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 lordbonville
#1207375
Downwind in a jet/turboprop is likely to be virtually outside an ATZ or at least towards the edge of it and also at least 1500'.

Can't think why he would join any other way if landing on runway opposite to final track to destination. He was probably downwind at the point he entered ATZ.

I frequently used to report downwind for R23 at Teesside at 6000' 5nm to the south east and 250kts. And would still be talking to radar NOT tower until asking for visual
User avatar
By Sir Morley Steven
#1207541
lordbonville wrote:Timothy. After a couple of years away from flying and now returning with interest I still see you as the voice of reason on this and other forums.

Having flown passenger jets and light singles into very large busy airports down to my own grass strip (not with a 737) I can say that the obvious thing for the biz jet to do would be get the info about the airfield pattern from local LARS type unit and maintain contact with them till last minute. He probably knew where the crosswind aircraft was anyway and considered it to be most practical to just get on with it.

I wonder what the OP would like to see? An overhead join maybe? Sounds like there was no conflict, other than in OP's head.

Far too often people with one sided views make too much noise.

Not sure I can see the OP claiming there was a conflict. But it seems Timothy's one sided view has caused him to flounce so we will never know.
We have joining bizjets at Blackbushe all the time. Generally Farnborough phone the tower and they call in outside the ATZ having been told the circuit direction and we all fit in with each other.
Occasionally you get a visitor blatting in as the OP describes but they are few and far between.
I think what the OP was trying to say was that the bizjet was lucky there wasn't a conflict, rather than there was.
User avatar
By KNT754G
#1207542
Paul_Sengupta wrote:Biz-jets aside, which of us haven't been held onto by an air traffic control service until we "have the field in sight"?

Sometimes if we want to make an early call to the airfield we have to actively request a frequency change.

OCAS you do not need to REQUEST a frequency change, TELL THEM that you are changing frequency.
User avatar
By Sharpie
#1207546
Timothy, I understand your points but your post there appeared to suggest that the bizjet's employers are responsible as they put pressure on the pilot.

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the pilot is less than totally responsible for the safety of his aircraft, but that's how it is coming out.
User avatar
By Timothy
#1207787
That's a very difficult one.

They know very well that it is not optimally safe (apart from anything else, every bizjet except the very smallest - Citation I class - really should have a four mile stabilised final) but if they refuse they will be fired and replaced by someone who will do it.

It's not too dissimilar from the airline pilots who are complaining today about fatigue...why don't they refuse to fly?

It's not black and white.

I am entering radio silence for five days, which is a shame as it's an interesting discussion.
By AFSAG
#1208874
.....and assuming a long transmission time of say 30 seconds, according to T he would be travelling at supersonic speeds, so no chance to hear him either.

The OP read to me a bit more like "this happened, what should I think about it?"

FWIW I cant see how arriving in an ATZ when even the ATC are surprised is the best thing to do. Surely that is not ideal airmanship?
Why not make the call further out, maybe using box2? That has to be better than spooking anybody and impairing safety, even your own.
I can see however the need for a straight in approach, rather than a OHJ and the laws of physics dictate that the jet cant follow around a circuit following say a C152.
User avatar
By Timothy
#1209092
AFSAG wrote:Surely that is not ideal airmanship?

No, of course not.

I am trying to point out that we don't live in an ideal world. I am talking about least bad compromising.
User avatar
By Keef
#1209095
What I think this proves is that, just as PA28s are not permitted at Heathrow (and priced out of Gatwick and the like), jets should not be permitted at GA airfields.

The US has found a way to make it work, but EASA couldn't possibly copy those processes because they weren't invented here.
User avatar
By Timothy
#1209096
...thus taking more money out of GA?

I think that compromise is the best compromise.
By mm_flynn
#1209143
Keef wrote:The US has found a way to make it work, but EASA couldn't possibly copy those processes because they weren't invented here.

To be fair, this particular issue is with UK rules and tradition rather than EASA.

It seems very get challenging to integrate an overhead join mindset, a stabilised 4 mile final mindset and a 2 mile ATZ that introduces significant RT transactional overhead (vs UNICOM self announcing ).
By James Chan
#1211508
OCAS you do not need to REQUEST a frequency change, TELL THEM that you are changing frequency.


Unfortunately sometimes pilots don't even know whether they are inside or outside CAS.

Particularly when abroad where:
1) ATC never makes explicit announcements of "Radar/Procedural Control Service" and "Flight Information Service" when moving in and out of CAS.
2) It's common to hear only British pilots telling ATC they are changing frequency, and the response being
"Negative. You are still in my area. I will hand you over shortly!"