Stopping at Runway Holding Position Markings

[turboplanner]

I checked the ATSB statistics and found 11 proximity incidents involving Dash 8's since 1997. That's not to imply anything against Dash 8's or that their pilots were to blame, however if you add all the other makes of Regional RPT aircraft, that's a lot of proximity incidents, and my point is that it's a safety issue which should be given some importance.

 

It's noticeable that the country pilots are all for the non standard variations, whereas the city pilots are scratching their heads wondering what's so hard about circuits. You have the whole downwind leg to decide whether it's prudent, polite or safe to move in front of or behind a fast aircraft. When Recreational Aircraft start using the city airports you are going to have to fit into a pattern which might involve 10 aircraft all heading for the same spot, so you will need to be able to read the pattern.

 

Octave - you're still focussed on your own airfield, but what would happen if you decided to fly into Tamworth, where the local procedures might be more formal, then on to Toowoomba where they might be different again - becomes difficult to observe the whole sky.

 

Youngmic, if you are going to be belligerent and tell people to go boating because they believe it is safer to use estanblished procedures, at least get the rules right.

 

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

 

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"

 

THAT IS THE REGULATION YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH

 

 

Cases where it is not practicable, may be sloping runways, emergencies, but not to save time, or money or because you've always done it and those who don't should drive boats.

 

You also picked up on a quote posted by Octave relating to RAAus 2.4 Non standard circuits:

 

"The straight -in approach is often made on the longest runway, not necessarily into wind"

 

This is an explanatory comment, not a Regulation, fits in with 166 (2) (f), but is not very helpful, since most airfield where there is a mixture of heavy traffic will be GA where GA regulations apply.

 

The greatest danger in this scenario is where a city pilot is departing from a country airfield and follows his normal procedure of angling into wind for a better view of aircraft on final, or must angle into wind to see the final path due to airframe configuration, thus masking the down wind approach angle, then gives a lining up and rolling call and rolls on to the runway just as a high speed local arrives for a downwind landing.

 

Captain, I'm opting for your Rio approach.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Boating???....No way, i hate sharks.... I don't even like flying over water...

 

Do i really have to spell out why its poor airmanship to land downwind??.. Sighting AG ops as the norm, are you kidding me??... I won't go on about what ive seen some ag pilots doing, or not doing.

 

I think alot of people forget that these forums are frequented by students and low time pilots. We all need to keep that in mind when posting on matters of safety and 'airmanship' ESPECIALLY the pro's with AG and multi turbine time.

 

How much of what we learn do we learn from hanging around more experianced pilots at the clubhouse, school , hangar etc. I liken this site to the biggest club in the world. Young (and not so young) impressionable minds look upto you pro's and in no small way try to emmulate your behaviour. So if you do or have done things that contraviene the rules, the fundementals of airmanship and just good old common sence, and have gotten away with it for years thats great, more power to you, but please be carefull and mindfull of who is watching...

 

 

[octave]

"Octave - you're still focussed on your own airfield, but what would happen if you decided to fly into Tamworth, where the local procedures might be more formal, then on to Toowoomba where they might be different again - becomes difficult to observe the whole sky."

 

I am not saying that we have our own special way here that is taken for granted, I think you making more of what I said than I actually meant. We do not have special procedures. Giving way to REX is a courtesy we often extend, it is never taken for granted. Many pilots visit my airfield especially from Canberra, they dont seem to have any trouble. What I am talking about is not against any reg. It might go like this REX reports inbound 10 miles straight in approach (there is nothing I can do about this, I can't make REX do a circuit) REX might then ask about local traffic, I report that I am doing circuits on the cross strip, ON REXs 3 mile call I might report that I am extending my downwind or I might even report that I am depart the circuit perhaps go outside the training area maybe practice my turns, REX repports he has landed, I re enter or resuime the circuit. Of course legaly I could continue my circuits, the scenario would then be REX making a missed approach.

 

If as you suggest I flew to Tamworth I cant see what the problem would be, I would do what I do here make inbound calls, monitor radio for other traffic inbound or in the circuit, and most importantly LOOK OUT for traffic in the circuit, upwind and downwind.

 

Th fact is that a straight in approach is legal, for pilots to arrange seperation in CTAF is legal and encouraged (CASA Document -Operatioans at Non Towered Aerodromes)

 

I can more understand concern over RPTS landing downwind, although this doesn't concern me too much.

 

Re -"or must angle into wind to see the final path due to airframe configuration, thus masking the down wind approach angle, then gives a lining up and rolling call and rolls on to the runway just as a high speed local arrives for a downwind landing."

 

I was taught , when approaching a runway or runway intersection, to make a sharpish turn right to check for aircraft on final followed by a sharpish turn left to check for aircraft who might for whatever reason be landing downwind.

 

Just like a nil wind day when there may be no defined circuit direction until someone asserts one.

 

Of course it would be easier if REX didn't use my airfeild but if they cancelled there south coast run the airfeild would become a housing estate.

 

 

[turboplanner]

All good points Octave. My issue is with illegal downwind landings, ie used for convenience, and non standard behaviour which becomes peculiar to an airport, which only those who regularly use the airport know about. Your comments on giving way are correct, but when those actions encourage the non standard patterns it can blow back on you if there's an accident.

 

Nothing wrong with what you were taught about the double S turn either, but the point I was making about the City pilot was that there is only one direction on the duty runway for normal operations so the threat is only coming from one direction. It's just like a City driver coming out into the country and driving at night on a country roads - he isn't aware there could be a downwind landing because it has never happened.

 

I didn't explain the Tamworth scenario very well. The point is if illegal operations are allowed to flourish what will evolve is a different procedure at every airport.

 

For example, you are used to yours, but if you go to Wagga you have to contend with Melbourne RPT's landing on 05 and departing on 23 and Sydney RPT's landing on 23 and departing on 05, regardless of wind according to Captain.

 

If it was in the ERSA, you'd know what to expect, but it's not and if there's a radio issue or a sighting issue you may finish up in the path of a Dash 8 - which would be his fault if you were following a standard circuit, but that's little comfort if it's just cost several lives

 

Alright I'll smoke you a kipper.

 

 

[octave]

Perhaps ERSA should more be more specific about actually happens at each airfeild. When REX does do a circuit which it does when the weather is bad it is much harder to keep an eye on it, their circuit is huge (they avoid flying over town -noise considerations).

 

Anyway I think the important points are to see and be seen, listen and talk, treat the downwind end of the runway with the same restpect as final (after all we do this on a nil wind day - also at my airfeild we have to windsocks about 1 km apart that can indicate totally different wind directions, whilst learning my insctrutor would say, check the windsock, which one I would reply)

 

now about that kipper

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I wouldn't be too quick to throw in terms such as 'Illegal down wind landings.' Downwind landings aren't necessarily illegal and you should always be on the lookout for any aircraft. Even at fields in controlled airspace, such as Albury, Tullamarine and Essendon etc, downwind landings and takeoffs are often taking place.

 

If you are always on the lookout for a Dash-8 or E-Jet coming in WITHOUT a radio, from any direction, then you can't go wrong.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave: Ar Geez, I over smoked it!]

 

BrentC: We've covered that - we're talking about landings in contravention of Regulation 166 (2) (f) - whach are illegal.

 

 

[ahlocks]

...I can't recall ever having seen a GA aircraft stop there, though. Have you Steve?

Geoff,

 

I've noticed that a few stop at the 12 hold point, and that some that do, tend to carry out their run up checks while they are there. But as a rule. No.

 

I'm am gunna 'fess up that I don't always come to a complete stop at the holding point either and have been treating the 12 crossing more like a giveway line by rolling up to it slowly on the brakes while scanning both ends and taxying straight across, with a call, if clear. (But then again, I dont have a great lump of plastic masquerading as wing obstructing the view either....:devil:)

 

All jokes aside though, me thinks I'll review the practice.i_dunno

 

Cheers!

 

 

[youngmic]

Turboplanner,

 

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

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

 

THAT IS THE REGULATION YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH

No it does not!

 

Motzartmerv,

 

Your concern is right and proper, I thought I had covered it here.

 

Having said all that landing into wind is better, but sometimes for various reasons it is more practicle to land downwind.

But maybe I should add that a downwind landing has many pitfalls as it does (an increase of 10% on Vref or appraoch speed results in a 21% increase in landing roll) and you need good justification for carrying one out. Commercial operations are a world away from recreational and private flying.

 

As for illeagal,

 

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.

 

[turboplanner]

So everyone's clear on this?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Onya Mick...:thumb_up:

 

 

[Captain]

Turboplanner,

 

No it does not!

 

Motzartmerv,

 

Your concern is right and proper, I thought I had covered it here.

 

But maybe I should add that a downwind landing has many pitfalls as it does (an increase of 10% on Vref or appraoch speed results in a 21% increase in landing roll) and you need good justification for carrying one out. Commercial operations are a world away from recreational and private flying.

 

As for illeagal,

So based on clause 64.3 quoted by youngmic, if you are using the into wind runway you have right of way over the aircraft landing crosswind.

 

That's interesting.

 

So I ask again, if an aircraft is backtracking on the into wind runway, does he have right of way when crossing the cross-wind runway?

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[philipnz]

I've made one downwind landing. I arrived back at Ardmore airport one evening and the active runway (unicom service) was 03 despite the wind being a 12 knot tailwind. Another arriving aircraft queried the runway and was told due to sever glare issues with the setting sun 03 was it. Fair enough too as the sun/glare was terrible. But touching down with a 12 knot tail wind was an eye opener as I hit the ground running. I mentioned it to my instructor and he thought it should be added to the sylabus as sometimes you may be required to do it.

 

 

[octave]

Great point, I did have to do a downwinding land whilst training, it was an engine failure drill, I set up for the nearest runway it happened to be downwind. I think my instructor wanted me to experience the gound rushing past me without me freaking out. It was aworthwhile experience and although I wouldn't choose a downwind landing I am glad that at least done 1.

 

In terms of legality if a downwind landing by an RPT is illegal it would seem a simple matter of reporting it to CASA maybe even video evidence, the problem with this is that I am not sure how much of a service this would be to Rec Aviation. It is easy to say RPTs are just trying to save money but a government faced with airlines cancelling marginal routes and the cocerns of rec flyers mmm I wonder who would win.

 

If the incident stats show more traffic conflicts because of the whole downwind straight in then I would be all for strict enforcement so I am happy to be conviced but it should not be a "we have to so why shouldn't you" argument. It should be on safety, efficiency and yes even cost.

 

 

[youngmic]

Octave,

 

 

It is not illegal!!

 

 

If it were your comment of being a simple exercise to bring the perpetrator to task would be correct.

 

 

I am absolutely amazed that there are some out there that think an airline in Australia would flaunt the rules in such an obvious way.

 

 

What operator in their right mind would take such a risk of doing so if it could result in a “Show Due Cause” from the regulator?

 

 

What flight crew would jeopardise their hard fought career by undertaking an illegal operation?

 

 

How would the fine detail of how to and when to conduct a downwind landing ever make it into the company’s approved Operations Manual?

 

 

Octave I am not so much directing this at you, I can see that your question is genuine.

 

 

But please those of you that think it is illegal please stop and consider your position carefully, you do no one any good by implying that the airline industry operates in a cavalier manner. And please don’t take up boating either; Indoor Butterfly Identification might be a better safer pastime.

 

 

[ahlocks]

...It is not illegal!!

Correct! :thumb_up:

 

Indoor Butterfly Identification might be a better safer pastime.

Hmmm, that sounds interesting..

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ok.. Lets look at the rules again.. Youngmic is correct, it is not illegal to land downwind... BUT, if there is already a designated runway in use I.e by others doing cct's, and THEN the airliner lands downwind contrary to cct direction THATS when it is an issue...(see Regulation 166 (2) (f)).. These guys seem to rely on people like octave and probaly evryone who flies a lighty, in getting out of the road (which is not a huge problem)...

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK, If Motzart Merv will PM me with The document name, page number and Issue date relating to his quoted "166", and Youngmic will PM me with the document name, page number and Issue date relating to his quoted "64.3", I will go in to CASA and get a clarification of these and the RAA comments, and report back CASA's view.

 

At that time I can also raise the question of runway crossings and whether the old legislation existed and has gone missing or was never there.

 

 

[octave]

GDay Youngmic

 

Yes I was really posing the question to those that are sure that is clearly illegal, then there is a clear remedy. But this is not my view, I was playing devils advocate

 

Cheers

 

 

[youngmic]

Turbo,

 

 

Here you go; AIP ENR 64.3 current issue.

 

 

In talking with the CASA you may be embarking on an interesting learning curve.

 

 

There is a truism that runs, ask 5 FOI's there take on a matter and you will get 6 different answers, none necessarily right. Hopefully you won’t run into that.

 

 

However IMHO the best way to tackle it (at the risk of telling you how to suck eggs) is to ask your regional Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) “is it illegal to land down wind”. Nothing more nothing less.

 

 

If he says it is, ask for the regulation that states this, if he cannot produce it then speak to another FOI until you find one that can reference the regulation, if none can then it is fair to assume it is not illegal.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Youngmic, When questions like this come up it should be possible for someone to hit the net and get a definitive answer.

 

I work in the Transport Industry and was able to convince Dotars to put truck design legislation on the net as living documents.

 

That is, when an issue came up and you needed a reference you went to the website, and there was the latest update of the regulation.

 

Prior to that we had the same system as CASA, expensive books, printed several years previously (because it was too expensive to print an update for every change) and non indexed updates, so you didn't really know what to build.

 

The clincher there was when I pointed out that this would minimise circulation of any blunders on the part of Dotars, because they could change the living document as soon as the first person reported the mistake.

 

So today, if you want to build a trailer for example, you can look up Vehicle Standards Bulletin 1 (from memory) and you'll get the exact requirements to the latest edition.

 

As I previously mentioned I've got some other document queries for them as well.

 

 

[skybum]

Back on the first part of the topic. If you are taxiing anywhere on the movement area and you come up to the unbroken line of a holding point YOU STOP! Airmanship 101! After you stop, uncontrolled aerodrome clear both ways (Thank you Mr Smith for legalising straight in approaches)then radio intentions. Controlled aerodrome you have the luxury of passing a holding point if given clearance AND you have acknowledged same. If crafty tower types wish to trap you as courtousy to ever watchful instructor....stop and ask for clearance to cross ANY runway. Keep that simple rule and you will always be safe and legal.:thumb_up:

 

 

[octave]

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

 

 

[facthunter]

Downwind landings.

 

From memory, the use of downwind landings came in with the use of "prefered runways" in control zones, required for "noise sensitive areas". Up to 10 Knots was considered automatically acceptable. The PIC always had right to nominate another procedure but this would generally involve a "set-up" delay by ATC, so this acted as a deterrent. (for some)

 

Sometimes this acceptance is in a situation where there is also considerable crosswind and wind gusts as well. Pilots are aware of the difficulties of handling their aircraft in these situations, whereas non-flying ATC personnel are not. There was pressure to operate in a "less safe" way for economic and political reasons. I consider this is POOR airmanship by definition.

 

Most of the downwind landings performed at the more remote aerodromes are purely to save time and the PIC elects to do it. I find this common practice dissappointing from the safety aspect and is pretty discourteous of other, shall I say it (LESSER) meaning smaller traffic (like us). Professional attitudes favour safety over expedience, end of subject.

 

Regarding look-out for traffic at intersections, do not forget intersecting runways OR aircraft taking off , or taxiing towards you . They are not visible if there is a rise near the half length of the runway.. Nev..

 

 

[ahlocks]

... I find this common practice dissappointing from the safety aspect and is pretty discourteous of other, shall I say it (LESSER) meaning smaller traffic (like us).

Lesser?!...well, I suppose that's important to some...i_dunno

I prefer the safety factor of knowing exactly where they are and find the banter while arranging separation very pleasant. Far from discourteous in fact.