Run and break when will they learn ?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final3Greens
"When confronted with this type of logic" - you've lost me. Probably my fault, but could you expand? eg Flying aerobatics is not irresponsible. Flying aerobatics over a congested area would be. Hardly just semantics? What do you mean by "this type of logic"?
DFC
I'm afraid the "very important" point in your penultimate paragraph, and the "very very very important" point in your final paragraph are both just plain wrong in law.
"When confronted with this type of logic" - you've lost me. Probably my fault, but could you expand? eg Flying aerobatics is not irresponsible. Flying aerobatics over a congested area would be. Hardly just semantics? What do you mean by "this type of logic"?
DFC
I'm afraid the "very important" point in your penultimate paragraph, and the "very very very important" point in your final paragraph are both just plain wrong in law.
DFC
Two excellent points about Display Authorisation and Rule 5. It's not landing in accordance with normal (civil) aviation practice. However, FL says you are wrong, I'm sure he can quote the relevant part of the ANO/Rules or case law.
Two excellent points about Display Authorisation and Rule 5. It's not landing in accordance with normal (civil) aviation practice. However, FL says you are wrong, I'm sure he can quote the relevant part of the ANO/Rules or case law.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have resited from commenting so far for various reasons...
however,
so mellowed have I become, I implore you all to ask yourselves, "Can we not all learn to live with each other?"
If someone wants to do an RIAB and it affects no one else, fine.
If somebody does an RIAB and it p!sses someone else off - fine, speak to each other on the ground.
It is encumbent upon each and every one of us to keep a good lookout - that includes in the circuit. Failure to do so might cost lifes.
I fly because I can and in this Bliar-esque nanny state I think we all really have bigger things to worry about, for fox sake someone might even start a war.
Stik - Pitts pilot who has occasionally been asked to RIAB.
however,
so mellowed have I become, I implore you all to ask yourselves, "Can we not all learn to live with each other?"
If someone wants to do an RIAB and it affects no one else, fine.
If somebody does an RIAB and it p!sses someone else off - fine, speak to each other on the ground.
It is encumbent upon each and every one of us to keep a good lookout - that includes in the circuit. Failure to do so might cost lifes.
I fly because I can and in this Bliar-esque nanny state I think we all really have bigger things to worry about, for fox sake someone might even start a war.
Stik - Pitts pilot who has occasionally been asked to RIAB.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Lawyer
Sorry if I confused you - it was probably the Chateauneuf talking!
The point I was trying to make though, given the concerns in the thread about more restrictions, is that to argue a technical argument with an average red top reader NIMBY is pretty suicidal. (i.e. the manouevre isn't dangerous, the decision to do it is.) Most of our population judge what is right and wrong by standards that would last nanoseconds in court!
If the NIMBY is smart, they'll likely soon incite others by accusing us of talking 'weasel words' and spinning the case and, per Chomsky's famous statement that 'he did believe that there was a holocaust', an argument that shouldn't exist is made possible.
And it is these type of people who just want to get on with their own lives ... but can become the vox pox who galvanise the local MP, who know how to play the game etc etc.
I guess my point is that some things are best avoided and in this instance mutual common sense is the way forward, since we will all suffer if there are many more incidents like NW.
Sorry if I confused you - it was probably the Chateauneuf talking!
The point I was trying to make though, given the concerns in the thread about more restrictions, is that to argue a technical argument with an average red top reader NIMBY is pretty suicidal. (i.e. the manouevre isn't dangerous, the decision to do it is.) Most of our population judge what is right and wrong by standards that would last nanoseconds in court!
If the NIMBY is smart, they'll likely soon incite others by accusing us of talking 'weasel words' and spinning the case and, per Chomsky's famous statement that 'he did believe that there was a holocaust', an argument that shouldn't exist is made possible.
And it is these type of people who just want to get on with their own lives ... but can become the vox pox who galvanise the local MP, who know how to play the game etc etc.
I guess my point is that some things are best avoided and in this instance mutual common sense is the way forward, since we will all suffer if there are many more incidents like NW.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hew J
As you know from our dealings off forum, I'm always happy to help fellow pilots if they have a specific problem. But, just like everyone else who posts on this site, I only spend time in a discussion for as long as I find it interesting/productive/enjoyable. This thread, for me at least, no longer falls into any of those categories so I'm afraid my answer will be as brief as courtesy to you permits.
See:
ANO 2000, Article 70 'Flying Displays'
Article 129 (Interpretation)
Rule 5.
I entirely agree with the rationale behind A&C's post which started this discussion, but I draw a distinction between flying a RIAB when there is other traffic to be alarmed, inconvenienced or endangered and when there is not. The former is, at best, irresponsible (+ bad airmanship) and, at worst, illegal; the latter is, IMHO, not.
Final3G doesn't care for "this type of logic" and apparently considers it to be "semantics"; he's entitled to his opinion. If anyone had suggested ignoring a rule because it cannot be enforced, his Moulton quotation would have been relevant. No-one has suggested ignoring any rule, enforceable or otherwise.
Back to the day job ................................
[Edit]
F3G - just seen your post whilst checking how mine had come out ...
I didn't say "the manouevre isn't dangerous, the decision to do it is.", or anything like it. That would indeed be absurd semantics. My point throughout has been that there is nothing inherently dangerous in flying a RIAB - it depends upon the circumstances. Busy circuit = irresponsible, bad airmanship and possibly illegal by reason of endangering.
Empty circuit = not irresponsible, not bad airmanship, no 'endangering', not illegal.
The fatal at NW was tragic, but I see nothing whatsoever wrong with RIABs provided the time and place allow the manoeuvre to be flown safely. I do not accept there is a problem which needs to be addressed by the imposition of a rule - either by airfield operators or by the CAA.
As you know from our dealings off forum, I'm always happy to help fellow pilots if they have a specific problem. But, just like everyone else who posts on this site, I only spend time in a discussion for as long as I find it interesting/productive/enjoyable. This thread, for me at least, no longer falls into any of those categories so I'm afraid my answer will be as brief as courtesy to you permits.
See:
ANO 2000, Article 70 'Flying Displays'
Article 129 (Interpretation)
Rule 5.
I entirely agree with the rationale behind A&C's post which started this discussion, but I draw a distinction between flying a RIAB when there is other traffic to be alarmed, inconvenienced or endangered and when there is not. The former is, at best, irresponsible (+ bad airmanship) and, at worst, illegal; the latter is, IMHO, not.
Final3G doesn't care for "this type of logic" and apparently considers it to be "semantics"; he's entitled to his opinion. If anyone had suggested ignoring a rule because it cannot be enforced, his Moulton quotation would have been relevant. No-one has suggested ignoring any rule, enforceable or otherwise.
Back to the day job ................................
[Edit]
F3G - just seen your post whilst checking how mine had come out ...
I didn't say "the manouevre isn't dangerous, the decision to do it is.", or anything like it. That would indeed be absurd semantics. My point throughout has been that there is nothing inherently dangerous in flying a RIAB - it depends upon the circumstances. Busy circuit = irresponsible, bad airmanship and possibly illegal by reason of endangering.
Empty circuit = not irresponsible, not bad airmanship, no 'endangering', not illegal.
The fatal at NW was tragic, but I see nothing whatsoever wrong with RIABs provided the time and place allow the manoeuvre to be flown safely. I do not accept there is a problem which needs to be addressed by the imposition of a rule - either by airfield operators or by the CAA.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 17th Feb 2003 at 10:08.
FL, within a post with which I otherwise entirely agree said...
I draw a distinction between flying a RIAB when there is other traffic to be alarmed, inconvenienced or endangered and when there is not. The former is, at best, irresponsible (+ bad airmanship) and, at worst, illegal; the latter is, IMHO, not.
Surely it's far more important to be safe than within the law? The preferable position is to be both, but given a choice of safety and illegality versus an unsafe but legal action, the former should take precedent. In such events, and they do occur, case law usually sorts the anomaly out sooner or later. But where you suggest that breaking the law is the worst event, after a reduction in safety, I have to disagree.
G
I draw a distinction between flying a RIAB when there is other traffic to be alarmed, inconvenienced or endangered and when there is not. The former is, at best, irresponsible (+ bad airmanship) and, at worst, illegal; the latter is, IMHO, not.
Surely it's far more important to be safe than within the law? The preferable position is to be both, but given a choice of safety and illegality versus an unsafe but legal action, the former should take precedent. In such events, and they do occur, case law usually sorts the anomaly out sooner or later. But where you suggest that breaking the law is the worst event, after a reduction in safety, I have to disagree.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
FL
Sorry, I misquoted you, you said...
You seem to think that I do not like your logic.
This is not true, but what I am saying is that if the general public hear this argument IMHO it will not be received kindly.
Also the Moulton Fletcher quote was appropriate as it specifically says 'obedience to the unenforceable', which covers both aeros and RIABs when flown legally.
But it doesn't mean that it is smart to do these things 'just because you can' otherwise someone will surely argue that the privilege should be removed.
The last thing we need is more regulation, brought on by our own lack of forethought.
I don't really see what the problem is. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned, just that we all act in a mutually responsible manner.
Sorry, I misquoted you, you said...
The manoeuvre is not irresponsible; doing it may be, depending upon the circumstances
This is not true, but what I am saying is that if the general public hear this argument IMHO it will not be received kindly.
Also the Moulton Fletcher quote was appropriate as it specifically says 'obedience to the unenforceable', which covers both aeros and RIABs when flown legally.
But it doesn't mean that it is smart to do these things 'just because you can' otherwise someone will surely argue that the privilege should be removed.
The last thing we need is more regulation, brought on by our own lack of forethought.
I don't really see what the problem is. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned, just that we all act in a mutually responsible manner.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well past one o'clock, time for a break......
Should I look at the thread? No. I've left it.
After browsing a few other threads which interest me ....
Well perhaps just a quick look, but I won't be drawn in whatever's been posted.
Mistake!
Genghis
Of course, if circumstances are such that a choice has to be made, it's far more important to be safe than within the law. I do not consider breaking the law is worse than compromising safety, any more than I consider breaking the law is necessarily unsafe.
I thought it was clear from my various posts that I attach great importance to the safety assessment which a pilot must make if considering flying a RIAB. If it wasn't, I'm grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position so that others don't misunderstand what I meant.
Final3G
Let's try an example away from RIABs.
Flying aerobatics over unpopulated areas is not irresponsible. Flying aerobatics over a town is.
Why would the general public hearing that argument not receive it kindly?
People argue all sorts of things, but how could anyone argue credibly that regulations should be introduced to remove our privilege to fly aeros in a safe place?
Back to RIAB:
I don't suggest it is smart to fly a RIAB 'just because you can'. I am saying there is nothing wrong with flying a RIAB unless it is done at a time and place which is unsafe, in which case there is a great deal wrong with it. ie In my opinion, provided it is executed safely (and legally) the manoeuvre is a non-issue.
"The last thing we need is more regulation, brought on by our own lack of forethought." I agree - but I don't accept that flying a safe RIAB demonstrates a lack of forethought likely to result in the introduction of more regulations.
"I don't really see what the problem is. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned, just that we all act in a mutually responsible manner." Agreed.
Makes mental note: Don't make the same mistake at the tea-time break.
Should I look at the thread? No. I've left it.
After browsing a few other threads which interest me ....
Well perhaps just a quick look, but I won't be drawn in whatever's been posted.
Mistake!
Genghis
Of course, if circumstances are such that a choice has to be made, it's far more important to be safe than within the law. I do not consider breaking the law is worse than compromising safety, any more than I consider breaking the law is necessarily unsafe.
I thought it was clear from my various posts that I attach great importance to the safety assessment which a pilot must make if considering flying a RIAB. If it wasn't, I'm grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position so that others don't misunderstand what I meant.
Final3G
Let's try an example away from RIABs.
Flying aerobatics over unpopulated areas is not irresponsible. Flying aerobatics over a town is.
Why would the general public hearing that argument not receive it kindly?
People argue all sorts of things, but how could anyone argue credibly that regulations should be introduced to remove our privilege to fly aeros in a safe place?
Back to RIAB:
I don't suggest it is smart to fly a RIAB 'just because you can'. I am saying there is nothing wrong with flying a RIAB unless it is done at a time and place which is unsafe, in which case there is a great deal wrong with it. ie In my opinion, provided it is executed safely (and legally) the manoeuvre is a non-issue.
"The last thing we need is more regulation, brought on by our own lack of forethought." I agree - but I don't accept that flying a safe RIAB demonstrates a lack of forethought likely to result in the introduction of more regulations.
"I don't really see what the problem is. I'm not suggesting that anything be banned, just that we all act in a mutually responsible manner." Agreed.
Makes mental note: Don't make the same mistake at the tea-time break.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 17th Feb 2003 at 13:39.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer,
I have checked out your references and agree that doing a run and break would not constitute a display thus no authorisations required.
However, with regard to Rule 5, I am not sure if I understand where you are approaching the matter from.
Let us consider that a pilot intends to complete a run and break at an airfield. The pilot descends to 500ft QFE some 1nm from the threshold and maintains that height until the upwind end of the runway whereup they complete a climbing turn to join the circuit.
Let us also consider that during the run in, the aircraft passed within 500ft of - A doubble decker bus on a road .5 mile from the airfield, A tractor near the airfield boundary and a pilot observing the action from the ground on the airfield.
Now IMHO, the run and break is not taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice. (Just like closing the throttle to simulate EFATO isn't either). Thus there is no exemption to the 500ft rule available so I would consider that the pilot above infringed the rule in all three cases.
I am sure that you have better understanding of rule 5 with regard to a run and break and would like to understand where my points above are wrong.
However, leaving the legalities aside, it is very funny to compare the following and the diffeent reactions:
A.
High speed aircraft joins at high speed into the overhead, completes wide fast circuit and missed approach at the threshold consisting of level flight at 50ft along the runway before climbing to rejoin the circuit (at a lower speed).
B.
Aircraft completes the same as above and calls it a run and brerak!!
I could bet that A. would not cause any reaction while B. gets everyone worried.
DFC
I have checked out your references and agree that doing a run and break would not constitute a display thus no authorisations required.
However, with regard to Rule 5, I am not sure if I understand where you are approaching the matter from.
Let us consider that a pilot intends to complete a run and break at an airfield. The pilot descends to 500ft QFE some 1nm from the threshold and maintains that height until the upwind end of the runway whereup they complete a climbing turn to join the circuit.
Let us also consider that during the run in, the aircraft passed within 500ft of - A doubble decker bus on a road .5 mile from the airfield, A tractor near the airfield boundary and a pilot observing the action from the ground on the airfield.
Now IMHO, the run and break is not taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice. (Just like closing the throttle to simulate EFATO isn't either). Thus there is no exemption to the 500ft rule available so I would consider that the pilot above infringed the rule in all three cases.
I am sure that you have better understanding of rule 5 with regard to a run and break and would like to understand where my points above are wrong.
However, leaving the legalities aside, it is very funny to compare the following and the diffeent reactions:
A.
High speed aircraft joins at high speed into the overhead, completes wide fast circuit and missed approach at the threshold consisting of level flight at 50ft along the runway before climbing to rejoin the circuit (at a lower speed).
B.
Aircraft completes the same as above and calls it a run and brerak!!
I could bet that A. would not cause any reaction while B. gets everyone worried.
DFC
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC, RAF rules state that civvy registered aircraft shall not carry out R&B's below 500 ft QFE. In your case above (a) the obstacles mentioned would have to be directly under the aircraft or they'd be further than 500 ft away, (b) you'd need a damn accurate set of measuring equipment to prove it and (c) you're just being picky anyway 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
You stated
"I don't suggest it is smart to fly a RIAB 'just because you can'. I am saying there is nothing wrong with flying a RIAB unless it is done at a time and place which is unsafe, in which case there is a great deal wrong with it. ie In my opinion, provided it is executed safely (and legally) the manoeuvre is a non-issue."
You are, as usual, absolutely right but much of this thread is not talking about a pilot with your military training, skill, ability and experience. Nor are we dealing with the type of high performance aircraft which you fly and which not surprisingly result in requests for an R&B. [Although I do remember our immaculate RIAB at Valley several years ago in the Chipmunk being somewhat overshadowed by I think Stefan in the Gnat shortly after - it was fun from our seats but rather short on speed, noise and punch to impress those on the ground much!!
]
God forbid that we have any more regulation but the danger is that we will unless individual pilots recognise that there is a time and a place and a second NW incident will result in the fun police stepping in. Right place, right pilot, right aircraft = brilliant fun
Wrong place, wrong pilot or wrong aircraft b#####s it up for the rest of us.
You stated
"I don't suggest it is smart to fly a RIAB 'just because you can'. I am saying there is nothing wrong with flying a RIAB unless it is done at a time and place which is unsafe, in which case there is a great deal wrong with it. ie In my opinion, provided it is executed safely (and legally) the manoeuvre is a non-issue."
You are, as usual, absolutely right but much of this thread is not talking about a pilot with your military training, skill, ability and experience. Nor are we dealing with the type of high performance aircraft which you fly and which not surprisingly result in requests for an R&B. [Although I do remember our immaculate RIAB at Valley several years ago in the Chipmunk being somewhat overshadowed by I think Stefan in the Gnat shortly after - it was fun from our seats but rather short on speed, noise and punch to impress those on the ground much!!
]God forbid that we have any more regulation but the danger is that we will unless individual pilots recognise that there is a time and a place and a second NW incident will result in the fun police stepping in. Right place, right pilot, right aircraft = brilliant fun
Wrong place, wrong pilot or wrong aircraft b#####s it up for the rest of us.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Run And breaks simply do not exist in a civilian ATC environment, we are not instructed on them are not made aware of there existence and certainly have no appropriate RT for their use.
However I would have no problem if the traffic situation permits in allowing them.
As an ATCO I believe there has to be a certain amount of flexibility, and as GA pilots fly for pleasure why not when the situation arises let them have their fun.
However I would have no problem if the traffic situation permits in allowing them.
As an ATCO I believe there has to be a certain amount of flexibility, and as GA pilots fly for pleasure why not when the situation arises let them have their fun.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow DFC
A case of dissecting mouse turds if ever I saw one.
Come on Chaps, use commonsense. If there is no one in the circuit, no noise issues and if EVERYONE know what is going on. What is the problem.
Perhaps it is not the flying it is the English. How about a 550 feet pass above the highest obstacle, for a runway inspection followed by a practice bad weather circuit. No sir it was not an R&B. It sounds a pile of rubbish, but it seems the pedants of the world would rather it so.
At the end of the day, respect fellow aviators and spend time enjoying our privileged status
Love
Wide
A case of dissecting mouse turds if ever I saw one.
Come on Chaps, use commonsense. If there is no one in the circuit, no noise issues and if EVERYONE know what is going on. What is the problem.
Perhaps it is not the flying it is the English. How about a 550 feet pass above the highest obstacle, for a runway inspection followed by a practice bad weather circuit. No sir it was not an R&B. It sounds a pile of rubbish, but it seems the pedants of the world would rather it so.
At the end of the day, respect fellow aviators and spend time enjoying our privileged status
Love
Wide
Guest
Posts: n/a
FL
Several reasons why they may not receive it kindly, those I can think of quickly include:
1 - Some people are not rational
2 - Some people believe life is a conspiracy theory and the argument is a 'cover up'
3 - Some people are envious of rich layabouts who fly aeroplanes (see point #1)
4 - Some people are swayed by local opinion formers who incite anxiety through the 'safety' argument
5 - Some people have an environmental argument
e.g. a few months after we moved into our current house near Stansted (new build estate) a local activist knocked on the door to canvass for a petition to move the SID routes.
I asked her why and she said that local residents thought it was dangerous that airlines flew overhead.
'Wasn't the airport there when they bought their houses?' I asked.
Oh yes, she replied, but people did not realise how close the flight paths were.
In the local paper, a few weeks later, it transpires that the petition had gained several hundred supporters.
Well it got nowhere, as Stansted is ear marked for development, but all I am saying (and I am not against RIABs or aeros) is we need to act responsibly (and be seen to act responsibly) to protect our privileges.
Why would the general public hearing that argument not receive it kindly?
1 - Some people are not rational
2 - Some people believe life is a conspiracy theory and the argument is a 'cover up'
3 - Some people are envious of rich layabouts who fly aeroplanes (see point #1)
4 - Some people are swayed by local opinion formers who incite anxiety through the 'safety' argument
5 - Some people have an environmental argument
e.g. a few months after we moved into our current house near Stansted (new build estate) a local activist knocked on the door to canvass for a petition to move the SID routes.
I asked her why and she said that local residents thought it was dangerous that airlines flew overhead.
'Wasn't the airport there when they bought their houses?' I asked.
Oh yes, she replied, but people did not realise how close the flight paths were.
In the local paper, a few weeks later, it transpires that the petition had gained several hundred supporters.
Well it got nowhere, as Stansted is ear marked for development, but all I am saying (and I am not against RIABs or aeros) is we need to act responsibly (and be seen to act responsibly) to protect our privileges.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Spanish Riviera
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an observation, but if you look at the AAIB report I think its pretty obvious that the Yak pilot did not do/was not positioning correctly for a RIAB. The implication is that he did an unauthorised flypast of his house then turned the wrong way up the base leg to reposition. If he had continued to initials, flown through deadside and broke into the downwind element of the cct at an appropriate time (having visually cleared the downwind leg) we wouldn't have been having this argument.
Regardless, as an aside, a RIAB is actually very safe as long as everyone involved knows where to look.
Regardless, as an aside, a RIAB is actually very safe as long as everyone involved knows where to look.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to make the point just made by WB SATCO, but he got there first. If you fly to a field such as North Weald, Duxford, or Kemble, self briefing should indicate that some aircraft may be practising run and breaks. They may be normal (or, at least, not unusual) in a particular environment, and, as pointed out by several others above, are not inherently unsafe or inconsistent with GA. I agree, by the way, that although fun to watch and to do, they are not always needed by, for example, big pistons such as Warbirds and Yaks.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alty Meter
I'm not arguing with anyone, just pointing out that we have many powerful stakeholders outside our community.
If you are too dense to understand that public opinion may be different to pilot's opinion, then more fool you.
BTW I am the type of consultant who earns £150K pa, go figure.
I'm not arguing with anyone, just pointing out that we have many powerful stakeholders outside our community.
If you are too dense to understand that public opinion may be different to pilot's opinion, then more fool you.
BTW I am the type of consultant who earns £150K pa, go figure.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
And Alty Meter is the type of pilot who earns £150K pa, so it won't take you long to figure who he flies for, or how long he's been in aviation.
Curious coincidence - I remember WorkingHard (late of this thread), and another PPL, trying to patronise professional pilots on the Mil Forum by boasting how much he earned. I say 'trying' because it only made him look very silly. Go figure.
And Alty Meter is the type of pilot who earns £150K pa, so it won't take you long to figure who he flies for, or how long he's been in aviation.
Curious coincidence - I remember WorkingHard (late of this thread), and another PPL, trying to patronise professional pilots on the Mil Forum by boasting how much he earned. I say 'trying' because it only made him look very silly. Go figure.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whipping Boy's SATCO posted 18th February 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip] . . . If he had continued to initials, flown through deadside and broke into the downwind element of the cct at an appropriate time (having visually cleared the downwind leg) we wouldn't have been having this argument.
[snip]
I don't think there is a dead side at North Weald when gliders are operating, because all power is one side (west of 02/20) and gliders do circuits on the other (eastern) side.
I have yet to be convinced that a RIAB at North Weald is capable of being safe unless the pilot has established that no gliders are in circuit or about to join and hence needing to land during the run in - we can't go round again! I also don't see how one can be legal if there are gliders on or near the runway unless the RIAB is carried out at least 500 feet away from them. I don't profess to know what circumstances need to be checked on the power side to make it safe from their perspective.
This is not to say that RIAB's cannot be done, simply that some checks are necessary first, just like I can't do certain things at North Weald in my glider without ascertaining first that they won't cause a problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip] . . . If he had continued to initials, flown through deadside and broke into the downwind element of the cct at an appropriate time (having visually cleared the downwind leg) we wouldn't have been having this argument.
[snip]
I don't think there is a dead side at North Weald when gliders are operating, because all power is one side (west of 02/20) and gliders do circuits on the other (eastern) side.
I have yet to be convinced that a RIAB at North Weald is capable of being safe unless the pilot has established that no gliders are in circuit or about to join and hence needing to land during the run in - we can't go round again! I also don't see how one can be legal if there are gliders on or near the runway unless the RIAB is carried out at least 500 feet away from them. I don't profess to know what circumstances need to be checked on the power side to make it safe from their perspective.
This is not to say that RIAB's cannot be done, simply that some checks are necessary first, just like I can't do certain things at North Weald in my glider without ascertaining first that they won't cause a problem.