Stopping at Runway Holding Position Markings

[Burlc]

Octave, I agree 100% with what you have said. But if 4 RA and 1GA aircraft in circuit for full stop landing then REX can wait. If light aircraft doing circuits then they should let big bird in for sure.

 

But can I get a answer as to what happens if REX mucks up approach and needs to go around and 4 RA and 1 GA aircraft are still in a extended circuit pattern for the into wind runway.

 

Classic mid air collision case wouldnt you say.

 

For my personel info for this senario what would you fellers do in this situation.

 

Seems unpractable for 4 aircraft to leave the circuit area,would everyone change runway for REX's chosen runway then change back again after REX's landed, this sounds dangerous to me. Please respond as this is a classic situation at YPPD.

 

 

[youngmic]

 

In VMC and without terrain issues simply execute a missed approach maintaining runway hdg and broadcast intentions until well clear of all traffic then return for another attempt.

 

 

One would hope (and assume) that the environment has been upgraded to CTAF ®

 

 

Flying my Eze on downwind, and approaching the upwind extended centerline of the RPT's chosen rwy and heard the missed approach I would simply move out of there road.

 

 

Hopefully the climb gradient of a turbo prop would put them over the top of the other aircraft as they approach your downwind position. If the layout of the runways was such that the missed approach could/would spear them straight into a sea of downwind traffic then perhaps the crew might setup for a straight in approach from the other direction, even if it has a touch of downwind component, particularly if it also happens to align with their inbound direction and sun is also an issue.

 

 

If I ever had to do that I would then seek out Motzartmerv and repent my sins, and seek his counseling on the matter. :hittinghead:

 

 

Where it could get interesting is if the RPT lost an engine shortly after initiating the go round. But that’s a lot of Swiss cheese to line up in one day.

 

 

In that scenario it puts a lot of emphasis on the principals of see and avoid.

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Well, ya wouldn't need forgivness from me mate, you'd already be talking to your maker along with your 30 passengers.. Because youve gone and made an assumption that its been "upgraded to a ctaf R".. (where you got that idea from just leaves me boggled..).

 

The crew setting up for a straight in from the other direction??... isn't the whole subject relating to them doing straight ins to save time etc??... so now you have them buzzing around outside the cct area to setup a straight in the other way??...instead of joining normally??.. I love this perfect world of yours, where can i find this place where the swiss cheese never lines up????

 

 

[Burlc]

Thanks for that Youngmic,you helped turn the brain over another cog.

 

Obviously if your in circuit for into wind runway and RPT on approach for main crosswind runway, calls 1 mile final you would adjust airspeed to ensure you are not on RPT's runway centerline should they require a go-around.

 

You also mention the sun which is a good point. No guarantees RPT would be able to see any downwind traffic in a go-around, so yeah best plan of attack, make sure your not in their way to start with.

 

 

[Burlc]

Thats a bit harsh Motzartmerv. If you look at your ERSA for Port Hedland and relise 737's,717's can't land on a 1000m runway so lighter aircraft using 36 would need to allow the RPT to land on the 2500m runway. This is why I asked the question and Youngmic answered it and I thank him for that.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea, perhaps a bit harsh, (but he called me out to the carpark first)..

 

I was just curious how in his reply he came up with "One would hope (and assume) that the environment has been upgraded to CTAF ®"...????

 

Apart from that, his reply is obviously the only safe way around the problem...

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

[snip]I was just curious how in his reply he came up with "One would hope (and assume) that the environment has been upgraded to CTAF ®"...????

[snip]cheers

Merv,

 

I think that's probably a reference to the ongoing strategy of converting CTAFs to CTAF®s where RPT operations take place.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[youngmic]

Motzartmerv,

 

(where you got that idea from just leaves me boggled..).

I suspect there are many things in aviation that leave you boggled, but I'm trying to help you out a little.

 

The reason I said;

 

One would hope (and assume) that the environment has been upgraded to CTAF ®

Is because 63% of regional destinations served by REX are CTAF ®'s and given the amount of traffic in the hypothectical scenario it would be probable that it too was a CTAF ®. Those airfields that are not CTAF ®'s are generally the airports where traffic density is low.

 

And in response to this one;

 

where can i find this place where the swiss cheese never lines up????

To date any of the major Aussie regionals will do fine.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Mic and Merv - could both of you take it back a peg on the aggro scale please.

 

Discuss with civility and respect. Sniping adds no value to the discussion for the rest of us.

 

Thanks,

 

Ross

 

 

[youngmic]

Sorry, Merv and others.

 

All written with a smile and tongue in cheek though.

 

Perhaps I should have added for clarification earlier that "the set up for staight in approach" would have been conducted back 30nm+ when awareness of the cct or inbound traffic was realised.

 

 

[octave]

The conversation seems to be narrowing in on the desirability or not of the straight in approach whether downwind or not , remember you may be expecting an aircraft to approach from upwind but, do you know the slope of the runway?, this must have the same importance as the wind direction. Perhaps the wind direction is ill defined as is often the case at my strip the main runway (only runway available to larger aircraft) usually has a crosswind fluctuating between favoring one end or the other but not a definitive predictor of circuit direction. Looking both ways before entering a runway in my opinion is like calling "CLEAR PROP" before starting up, I may know there is no one around but I still do it anyway.

 

The straight in approach seems to be the main area of contention here. The fact is it is legal in Australia and many other countries (all though not all). We may not like it but that is how it is, one could put ones energy into into lobbying for change but in the mean time we must cope with the situation as it is not as we would like it to be.

 

I have not addressed scenarios put forward because I think generally they have been addressed or they are framed too loosely to answer without much back and forth messaging, but would be happy to if called upon.

 

An RPT missing an approach and going around could occur with a standard overfly and circuit entry also, but in the most recent scenario you can see that something has to give, it is no ones interest for a RPT making one or more missed approaches.

 

I can understand the idea that 4 aircraft in a circuit can't just all leave the circuit at the same time but at busy times even without an incoming RPT circuit exit can be and is achieved safely.

 

Now my next comments refer to ctaf r . Some people on this board may have misunderstood my comments re giving way or managing traffic. In the latest scenario posted I would be thinking about whether to do my circuits now in a busy traffic pattern or later when the traffic has reduced. Often I will hear the 10 straight in call and make my decision as to whether to head off down the coast or not, this is not really giving way but more leaving a crowded traffic area. I think people have the idea that I am suggesting that when an RPT is coming in that the rest of us scatter like flies swatted away from a picnic table, this is not the case.

 

We also deal with a very busy skydive school, this does involve co operation, and flexibility. This does not mean that the skydive pilots are pushy, quite the opposite. It doesn't really mean making the situation unpredictable btu rather workable.

 

One of my concerns is the angry pilot whether they fly RA GA or RPT, I am sure we have all experienced them, the ones that need to prove that they wont be pushed around .

 

If I can safely alter my circuit within the natural variability of circuit size in order and get a SAAB on the ground and out of our hair, then I don't really see the problem.

 

I will of course discuss this our CFI as should everyone who has any doubts about there procedures

 

Fly safe and don't fly angry.

 

cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

Straight-in approach.

 

One thing that the straight in approach does is that it reduces the period of time that you have to "mix it" with the aircraft involved. HE is not sharing any leg other than final. It also shrinks the piece of sky from where he should appear. It will come from 5 miles on centre line and generally at the usual angle of 3 degree slope. It is only available when radio equipped also.

 

Extending downwind is the best and most effective way of increasing the time between landings. If he has to U-turn and backtrack to exit the taxiway, this may be the biggest factor affecting your spacing, so allow for it or YOU may have to execute a go-around, yourself. .

 

Landing with a large downwind is bad news for the brakes. They will end up being very hot on many occasions and should be allowed to cool for the subsequent take-off, or they will not perform to expectations if that take off has to be aborted. Nev...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave, I thought we were clear that straight in approaches are legal.

 

The straight in approach procedure into wind provides radio warnings for others in the circuit, the scanning area required is reasonably small, and if you are holding ready for take off the aircraft will be where all the other aircraft on final finish up.

 

Downwind landings, whether straight in or not, are another matter, that's what forked this thread, I'm still waiting for some verification and expect to be talking to CASA shortly.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea, sorry for the snipes..

 

I'll just respond to the points directed to me..

 

Mick, if the figure of 63 % you gave is accurate, is that reason enough to "assume" (your word) that the aerodrome is a Ctaf R??.. when i went to school 63 % is almost 2 thirds.. What about the other 37%.. do we "assume" they have suddenly changed status and are now CTAF R's ??.. and even if they are ctaf r's, do we automatically assume that all pilots have working radio's?, and correct frequency selected..??

 

As to the swiss cheese thing... Find me one regional that hasn't had any sort of reportable incident regarding traffic/ radio problems..ie, the holes starting to line up hey??

 

And yes, your right, alot still leaves me boggled.. I fully appreciate your kind concerns and willingness of an old hand to help out.. It fills me with warm fuzzies...

 

On a seperate note, in an earlier post i referred to a thread i started some time ago relating to a rex saab ripping into me on the PAL frequency at Taree (CTAF) .. The subsequent investigation carried out by both REX and outsiders led to REX changing there SOP's for arrivals at CTAF aerodromes.. I would be happy to furnish anyone with the report that details the changes made and reasons for those changes which relate directly to this discussion..

 

cheers

 

 

[octave]

Gday Turbo, I wasn't suggesting that anyone thought a straight in was illegal rather, I was saying that whether we think it is a good idea or not we have to deal with it as it is. The other point I was trying to make is that we all agree that runway slope can overide wind direction, therefore the windsock is not the whole story.

 

cheers

 

 

[youngmic]

Motzartmerv,

 

What about the other 37%.. do we "assume" they have suddenly changed status and are now CTAF R's ??.. and even if they are ctaf r's, do we automatically assume that all pilots have working radio's?, and correct frequency selected..??

I really do not understand how you arrived at all of that.

 

relating to a rex saab ripping into me on the PAL frequency at Taree (CTAF) ..

Mmmm...

 

Ok I would like to see the report detailing SOP changes.

 

 

[Burlc]

Facthunter and Turbo have hit the nail on the head in regard to why straight in approach for the big birds is a good idea.This is how it goes at YPPD.

 

Qantas 737 abc 30 miles inbound for straight in approach runway 32 currently at 10-000 on decent,eta 45.

 

That is usually 10 minutes later so everyone knows 10 minutes in advance the 737's on his way,everyone knows where he is coming from and can manouver to let him land without delay.

 

Captain Qantas will then call 5 mile final for 32, will turn his landing lights on and if you cant see that you should'nt be flying. He will call 3 mile,1 mile and then he's on the ground and out of everyones hair which is a good thing because a 737 is big and fast and I dont like the idea of mixing it with these guys in the circuit for too long.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

This will probably be a big post, but im sure you will see the relevance..

 

The important thing to remember is the crew said they were on a straight in approach for runway 22 at Taree. They were onroute from sydney, so some sort of manovouring near the cct area was needed. I contested the crews claim that they never got closer then 3 miles, they got close enough for me to see heads in the windows..

 

Dear Andrew,

 

Regional Express has completed our investigation into the incident of Tuesday March 11, regarding the approach of ZL728 into Taree at approximately 1330 EST, as initially reported to us by Andrew Campbell (hereafter referred to as ‘Jabiru pilot’ as identity has not been divulged to Rex operational crew). The Rex operating crew submitted individual written accounts and were subsequently formally debriefed by myself, our Sydney Flight Operations Manager, our SAAB 340 Standards Manager and Rex’s Chief Pilot. The following summary and outcomes have been derived from the accounts of the Rex crew and the results of the debriefing session.

 

The Rex crew conducted an approach briefing for a visual ‘straight-in’ approach to runway 22 at approximately 25nm from Taree and broadcast their approach call on the BNE area frequency (120.55). The Captain, who was the PNF (‘Pilot Not Flying’), referred to the CDP (‘Company Departure Procedures’) for Taree aerodrome’s geographical and navigational characteristics, but confused the PAL and CTAF frequencies and erroneously selected 122.4 for CTAF (correct CTAF for Taree/Port Macquarie is 118.1).

 

Subsequent communications with the Jabiru pilot were based upon the PNF’s assumption that his selection of 122.4 for CTAF was correct. The Rex SAAB maintained positive location of the Jabiru at all times throughout the approach on TCAS (‘Traffic Collision Avoidance System’) and it is estimated that the closest separation was 3-4nm. The Captain did not take any action to verify his frequency selection until after landing and neither pilot recalls being wary of the lack of AFRU (‘Aerodrome Frequency Response Unit’)communication from Port Macquarie (as per Rex Route Manual guidance for Taree approaches).

 

We do not dispute the fundamental claim of the allegation – that Rex flight ZL728 conducted all approach and landing procedures using an incorrect CTAF frequency setting. The initial error was the Captain’s identification of an incorrect CTAF frequency. As the crew were using the PAL frequency in place of CTAF, they could not have received any ‘beepback’ from the Port Macquarie AFRU. Neither pilot recalls being concerned by the lack of that automated response to their inbound transmissions. Further, despite advice from the Jabiru (on area frequency) that Brisbane centre had confirmed Taree CTAF as 118.1, the Rex crew continued to hold conviction in their frequency selection without double-checking such.

 

Despite several situational challenges which should reasonably have prompted re-assessment of the frequency, the crew did not verify the details of their briefing. It is this failure by Rex crew to manage their inherent human fallibility through appropriate utilization of technical and communication aides that is of particular concern and hence was thoroughly discussed during the formal debrief. The importance of vigilance with respect to AFRU operation (i.e. routine expectation of a signal and critical analysis if/when that signal is not received) was elucidated, as appropriate management of the lack of response from the AFRU in this case would have undoubtedly averted this incident.

 

The report we received from the Jabiru pilot also raised some significant ‘airmanship’ concerns, most notably that the Rex crew “bullied” the operator into an erroneous situation by insisting he communicate on 122.4 (the PAL frequency). These concerns were also discussed with the Captain and he has been reprimanded for his poor conduct as a representative of Regional Express.

 

Outcomes:

 

 

 

·Regional Express has submitted a formal report of the event to the ATSB (no contact has been received to date regarding any potential ATSB investigation);

 

·Regional Express was contacted by CASA shortly after the event, and has provided full disclosure of the internal investigation and its outcomes;

 

·A SAAB Operations Notice has been issued to all crew in order to immediately address the ramifications of this event by reinforcing AFRU and CTAF briefing protocol;

 

·An immediate review is to take place regarding explicit instructions in the Flight Crew Operations Manual (FCOM) and Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM) regarding the content of approach briefings for OCTA aerodromes. Where reference is currently made to “frequencies”, we will evaluate the potential benefit of specifically mentioning CTAF distinctly from other frequencies; and the inherant safety risk's involved with straight in approaches contrary to circuit direction;

 

·The next bi-monthly ‘Rex Group Safety Newsletter’ will contain an analysis of the event (all identifying information will be excluded) in order to provide education to the pilot core of the importance of OCTA frequency procedure compliance and situational awareness; and

 

·A de-identified summary report of the event has been provided to our training department for inclusion in fleet-wide CRM (‘Crew Resource Management’) training.

 

Andrew, many thanks to you for bringing this event to my attention. Safety is our first priority, and always a developing process - your report gave us the opportunity to address a serious procedural failing by this crew, and to provide education and training for the benefit of the rest of our pilot complement.

 

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I always consider airports/landing fields to be the most dangerous places. Most mid-airs occur within 10 nm of an airfield. You are dealing with the other-human factor, which also includes the possible idiot factor.

 

I sit up and take notice when approaching airports, you cannot afford to miss anything. I don't mind doing the occasional downwind takeoff or landing myself if it suits me better, operationally, and of course it should be an option if not too disruptive.

 

Same as running out of fuel.....if you don't watch out round airports you are a danger to yourself and others, and shouldn't be allowed in an aeroplane....................

 

 

[turboplanner]

Major, the crux if the argument in this long thread is whether voluntary downwind landings are illegal, the main issues with downwind landings being the increased risk factor that 360 degree scanning on the part of other pilots is more likely to fail, the aircraft will be in conflict with other aircraft already on the duty circuit, and under those circumstances any breakdown in radio or visual communication can be catastrophic, and so on.

 

CAR 166 reads:

 

"(2) The Pilot in Command of an aircraft that is being operated in the vicinity of a non controlled aerodrome must:

 

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

 

(empasis mine)

 

Youngmic has quoted a clause from the AIP ENR which uses the word "operational" which you have also used.

 

Octave has quoted two descriptive examples from other publications.

 

While I'm very comfortable that CAR 166 is explicit and nests above the other documents, I'm getting an opinion from CASA so we all then have an understanding of what the law actually requires us to do.

 

There have been enough red herrings thrown in here to feed the crowd at Galilee, not to mention hidden agendas.

 

There has been repeated reference, in defence of downind landings, arguing that everyone is talking to each other and knows what's going on.

 

Motzartmerv's post shows that even at RPT level, Human Factors kicks in and there can be an aircraft in the circuit not comunicating.

 

Between Tooradin, Tyabb, and Moorabbin there is a very high incidence of aircraft who forget to change frequency and either call inbound to Tyabb on the Tooradin frequency or arrive silently from Moorabbin, and while the more widely separated regional airfields may not experience that level of error, you certainly need to expect it.

 

That is not to downgrade the call for a high level of vigiliance from a number of posters. I've admitted that my Moorabbin training, where the duty runway was decided by the tower, left me with the habit of only looking downwind for incoming aircraft, and I've certainly changed that.

 

There's no doubt that some downwind landings will meet the "practicable" definition of CAR 166, examples being an emergency, training for emergency and runway slope.

 

There's also no doubt that downwind landings significantly increase risk factors for other aircraft on the duty circuit and for the aircraft itself (recent example at Barossa event, brake wear/efficiency, undercarriage/airframe damage) and should be kept to an absolute minimum and it seems to me that CAR 166 does that.

 

Public Liability prosecutions and law suits in Australia date from about the mid '80's and it also seems to me that a lot of people haven't caught up with the reverse effect of these.

 

Under the previous prescriptive regulation era, if you didn't like rules, or didn't agree with them, and broke them you'd get a fine if you were caught.

 

There are still prescriptive regulations around, so that still happens, but you now have a Duty of Care in everything you do to ensure safety.

 

So now, if there's a law, and you decide to depart from it, and someone is killed, you run the risk of being charged with manslaughter, and being sued for aout $2.5 ,million per death and up to around $7 million per incapacitation.

 

While nothing happens, nothing happens - there's no one tapping you on the shoulder for breaking that law, and that's why so many people aren't aware of the chaged situation.

 

However, with a body lying on the ground you can see it's going to be very difficult for you to prove that by ignoring the law you took the safer option.

 

This thread is about operations, but as an aside one of the first Specification cases involved two young guys who decided to tow

 

a panel van weighing let's say two tonnes with a rope of let's say 1 tonne capacity. They stopped and got out to talk to each other, the rope broke and the van rolled backwards killing a pedestrian. Because they knew the rope had less capacity than the weight of the van they were convicted of manslaughter and are now doing about 6 1/2 years in prison.

 

Fortunately discharging your Duty of Care is relatively straightforward if you follow the go/no go principle.

 

If you're repairing a wing and the main spar specification is a certain size and grade aluminium, and you fit that material you can argue you discharged your duty of care. If you know what the specification calls up, but you decide to fit your choice - get the hands ready for the handcuffs.

 

Please note that this is not professional legal advice, just something to make you think, but what I would strongly recommend is that you spend the small amount of money it will cost to sit down with a Public Liability law specialist and say something like"this is what I do, this is how I think, how do I minimise my risk".

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Turboplanner, I understand all of your points, and those of others also. I have been sitting back and watching to see where this goes, instead of jumping in and stirring up the water myself.

 

The term "to the extent practicable" is legaleese at it's best, and is a highly flexable statement, and much open to interpretation, by even the best lawyer. That's why I think they have used it in this case. It dosen't say you can't land/takeoff downwind, and it dosen't really say you can either. It basically leaves the option open, and really implies that if you do, you better be prepared to justify"operationally" your actions, as a PIC.

 

They've have left the option there intentionally, knowing fullwell that there may be a time "operationally" (great word) where you may need to land/takeoff downwind, and so it should be.

 

Example: A two runway airport has just had the main active runway closed by an accident, maintenance, whatever. The only other remaining runway is an established oneway in, oneway out, because of obstructing terrain at one end.

 

Wind at the time dictates that now all landings have to be downwind.

 

The pilots in the circut had now better know how to carry out a safe downwind landing, or there are going to be two runways closed. How do you remain current at downwind landings/takeoffs ??....you do one now and then, OK.....it's not a big deal, and something every "safe" pilot should have in his operational bag of tricks, right there next to the ability to sideslip, if he needs to get into a small paddock, engine out.

 

Any pilot should be prepared at any time to stand up and say, 'yes it was different to normal operations,' but as pilot in Command I decided the manouver was safe, and within my capabilities/experience level to be performed safetly, wether there are bodies laying around or whatever.

 

As I have said before, when flying in the States at a towered airport. you will often hear "cleared to land, with the option" That means it's your runway folks. If you want to land inverted, downwind, upwind, crosswind, whatever, then run naked up and down it, you can. We need that flexability here, but our authorites here don't have the gonads to allow us to make ultimate operational decisions in the cockpit, so they cover thier arsxs with stupid term like "to the extent practicable" End of story.....

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's going to be interesting to see what they say, then what it means.

 

Incidentally, the "see and be seen" change could become interesting as a result of the current Royal Commission into the Victorian Fires where the very first day the subject of "It's up to you to decide whether to stay and fight the fire or leave" was very forcefully presented in terms of not providing a suitable warning.

 

That sort of statement was part of the Public Liability shift by Governments to avoid being sued for failing to issue an evacuation warning, and attempting to place the duty of care on the householder. Going to be interesting to see where that goes.

 

 

[octave]

Gday Turbo,

 

I am not sure who your advice re litigation is directed to. I can see that a RPT pilot or any other pilot on a downwind probably has an increased exposure to litigation if they cause an accident. If I leave the circuit when an RPT is on it's way in, I surely have the same rights an responsabilies and must take the same precautions that I always must take when ever departing. If I leave the circuit incorrectly and hit someone then I may be exposed to litigation. Once I am aware that an RPT is inbound contrary to the circuit direction (as it must if we are using the short strip),

 

I am wondering what your suggested course of action would be?

 

Do we just keep the circuit going whilst SAAB tries to find a slot?

 

or do we adjust our circuit pattern to allow the SAAB to get down and out of the traffic equation?

 

Also remember the rules for >55knts. I am wondering how this fits in with CAR166

 

from Frequently Asked Questions

 

"Question: Why do ultralights with a maximum speed of 55KTS have to give way to all other aircraft?

 

Answer: The new procedures for operations at non-towered aerodromes do not change the current regulations with regard to Rules of the Air and Right of Way. The previous priorities that ultralights and all other aircraft had when in the circuit, remain unchanged and aircraft on straight in approaches are still required to give way to aircraft already established in the circuit.

 

Ultralights with a maximum speed of 55KTS are those ultralights that are not capable of more than 55KTS calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight. Ultralights in the <55KTS circuit speed category are generally small and difficult to see. However, they are highly manoeuvrable and as such in the best position to prevent a conflict arising in the circuit, by giving way. It does not mean that an ultralight with <55KTS circuit speed has any less right to use the airspace or the runway than any other aircraft, and it does not mean that these aircraft have a lower priority for runway use at an aerodrome."

 

So here we have CAR166 and contrary advice in eductaional material aimed at pilots. Could it be that the authorities know that flying only by referance to CARs would be unworkable.

 

I have never "given way" to an RPT or any other aircraft in a way that is illegal or upredictable.

 

It is not me who is making the approach contrary to the circuit, I am simply dealing with the situation in the most efficient, safe and legal way I can.

 

The day I feel it necessary to consult a Public liability law specialist in order to fly will be the day I hang up my headphones for the last time.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave:

 

1. The details on Public Liability were not aimed at anyone, just providing an awareness on developments since the mid 1980's which many people are not aware of. People working in manufacturing, ISO 9000 acredited companies etc are mostly familiar with it.

 

2. When you leave the circuit at the approved methods before the RPT arrives, you really aren't involved in the conflict we are discussing, you've just made a choice to go somewhere.

 

3. It's too early to debate scenarios (and there are thosands of them, not just 3 or 4, because although we've all aired opinions, we do not know exactly what the applicable rule is. please be patient and relax for a couple of days.

 

4. Your 55kt Ultralight information is just a FAQ, and while it obviously constitutes advice from someone, we would need to see the rule - can you supply a copy of it, and I'll add it to the mix of the enquiry.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

4. Your 55kt Ultralight information is just a FAQ, and while it obviously constitutes advice from someone, we would need to see the rule - can you supply a copy of it, and I'll add it to the mix of the enquiry.

The original source of it was http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/pdf/6pp.pdf . This was intended to clarify the information sent to pilots on the introduction of the USA airspace model as part of NAS2c.

 

A bit of background (if anyone is interested)

 

The original pilot briefing material basically stated that sub-55kt ultralights should give way to all other aircraft. This possibly made sense in the USA where 55kts was the max speed of FAR103 ultralights which aren't registered and don't require any sort of pilot training or licencing. Understandably the rule caused a bit of a stink here and, after a lot of protests, DOTARS came up with the "clarification" which Octave pointed out.

 

Cheers

 

John