Stopping at Runway Holding Position Markings

[octave]

GD'ay Turbo

 

When you say "Non standard ciruit" I am not sure if you are refer to giving way to an RPT on a straight in approach I dont think there is anything non standard about delaying my arrival at the circuit area, exending downwind or leaving the circuit (by an approved method) and returning and entering (by the approved method). If a RPT is making a straight in approach (from either direction) I cant stop that all I can do is deal with it in the safest an most efficient manner. The downwind landing may not be kosha (although of course runway slope is a factor) I am not going to force my right of way, having a SAAB make a missed approach is not in anyones interest.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave, the debate started with this statement from youngmic "some of us like to land down wind".

 

 

 

The straight in approach is provided for and priority is spelled out, so the straight in approach wasn't in question.Also, the discussion was about scanning for incoming traffic.I don't think anyone would suggest you should force your right of way, and that's likely to be a high risk exercise anyway because the other guy may not have seen you, may have a faulty radio etc.

 

I previously referred to the duty runway, others may call it the active runway, where one or more aircraft are in a common circuit pattern.What I referred to as a non standard circuit would be a circuit contrary to this, such as crosswind or downwind, left or rightAs far as your practice of giving way is concerned, a lot depends on what action you take and when and where you go, but its a little like giving way to a car facing a Give Way or Stop Sign, or facing you ready to make a turn.

 

9 times out of ten it will work, but the tenth time the unexpected siuation will lead to an accident - the legals can get very murky and suck you in.

 

 

[octave]

Gday Turbo,

 

I dont think that there is anything legally "murky" about the three methods I described. I can leave the circuit (by the approved method) to some point outside the circuit area if I wish. I will check but, I was led to believe that extending downwind was a legitimate way of ensuring spacing between traffic.

 

I agree that downind landing is less desirable. Getting back to the original subject,I think we all agree that when approaching a runway intersection that we need to check for traffic both ways.

 

Often giving way at my strip occurs because the most commonly used duty strip is the short cross strip (due to the usual prevailing winds) If a SAAB is approaching for the lonegest srip (normaly has a crosswind) and there are 3 RA or GA doing circuits on the into the wind but too short for SAAB strip at some stage the SAAB has to land. It is more of a question of shall I do 3 or 4 circuit before heading off down the coast or I am 3nm inbound and a SAAB is 10nm inbound we may both arrive at the circuit area at the same time I can slow up or stay outside the circuit are for a few minutes.

 

We are not really talking about waving the guy at the stop sign through.

 

Cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

Let's wait until I can lay the conflicting versions in front of CASA in relation to downwind landings and the word practicable.

 

You're right, you can leave the circuit or adjust your speed/positioning legally, however the murky bit comes after the accident when someone didn't see someone, and in the Public Liability case, the defendent, who has a lot to lose says something like "I was following the normal procedure we use at YSDDD". If that procedure has arisen out of locals evolving non standard procedures then the locals suddenly become co-defendants. (Plaintiff's lawyer "Mr Fire Marshall, how did you operate the fire extinguisher?" Fire Marshall "I sprayed it round the driver's head to keep his airways free of fire and that saved his life" Plaintiff's lawyer: "What is the correct way to operate a fire extinguisher?" Fire Marshall "You aim it at the seat of the flames, but in this case......" Plaintiff's lawyer "Thank you Mr Marshall. that will be all")

 

The point is this: Is the Saab pilot developing an expectation that when he comes in on the long strip (which in this case may meet the "Practicable" requirement) it will be vacated by the local pilots, and have they contributed to this expectation.

 

Bear in mind the Public Liability case will be giving more weight to your Duty of Care (although you're pretty well cooked if you haven't complied with the spirit of the law).

 

Quote: "We are not really talking about waving the guy at the stop sign through" Some people do the equivalent using the radio.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Let's wait until I can lay the conflicting versions in front of CASA in relation to downwind landings and the word practicable.You're right, you can leave the circuit or adjust your speed/positioning legally, however the murky bit comes after the accident when someone didn't see someone, and in the Public Liability case, the defendent, who has a lot to lose says something like "I was following the normal procedure we use at YSDDD". If that procedure has arisen out of locals evolving non standard procedures then the locals suddenly become co-defendants. (Plaintiff's lawyer "Mr Fire Marshall, how did you operate the fire extinguisher?" Fire Marshall "I sprayed it round the driver's head to keep his airways free of fire and that saved his life" Plaintiff's lawyer: "What is the correct way to operate a fire extinguisher?" Fire Marshall "You aim it at the seat of the flames, but in this case......" Plaintiff's lawyer "Thank you Mr Marshall. that will be all")

 

The point is this: Is the Saab pilot developing an expectation that when he comes in on the long strip (which in this case may meet the "Practicable" requirement) it will be vacated by the local pilots, and have they contributed to this expectation.

 

Bear in mind the Public Liability case will be giving more weight to your Duty of Care (although you're pretty well cooked if you haven't complied with the spirit of the law).

 

Quote: "We are not really talking about waving the guy at the stop sign through" Some people do the equivalent using the radio.

I think what we are talking about Defensive Aviation. Being dead right is not what we are after. That's why I said I was concerned about the "reg this" or "reg that".

 

What we want to do is to operate with a clear understanding of the rules and a really defensive attitude so that when others operate outside or on the margins of what we think the rules are we still don't end up with a catastrophe.

 

Slavish dependence on the rules tends to result in accidents that didn't have to happen.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[octave]

I think giving way RPTs is a fairly normal and accepted not just at the local level. The publication "Operations at non towered Aerodromes" available here

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/40pp.pdf

 

here is an example Page 20

 

Approaching base, the Cessna pilot

 

sees the SAAB approaching fi nal

 

and hears the SAAB’s broadcast

 

“3 mile fi nal runway 17”. Although

 

the Cessna has the right of way,

 

in this situation the pilot gives way

 

to HUP, extends downwind, and

 

broadcasts:

 

“Bathurst traffi c, Cessna

 

152 TEB extending

 

downwind runway 17,

 

number 2 to the SAAB.”

 

This is not one of the

 

recommended calls but

 

good airmanship dictates

 

that when such a confl ict is

 

likely the radio can be used to

 

resolve it. A short broadcast

 

is sufficient and no response

 

from the SAAB is required.

 

My point is that it is not an unusual procedure. I am sure that many pilots have extended downwind to accomodate a faster or slower aircraft.

 

Cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's a novel idea Pelorus - following the rules tends to get you killed eh.

 

Actually, you've got a bit of form.

 

Often an interesting subject comes up when you look at what other people are viewing, and a thread "Hire Goat Slaughterers and Qualify for Level 2" caught my eye.

 

I'm not sure about RAA, other than the excellent "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" order of action, but in GA there are many references to ensuring the safety of your aircraft above anything else.

 

Octave, that wasn't really the line of my argument, so I'll leave it.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Octave.. There's nothing wrong with getting out of the way of the big fast movers..

 

In the situation you posted above, think about this.. What if the straight in apporach was "downwind" and you were already in the cct on the into wind runway.. Now, add to this situation, old mates inbound in his thruster with no radio... First of all, where do you go to get out of the way?? live side?.. deadside??, remeber your deadside will be the SAAB's liveside.. Where does the thruster go??...where is he looking for traffic having seen you, but not the SAAB??...where does he go to descend?? ya smell what im cooking??....

 

cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

Two things;

 

1. I've made a promise to track down the three apparently conflicting documents and get some professional opinion from CASA. This includes the quoted document by Youngmic. I don't have a problem either way where this comes out.

 

2. This is more a human factors issue than pure legislation.

 

Merv points out one of the obvious issues

 

Another, which I haven't raised for fear of muddying the waters even deeper, is the degradation of safety when 360 degree scanning becomes the norm instead of sector scanning. Not saying you shouldn't adopt Octave's S turn, just that at the point where you may get an aircraft in the ear, you want the best quality of scanning. It is possible that this was the main reason we went from open paddock airstrips, landing anywhere from anywhere to formal strips and circuits. Something to think about until we get the downwind landing issue information.

 

 

[turboplanner]

People who have been handing off their right of way to other traffic such as RPT might want to take a close look at this.

 

I found the attached CAR 161 while trawling through the Civil Aviation Regulations this morning.

 

It appears that you could be fined around $2500.00 and face criminal charges for doing it. Might pay you to research this thoroughly.

 

 

 

[Captain]

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

You may think that Mike, but for me, I have learnt a lot from this discussion (of both subjects), and while I am still confused about which Reg is the most relevant or takes precedance, I think that what Turbo is planning to do to sort it out, and what will surely be further comments from members, will add to my knowledge base ... and that's a good thing.... I reckon. Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

That's a novel idea Pelorus - following the rules tends to get you killed eh.Actually, you've got a bit of form.

 

Often an interesting subject comes up when you look at what other people are viewing, and a thread "Hire Goat Slaughterers and Qualify for Level 2" caught my eye.

 

I'm not sure about RAA, other than the excellent "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" order of action, but in GA there are many references to ensuring the safety of your aircraft above anything else.

 

Octave, that wasn't really the line of my argument, so I'll leave it.

Turbo,

 

take a little care about what you might suggest as "form".

 

Also don't be too ready to apply a simplistic analysis of what someone is trying to contribute.

 

I did not suggest that we go around breaking the rules as a matter of course. What I did say is that slavish dependence on the rules has a tendency to result in accidents that didn't have to happen.

 

I meant that in the same way as saying that asserting your right of way at an intersection may be applying the rules, however it is not guaranteed to ensure your survival in the face of someone intent on implementing their interpretation of the rules.

 

A classic example is that, in Victoria at least, the person crossing a broken line in a lane change on the road is the give way driver. However accidents will happen if I continually assert my rights as the stand on driver in those circumstances. Good "roadmanship" calls for the stand on driver to keep out of the way of someone intent on crossing from one lane to the other. What would you prefer, to be standing amongst the mangled wreck of your car, asserting your right of way or to be shaking your head as you let the person in and muttering foul thoughts under your breath?

 

Years ago the COLREGS - the International Regulations for the Prevent of Collision at Sea - used to have the requirement that if you were the stand on vessel then you had better stand on lest you be assessed in damages due to having failed to hold your course when the regs allowed you to.

 

The COLREGS now sensibly expect that despite your rights as the stand on vessel you still have the right to do what is necessary to avoid collision. Quoting the IMO:

 

Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action

Airmanship requires that we do all things to avoid catastrophe, regardless of whether the other fellow is doing what the rules require. Octave has it right - that doesn't mean that the RPT drivers necessarilly do.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Captain,

 

I agree with you. My point was not that the regs are unimportant but that slavish adherence to them won't keep you safe necessarily.

 

Turbo - as for CAR 161 (2), my reading is that it is an almost exact replica of COLREGS Rule 17. It is particularly important to understand the import of the words starting "...but nothing..." that's the bit that will give rise to the penalty.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo, take a little care about what you might suggest as "form".

Yes, I'm sorry, was trying to inject some humour but it was wrong.

 

I'm certainly not advocating anyone to enforce their rights, because what you are saying is 100% correct, I'm referring to a situation where the first anyone knows there's a problem is the big bang.

 

However, I did come across a CAR this morning which covers abrogating your rights (posted above).

 

If rules are simple (which in this case I think we are all agreed they are not), and people follow them, then when a conflict situation arises people will tend to take the safe option.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbo - as for CAR 161 (2), my reading is that it is an almost exact replica of COLREGS Rule 17. It is particularly important to understand the import of the words starting "...but nothing..." that's the bit that will give rise to the penalty.

The regulation is that you hold course, but if a collision is imminent you get out of the way which is what you are advocating.

 

I read the penalty as applying to contravention of the regulation - the first part, where contravention can lead to uncertainty and the direct cause of an accident (referred to as the "Dance of Death" in some places).

 

The second part becomes your Defence for moving out of position, but could also draw a charge if it was proved that you knew of the conflict and decided to block the other aircraft.

 

 

[ahlocks]

People who have been handing off their right of way to other traffic such as RPT might want to take a close look at this..../...It appears that you could be fined around $2500.00 and face criminal charges for doing it. Might pay you to research this thoroughly.

Turbz, I really think this is clutching at straws.

 

There are checks and balances throughout the regulation. Applying just one clause as best fit isn't within the intent or purpose of the regulation.

 

I also think Mike sums it up pretty well.

 

"I think what we are talking about (is) Defensive Aviation. Being dead right is not what we are after."

 

===============

 

For as long as mankind has strived to create an idiot proof system,

 

there has always been corresponding development of the better idiot.

 

 

[turboplanner]

This Reg was only posted to bring it to the notice of those operating in conditions where it may affect them on a regular basis, particularly because of the severe penalties and potential criminal prosecution.

 

What they do with it is up to them - I didn't do it to spark debate or entertainment.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Cheers Turbz!

 

I understand what your line of thinking is and why you are doing it. No issue there. But it's not gunna stop me from giving you a wind up here or there.:devil:

 

I still believe that we're 'overthinking' the whole issue.:raise_eyebrow:

 

Me thinks I'll head out to loosen some rivets and lie in wait to test some new found knowledge of a couple of regulations if an RPT or other evil downwinder comes in ...;)

 

 

[octave]

Re "People who have been handing off their right of way to other traffic such as RPT might want to take a close look at this."

 

Planning ones arrival time at the circuit cleary is not "handing off right of way"

 

I take off and start a random number of circuits, I hear that REX is inbound or the skydive plane is reaching th top of its climb in order to use my flying time efficiently I leave the circuit in the approved manner deciding I will do a couple of circuits on my return. Clearly not "handing off right of way"

 

I might be doing circuits on the cross strip, I hear REX is on a straight in approach, I report that I am doing circuits on the cross strip. When rex is 1nm out. I realize that we that if we both proceed we could have an unhappy meeting at the intersection, so I extend my downwind leg to provide adequate spacing.

 

If you are saying that extending the downwind leg in order to provide better spacing is "handing off my right of way" I can't for the life of me see why the publication "Operations at Non Towerered Aerodromes" actually uses this method as an example.

 

Check page 20

 

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/avi...m/pdf/40pp.pdf

 

I say again I am not advocating unsual or unpredictable actions. I dont think anyone has suggested "assisting traffic flow" by unpredictable or dangerous methods.

 

In another of my postings I talked about the need to actually turn the the plane (both ways) just before the intersection instead of stopping at the intersection and looking upwind but only seeing the undersurface of the wing (in a high wing plane).

 

Also looking downwind. Let me just elaborate on why I think this is a good idea.

 

1) Wind may suggest a direction in which traffic is likely to arrive but what if the slope is contrary to this

 

2) At my srtip the main runway is paralel to the coast and nearly always has a crosswind, you can see the windsock bobbing towards one end and then the other. I would suggest that sometimes it is a tough call to clearly define upwind and downwind better to check both ways. When I cross a one way road I still look the other way, for the driver perhaps reversing back to a carpark or the little old lady who is just driving down the road the wrong way.

 

In another post I said I didn't have a problem with RPTs making a straight in approach, this was a statement of personal preference and I dont think I ever suggested that there were no downsides to this, mearly that it causes the minimum disrtuption to sports aviation activities, flight training and skydiving etc.

 

I am not suggesting that downwind landings should be allowable (except for operational reasons ie runway slope or noise abatement procedures, emeregencies,training) but even if this rule were inforced with large fines it is still going to occur at times.

 

What I find slightly annoying is when the points a have I made exagerated or extrapolated to support their arguement.

 

I will certainly discuss this our CFI to see what he thinks

 

 

[youngmic]

Turbo,

 

Not wishing to discredit your research, but I think you'll find 161's intent is in regard to separation and overtaking in the normal course of x country navigation.

 

For 20 years as professional pilot I have been reading regulations, they are not always well presented, occasionally contradictory, and often confusing, even to the CASA bods.

 

I feel I have been tested to ad nausea in the numerous exams I have had to sit on air law, and not only CASA but foreign air law as well. But the learning is as much about seeing how and when they are applied in an operational context.

 

It is important to realise that the CASA has to apply these laws in the real world, and whilst they could it is unlikely in your lifetime that you will ever see a RAAus pilot prosecuted for a breach of 161 by giving way to a Regional in the circuit area.

 

The whole foundation of recreational aviation is an avoidance of many of these convoluted laws.

 

The key to it is to just enjoy the simple pleasure of flight.

 

To this extent there are only 2 rules;

 

1. Don’t hit nothin’

 

2. Don’t do nothin’ dumb

 

If you stick to these you’ll be pretty right.

 

But please don’t stop reading up and posting as I’m sure we can all learn from it, and I’m waiting with baited breath on your CASA enquiry and feed back.

 

 

[Burlc]

Well how about this scenario, It's 1630 and you want to get a late afternoon flight in the still air, you take off,fly around admiring the view when you think geez I better get back, it's getting late. So you make inbound call and you get a 30 mile inbound from Captain Qantas with a straight in approach eta same as you, asks your intentions. I'll do a orbit at 5 miles and re-join when I here your 3 mile final call.

 

No worries, but then you get inbound calls from twin prop aircraft also wanting straight in approaches calling No 2,3,etc meanwhile your still flying around outside the circuit area freaking out because it's getting dark and you are VFR trained and in a VFR aircraft. This is a normal thing at YPPD 1/2 hour before dark,I know this because I enjoy listening to all the radio traffic at this time on most nights.

 

If you dont hold your ground the commercial guys will push you back where you may find yourself in a lot of trouble.

 

3 legs of circuit, once called onto base you have right of way unless aircraft on 1 mile final. No dought the commercial guys will try to bluff you but these are the rules. If you don't sometimes enforce the rule you may find yourself in flying conditions your not trained for. Look at AIP ENR 1.1-83 64.6.4, a,b,c,d, especially (d).

 

 

[Captain]

Well how about this scenario, It's 1630 and you want to get a late afternoon flight in the still air, you take off,fly around admiring the view when you think geez I better get back, it's getting late. So you make inbound call and you get a 30 mile inbound from Captain Qantas with a straight in approach eta same as you, asks your intentions. I'll do a orbit at 5 miles and re-join when I here your 3 mile final call.No worries, but then you get inbound calls from twin prop aircraft also wanting straight in approaches calling No 2,3,etc meanwhile your still flying around outside the circuit area freaking out because it's getting dark and you are VFR trained and in a VFR aircraft. This is a normal thing at YPPD 1/2 hour before dark,I know this because I enjoy listening to all the radio traffic at this time on most nights.

If you dont hold your ground the commercial guys will push you back where you may find yourself in a lot of trouble.

 

3 legs of circuit, once called onto base you have right of way unless aircraft on 1 mile final. No dought the commercial guys will try to bluff you but these are the rules. If you don't sometimes enforce the rule you may find yourself in flying conditions your not trained for. Look at AIP ENR 1.1-83 64.6.4, a,b,c,d, especially (d).

We often have the same scenario at YSWG, and as discussed previously, some call 30 miles straight in for a downwind landing as well ....... BUT in defence of the Qantas and REX guys that operate into here, they are courteous and professional and I would have no hesitation, in your scenario, of calling into the circuit, explaining my position with regard to last light and taking my right of way.

 

Same goes for the young guys in the twins coming back here from their freight runs.

 

While I haven't done that, yet, I believe that they would, in fact, invite you in if you explained that you need to get onto the ground because of light.

 

Ahlocks and I flew here yesterday evening arranging separation with 3 RPT's and a Navajo in the area, + a Rec. aircraft doing circuits and it all went smoothly.

 

There was no bluff, just good friendly communication.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Downwind Landings

 

To correct any confusion - my intention is to establish what the Regulation is regarding voluntary downwind landings.

 

Examples:

 

“Some of us like to do downwind landings”

 

RPT, Crop Sprayer etc landing downwind to save time/money

 

It would also be handy to get some guidelines on the boundary of practicability.

 

To date I’ve found three sets of information which seem to conflict, but have not found the RAA regulation quoted by Octave.

 

Once I get the material verified, I can put it before CASA and try to get some guidance.

 

I don’t think there’s any argument against increased vigilance or defensive flying.

 

On the other hand it’s interesting that no one has been able to challenge the example given by Motzartmerv.

 

CAR 161

 

You need to get a Lawyer’s Opinion to be sure of the intent and application of this regulation.

 

My thinking is, it only applies where the situation it refers to exists – when aircraft are established in a pattern in which there is a formal priority.

 

Some of the examples given in this thread clearly don’t meet that situation, so I don’t think they would be relevant.

 

As Youngmic says it’s hard to imagine a pilot being booked.

 

The most likely case where prosecution would occur in my opinion is as the result of an accident.

 

One pilot recently lost his life when, while carrying out a go round, he was directed by the tower to make a premature crosswind turn and join the downwind leg, where he collided with an aircraft travelling on a normal downwind leg. This example, while not being exactly relevant to our discussion shows that even with communication it is possible for someone’s concentration to be upset, or someone’s expectation that another aircraft will not be close, to the point that an accident occurs.

 

Where you can see the other aircraft and talk to the other aircraft the odds may well be that you will conclude the flight without incident, but it’s the one you don’t see that gets you.

 

Even if the RPT is being belligerent and pushing his way in (and we know the majority don’t do this), you at least know what’s happening and can allow for it.

 

The imminent risk comes when someone makes an unexpected move to get out of the way and spooks someone into making a mistake, or the “after you Roger, no after you Robert” causes a collision with an unseen, unheard third party.

 

In other words the first thing you know about a problem is when the nose of the other aircraft comes through your ear, and that’s the most likely scenario for the fatality.

 

As I previously mentioned, I raised this regulation because of it’s heavy fine and criminal prosecution. The regulation is very succinct and there’s not a lot of point in debating it because the argument is likely to be between you and the Magistrate on a very specific incident.

 

SETTING AN EXAMPLE

 

As Motzartmerv pointed out, a lot of younger/inexperienced guys are being influenced by these posts, and this has been supported by similar posts from very experienced pilots keen to see the newer generation grow in an increasingly safe environment.

 

I would hope the younger/newer guys can see that a set of easily found, easily understood and reasonable safety regulations should be what we strive for so that we all understand what we need to do, and what the other person is likely to do in order to make what we love to do, as safe as possible.

 

 

[octave]

Here is the source of the quote I used earlier -note these are not regs.

 

It is worth reading the whole page as it does mention some of the points we have covered ie RPT ops and ag ops

 

Landing

 

Burlc I dont think anyone is talking about slavishly giving way to every RPT.

 

Let me turn the situation around.

 

4 RA or GA on the cross strip, wind is straght down the cross strip, by definition the cross strip becomes the duty runway. REX reports inbound,straight in approach for the main strip (by definition is not the duty strip) REX reaches 1 nm from strip. Legally REX must give way to established circuit traffic. In theory if the 4 RA anf GA take the attitude that they have the right of way (which legally they do) and if they are not prepared to give an inch we have a situation that is in no ones interests.

 

I would suggest that if one were to pickup the road rules and regs, read and memorize it and then drive using only these rules and regs down to the letter , would it work in the real world.

 

cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thanks Octave