turn of the lower aircraft, and faster, it is therefore unlikely that the lower aircraft will be a threat unless he starts a stupidly early crosswind turn. Not a risk free scenario, but a low risk one, which sums up aviation generally.

 

Now lets reverse the scenario, faster aircraft doing the go-around, slower one doing the orbit. Since the upper aircraft is already behind the lower one and is slower, the chances of it catching up are zero, unless the lower aircraft does something spectacularly insane.

 

In the end it is a matter of both aircraft doing what the other has a right to expect of a properly trained airman, with the lower pilot having right of way. No procedure can entirely eliminate the possibility that one of the pilots is a total muppet, but short of that, this seems as well thought out a procedure as can be reasonably expected.

 

EDIT - What is clear from this discussion is that for some, a potentially lethal misunderstanding exists regarding which side to move to. Opposing circuits are not rare, particularly where there are glider ops. It does seems to me that current training is possibly inadequate in this regard? At a GAAP there will be somebody in the tower to verbally correct you, but in a CTAF there is probably no such insurance.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Mike and some others,You have to expect a bit of verbal rough and tumble when the subject mater under discusion can have a major impact on what may be a central part of some peoples lives.

 

Flying is a passion to me, so it probably comes out in my posts. I see a simular passion in other peoples posts as well, so I expect some heated discussion.

 

I find many times the best way to discover if I am a bit wrong headed, or mis-informed about something, is to say my piece. The differing opinions I receive on many occasions help further my education and correct any wrong thinking. I think that is what forums are all about.

 

I think Ian does a top job of keeping things from going overboard.

 

HPD

 

By the way, I have heard the term 'orbit' used in situations by pilots and ATC, that now appears was the incorrect terminologie.

G'day HPD I've been part of the "rough and tumble" here for some time. I don't in the least object to that.

 

What I do object to and what Slarti mentioned is what I see as an increasing tendency to playing the man/woman not the ball.

 

The cardinal rule for dealing with complex issues and making sure that the issues, which are so important often, are dealt with properly, is to stick to dealing with the issues.

 

Rightly or wrongly I feel that the balance is drifting a little one way and that we would all be best served if it drifted back a bit.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest browng]

The cardinal rule for dealing with complex issues and making sure that the issues, which are so important often, are dealt with properly, is to stick to dealing with the issues.

If I may be so bold, I'm still not sure if I am one of the 'suspects' being referred to? If I am, it was a matter of poor semantics on my part, there was no intentional "playing of the man not the ball". As Slarti has said, it can be difficult to read the intent of a post, very difficult indeed, but having just re-read this thread I feel its all pretty innocuous on everybody's part. I am very grateful to Ian for this island of civility in the sea of dross that is the internet, so no complaints from me.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

If I may be so bold, I'm still not sure if I am one of the 'suspects' being referred to? If I am, it was a matter of poor semantics on my part, there was no intentional "playing of the man not the ball". As Slarti has said, it can be difficult to read the intent of a post, very difficult indeed, but having just re-read this thread I feel its all pretty innocuous on everybody's part. I am very grateful to Ian for this island of civility in the sea of dross that is the internet, so no complaints from me.

G'day Browng,

 

I wasn't commenting about your post except insofar as I was commenting that Slarti had expressed concern.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Live side definitely makes sense for the go around, but I'm still wondering about the actual pass of the slower number 2 aircraft. He won't have seen you, so I guess you just keep a good eye on him in case he starts his crosswind a bit early?

Actually there are down sides to moving off centerline for both occasions, moving to the dead side, I can clearly understand why that is not a good thing, at certain airports and as such in general. In the diagram that Mike posted, where the move to the live side was because you felt too close to the Aircraft ahead, having moved to the live side you have now tightened the circuit and unless you overtake the aircraft that was aheadyou now have another point of contention being mid crosswind. That said, its obvious that you never have an accident now in preference to avoiding it, and asking the aircraft that was ahead to extend before beyond normal crosswind, or you turning early crosswind to avoid contention isnt an unreasonable thing to do

 

Andy

 

 

[Yenn]

You have to treat every situation as it unfolds. If overtaking a slower aircraft it is correct to pass on the right. If you are following a slower aircraft and both doing a go around, I believe the pass on the right rule is safest. But what happens when there are right hand circuits.

 

I always understood "Orbit "was an ATC expression to GA pilots to fly around in circles to keep separation. "Holding" is a procedure where two 180 deg turns are separated by 2 straight legs, can be flown either way as designated and both the straight and curved legs are of a set time, which is dependent upon speed. You can see them on the ERC low charts.

 

 

[Guest browng]

If overtaking a slower aircraft it is correct to pass on the right.

No dispute there, basic air law, outside the circuit. I believe the 'live side' procedure to be clearly required for a GAAP, (see Pelorus32's diagram). Are we saying that an altogether different procedure is applicable in a CTAF? Surely that is confusing and dangerous? Surely a collision with an aircraft on the opposing circuit is more likely at an un-towered airfield that a towered one? I was taught one thing, others were taught something else, I don't have a VFG handy, but I wonder if it provides clarity on this?

 

Likewise the term 'orbit', I was taught one thing, and have used, and heard used, that term many many times over the years, including requesting and being granted an orbit for display purposes by ATC. It seems have others here have also heard the term used in both contexts. Others have only heard it used in a separation orbit context, another totally correct statement. It seems to me that the operative word here is confusion, usually not a good thing in aviation. The dictionary definition of an orbit as a circle, while accurate is unhelpful, I could equally post a dictionary definition of an 'orbit' as part of the human eye, for it is also that, both are out of context and therefore useless. There are actually two questions here, (1) Use of the term 'orbit' in the stated context, well I'm happy to accept that is now an obsolete term and therefore wrong. (2) The actual procedure, regardless of name. Now that I am not yet willing to concede, as the risks with opposing circuits are obvious. I am however prepared to accept that someone may be able to provide definitive proof as to my error, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

regards

 

George

 

 

[Matt]

There's nothing in the AIP, VFG (which is where Pelorus32's diagram is from) or any other official documentation that defines procedures for going around at non-towered aerodromes further adding to the "what's the correct procedure" debate. Appears that various instructors teach various methods...no doubt taught by their instructors and so on. Should we adopt the GAAP procedure in the void of any other? Should this actually be raised with CASA as the regulator?

 

As for the "orbit", in the scenario (in my humble opinion) it's nothing more than "going around" - there's nothing that states (again that I can find) that "going around" can / is only initiated from final, I've performed a go around from final, base and in a few instances late downwind. In each instance the radio call was "<CALLSIGN> going around RWY # <POSITION>" i.e "MCT going around RWY 30 from BASE" and continued to complete the circuit i.e. climb to circuit height and fly the rest of the circuit...base, upwind, crosswind etc. making required callsigns as you go including identifying position relative to other traffic if pertanent.

 

Cheers,

 

Matt.

 

 

[facthunter]

Orbit.

 

Sorry Matt , orbit means do a turn left or right at some position. If none is specified commence where you are. the purpose is to delay your arrival at someplace. Go- around means abort the landing approach and means that you can't land, for whatever reason. Both procedures may be pilot initiated, or directed (in a controlled airspace situation), As an example a pilot may, finding himself high on the approach profile, request an orbit for the purpose of increasing the track distance to run to touchdown. The application of an orbit in our environment is subject to some conjecture, but interestingly ,last year arriving at Goolwa in the middle of an aerobatic display, I was instructed to extend downwind and then orbit and even though I had never been there before, the whole deal worked out fine. The purpose of both procedures was to lose time.

 

A holding pattern is a published procedure,generally, near a destination airport, and is a racetrack pattern used for "stacking" arriving aircraft ,when the aerodrome may be closed or congested ,so that the aircraft have to be put somewhere, . One can be "created " by an instruction along the lines of " hold between 10 DME & 30 DME 2 minute left hand pattern at Fl 210, on the 287 radial, till advised or similar. Hope this helps.... Nev...

 

 

[Flyer]

I was taught the same as Matt. Move to the dead side of the circuit when conducting a go around.

 

Always followed that until I started flying from my now home airfield of Tooradin....

 

Rule No.2 in the ERSA...There is NO dead side (at Tooradin)

 

In the event of a go around at Tooradin (I've had a couple) I track the centre line, climb hard to avoid traffic from underneath and turn early crosswind as height/ other traffic permits.

 

Orbit. As facthunter puts it, left or right turn to delay your arrival at a specific place.

 

My instructor preferred to extend down wind rather than orbit but would conduct an orbit as a second preference.

 

A go around is initiated from a missed approach, bad landing, aborted landing or somebody positioning himself on the runway without looking or listening. Requires a full circuit to be reflown as opposed to an orbit which is a 360 degree circle conducted as part of a specific leg of a circuit.

 

My 2 bobs worth...

 

Be kind to each other :;)7:

 

Regards

 

Phil