Stopping at Runway Holding Position Markings

[turboplanner]

Runway gradient fits the practicable category so no issue.

 

 

[Burlc]

Correct me if I'm wrong but is'nt any additional information, circuit direction, landing direction due to terrain or noise listed in ERSA.

 

I dont know of any RPT airstrips that ar'nt listed in ERSA.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Mostly, yes, but there can be other genuine issues which make an upwind landing impracticable, and the Regulation recognises that.

 

 

[GraemeK]

Mostly, yes, but there can be other genuine issues which make an upwind landing impracticable, and the Regulation recognises that.

Came across one t'other day. Lots of smoke around from controlled burns, but visibility well over 5000m. Very light wind from the north, maybe 3 or 4 knots. So it's RWY 36, which is the default anyway at YLIL in still conditions.

 

Despite being VMC, my instructor warned me that it may be difficult to see the threshold of 36 on final - I was glad he told me, because on base it was difficult to even see the field itself looking through the smoke with the sun to the north (despite the ground being clearly visible and horizontal visibility solidly VMC).

 

We were able to locate the strip with a little difficulty and turn final (although local knowledge came in handy). However, it was not until late final we were able to see the gables marking the runway threshold (and these are quite important when the position of the grass runway itself can vary within the runway strip). Touch and go was uneventful (although uneventful for me at my stage might seem pretty awful for you experienced guys ).

 

As we took off we looked back and could see 18 perfectly (sun behind us). So, after talking to the others in the circuit we reversed the circuit to use 18 despite the slight tailwind.

 

I guess the thing that would worry me is a non-radio aircraft inbound - they would see all the indications (smokestacks, lake ripples, etc) of a northerly, even if they overflew they might miss an aircraft in the circuit and the windsock would still clearly suggest 36. So the risk would be that they'd head downwind for 36 and (since all circuits are to the west at YLIL during the day) thus be in direct head-on conflict with other circuit traffic.

 

With radio, and being able to monitor CTAF, SA would be much better - good argument for radio I guess!

 

The other lesson for me was that things up there can be quite different to things down here!

 

Thanks TP for researching this issue - sure got me thinking!:thumb_up:

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thinking is flying safer.

 

You had a first hand experience of how the Regulation allowed you to decide it was not practicable due to visibility to land up wind, but also the increased risk was very obvious because of your recent reading.

 

It's easy to see in this example how the increased risk factor is the reason for the regulation minimising the situation in which conflict could occur.

 

 

[youngmic]

Turboplanner,

 

Given that the purpose of the AIP is to give guidance and aid in the interpretation of the CAR/CASR. I still feel that a crew should be able to support their action based on the AIP guidance and their professional justification for planning such an approach.

 

Could you please advise who you spoke with, their title and location regarding this matter.

 

Regards

 

M

 

 

[turboplanner]

Youngmic, I think you suggested I should take up butterfly collecting, you can do what you like.

 

 

[octave]

“The runway to be used for landing must be:• the most into-wind runway; or

• when operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction

 

provided the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing

 

or takeoff traffic using the most into-wind runway

 

 

 

I am wondering how this impacts on crosswind landings. If one strip is the most into the wind strip, can one practice xwind landings on the other runway ie the not "most into the wind strip" The above quote doesn't mention downwind only that one should land and takeoff on the most into the wind runway. If we take the above quote literaly it would seem to prohbit practicing xwind landings as well as downwind, or would this come under the loop hole of "operational reasons"

 

 

[Captain]

Could you please advise who you spoke with, their title and location regarding this matter.

M

 

Surely you are joking.

 

Tubb got off his tail and got the answers, which he has explained well. And I, for one, totally accept what he has reported.

 

Then you want to run some bush-lawyer act on him.

 

If YOU want to take it further, then YOU go get some answers that are meaningful from CASA or whoever else will talk to you, instead of just trying to 2nd-guess the Tubb's response.

 

Kind regards Geoff

 

 

[ossie]

Calm down there Captain,

 

In defence of YoungMic, all I've got out of this thread is some carefully worded blurb that is essentially a laymans version of the regs, and their interpretation of a discussion between a "CASA employee" and a guy that flys.

 

Anybody that reads anything on here and elects to apply it without referring to and understanding the CAO/CAR/CASR/AIP is either niave or extremely foolish.

 

One thing that's not been mentioned anywhere here is that all those regulations have evolved over time with industry input. CASA is NOT the only party around the table.

 

So, Mr Turbo whom did you contact ?

 

 

[Captain]

Calm down there Captain,In defence of YoungMic, all I've got out of this thread is some carefully worded blurb that is essentially a laymans version of the regs, and their interpretation of a discussion between a "CASA employee" and a guy that flys.

 

Anybody that reads anything on here and elects to apply it without referring to and understanding the CAO/CAR/CASR/AIP is either niave or extremely foolish.

 

One thing that's not been mentioned anywhere here is that all those regulations have evolved over time with industry input. CASA is NOT the only party around the table.

 

So, Mr Turbo whom did you contact ?

Thanks Ozz.

 

All is calm .......... and I still say that if M & others are not happy with the data in Tubb's posts, then they should go and do some legwork themselves, and post their counterpoint back here, rather than demanding names and serial numbers of those with whom Tubb had his discussions.

 

Placid regards Geoff

 

 

[turboplanner]

Octave, CASA made it clear that the CAR overrides everything, so this is not a loophole and not to be acted on separately.

 

There's a safety issue if pilots were not to receive training on crosswind landings, and it's obviously not practicable to train into wind, so if you are under formal training with an instructor, I personally wouldn't see that as a problem.

 

However, if as someone else mentioned, you are just messing around and decide to do a few, the question of whether or that that constituted training will come up if there's an accident. Why not pick a day when there is a crosswind on the duty runway?

 

You were going to speak to your CFI, and that's really where you should be raising these questions because he knows you, and the explanations will be better than a just a few words.

 

I'm not going to waste any more time on Youngmic - there will always be people looking for a way out.

 

What I will say to the rest of you, is that I put his case very fairly and in fine detail, and was told very forcefully that from what he put up he is required to comply with CAR 166 (2) (f) without any doubts whatsoever.

 

The CASA guy was senior enough to be qualified to speak on the regulations, and I found him very knowledgeable. Right now I'm dealing with several State authorities on a cross section of Semi Trailer and B Double Regulations and wish I could find someone as good as him.

 

Given that most of us are from RAA, and he knew that, he gave me all the time I needed, which was around a couple of hours, he did not once hide behind CASA but openly discussed the pros and cons of our queries.

 

With a contact of that calibre, there's no way I'm going to identify this valuable source of information, and open him up to the abuse we've seen on this site from people trying to avoid their safety obligations.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ossie, you might care to read all the threads and you'll find the abuse, word twisting, fabrication and misuse of publications.

 

You'll also find word for word the ACTUAL Regulation which applies. NOT A LAYMAN'S VERSION.

 

"Anybody that reads anything on here and elects to apply it without referring to and understanding the CAO/CAR/CASR/AIP is either niave or extremely foolish."

 

I agree.

 

It's equally naive or foolish to publicly spruike against a safety regulation

 

"One thing that's not been mentioned anywhere here is that all those regulations have evolved over time with industry input. CASA is NOT the only party around the table."

 

Correct, the laws are made by the Federal Government, the same as any other national law.

 

However, once the round table discussions are over and the law is gazetted, it's not open to flouting by those round the table who didn't agree with it.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Guys..whats the problem??.. there was issues with interpretation of the rules.. ONE member went to lengths to get the issude cleared up.. He posted the results of his research. But because it goes against what alot of guys have been DOING in the past, noses get dislocated.. Fellas, rules is rules.. rules aren't often clear, but once they've been made clear, thats the end of it.. You can sing and dance about " my years of experiance as a professional" or " they always do it this way at my airstrip" untill your blue in the face, it doesn't change the rules.. If you don't like it , then go and catch butterflies or take up boating...

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

If the Turboplanner can't handle a good downwind take-off or landing occasionally, and dosen't wish to include it in his bag of tricks, than that's his loss. He has no right however to suggest that the rest of us lose those valuable, and many times necessary skills.

 

Fact is there are dozens done each day by RPT, ag operators, and other skillfull recreational and private pilots throughout the country.

 

I've read the regs, they simply don't say you can't do them, and I am prepared to stand by my skills, and operational decisions as a PIC.

 

Perhaps the Turboplanner would also belong to the same camp that would suggest that the sideslip is a dangerous manouver too ??..................................................

 

 

[Thx1137]

hehe. being a person that like to follow the rules I can never understand why some people try so hard to reinterpret them, I guess it is to justify a behaviour. Sometimes interpreting them is hard, 99.9% of the time it isn't.

 

Anyway, while we have the rules and they clearly dictate what were are supposed to do 99.9 percent of the time it is clear that some feel that the rules only apply to those who aren't so 'skilled'. We see it on the roads so why not in the air? hehe, I once had a cab driver talk me how mush everyone on the road sucked but seeing he was a 'professional' driver he was ok with running red lights (I guess he needed to practice the skill in case it might save his life one day eh). You should have seen the dings in the car. He confused 'doing a lot' with 'skilled' and one does not necessarily follow the other.

 

The thread has been useful on a number of levels.

 

 

[turboplanner]

If the Turboplanner can't handle a good downwind take-off or landing occasionally, and doesn’t wish to include it in his bag of tricks, than that's his loss. He has no right however to suggest that the rest of us lose those valuable, and many times necessary skills. Fact is there are dozens done each day by RPT, ag operators, and other skillfull recreational and private pilots throughout the country.

I've read the regs, they simply don't say you can't do them, and I am prepared to stand by my skills, and operational decisions as a PIC.

 

Perhaps the Turboplanner would also belong to the same camp that would suggest that the sideslip is a dangerous manouver too ??..................................................

Call my instructor dumb, but he chose to teach me about downwind landings in a novel way. He added a stress factor by pulling the throttle, pointing to an elongated paddock and saying “there’s your strip, get us in from this end”

 

I not only had the pressure of a forced landing, but had to cope with the downwind component and an overrun on final without throttle to make adjustments.

 

According to the instructor, I would have landed with enough room to avoid running through the end fence, which in a Jab requires plenty of spare space.

 

We did this training exercise without putting any stress on the undercarriage or brakes, without any chance of an overrun collision with a fence, trees etc, and with flying speed for the climb out.

 

With your method of self training, if you overrun you crash; you don’t have a “trick” as you say to prevent this.

 

And there a plenty of paddocks in Australia.

 

After thinking about this, I suspect that if an accident occurred in an airfield circuit area, it would be possible to show that it was practicable to practice downwind landings in this way, in which case carrying them through to a downwind landing on an airfield would be unlawful.

 

For downwind takeoffs, having qualified for Unrestricted PPL, passing Performance and Operations on the way, I use a $10 calculator to factor in the 100,000 or so variables, which include temperature, slope, load, wind speed etc. and arrive at a take off length requirement for safe obstacle clearance for that flight.

 

The ATSB safety reports list a number of accidents where pilots made shocking guestimate errors – some using a runway less than half the calculated (and required) length.

 

Physical practice here doesn’t demonstrate enough variations, and if you do happen to be on full MTOW, and the temperature does happen to be a few degrees higher than you’ve experienced in the past and the headwind is a few knots slower than you estimated and the runway is a few metres shorter than you estimated, and it’s long grass, you’re either going to make it, and give yourself a pat on the back, or you’re going to smash up the aircraft; you’ve eliminated the obvious safety factor of the pre-flight calculation, which by the way a PPL is required to do.

 

As far as me having no right to tell people what to do, it’s the Government Major, not me, and they’ve attached a very significant penalty stick for failure to abide by their rule.

 

The RPT and Ag operators are not going to thank you for dobbing them in for breaching the law, particularly given the potential for tightening up things out in the country as a result of some of the colourful admissions on this public thread – it’s a bit like the speeding laws – we know thousands of people do it, but when you’re pulled over you're the one that gets caught.

 

Thx1137 gives a pretty good rebuttal to your use of the word “skillful’ – it’s just puffery.

 

Major, you go on to say you’ve read the regs. Well there’s only one of them applicable to downwind landings and I posted it (#145) word for word, specially for you. You chose to call the very specific words “legaleese”.

 

Unfortunately the various Acts we live by never seem to include the phrase “and we the Parliament of Australia say you can’t do this!”, perhaps with a little graphic of a schoolboy bending over with his pants down and a teacher wielding a cane.

 

Perhaps they should, but rightly or wrongly they are written on the basis that we know what the words mean, and ignorance is no excuse in law.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thx1137, what gives me a lot of heart, is that most people reading this saga have got the picture, and Motzartmerv pinpointed the problem with the ones who just can't get it.

 

Its interesting that virtually none of those people give a stuff about the moral side of the regulation which after all just seeks to minimise the chances of head on collisions in the circuit area.

 

You'll notice when you read back through the thread that they don't answer the most likely scenario for an accident - when an inbound aircraft joining for a conventional circuit is not heard, not seen, or gives an incorrect position report.

 

The ones who vacate the circuit at the sound of an RPT aren't building circuit experience, and one day may fly into a busy circuit, and though lack of practice stuff it up and kill someone - but they don't care about that, they just want to have their enjoyment.

 

It was interesting yesterday when my son told me he's just started learning to fly at Coolangatta. When he asked the obvious question about what happens when a Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar flight comes in, his Instructor said "It's all part of flying, you can expect to be following a Virgin 737 coming in from Melbourne, and have an A340 international flight from Osaka behind you."

 

 

[octave]

T

 

he ones who vacate the circuit at the sound of an RPT aren't building circuit experience, and one day may fly into a busy circuit, and though lack of practice stuff it up and kill someone - but they don't care about that, they just want to have their enjoyment.

Turbo I find this assertion offensive. I think you are deliberately misinterperating what I have said re interacting with RPT. You are suggesting that I am avoiding getting experience in the circuit with RPTs, I suggest you re read what I have said. The first point is the RPT is SELDOM INTHE CIRCUIT, how can I interact with it? All I have said is that adjusting spacing so as to facilitate another aircraft on final is no big deal, if I had to cause a RPT to go around I WOULD but I would not do this just to assert my rights. Today I left the circuit because the skydivers were 3 minutes to drop, no worries did some circuits when I got back.Dids you ask your CASA contact about extending downwind?

 

You dont know anything about my experience. I have sharred the airspace with everything from a Cessna Citation to Southcare Heli etc.

 

and though lack of practice stuff it up and kill someone

I find your assertions offensive to me and the instructors that taught me. I have just returned from flying today. The wind started out about 3 knots from the south east. 3 other aircraft were setting out at the same time, the first 2 selected 05 meaning around about a 2 knot xwind I was airfcraft number 3, this was clearly not the most into the wind runway, I am supposing you think I should not have followed them but rather taxied 2/3 of the way down 05 then bactrack on 18 for 1500 metres effectively stopping all traffic for 5 or 6 minutes. Instead I took 05 to be the duty runway even though it had a 2 knot crosswind. After I returned from my flight I had a chat to a pilot that had just arrived from Canberra (and used 05) I asked him if he had any problem with selecting 05 when 18 was indicated (by the windsock). His veiw was that when approaching the circuit area his duty was to determine the wind direction AND THE DUTY RUNWAY - after all the we all agree that there are a whole list of reasons that the into the wind runway may not be being used, slope has been disscused but we will chosoe the runway perhaps early in the morning to avoid the rising sun or even to avoid the local houses early on a sunday morning (there is a local group that would like the airport closed).I would suggest that "operational reasons" are not listed in the regs for a reason. The law is a blunt instrument and that is why CASA puts out clarifying educational material such as "Operations at Non towered aerodromes" as well as RAAUs material. What is your opinion on these documents, I know that they do not over ride regs, but why do they exist? Nothing I have said is at odds with these documents but you still make assertions about the safety of my flying.

 

Re downwind, we all agree that there is a whole host of reasons that can over ride the wind direction, I am not in the practice of landing or taking off downwind, you will find nothing im previous posts to suggest this., what I did say was that some aircraft will for legitimate or illegitimate reasons land downwind, I was taught that it is foolish to assume an aircraft will only come from the upwind end.

 

Well I think I have had enough of this debate, there have been those on both sides that have strayed into the area of being offensive and I know turbo you have been on the recieving end of some of this but I have always tried to put my veiw in a polite way and not attack anyones skills or integraty.

 

If you feel so strongly about this it would be a simple matter to gather evidence of dangerous practices and present it to CASA.l

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I dunno! My involvement with this forum is partly on being emailed with any new input on threads that I have been involved with.

 

Frankly, I am ticked off with the amount of notifications I am getting about something that started with 'do we stop at a white line or not'.

 

Now we seem to be on a different subject and personal acrimony is creeping in (or close to). That is not healthy for this place and I personally feel that this thread should be closed now.

 

You got specific issues then take them to a new thread or take them outside!

 

Sure I can change my forum settings but that is not the point. Harmony and good interchange between knowledgeable and interested people is exactly the point. Is it too difficult to get back to that?

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree Tony

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I agree Tony

Well bluntly turbo if you agree with that then walk the talk.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Tomo]

You know, that through all this arguing, or what ever you want to call it, it has really got some people thinking....... so although it may look bad, I think it's done a great deal of good to some..... and I've learnt a lot myself.......

 

So even though It's cheesed a lot of people off, (if I may put it that way) remember the Wright brothers were famous for arguing!;)

 

 

[ahlocks]

We just need to keep it civil is all, so here's a civil interpretation to chew on....

 

To the extent practicable means the degree to which an intended course of action is capable of being effected in a manner that is reasonable and feasible within a framework of constraints.

 

So, let's apply this reference, in addition to factoring all the other checks and balances that exist within the regulation and for the hell of it, we'll add an OH&S practice called a 'Dynamic risk assessment' where we'll be continually assessing our exposure to risk.

 

Yep, it's all in the rules. It always was! and I'm still left with the lasting opinion that this is all just a storm in a tea cup.

 

Cheers!

 

P.S.

 

Tomo, we're debating passionately ;) and hell yeah, there has been a lot of positive outcomes from this debate.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Great idea Pelorus, I've put it into action, so it will be interesting to see what happens over the next few months.