Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By rdfb
#1845298
I thought I'd share this but in a separate thread as it's a specific event or type of event that I'd like to learn from, rather than directly about mandatory EC or not.

The other day I was joining overhead to land at a FISO aerodrome busy with circuits. But at the time the radio was fairly quiet. I didn't hear anything about any aircraft departing. I was looking out for aircraft converging with me as I approached the numbers at overhead join height approximately parallel and above the base leg. As I descended on the dead side, I carefully looked and observed nothing on the runway and nothing on the climbout.

When I was crosswind the FISO alerted me to being "inside" another aircraft. And there it was. The FISO then alerted the other aircraft of me.

I assume it had just departed, rather than just joined crosswind, and had only just climbed into my view. Did I miss the radio call of it departing? Or was it just really slow climbing out, so I didn't consider its earlier announcement of taking off relevant to me? Why didn't I see it? I have a PilotAware Rosetta and also broadcast ADS-B out. I assume it probably had nothing GNSS-EC-wise because at no point did it appear, even when in direct line of sight to my receiver.

I don't think that "the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved may have been compromised" so it doesn't qualify as an airprox.

However, it was, in general, a MAC risk, because had their climbout been a little steeper, or my crosswind a little wider, they would have climbed into me. I'm very grateful for the FISO callout (though I assume at that stage the other aircraft would have seen me before turning).

I welcome the learning opportunity here. But this is why I am starting from the POV that I want mandatory EC - because I try to listen, and I try to look out, and it doesn't work. This isn't the first time either. The first time was when I was a student, and my ridiculously high hours instructor was surprised - and in fact that was in approximately the same spot, under the same circumstances (ie. on crosswind following an OH join).
User avatar
By Marvin
#1845299
I have many similar anecdotes one just recently during an revalidation flight.

It could be a simple matter of aircraft transponder antenna on the lower part of a metal fuselage and therefore masking what you can see electronically. Or the other aircraft having nothing at all.

The simple EC systems we use are not a ‘Panacea’ to MAC as some people believe or promote but an aid to visual lookout.
Shoestring Flyer liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845305
On an OHJ "crosswind", you should be a long way from someone taking off. You should generally be directly above them as they leave the runway, so there should only be a conflict if 1) the runway is long and 2) the aircraft taking off does so at a very steep angle (maybe due to a headwind).

Anyone climbing at such a steep angle should perhaps not do so, maybe push forward and flatten the climb.

I had the situation once where I was on climbout and an aircraft appeared parallel to me, just up to my right, I can't remember exactly why now. I kept it down low, about 400ft, before turning away and recommencing my climb.
User avatar
By Ben K
#1845310
Would a different kind of join been preferable, with the benefit of hindsight? (Assuming this particular airfield doesn't stipulate an OHJ).

There are pros and cons to an OHJ; one con being traffic climbing into the circuit from takeoff may well have less capacity for lookout for traffic joining crosswind via the deadside; especially students (they're climbing, levelling off, turning, all in a short space of time, then there is a tendency to 'get the downwind checks out of the way' at the start of the downwind leg).
By Skybolt1
#1845315
One of the advantages of the OHJ is that, as you descend, you can look all around the circuit and in particular aircraft climbing cross-wind before you join. This benefit is eliminated if you simple descend in a straight-line onto the cross-wing leg without looking first. Not saying in any way this is what happened in this case, but is a very dangerous practise which seems to have become wide-spread. It is worth remembering that some aeroplanes have a high rate of climb and may be at joining height by the end of the runway, although most operators of such aircraft know to avoid this and have a good look for joining traffic before they depart. Worth seeing what is at the holding point though!
TopCat liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845319
rdfb wrote:When I was crosswind the FISO alerted me to being "inside" another aircraft. And there it was. The FISO then alerted the other aircraft of me.

This happens a lot to me, so much so that I absolutely always, without fail, look very carefully along crosswind and downwind when going crosswind from the deadside.

I prefer tight circuits where possible, and I fly standard OHJs tight over the numbers at each end of the active runway.

This means that as I go crosswind, I'm always inside traffic climbing out, and as I prefer to stay in the ATZ on downwind (unfashionable though that seems to be these days), I'm often potentially inside downwind traffic as well depending on whether I go wide and slot in behind or not.

Obviously I don't carve people up, I'll comply with local circuit rules, and I'll fit in behind if I have to, but if there's nothing ahead, I may well call "downwind, positioning ahead", and fly a tight base and final. I'm on the ground and off the runway, usually before they even turn final.

But lookout is key, and IMO, not at all difficult. Except where traffic is so far out that it's hard to tell whether it's in the circuit or not. But if so, there's no conflict anyway.
Last edited by TopCat on Thu May 06, 2021 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
A4 Pacific liked this
By rdfb
#1845320
Marvin wrote:The simple EC systems we use are not a ‘Panacea’ to MAC as some people believe or promote but an aid to visual lookout.


I'm not sure my anecdote supports your statement - in fact the opposite. The visual lookout failed, and EC failed because I think the other aircraft didn't have EC (maybe Mode A/C/S but I'm discounting that as it's not practical EC for GA). Had the aircraft had EC, I might have avoided the aircraft before I unknowingly rolled the dice.
User avatar
By Marvin
#1845323
rdfb wrote:
Marvin wrote:The simple EC systems we use are not a ‘Panacea’ to MAC as some people believe or promote but an aid to visual lookout.


I'm not sure my anecdote supports your statement - in fact the opposite. The visual lookout failed, and EC failed because I think the other aircraft didn't have EC (maybe Mode A/C/S but I'm discounting that as it's not practical EC for GA). Had the aircraft had EC, I might have avoided the aircraft before I unknowingly rolled the dice.


I think that you are just demonstrating, as we all have in our flying, that there are failures/limitations in the visual scan and well as the EC capabilities, fitted or not.

Thats life! As a motor cyclist i ride with my headlight on and in a prominent place on the road but have to anticipate the driver that pulls out of the junction that hasn't seen me.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845333
rdfb wrote:The visual lookout failed, and EC failed because I think the other aircraft didn't have EC (maybe Mode A/C/S but I'm discounting that as it's not practical EC for GA). Had the aircraft had EC, I might have avoided the aircraft before I unknowingly rolled the dice.

I'm a bit uncomfortable equating the failure of visual lookout with the failure of EC in this case - it's not the same sort of failure.

I wouldn't pretend that visual lookout is completely reliable - we know it's not.

But looking out for parallel, close, crosswind traffic at the same level, or downwind (or extended downwind) traffic, also at the same level and also close, where you know exactly where to look, and you've got not much else to do, is not the same as looking out for random stuff in the cruise.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1845339
malcolmfrost wrote:Neither Visual or EC are infallible, "rolling the dice" is what we all do when we fly outside ATC control .

This is exactly the sort of comment that the tabloids would love.

It's not remotely like rolling dice. None of us would fly if there was a one in six (or even 1 in 36) chance of a mid air collision.
#1845342
TopCat wrote:
malcolmfrost wrote:Neither Visual or EC are infallible, "rolling the dice" is what we all do when we fly outside ATC control .

This is exactly the sort of comment that the tabloids would love.

It's not remotely like rolling dice. None of us would fly if there was a one in six (or even 1 in 36) chance of a mid air collision.

It was used further up, hence the quotation marks! Buying a lottery ticket might be more accurate :D
A4 Pacific liked this
#1845345
TopCat

But lookout is key, and IMO, not at all difficult.


Hip Hip Hooray! Somebody said it!!! I’m afraid I don’t accept the assertion from some quarters that it’s unsafe to join a visual circuit without mandatory EC!

rdfb

Clearly you didn’t see the traffic you thought conflicted with you. Since you don’t know whether or not the other aircraft was fitted with EC that yours failed to detect, I presume you are equally unaware whether that aircraft had you in sight and was manouvering accordingly? You certainly don’t mention altering your own trajectory in response?

Playing Devil’s advocate for a moment. Since the FISO seems to have been the significant input here. Wouldn’t it be more logical to mandate FISOs whenever any circuit is active at any airstrip? Rather than EC?
Last edited by A4 Pacific on Thu May 06, 2021 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.