MBZ's
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;
I will land with up to 10kt of tailwind at an MBZ, PROVIDING it fits the A/C performance AND with the traffic . Commonsense, really.
Ulm, have you heard of carrying a spare battery for your "hand held" radio? I bet you carry them for your hand-held GPS, lest you become uncertain of position
Commonsense, really.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-a-frozo
It wasn’t my intention to taint the whole fraternity of military pilots with the same brush. Nor is this an isolated experience as I have encountered several other instances with military aircraft but involving different circumstances. I also acknowledge the courtesy demonstrated by a Caribou pilot at Townsville this week who sat back from the holding point to allow a couple of time strapped operators to depart.
Certainly civilian pilots are capable of demonstrating poor airmanship and we could both cite many such instances. But allow me to make the following observations:
Airmanship reflects the culture of the organisation. Poor examples are usually attributed to operators who encourage their pilots to cut corners to save time and therefore money. Reducing costs at the expense of safety. Their pilots seem to revel in the number of minutes they are able to save on a sector or their skill in cutting off a rival operator.
The more professional organisations such as major airlines, and one would hope, the military put safety above such cost cutting measures and such culture is demonstrated by safe operating procedures and consideration towards other operators.
But when an organisation purporting to be professional is represented by ‘cowboy’ attitudes one must ask is this some form of point scoring or is the discipline within that organisation as professional as they would have us believe? Do other crew members condone such antics or are the transgressors counselled?
By comparison airline jet traffic at MBZ’s such as Mount Isa and Weipa demonstrate an exemplary standard of airmanship, even when mixing with civvy cowboys. Perhaps the airline culture involves a greater consideration of safety to those travelling down the back!
I don’t know the answer – I merely comment on the facts.
It wasn’t my intention to taint the whole fraternity of military pilots with the same brush. Nor is this an isolated experience as I have encountered several other instances with military aircraft but involving different circumstances. I also acknowledge the courtesy demonstrated by a Caribou pilot at Townsville this week who sat back from the holding point to allow a couple of time strapped operators to depart.
Certainly civilian pilots are capable of demonstrating poor airmanship and we could both cite many such instances. But allow me to make the following observations:
Airmanship reflects the culture of the organisation. Poor examples are usually attributed to operators who encourage their pilots to cut corners to save time and therefore money. Reducing costs at the expense of safety. Their pilots seem to revel in the number of minutes they are able to save on a sector or their skill in cutting off a rival operator.
The more professional organisations such as major airlines, and one would hope, the military put safety above such cost cutting measures and such culture is demonstrated by safe operating procedures and consideration towards other operators.
But when an organisation purporting to be professional is represented by ‘cowboy’ attitudes one must ask is this some form of point scoring or is the discipline within that organisation as professional as they would have us believe? Do other crew members condone such antics or are the transgressors counselled?
By comparison airline jet traffic at MBZ’s such as Mount Isa and Weipa demonstrate an exemplary standard of airmanship, even when mixing with civvy cowboys. Perhaps the airline culture involves a greater consideration of safety to those travelling down the back!
I don’t know the answer – I merely comment on the facts.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cowboy attitude. Your forgetting one thing. People like the caribou aircrew are training to fly in an environment where people are SHOOTING at them. That doesn't involve doing regular "RPT" type flying. I think you've mistaken the RAAF for an airline. Which it isn't - and the RAAF must train - at least the bou's haven't been operating "due regard". I'm no military spokesman, but perhaps you can think about that??
I welcome your opinion, but perhaps you should stick to commenting on what you know , because you certainly have no idea what the training objectives are on a given military flight. However the military do attempt to "fly neighbourly" while doing this.
You've obviously got some built up anger toward the military over the years, why??
I welcome your opinion, but perhaps you should stick to commenting on what you know , because you certainly have no idea what the training objectives are on a given military flight. However the military do attempt to "fly neighbourly" while doing this.
You've obviously got some built up anger toward the military over the years, why??
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 4th Oct 2002 at 04:16.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-a-frozo
You’re shooting the messenger. Surely you don’t condone a breach of “…ADF Flight Info Handbook regarding non-controlled aerodromes…(viz 61.2 (a) and (b) on the pretext of)… training to fly in an environment where people are SHOOTING at them.” I suspect that most of the professional pilots who have read or contributed to this thread would find such rationalisation unpalatable.
YBUD is a busy MBZ. With weather fluctuating about the minimas I’m not impressed when I have to subject my passengers to a missed approach and circle to land in such conditions because of the poor airmanship or cowboy antics of another crew, whether that crew is military or civil.
I don’t have any agenda with military pilots as you suggest. Nor do I particularly care what their training objectives are, I simply expect more from professional organisations particularly in a busy environment. As you point out above “we're all in the same sky.”
You’re shooting the messenger. Surely you don’t condone a breach of “…ADF Flight Info Handbook regarding non-controlled aerodromes…(viz 61.2 (a) and (b) on the pretext of)… training to fly in an environment where people are SHOOTING at them.” I suspect that most of the professional pilots who have read or contributed to this thread would find such rationalisation unpalatable.
YBUD is a busy MBZ. With weather fluctuating about the minimas I’m not impressed when I have to subject my passengers to a missed approach and circle to land in such conditions because of the poor airmanship or cowboy antics of another crew, whether that crew is military or civil.
I don’t have any agenda with military pilots as you suggest. Nor do I particularly care what their training objectives are, I simply expect more from professional organisations particularly in a busy environment. As you point out above “we're all in the same sky.”
land and take-off, in so far as practicable, into the wind unless air traffic control directs otherwise;
Are you suggesting that this CAR is only applicable for flight where ATC is operating?
My interpretation is that unless you are operating into a location which has ATC you must take off and land into wind.
One reason being, keep every body flying in the same circuit direction. You look at the wind sock, receive the latest weather, see some smoke, whatever, and organise your self to join the traffic pattern for that runway. Its a bit different when ATC can regulate the flow of traffic. (some of them can)
Who is at fault if you arrive at your destination on short final (with a 10 kt tailwind) only to find a no radio "Ulm" touching down at the other end, or even worse just airborne?
Of course many pilots fly contrary to this CAR and land with a tailwind for convenience.
I personally don't see much difference in doing that and some one say for example turning right after take off at 500', joining on base, and the list goes on.
Just my thoughts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In so far as practicable
Practicable: achievable, attainable, doable, feasible, possible, viable, workable.
RENURPP, Interpretation of regs is a very subjective thing. Just look at how different rulings can be from different Casa regional offices
My interpretation of the aforementioned paragraph is that I should operate into-wind where possible and does not specifically exclude me from tailwind operations.
Actually, Jepp ATC AU-715 5.6.2(b) states:
Operational reasons paint with a broad brush.
Im not saying who's wrong or right, just giving my interpretation....
The practical reality is that a stabilised straight-in approach is safer than manoeuvring around the circuit. Provided it is conducted in accordance with the AFM and Company limitations I see no reason why they should not be conducted.
You can't legislate commonsense and good airmanship, which are usually the key factors why things go tits-up at uncontrolled aerodromes.
There is an informative and useful guide to interpreting the regs on this topic located at: Operations At Non-Controlled Aerodromes
Here is an extract from the wind heading:
With regard to conflicting traffic in the example you gave, firstly I would hope that I would have seen or heard from him/her or he/she would have seen/heard me. In the absence of either, the outcome would probably be the same regardless of wind.
RPT aircraft usually have planned their straight-in approach well before top of descent. Planned is the operative word. Like all things, plans can and do change.
RENURPP, Interpretation of regs is a very subjective thing. Just look at how different rulings can be from different Casa regional offices
My interpretation of the aforementioned paragraph is that I should operate into-wind where possible and does not specifically exclude me from tailwind operations.Actually, Jepp ATC AU-715 5.6.2(b) states:
When operational reasons justify, any other available landing direction provided that the nominated circuit is executed without conflict to landing or take-off traffic using the most into-wind runway....
Im not saying who's wrong or right, just giving my interpretation....
The practical reality is that a stabilised straight-in approach is safer than manoeuvring around the circuit. Provided it is conducted in accordance with the AFM and Company limitations I see no reason why they should not be conducted.
You can't legislate commonsense and good airmanship, which are usually the key factors why things go tits-up at uncontrolled aerodromes.
There is an informative and useful guide to interpreting the regs on this topic located at: Operations At Non-Controlled Aerodromes
Here is an extract from the wind heading:
6.4 Wind, and pattern conflicts. Wind direction is generally more critical to smaller aircraft, hence the common provision of a small secondary runway.
• If a strong wind favours a short runway the circuit pattern may be complicated
because small aircraft will use the short runway while larger aircraft may be forced to use a longer, out-of-wind runway.
• Light winds can make for a difficult traffic situation because pilots are not provided with a cue to use a particular runway, and will prefer to use the runway which is most suited to their operation.
• Where wind direction is not available from other sources, incoming aircraft may have to overfly the aerodrome to see a windsock, and may enter the traffic pattern in conflict with preceding aircraft.
• A difficult situation can arise when an aircraft is established on final leg in conflict with another aircraft taking off in the opposite direction.
• If a strong wind favours a short runway the circuit pattern may be complicated
because small aircraft will use the short runway while larger aircraft may be forced to use a longer, out-of-wind runway.
• Light winds can make for a difficult traffic situation because pilots are not provided with a cue to use a particular runway, and will prefer to use the runway which is most suited to their operation.
• Where wind direction is not available from other sources, incoming aircraft may have to overfly the aerodrome to see a windsock, and may enter the traffic pattern in conflict with preceding aircraft.
• A difficult situation can arise when an aircraft is established on final leg in conflict with another aircraft taking off in the opposite direction.
RPT aircraft usually have planned their straight-in approach well before top of descent. Planned is the operative word. Like all things, plans can and do change.
Last edited by Hugh Jarse; 5th Oct 2002 at 23:14.
Hugh
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
I agree 100%, we differ on when what constitutes "operational reasons justify".
I would insist that to meet the above obligation the "operational reason" would be just that and not an economical one.
Once again I agree whole heartedly.
It can become unsafe when carried out against the general flow of traffic, the problem being how do you know who is traffic in an CTAF. No radio aircraft can and do opertate out of these places. A non radio equipped aircraft should attempt to be even more alert with regards to traffic before entering a runway particularly in the obvious circuit direction.
The quoted extract is interesting, however I understand that it is based on smaller aircraft normally requiring the runway with trhe least amount of crosswind and has little to say with regards to landing with a tailwind. The reason the cross runway is short to start with.
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
My interpretation of the aforementioned paragraph is that I should operate into-wind where possible and does not specifically exclude me from tailwind operations.
I would insist that to meet the above obligation the "operational reason" would be just that and not an economical one.
The practical reality is that a stabilised straight-in approach is safer than manoeuvring around the circuit. Provided it is conducted in accordance with the AFM and Company limitations I see no reason why they should not be conducted
It can become unsafe when carried out against the general flow of traffic, the problem being how do you know who is traffic in an CTAF. No radio aircraft can and do opertate out of these places. A non radio equipped aircraft should attempt to be even more alert with regards to traffic before entering a runway particularly in the obvious circuit direction.
The quoted extract is interesting, however I understand that it is based on smaller aircraft normally requiring the runway with trhe least amount of crosswind and has little to say with regards to landing with a tailwind. The reason the cross runway is short to start with.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,111
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
2 Posts
There is no doubt in my mind that we will see MBZs change to CTAFs during the introduction of the NAS, so we all better get used to the idea. The (political) decision has been made and I think it will be difficult to change. Do you really believe that this will bring about mass change in how we fly into those aerodromes?
If you think that you have protection in a MBZ then you are wrong. Radios do fail and frequencies are still miss dialed and in many cases there is just nowhere else to go, so there is always a chance of a unknown stranger in a MBZ. If you don't operate with that in mind, then maybe you should have a think about it!
You are dead right there Hugh. The trouble is that neither seems to be either encouraged or taught these days.
Just go to a busy GA aerodrome (if you can find one!) and watch operations for a while. The levels of airmanship and even observed flying skills is often way below PPL level for those that have a CPL etc. I think that CASA and most of the flying schools have some responsibility in this.
The problem is that at the end of the day we have to share the airspace with these pilots that have really little or no idea on procedures in MBZ/CTAFs because they were never taught it in the first place. Many of them try and do the right thing, but it is difficult when you don't know what the right thing is!
Some basic discussion on what airmanship is might be a good idea for some clubs and schools in the lounge or bar!
RENURPP
It can become unsafe when carried out against the general flow of traffic, the problem being how do you know who is traffic in an CTAF. No radio aircraft can and do opertate out of these places. A non radio equipped aircraft should attempt to be even more alert with regards to traffic before entering a runway particularly in the obvious circuit direction.
It can become unsafe when carried out against the general flow of traffic, the problem being how do you know who is traffic in an CTAF. No radio aircraft can and do opertate out of these places. A non radio equipped aircraft should attempt to be even more alert with regards to traffic before entering a runway particularly in the obvious circuit direction.
You can't legislate commonsense and good airmanship, which are usually the key factors why things go tits-up at uncontrolled aerodromes.
Just go to a busy GA aerodrome (if you can find one!) and watch operations for a while. The levels of airmanship and even observed flying skills is often way below PPL level for those that have a CPL etc. I think that CASA and most of the flying schools have some responsibility in this.
The problem is that at the end of the day we have to share the airspace with these pilots that have really little or no idea on procedures in MBZ/CTAFs because they were never taught it in the first place. Many of them try and do the right thing, but it is difficult when you don't know what the right thing is!
Some basic discussion on what airmanship is might be a good idea for some clubs and schools in the lounge or bar!
Triadic
Yes I agree. I do not operate into CTAf's at present, I do operate into MBZ's and I have confronted the same situation.
Doesn't change my point of view though.
Actually thats not correct, I do operate into Gove MBZ which is located in NHulumbuy CTAF
Yes I agree. I do not operate into CTAf's at present, I do operate into MBZ's and I have confronted the same situation.
Doesn't change my point of view though.
Actually thats not correct, I do operate into Gove MBZ which is located in NHulumbuy CTAF
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that, the way the system is going, the "rights" of those who pay little or nothing by way of nav charges, landing fees, etc., are being placed above the "rights" of those who pay the most. Which of those categories involves carriage of the most people and I wonder how those people would react to the knowledge that their safety is being compromised. The whole thing seems to be skewed the wrong way, IMHO. 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
everyone has a right to be safe. theres not a lot of difference (if any) in the cost of a ctaf vs an mbz for airservices
sure it may be inevitable
but there are options
perhaps when GAAPS next to a TCA go after hours they could go class C? considering anything other then CTS at night in places like this are likly to need a transponder anyway the equipment costs wouldn't be too excessive...
reminds me of the phrase 'Affordable Safety'
sure it may be inevitable
but there are options
perhaps when GAAPS next to a TCA go after hours they could go class C? considering anything other then CTS at night in places like this are likly to need a transponder anyway the equipment costs wouldn't be too excessive...
reminds me of the phrase 'Affordable Safety'
