Overflying issue with RPT

[motzartmerv]

hehe.. yea, its hard not to form that opinion.. ive met some very nice ones ... very accomadating.. its just the practise of tailwind landings and ccts that concerns me.. And i spose its not just RPT either, ive seen GA dudes do it, havn't seen many RAA guys do it, but thats not to say they don't..actually today i saw an ultralight takeoff without a preflight or runup, downwind in 33 deg heat..:clown:

 

It just seems crazy to me that its prety much standard practise for the big fellas to do it..

 

cheers

 

 

[ahlocks]

Thought you were going to bed Moz!

 

Reviewing this and the Taree thread I'm convinced that reporting this bloke is the right thing to do. We know he has TCAS and he knew you were there, but chose to take no evasive action other than to berate you on the PAL frequency. Aircraft being overtaken has right of way, yes? Duty of care?

 

OK, Back on topic. Yep, downwind landings upset the flow and safety of the circuit. It'd be better if it didn't happen, but it does, so adapt and overcome.

 

Cheers and good night!

 

 

[Paul Willett]

Arguing that economic benefit to RPT outweighs Airmanship, Safety and most importantly the Rules of the Air as described in AIP is not only a slippery slope, it is simply wrong - legally, as well as practically.

 

Making a downwind landing in to a non-radio CTAF aerodrome - wonder what is says in their company ops manual about that?

 

Don't be bullied by the size of the aircraft if you are in the right - but if you wish to help out do so.

 

 

[ahlocks]

YSWG is CTAF® and also has a trial Unicom ATM. So I think that is where my differing bias is coming from. There’s good communication between traffic and people are usually willing to adapt to make it all work smoothly.

 

 

I’ll still argue that that commonsense should prevail though. Exercising ones right of way through a roundabout while a B Double is thundering in from the left is perfectly legal too. But would you? What’s a couple of two minute turns inbound or an extended downwind cost against the goodwill it buys?

 

 

Having said that, If RPT or other ‘biggies’ are approaching a CTAF with possible NoRad traffic, they have no alternative but to follow the AIP. There is no exemption. That they appear not to makes them liable if it goes pear shaped.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[bushpilot]

Darren in the US airline aircraft do not get priority, it is first in first served.The Rex pilots have flown GA too and no doubt realise that a 10 knot downwind in some types is an accident waiting to happen. If I was established in the circuit in such an aircraft, as pilot in command I would not compromise the safety of MY passengers by landing in conditions unsuitable for my aircraft. If I chose to accept the tailwind, the resulting accident would be my fault as PIC.

Slightly off topic, and at the risk of a whack from Ian, why are some types an accident waiting to happen with a 10kt tailwind?? I land downwind (but uphill) on my strip, regularly, as do visitors in Jabs., etc..

 

 

[Mazda]

OK Chris. When landing you would have a higher groundspeed, and may also have some crosswind from behind. Some tailwheel aircraft would be an absolute nightmare, especially if the wind happened to be a quartering tailwind. I wouldn't want to be in a Pitts S2A, it would be trying to rapidly swap ends at well over a normal freeway driving speed.

 

For take off there would be a longer ground run and degraded climb performance. If I happened to be flying a low performance aircraft at MTOW on a hot day, from a high elevation airfield and perhaps with obstacles on the climb out, it could be problematic.

 

Tailwheel aircraft are not fun in a tailwind. I once (and once only) accepted a slight tailwind for a take off in a not very difficult tailwheel aircraft and was amazed at how much longer it took for the tail to come up, how poorly it handled and how much longer the ground run was. I wouldn't like to do that again.

 

 

[facthunter]

Downwind worries.

 

You have no option when landing uphill, since with some planes at a certain slope they will not pull up under brakes, and the downslope can be such that the aircraft will just continue forever while still in the air, (floating)..

 

......some years ago there was a bit of a kerfuffle at AVALON when a number of Jabiru's landed downwind, under instructions from the tower, and damaged their nosewheels. Some wanted to blame the TOWER. The situation is quite clear that the PILOT (PIC) by accepting the instruction, accepts the responsibility. The proper course of action if the pilot considers it not ACCEPTABLE is to inform the tower to that effect. In the real world , this is not always easy, as the pilot may be somewhat intimidated in an environment with which he is not familiar, and not aware of his rights (and responsibilities.)

 

...... Regarding landing downwind with a taildragger, I have never, and generally would not attempt it, unless it was uphill where the power required would enable control (directionally) to be maintained, almost to a standstill. Nev...

 

 

[Mazda]

That's a great point about responsibility Nev. I think we are taught to "obey" ATC so much that we can forget the final decision is always with us, and we can say we require a certain runway or that conditions don't suit. It reminds me of that terrible accident in the UK where the controllers overwhelmed a poor young student who ended up crashing.

 

If you don't like what ATC are suggesting, say so. It is the safety of the pilot and passengers on the line, not the controllers!

 

 

[Downunder]

Just like trucks on the road.

 

Same road rules, but you keep your eye on them and give them some leeway?

 

 

[poteroo]

The CTAF® Procedures Leave Much to be Desired!

 

From an RAA/GA perspective - the 'active' runway is always going to be the runway into wind. But, as previous posters have noted, RPT and charter turbines can use a 10kn downwind without busting their S-O-P. In our case, the gravel runway isn't usable by RPT because of pavement strength - so, they consider the sealed runway to be the 'active'. Especially so here - because we have ILS on 14 - which so happens to be convenient for a straight-in approach from the NW...(Perth).

 

I have grave concerns about the CASA, (NAS 2c), advice that the aircraft on base or final has 'right-of-way'. In our case, most recip twins, a turbine, or RPT - at 5 miles on a straight in approach - will be on a 3 mile final before a 65 kt single will get there from the 'turning base' position. (assume they do 120kts). So, we have no choice but to tell our students that they should only 'take' the right-of-way from the 'turning final' position - not 'turning base'. Extending downwind, or making an orbit on early base, is the prudent action.

 

The most worrying aspect about these straight-ins is that the broadcasts are often quite rapidly spoken - giving our students little chance of understanding them. As well, we have all the Perth itinerants arriving for 'practice'...(read free), ILS training - and their calls are quite unintelligle to students. The RAAF,(2 FTS-Pearce), used to be so garbled that even instructors missed calls - but in the last year we have discussed joint use of the airport with them and can happily relate that they are now very careful to make each call clearly and slowly. Onya RAAF!

 

Onother major holdup is with these straight in and ILS aircraft rolling right thru 7500 ft of runway - then making a liesurely 180 - and then taxying back to the main exit taxiway, which so happens to be 5500 ft back up the runway. It's not uncommon for this exercise to take 4 minutes - although we really enjoyed a Baron taking 6 minutes from flare to clearing the runway. This is less a problem if we are operating on the other,(cross), runway, but it still means delays all round. A parallel taxiway would be great - but at what cost?

 

The solution is clearly not aggro - but consultation with the other users. CASA cannot legislate for good common sense.....that's up to users. It still means that instructors need to sit outside with a handheld COM to keep tabs on the students progress with traffic matters........just in case the odd recalcitrant tries a bit of bullying.

 

happy days,

 

 

[Yenn]

Anything less than about 15kts of tail wind will not stop me using runway 13 at Rodds Bay for landing. Runway 31 has a down slope which means that at less than 15 kts I will be 4 or 5 hundred metres down the strip before I land. Take off of course downhill into wind is good.

 

If you are having trouble with straight in aircraft using non into wind runways, it is time to do something about it. Try contacting Repcon, which handles confidential reporting for this kind of thing. 1800 020 505, or [email protected]. If you percieve a dangerous situation you don't have to just grin and bear it. Personally I have never had a problem with straight in approaches by the airlines, they are usually easy to hear on the radio and if they know you are in the circuit they will offer to do a circuit rather than a straight in. I find it better to just give them a bit of my time and let them save a bit of fuel. They appear to appreciate it and you never know when they can be of assistance to you in the future.

 

 

[bushpilot]

Anything less than about 15kts of tail wind will not stop me using runway 13 at Rodds Bay for landing. Runway 31 has a down slope which means that at less than 15 kts I will be 4 or 5 hundred metres down the strip before I land. Take off of course downhill into wind is good.

Hi Ian - Wondering if you know what the slope is on that runway? And, with 15kts tail, do you find any issues with the higher ground speed?

 

Cheers,

 

Chris