What do you reckon, What would you do & What would you say?

[slartibartfast]

Owned up with class Marty.

 

I'm not claiming any moral high ground after my contribution to the idiot quota on Saturday.

 

For the first time ever, I called the wrong runway. I wasn't keen on the gravel and preferred 05. I thought that with the wind as it was everyone would prefer 05, so in my mind I made the leap of assumption - 05 was the 09 they were all calling. This was despite having the layout clearly written on my kneeboard. Doh.

 

My pax was a bit chatty - I should have asked for hush.

 

When a Tecnam called base then final and I couldn't see him, I asked for his position. About then the Unicom operator told me I was lining up on 05. How embarrassing.

 

My point? We should remember that we're all capable of making mistakes.

 

(I got over it when my pax let me take his BMW1200GS for a blatt after the flight)

 

 

[facthunter]

Mistake?

 

They say the person who never made a mistake, never made anything. An honest self debrief is a good thing after any flight and it is rarely that you cannot think of something that you could have done better. The thing is to learn from the errors.

 

Regarding the use of positive control.... Don't go down that path. With the load of traffic there it would not work. Someone keeping an eye on things from the ground can help, but it can only be alerting and what a responsibility!. Glad you had a good time. I have had good vibes about Temora from the start. Congrats to all who made it possible. The way things look,it can only get better. Nev..

 

 

[antzx6r]

This is what I love about this site. You would never hear such open honesty and straight talking views on that other pp site! Eveyone seems intent on displaying how "professional" they think they are.

 

 

I was planning on flying in a couple of years ago (the wet one) and i must admit I was a bit worried about the traffic, being a low time pilot. Due to weather I never got to find out how it was.

 

This year I was planning on riding down from Brisy but a mate convinced me to do a run to the three corners(Haddon, Poppel and Cameron). Turns out the whole place is under water so we got to Haddon and then Birdsville(just) but no big red or any other sand hills for us. Met a young family who flew in from Canberra in a freshly built RV10. 180kn, aircon, glass cockpit...(Ineed more money) Anyhoo, they were also going to drop in to ytem on the way but thought there would only be too many low time hotshots and not enough control in the circuit. He was also over the flyin thing a bit. Prefered to go and see new destinations with a few good friends. I know its not really the ultralight thing, but maybe the time has come to get a tower to help flyers in and out and maybe control the "displays" a bit.

 

Sorry Capt. On the original questions, I think we've just witnessed that sometimes a quiet word to the offender can be the best way. Tact is needed tho. No-one likes being told what a tool they've been. But with the right words people can see that they may not have acted all that wisely. The skys are then safer, everyone is still up there, and CASA has no need to shut down perfectly good flyins. Everybody wins!

 

I know things don't always go that well but I find its often better to take the diplomatic route first and if that doesn't work then tell them straight out that you are going to have to call the dogs.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Yeah a tower would make the whole show a bit safer.

 

i went to the LAA flyin at yarrawonga many years ago and the then dept rolled up with their new portable tower and set it up, very professional looking mounted on a trailer with aerials sticking out of the roof. they were a bit dissapointed when they realised no one had radios.

 

but seriously a tower with real controllers would be a big plus in safety.

 

 

[Tomo]

As much as I would hate to see Air Traffic Control as such, a system whereby everyone knew which was the duty runway would help.

G'day Marty,

 

First I congratulate you on coming out and owning up. I do have sympathy with you, I would have loved to go up and do a fly past or whatever, since that is the fun of a flyin!! But in the circumstances of the day, and as you say yourself, probably not an Ideal thing to do. And without permission, it is completely violating the law.

 

Anyway... regarding the information about duty runways. In the 8am morning flying brief's they ran through all that, and established the runways etc for the day, and procedures re for each runway.

 

If you couldn't get to the morning brief's, from what I heard, you just ask Unicom what runway was active, and they told you. They did have trouble controlling aircraft, I heard it took a few times to get some people to understand that they don't want them using that one! Basically they did or were acting as a control tower, but not all wanted to comply first go.

 

And they did from what I understand, have a Traffic controller from Airservices there.

 

Just for interest sake, if they in future had a fully controlled tower, how many RAA pilots would know how to do the correct procedures? Read back etc, requesting clearances etc... What happens when you haven't a PPL and can't operate in CTA area's? Same difference really to the real world. So what we have is pretty good, really? ;)

 

 

[Admin]

Again please don't quote me on this as it is hearsay but I am told by another board member that the Temora Council are now looking at building a proper tower before the next NatFly - obviously not with radar etc as an ATC

 

 

[Skyhog]

I'm not sure about the whole tower idea. It was very difficult to get a word in at all around 10.30 Friday morning. If there was a tower involved there would be twice as much chatter. I couldn't make a joining downwind call until I already had joined and been cutoff by a Jabiru that came from the southwest. Somebody told her she had cut 2 aircraft off after she made a turning downwind call. She then flew a circuit that nearly went to West Wyalong. I have flown into controlled airspace many times (in GA aircraft) and feel very comfortable doing so but I don't think Natfly is the place for it. The best safety system in this case is still the eyeballs, (EVERYBODYS EYEBALLS).

 

 

[winsor68]

At Oshkosh don't they fly in with minimum radio calls (or none) "Blue Aircraft wiggle your wings.... blue aircraft clear to land on the red mark" or something similar?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

they sure do. very interesting to listen to the tower feed. a long active runway really speeds landing up. three different coloured dots down the run way. land long land center land short and expidiate to the grass verg as soon as you can. There were over 50 yaks doing a formation flight when they arrived they were touching down one every five seconds.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Captain]

Mia Culpa !Have to say it was me that seems to have offended everyone.

 

..... but I do not believe anyone was put in any danger.

Marty.

 

While I admire & respect the fact that you have made this post, there are a couple of words that you have used that might just be changing the facts a little.

 

Re the above, I don't think you "offended" anyone.

 

Your near miss on takeoff, your low flying in your "circuits", your close company & low "formation" (& that is over stating the standard of the close-company flying) above the crowd, above the trade-displays and above Temora residences didn't "offend" (in my opinion), it "endangered", particularly as the height of your low circuits almost precicely matched the height of the departing aircraft on the extended centreline of 09, while you were tracking 27 in that area, without a radio call on base or final, no call about a "missed approach" before you did the beat-up or missed approach down 18, and no radio call of your intentions, just a "downwind on 18" call each time on a low circuit inside 09, before the one where you tracked down the extended centreline of 09.

 

It is fascinating that you don't appreciate that ..... and you go on to say that "I don't believe any 'rules' were broken".

 

Those who were there can make their own decision, and those that weren't can make up their own mind based on very sketchy evidence.

The evidence is not "sketchy".

 

I was much more concerned about the procedure on Friday when a series of a/c were all landing downwind for some inexplicable reason, then on Saturday, a/c were taking off and landing on just about every runway there was....As much as I would hate to see Air Traffic Control as such, a system whereby everyone knew which was the duty runway would help.

The Unicom made it abundantly clear, even to the point or arguing nicely with some pilots, what was the preferred runway at all times. Now some twins and larger GA aircraft chose to depart on 05 because of it's length when 09 was preferred by the Unicom.

 

Your departure and landing on 18 at each end of your "aerial display" were the most blatant disregards of the "preferred runway" advice from the Unicom (it had been clearly stated as 09 when you departed), that I witnessed over my 3 days there.

 

Your departure would have been quite acceptable, in my view, had you opted for an intersection departure on 18 from taxiway C .... as chosen by a number of others, but you chose to takeoff across the intersection of the preferred runway while 09 was in very heavy use.

 

From the time that I was there early Thursday to about midday Saturday, the takeoff by you, and your mate in the other aircraft, for your unannounced aerial display were the only time that I saw a departure on 18, or any other runway, that was dangerous at the intersection point and after your departure (and then again after that of your mate), the Unicom Operator actually chipped in with a comment that "Hey, that was close and greater care is needed fellows" addressed at you and your mate, not the poor buggers departing into the wind on 09.

 

Congratulations, as that was 2 near misses in a row, and I have never heard a Unicom Operator having to do that before.

 

I hope that this sets the facts straight.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Folks,

 

Nothing bizarre about an an emergency, the incident referred to was a genuine emergency.

 

As to the impromptu flying display that started this thread, I would strongly recommend a serious study of the Civil Aviation Act and Regulations.

 

On the face of it, the two pilots concerned racked up an impressive total of violations of regulations, most of which are strict liability offenses. Probably also S.20(a)(2) of the Act, reckless and negligent operation of an aircraft.

 

It is also clear that quite a few posters on this thread only have a tenuous (at best) grasp of the basic rules of the air and the level of penalties for violating those rules.

 

Chaps and chapesses, it is time to do some homework/revision/study to get up to speed. The rules of the air are basically universal, not something CASA has concocted, they are there for the benefit of all airspace users.

 

Neither the RAOz organizers not the Unicom operators have any authority to give "approval" or "clearances" to break the law. NATFLY is a fly-in, not an airshow, and all the normal rules of the air apply.

 

On the basis of the general lack of knowledge, as evidenced on this thread, is it so surprising that John McCormick, CASA DAS and CEO, is not too keen on rushing changes for access to controlled airspace of RAOz certificate holders, and equally wants to see a improvement in GA standards.

 

You can comply with the rules of the air, and have just as much fun, and it will really be much safer.

 

While you are at it, make certain you are across the new rules for mandatory carriage and use of radio for operation at uncontrolled aerodromes, coming into place mid year, some of the changes are fundamental and quite far reaching.

 

Regards,

 

 

[Modest Pilot]

The idea of a tower and Class D airspace would mean most RAA aircraft would be precluded from operating. However it may be possible to give Unicom the power to set duty runways via the AIC. Departing Sunday at morning rush hour I couldn't help thinking that it would be neat if 09 was used for T/O and 05 for landing. It would mean moving the Unicom position to say the threshold of 09 as they can't see the threshold of 05 from their current position.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Hi Bill,

 

Contrary to what you may believe of us "chaps and chapesses" we all know that the display in question was without a doubt in "violation of regulations". None of us here approve of such behaviour. (as you will have noticed) If you are refering to the way are are not all rushing off to CASA to get this guy's ticket pulled and while we are at it slag each other off for how unprofessional everyone else is but me (because I am the god of aviation), well... you see, this site is about making the skies safer thru education, comunication and fellowship as opposed to rules, regulations and politics.

 

Oooh my engine quite, i'll have to make a glid approach... wait is that in the regulations?

 

Yes, but I need written permission in triplicate. Well I'll just have to stall it in then.

 

Not all of GA is like that but sir, your post is giving it a bad name.

 

ps. what was the emergency, your third GPS fail?

 

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

antzx6r,

 

Of course peer pressure/disapproval is preferable to CASA weighing in, but the fact remains, the two pilots conducting the impromptu airshow need a good kick up the kyber. I, too, witnessed it from ground level.

 

Unfortunately, this sought of thing is all to common, witness the nonsense at the Omeo (spelling) picnic races some little time ago, where one (of many) low flying formation aircraft hit power lines and the pilot was severely burned. And the last Bunderberg airshow, and Watts Bridge, and, and!!

 

As to so called "professional", forget that, there are no divisions in the basic rules, just the responsibility of the pilot in command. In my observation, many "professional" examples are the last example to follow --- and a few people flying Metros,-8s and Saabs know exactly what I am talking about.

 

Further personal observations: Most RAOz pilot certificate holders try very hard to do the right thing and use common sense to fit in, as do most PPLs. Sadly, I can't say the same thing for all too many "other" GA pilots, including or perhaps especially self proclaimed "professionals". The possession of a CPL does not a professional make.

 

These are the people giving GA a bad name, by their demonstrated behavior in the air. Perhaps this is why we have GA accident rate roughly double the US. Why insurance rates are rocketing up, if you can get insurance at all.

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

That is what is so sad about the delay put on RAOz plans for a controlled airspace endorsement by CASA. A few (not necessarily just RAOz certificate holders, even if they were flying RAOz aircraft) have spoiled it for the many, by their very public demonstrations of what I see as contempt for the basic rules of the air, and similar contempt for the rules of aviation common sense, aka airmanship.

 

I have little doubt that CASA noticed, what they do about it is up to them, I very much doubt it will be ignored. I just hope it does not bounce back on Natfly/RAOz, to the detriment of Natfly in the future.

 

Just remember: there are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

 

We all learned the basic rules of the air when we learned to fly, regardless of what license we may have, there is no good reason, not to stick to them.

 

Regards,

 

PS: Your attempt at humor re. the emergency, it was a structural failure in a twin, resulting in such high drag, the the aircraft only just made the runway with T/O power, the failure happened downwind in the circuit.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Bill, you are quite right.

 

Firstly, I apologize for my attempt at humour. My sarcasm tends to run away with me when I get riled. And there is no class in making lite of ones close call with the great beyond. I'm glad that all came down safely.

 

As for the frequency of these types of disregard for rules of the air, and more importantly, safety, I have to say I am relatively young in the industry and I guess to the less young it must make your heart sink. The book does indeed need to be thrown at times.

 

 

[Captain]

We all learned the basic rules of the air when we learned to fly, regardless of what license we may have, there is no good reason, not to stick to them.

Bill.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

I thought that your post #39 was a bit harsh on what was (1) the behaviour of the vast majority that flew into and out of Natfly and (2) also on some of the respondants on this forum.

 

Re (1) my observations were that the vast majority of RA-Aus and GA pilots did a good job and tried very hard to do the right thing all the way thru the Natfly event. (And I guess that your 2nd post concurs with that).

 

And given that many/most do not normally operate out of a busy airport or one with 3 runways, I thought that the event as a whole was a tribute to the RA-Aus training methods and the desire of most RA-Aus pilots to do the right thing and act well (I almost said "professionally" which might actually be dragging them down a little).

 

The good, if not excellent, aviating by the vast majority at Natfly is the reason why I have such a burr under my saddle about the spacewalker's "airshow" which in my view had the potential to undo all that the other 998 pilots did right, and just consider what would have happened if the amateur airshow aircraft had touched each other or taken out a departing aircraft over the crowd. Where would Rec Aviation be then?

 

Re (2) you need to remember that it is not a condition that Forum Members be pilots at all or RA-Aus pilots. Some have a PPL (in fact I suspect that at least one of the "Natfly Roulettes" may hold a PPL), many here are RA-Aus certificate holders, but many are students or have a strong interest to get involved in Rec Aviation. Yet others have in excess of 10,000 hrs carting cattle. So opinions expressed in posts need to be considered as coming from that range of respondants.

 

If CASA and Airservices were on the lookout at Natfly, I reckon that they should have marked us positively overall, as IMHO most of the procedures used, and flying skills exhibited, by the RA-Aus members at Temora were way above the average of PPL pilots and GA aircraft around many of the fields that I go into.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[ahlocks]

Bill,

 

Had you have made your first post in the spirit and manner of your second, I think people wouldn't have got their hackles up. I know that I now appreciate your input a hell of a lot more.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

Geoff,

 

I agree with you. I have been to every Natfly since the first at Narromine.

 

I have spent more hours in meetings than I care to remember, in more meetings than are good for me, arguing against the "representatives" of one particular body of "professional pilots", whose consistent refrain is that Sports, Rec and Private aviation is a menace.

 

Indeed, at a RAPAC, one "airline" pilot was complaining that, when he was doing 250 kt in the circuit (Yes!, that's what he said, 250) "small" aircraft were hard to see, and therefor should be excluded while he was about. The idea that he should slow up and fit in was rejected --- because he could lose 2-3 minutes ---- professional???? Putting money ahead of good airmanship.

 

Every survey of pilot behavior, particularly compliance with mandated and recommended radio procedures, has refuted the "professionals" claims, but that has not made the slightest difference in position taken by said "professionals".

 

Indeed, this same group is furiously campaigning against Class E airspace over the new Class D zones in WA, all on the basis that Rec/Private/VFR cannot be trusted, and only Class C will do --- in short---- all IFR should be given absolute priority.

 

At each Natfly, the behavior of most AUF/RAOz pilots was, in my observation, excellent.

 

Indeed, at one Natfly that came shortly after some changes to radio procedures, I sat in the Saturday afternoon sun, with the then CASA CEO, listening to the Unicom. What we heard was a bit of the old, a bit of the new, and most of all, pilots communicating (which is not the same thing as rote chanting of "radio procedures"), in other words, using their brains.

 

But there is always the occasional black sheep, who should be dealt with sooner, rather than later.

 

Regards,

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Indeed, at a RAPAC, one "airline" pilot was complaining that, when he was doing 250 kt in the circuit (Yes!, that's what he said, 250) "small" aircraft were hard to see, and therefor should be excluded while he was about. The idea that he should slow up and fit in was rejected --- because he could lose 2-3 minutes ---- professional???? Putting money ahead of good airmanship.

Putting money ahead of the rules.

 

The maximum speed in a circuit area is 200 knots IAS.

 

He owned up to repeat offences?

 

 

[Bill Hamilton]

www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100081

 

Folks,

 

Here is the final version of the NFRM for operations around a non-controlled airfields, hot off the press.

 

Please read carefully, there are some significant changes, effectively CTAF v. CTAF® are gone.

 

Regards,

 

Bill Hamilton

 

Regards,

 

 

[wags]

Thanks for the post Bill... I hope every user of this Forum reads the link you have posted. In fact I hope Ian Baker makes a point of bringing the paper to all Forum members attention.

 

Can't help but feel there was a certain amount of confusion at Temora because many didn't understand the role that "Temora Unicom" was playing in the overall operation. I know some pilots flew circuits during the Fly-in with the Unicom frequency on their VHF and didn't tune in the CTAF frequency because they thought the Unicom frequency took priority.

 

Education and more precise instructions/briefing would fix that problem.

 

With 1000 aircraft in the area maybe it is time for a more "formal" form of control to be applied... eg designation of take-off and landing runways as suggested by "Modest Flyer".

 

Anything to improve safety overall and let us get on with the job of enjoying our recreational flying.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Wags, Unicom was on the CTAF. Always is (when provided). It is an advisory service only.

 

The only other frequency active was Temora Ground - a temporary service for help with taxiing and parking. I'll bet nobody flew circuits while tuned to Ground.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I just read the preamble... and i'm not reading any more until i can log the hours it will take to read the rest!!

 

so if i understand correct it seems that airlines can butt into your established circuit direction with a downwind landing from a 500ft hook in final that was either broadcast on the atis or pal freq or at 50 mile inbound. Then they get another shot at you when they depart downwind.

 

sheeesh.

 

 

[slartibartfast]

It doesn't say we should give way to commercial, just that we should consider it.

 

It also says that they shouldn't expect right of way or ask for it.

 

Sounds like the way it works now - courtesy to those who are burning more fuel or are more time critical.

 

 

[Tomo]

Can't help but feel there was a certain amount of confusion at Temora because many didn't understand the role that "Temora Unicom" was playing in the overall operation. I know some pilots flew circuits during the Fly-in with the Unicom frequency on their VHF and didn't tune in the CTAF frequency because they thought the Unicom frequency took priority.

As Slarti said, Unicom was on CTAF frequency.

 

Education and more precise instructions/briefing would fix that problem.

They had a very detailed morning brief for all aircraft doing flights during the day. I was disappointed in how little it was attended.

 

With 1000 aircraft in the area maybe it is time for a more "formal" form of control to be applied... eg designation of take-off and landing runways as suggested by "Modest Flyer".

Runways 'were' designated; When I made my 10nm inbound call, Unicom told me of the duty runway in use. Before departure on the ground, you went to a small effort to find out which one was active, and if you said you were taxing to another, I heard they often alerted of the duty/designated runway in use. Some pilots thought better than observing a professional Traffic controllers advise though.

 

Anything to improve safety overall and let us get on with the job of enjoying our recreational flying.

Overall, I enjoyed every second of it, having gone up half a dozen times over the weekend, I didn't have to many worries doing it, Unicom were extremely helpful, they even alerted you of an aircraft not doing the appropriate thing, so you can look out for it, told you about non radio equipped aircraft etc... it was a pleasure.

 

I don't think they had trouble with getting the information out there, it was pilot issues 99.99% of the time.

 

As a fairly new pilot, and Temora being the first ever 'really' busy place I'd flown to, I ensured I had planned every move, read all the relevant information, understood the procedures, and attended the pilot briefing mornings if I was going to go do any local flying that day. It was a complete pleasure to do it too. I just hope I never become placid and believe I 'know' it all so I don't need to find out what to do.

 

Just a few things to consider.