An anonymous forum to allow you to share those moments in flying that caused you concern. You can post without registering a username, registered users can log out to post
By Anon
Anonymous poster
#694216
During a recent visit to an unfamiliar airfield I had a close encounter with a local student who flew a tighter circuit, caught up and nearly landed on top of me, missing by about 6 feet. Here's what happened (a cut down version of my report to the airprox board).

On contacting the a/g service I was told the circuit was active with 1 in. The other aircraft (X) called final for touch and go as I approached. I subsequently joined downwind.

In view of the instruction given in the airfield's AIP entry to "avoid overflying adjacent built up areas", I kept clear of the village which would have been on my base leg by routing my circuit outside it. Whilst I was on base leg I saw a helicopter almost stationary above the village, slightly higher than I was. Next I called "final [runway]" and approached at 65 KIAS. I heard X call "downwind".

When I was approximately 1 nm from the threshold, the a/g operator called "[my callsign], [a/g callsign]". I was not immediately sure how to respond to such a call, and due to workload on final approach was unable to formulate a reply. Shortly after, I think X called "base leg", which I believed to be behind me.

When I was at approximately 1/2 nm, 300' agl, I heard X call "final". About 5 seconds later, it came into view as it passed me from behind, centred approximately 3' to my left and 6' above.

Around that time, a/g said something about traffic reported on final - I don't remember the exact message. A few seconds after passing me, now approx 10m in front and slightly below, X replied to indicate she did not have visual contact with the traffic.

I called to say I was now visual with the aircraft. It was now significantly below me, and close to the threshold. I called "going around" and moved to my right in order to do so, maintaining visual contact. Now at the threshold, X said "advice please". A/g replied "land".

After a subsequent uneventful landing, I visited the tower to pay my fee and discuss the events.

The a/g controller stated that my circuit was far too big, and that when I called final, she had been unable to see me as I was so far out, and I should have called "long final". I knew this was wrong as I was less than 4 miles away.

I commented that perhaps the fact the other aircraft was low wing, whilst mine was high wing had contributed to us not seeing each other. However, she stated that the other aircraft was lower than me. At the moment of passing, this was definitely not the case.

After leaving the tower, I found a noticeboard showing diagrams of the local circuit pattern, together with copies to take away. It shows the circuit passing to the inside the village, with the turn to final 0.8 nm from the threshold. I had turned final approximately 1.8 nm from the threshold.

I spoke to an instructor from the club who informed me that X was a student doing solo consolidation circuits, who believed my call of "final" came from the helicopter above the village.

I believe the main cause of this event was that I was unaware of the local procedure and flew a larger circuit than expected. Consequently my position report of "final" was misinterpreted by both X and a/g. In the absence of other information, flying outside the village and turning final near the boundary of the ATZ seemed the most appropriate thing to do. I was not aware that this was incompatible with local procedures, despite having made every effort to plan my visit to the airfield and obtain all available information.

This airprox would have been avoided if maps of any noise abatement circuits were routinely available from the AIP. None of the airfields I have visited have had such maps in their AIP entries and the only ones I have seen have come from unofficial sources published on the initiative of the airfield.


It seems to me there are lessons to learn from this incident by all parties. I expect the airprox report in a few months which I hope will include safety recommendations. Meanwhile, here are some of my personal thoughts:

Pilots[list:4ef20bedea]
Always lookout before turning, especially onto final.
Don't rely on the radio instead of eyes.
Don't make assumptions about which aircraft is which.
If standard RT can't express your message, use plain English rather than getting tongue tied.
Make additional position reports if the situation warrants.[/list:u:4ef20bedea]
A/G operators[list:4ef20bedea]
Don't just look where you expect to find an aircraft.
Say "report your position" if that's what you want.
Don't pass non-standard messages to pilots on final approach (see CAP 413).[/list:u:4ef20bedea]
Instructors[list:4ef20bedea]Don't send students solo too soon.[/list:u:4ef20bedea]
Authorities[list:4ef20bedea]Publish maps of all noise abatement circuits in the AIP.
Define the horizontal dimensions of the "standard" circuit.[/list:u:4ef20bedea]
By ROG
#694309
If there"s other traffic around at unfamiliar airfield agree use plenty of radio to advise position --if you have GPS suggest call distance from field when on final . 4 mile final if flying a "normal" circuit seems a long way out !

Main thing is that you both lived to fly another day--and you learn from experience !
By Anon
Anonymous poster
#694329
ROG wrote:4 mile final if flying a "normal" circuit seems a long way out !


I agree. That's the official definition of "long final" which the a/g operator suggested I should have reported when I was actually <2 miles out.
User avatar
By vintage ATCO
#694363
Do remember that A/G operators do not have to have sight of the airfield or circuit or even be at the airfield concerned. Many do and will provide traffic information but don't rely on it.
User avatar
By cotterpot
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#694377
It is often beneficial to phone the airfield and talk to someone about any circuit variations/requirements before you start.
They will often ask if you have visited before and if not you will get a more detailed briefing.
As has been stated before at an A/G field it is up to you to maintain separation.
By Anon
Anonymous poster
#694450
Thanks for your comments.

I know an a/g isn't required to see the field or provide separation but this one was in a tower with good visibility of the circuit, and obviously intended to locate me when I called final.

I can only speculate what was in her mind when she tried to call me, but this was around the time I would have landed had I flown the local pattern. She may have been starting to wonder whether I was approaching the right airfield. Clearly she was concerned and the other pilot could have been warned earlier had she been aware of where I was, or if I had replied with my position.

Unfortunately the conversation stopped because of my confusion over the wording of the message.
By wsmempson
#695110
[quote='Anon']
When I was approximately 1 nm from the threshold, the a/g operator called "[my callsign], [a/g callsign]". I was not immediately sure how to respond to such a call, and due to workload on final approach was unable to formulate a reply. ][/quote]

Standard reply to "G-ABCD, Hendon Radio" is

"G-ABCD go ahead" or, if you're feeling cocky, "G-CD Go".

An unpleasant experience, but you all lived to fly another day - which is the main thing!
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#699127
[quote='Anon']
When I was approximately 1 nm from the threshold, the a/g operator called "[my callsign], [a/g callsign]". I was not immediately sure how to respond to such a call, and due to workload on final approach was unable to formulate a reply. ][/quote]


wsmempson wrote

[quote]Standard reply to "G-ABCD, Hendon Radio" is

"G-ABCD go ahead" or, if you're feeling cocky, "G-CD Go".

An unpleasant experience, but you all lived to fly another day - which is the main thing![/quote][/quote]


ISTR the term 'go ahead ' is a no-no in any R/T exchange as it could be construed as issuing a clearance/instruction to 'go ahead, go forwards, or continue.

Correct reply, shirley, should be "(Hendon Radio) pass your message, G-ABCD"

Peter :wink:
By Anon
Anonymous poster
#699390
[quote='Pete S']Correct reply, shirley, should be "(Hendon Radio) pass your message, G-ABCD"[/quote]
Well that was my first thought, but normally only ground stations say this at first contact, and CAP 413 defines the correct reply as the standard callsign, type etc. spiel, so I wasn’t sure was appropriate for a pilot to say this. My instructor said that simply “G-XX” would be the correct reply (meaning roger/I received your message).


Back on the issue of circuit size, I still haven’t figured out why the CAA haven’t defined any horizontal dimensions for the “standard” circuit. Safety Sense 6 says, "follow the pattern illustrated, if there is no different procedure published". It also refers to the "standard overhead join" poster. However, none of these documents suggest any horizontal dimensions.

The airprox board wrote in 2006 following another incident caused by a conflict arising from differing circuit sizes:
[quote]
An Advisor commented that... the basics of cct work were still subject to wide inconsistencies across the different aerodromes where GA training takes place.
[/quote]
However, they did not make any safety recommendations following this. I have written to ask them whether they took any other action. I also mentioned that this forum has discussed the matter recently, revealing differing personal and local opinions on the subject. I suggested the CAA might take this opportunity to clarify its guidance.
User avatar
By grumpy old pilot
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#699403
As far as noise abatement and circuits go, apart from phoning, maybe next time check to see if the 'unfamiliar airfield' has a web site - many do and noise abatement procedures are usually pointed out and can be easily printed off.
By Anon
Anonymous poster
#699427
I did, and it didn't. That's what I was getting at by my final comment.

[q[quoteAnon']None of the airfields I have visited have had such maps in their AIP entries and the only ones I have seen have come from unofficial sources published on the initiative of the airfield.
[/quote]

Although many airfields do publish circuits on their website, which is useful, it would be much better if they were properly circulated in the official source. This would have the advantage of being in a standard format, and pilots would know exactly where to find them rather than relying on Google.

Why isn't this the case already I wonder? Do NATS make it too difficult for airfields to publish a map of their circuit?

I do know that I pointed out an error in the AIP map for my local field back in November, and they promised to release an update in January. The error is the re-appearance of a disused taxiway which has been closed for years (and correctly shown as disused in previous versions). A visiting pilot appeared somewhat confused when he tried to vacate the runway using it and instead met a fence, not realizing he needed to backtrack to vacate. I was on final at the time, and fortunately he had the presence of mind to wait off the end of the runway until I had landed. Although everything was fine on this occasion I believe this illustrates that the error is a potential safety issue (this could probably be said of most errors in aviation documentation) and expected a little more urgency in the update.
By Bond406
#699470
[quote]Standard reply to "G-ABCD, Hendon Radio" is

"G-ABCD go ahead" or, if you're feeling cocky, "G-CD Go".
[/quote]

A pedantic point, but the reply to the full callsign is not to use an abbreviated one - there may be good reason for the full sign like another C-CD around the place

Non-standard local variations in circuits are one of the best reasons for phoning in advance - and I assume why so many airfields ask for PPR
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#699471
Back on the issue of circuit size, I still haven
By Anon
Anonymous poster
#699481
[quote='Bond406']
Non-standard local variations in circuits are one of the best reasons for phoning in advance - and I assume why so many airfields ask for PPR[/quote]

When I phoned I had a good chat with the (same) a/g operator. I asked about the weather conditions and told her this was my QXC flight. She told me about her interesting experiences on her own QXC. No mention was made of circuit patterns.

In any case my opinion is that this information is not best communicated verbally. Also the runway in use could change by the time you get there. If a map of the circuit is published it can quickly and accurately communicate the correct route to all visitors.

In this particular case a map was available, but only inside the club house, which is no use to visiting pilots :(



[quote='johnm']
This is because it will vary somewhat with aircraft type and speed.
[/quote]

I appreciate that whatever standard is defined, it may be subject to variation according to local, aircraft or traffic constraints, but a clearly defined standard would at least give pilots a starting point on which to base their actions, and they would be able to inform others if they needed to depart from the standard.
User avatar
By Rupert S
#716847
CAP 413 aside, it sounds like poor Anon is being unfairly vindicated! I realise that the conflicting traffic was a student and that the airfield had a "standard procedure in place". That said, Anon flew a valid circuit. The final approach may have been a little on the long side but by no-means unreasonable. I also realise that the student did not make visual contact with Anon but had she done so, she should've extended behind the traffic already on final. You cannot and must not assume that all aircraft in the pattern will be complying with local procedures. This is clearly a see and avoid error on the part of the student pilot.

Now, the student/her instructor would be entirely entitled to have a chat with Anon in the bar later and inform him of the local procedures.

I also fully agree about the lack of availability of noise abatement procedures in the AIP. I know that Pooleys publish them for a few aerodromes but that can't be relied upon. Goodwood springs to mind where they give you a little chart AFTER you've buggered up your join and disturbed all of their neighbours. Crazy.

I think the real issue at hand is that women have no place flying aeroplanes, let alone driving cars.