Stopping at Runway Holding Position Markings

[motzartmerv]

Here ya go....

 

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988

 

PART 12 RULES OF THE AIR

 

Page 322

 

Division 2

 

166 Operating in vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome

 

Para 2,

 

 

(2) The pilot in command of an aircraft that is being operated in the

 

 

 

 

 



vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome must:

 

 

 

 

 



(a) maintain a look-out for other aerodrome traffic to avoid collision;

 

 

 

 

 



and

 

 

 

 

 



(b) ensure that the aircraft does not cause a danger to other aircraft in

 

 

 

 

 



the vicinity of the aerodrome; and

 

 

 

 

 



© conform with, or avoid, the circuit pattern; and

 

 

 

 

 



(d) unless subregulation (3) or (4) applies — when approaching the

 

 

 

 

 



aerodrome to land, join the circuit pattern for the direction in

 

 

 

 

 



which landing is to be undertaken on the upwind, crosswind or

 

 

 

 

 

downwind leg;

 

(f) to the extent practicable, land and take off into the wind,

 

 

 

I think B,C and F cover it....

 

 

 

Here's some more on straight in approaches...

 

 

(3) The pilot in command of an aircraft may carry out a straight-in

 

 

 

 

 



approach to a non-controlled aerodrome only if:

 

 

 

 

 



(a) the aircraft is equipped with serviceable radio; and

 

 

 

 

 



(b) the pilot broadcasts the intention to do so on the VHF frequency

 

 

 

 

 



in use at the aerodrome; and

 

 

 

 

 



© before starting the approach, the pilot determines wind direction

 

 

 

 

 



and runways in use; and

 

 

 

 

 



(d) the pilot carries out all manoeuvring, to establish the aircraft on

 

 

 

 

 



final approach, at least 5 miles from the threshold of the landing

 

 

 

 

 



runway intended to be used; and

 

 

 

 

 



(e) the pilot gives way to any other aircraft established and flying in

 

 

 

 

 

the circuit pattern at the aerodrome.

 

 

Interesting that its a requirement to determin wind direction before starting the approach... Why would that be???

 

cheers

 

 

 

[Gibbo]

© before starting the approach, the pilot determines wind direction

 

and runways in use; and

 

There is still nothing to stop you making a downwind landing if you have determined the wind direction and which runway is being used. If no runway is being used at the time then if you use that strip it becomes the active.

 

If they are bigger than me I will still give them right of way as long as it does not cause anybody else a safety issue. Anybody feel like landing directly behind a 767 on a hot day in Mount Isa.

 

Gibbo

 

 

[octave]

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

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave, refer Post #68. That's the plan.

 

 

[octave]

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

 

cheers

 

 

[skybum]

Not having a go at you, Octave:thumb_up: If you know you have a blind spot you bleeping well clear it before you put yourself in harms way:cool:

 

(Another argument for another thread, Only a few things to be annoyed about high wings. Blind above you on the ground, in the air and blind into turns.)

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

To many "reg this" and "reg that" and "illegal" in this thread for me.

 

Bottom line for me is that a/c do make downwind landings and xwind landings and you'd better have your eyes open else you'll hit them. If we worry about taking it to CASA and reporting these guys then we'll still be wondering why it hasn't changed when we are all retired.

 

As Billy Connolly said in a very famous Power Point: "...and !@!@# stay awake 'cause it'll all %#$# change tomorrow".

 

I was at Kingscote the other morning. The Air South flight took off with about 3 knots of downwind because that pointed him straight at Adelaide. 5 minutes later the Rex flight took off into the 3 knots of wind - I suspect because he was absolutely chockers and needed all the help he could get.

 

So what? Look, listen and avoid.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[octave]

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

 

 

[winsor68]

All this talk of downwind landing with the RPT guys has got me thinking...and I know this is off subject... but in 4 years of time at my local airport I have never seen any aircraft land downwind? Or at least as far as the 2 local windsocks say...Why would that?

 

 

[Burlc]

Well I was on a RPT flight to Perth from Hedland a month ago and when the pilot landed on the mains and the nose wheel was still in the air all the passengers including myself were thrown from left to right as the pilot was making substancial rudder inputs trying to keep it straight.

 

Now being a light aircraft pilot I can say Im used to getting thrown around a bit when flying but this landing actually scared me.

 

When the aircraft turned onto the taxi way I noticed the windsock was a 8-10 knot tail-crosswind.

 

Now this XXXXed me off so much so that I was considering telling the pilot so through the closed door on departing the aircraft,but then I remembered the pilot would have been following directions from air traffic control so maybe not his/her fault.

 

My point is why would RPT traffic endanger the safety of the passengers and crew, other GA, RA traffic just to save a bit of fuel or time. I've never seen a RPT jet or piston aircraft land downwind at YPPD CTAF® yet and I hope I never do.

 

You would like to think pilots would have more sence then that.

 

 

[Tomo]

In my opinion it would be just down right stupid to land downwind if the wind is basically more than 10kts... if it's the only choice, well I guess that's what it's gonna be, but if it's the pilot's choice, then I'm sure it would be done into wind....

 

Do and S turn to look both ways on high wind stuff... and LOOK BOTH ways, that way it doesn't matter which way some body's deciding to land... I just amagine that it's a double lane High way, and you want to turn to the right....:thumb_up:

 

Just My 2 cents:big_grin:

 

 

[ahlocks]

.. I've been reading all the posts and really wondering what all the hype is.

For me? If someone is going to quote "the rules", they should refer to, and quote the complete rule(s) and not omit parts that are highly relevant.

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, the one that's not going to be able to stop in time always has right of way. ;)

 

Cheers!

 

 

[turboplanner]

(a) Attempt to get the complete rules is underway, already with some interesting results.

 

(b) You'd just about have to be trying to hit the one you can see or are talking to, so that's not the issue of most concern.

 

It's the Bonanza that's just come in from Sydney with a pilot, wife and two kids sets up for a normal circuit, and either is tuned to the wrong frequency or has developed a radio fault who would be the most likely candidate OR as mentioned in an Incident report I read a couple of days ago and haven't been able to find, there are over-transmissions which remove the certainty of who's doing what in the circuit.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

In my opinion it would be just down right stupid to land downwind if the wind is basically more than 10kts...

Yes and no. Unless I've missed it in this conversation we haven't discussed runway slope. There is more benefit in landing downwind on an uphill runway than landing upwind on the downwind slope, up to and sometimes over 10 knots, depending on the aircraft type.

 

Same goes for taking off. It is generally also accepted for larger aircraft to take off down hill with a tailwind as more benefit it gained from the downwind slope than the reduction in runway length required for an upwind and up-slope departure.

 

 

[ahlocks]

(a) Attempt to get the complete rules is underway, already with some interesting results.

Turbz, cobber digger mate,

 

The complete set rules already exist and they are freely available;

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/act_regs/1988.pdf

 

Part 12 - rules of the air

 

It's all in there....even the Bonanza scenario.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mate, sweetheart - patience is a virtue. It's a little more complicated than that. Better to get it right because there are two aspects:

 

1. Complying with the law where penalties can be applied

 

2. Demonstrating Duty of Care if an accident should happen, bearing in mind that the costs can range from a manslaughter charge ("Rules are just a nuisance Judge") to perhaps 8 x fatalities at around $2.5 million each and a couple of incapacitations at around $7 million each = $34 million, less what your Public Liability pays ??

 

 

[ahlocks]

... sweetheart - patience is a virtue.

Not fair! You know I go weak at the knees when you say that. :heart:

Still reckon it's already been sorted ...;)

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Tomo]

Yes and no. Unless I've missed it in this conversation we haven't discussed runway slope. There is more benefit in landing downwind on an uphill runway than landing upwind on the downwind slope, up to and sometimes over 10 knots, depending on the aircraft type.Same goes for taking off. It is generally also accepted for larger aircraft to take off down hill with a tailwind as more benefit it gained from the downwind slope than the reduction in runway length required for an upwind and up-slope departure.

Yes... good point!

 

When I said what I did, I was referring to a level runway, and having a choice with which way to land....

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I wasn't aiming at you Tomo, you just got splattered in the cross-fire.

 

Even the slightest of slopes weighs into this argument.

 

I'm not sure how this all relates to Captain's original question though.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Brent, slope is catered for in the word practicable in 166 (2) (f), so isn't in contention.

 

This thread has two threads.

 

 

[Tomo]

This thread has two threads.

UNF or UNC??

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

As a potential thread millionaire, I'm surprised you forgot cotton!

 

 

[Tomo]

As a potential thread millionaire, I'm surprised you forgot cotton!

Nah, Cotton is just me past time when it's in season.....

 

I'm actually a Mechanical Engineer... so threads are all part of the day...:thumb_up:

 

 

[turboplanner]

So far the people who have been a part of non standard circuits seem to be posting about normal operations.

 

This ATSB Incident report shows how quickly things can go pear shaped on a sunny day, this time with two intersecting runways, but both AC operating into wind.

 

The key reasons seem to be two over transmissions in a row and an ADC who wasn't under the stress of piloting and with plenty of time to scan the sky being unsure of where aircraft were.

 

199804856.doc

 

199804856.doc

 

199804856.doc

[motzartmerv]

Thank god the Dash 8 skippa had his eyes pealed..

 

We tend to take it for granted that ATC have things under control, ive often heard the statement from pilots " its so much easier operating under ATC, they keep you seperated, all you need to do is sit back and follow instructions." In a GAAP this is not the case, while they do there best, they do not provide seperation in the air. Thats the sole responsability of the pilot. The incident in the report is different however, both aircraft were being handled by ATC and one was on the ground while the other was approaching.. Is it the same at controlled strips?? i mean, ATC is sapposed to provide seperation aren't they??

 

At any rate, ive often been told, Never assume the guy has got it right.. I like to take it further and ALWAYS assume he's got it wrong....

 

Ps, turbo, i only got your message after getting home from work.. Im in the office again next week so i'll look up that text for you then.

 

cheers