Backtracking R/T - which runway?

Philipp, it seems I did not make myself sufficently clear, apologies. Allow me to describe our practice in more detail:

-) the signal field and the aerodrome logbook are quintessential and must be rigidly respected
-) there is a “person in charge”, titled the “Pleincommandant” or “Commandant de Terrain (CdT)”. Often this is mostly one and the same person, with a couple of backups for cases like sickness or holidays
-) the “person in charge” opens the field at her/his discretion, taking note of weather in general and visibility in particular. If the decision is taken, the signal square is modified accordingly, including setting the T for the active runway, and a corresponding note is made in the a/d logbook.
-) as long as the field has not been opened, do NOT use the runway! This is considered a grave error, and could lead to an airfield ban, and in grave cases even to prosecution (airfield operators would have to, if only to illustrate their own bona fide)
-) if the field IS open, use the runway only in the active direction. Again, disrespect is considered grave, and rightly too, in my eyes
-) all landings and take-offs must be noted in the a/d log. Our CAA do check the logs from time to time, and compare them to the aircraft and pilot logbooks

So far, all is clear and obvious, no problem. And of course the process is reversed around sunset: adjust signal square & annotate a/d log.

The confusion comes over day: normally, the person in charge is present all the while, has a transceiver at hand, and replies to all calls. It is like that at some places, example EBGB Grimbergen (a field with a strong tradition for exemplary R/T). But at other places, the “person in charge” will spend the day at leisure, perhaps not even at the field (famous is the president of one aeroclub who is NEVER present when there’s a bicycle race on telly) and even if they are present, they will not necessarily hear all calls, or respond if they do.

Which means that, for practical purposes, these fields cannot be considered “manned” though they are in theory. My own homebase EBZH Kiewit is like that. One makes blind calls, and if someone picks one up and thinks it worth a reply then you’ll hear – but mostly there’s no reply. For one example: one day I came flying back home with a suspicion of trouble in my fuel circuit. I expected the engine to stop any moment, and seeing where I came from, and considering there was negligible wind, I decided to land “the wrong way”. I announced this on the radio, and the glider tug pilot came back with “no traffic reported in the circuit” which was a great reassurance.

That is the source of confusion: these fields should really be considered “unmanned” in normal conditions, yet the “active runway” must absolutely be complied with.

So yes, at Belgian non-controlled fields one SHOULD make sure to know which runway is active, and not use any other. That runway is not even “preferred”, it is mandatory. Even if nobody replies at the radio. Again, the signal square is the authorative (sp?) source of information. Perusing the aerodrome logbooks, one can occasionally find notifications of a change of active runway, if the wind shifted during the opening hours.

Well, to each their own. To me it is less insane than to have no concept of an active runway at all, which is the French way today. And surely it is not too much to ask of any pilot to check the signal square before landing? It is not exactly demanding neither in terms of effort or intellect, I should think?

Yet it must be said that statistics do not show an excess of head-on collisions on French runways (slightly to my surprise, admittedly). But French private flying always had a high degree of self-regulation.

As for your added question/example: either I discuss it on the radio, and act as discussed, or I land according to the signal square (if the wind is not problematic, for example my microlight with 35 kts stall speed on a 2500m runway with a 5 kts tailwind), or I land not at all (most likely, because a “person in charge” who insists on such a situation is clearly dangerous).

You approach an airfield and the signal square says 27. winds favour 09. what do you do?

Anybody who is PIC of a tailwheel aircraft should know their answer to that one. It can be quite dangerous to land downwind. That said, I’ve never flown to an airport with a signals square. Often uncontrolled fields in the US (which is most of them) have a published calm wind runway, and its usually the runway aligned with prevailing wind. So at many airports its not so often that you land ‘the wrong way’, and when winds are ‘backwards’ the ASOS (if there is one) will give an inbound indication that it might be the case. Then when you get close, pilots tend to make more explicit calls when the runway is turned around. There is rarely a problem of understanding the runway in use, right or wrong.

A friend recently arrived at an airport where ‘inertia’ plus nose wheel aircraft had resulted in the downwind runway being in use. He gave landing a shot, which didn’t work out to his satisfaction, so he went around and had to wait for the landing traffic to clear out before he could turn the circuit around himself. Announcing on the radio that he was circling overhead and waiting gave an indication to inbound traffic. Turning the runway around does seem to me to be a problem, but I think the potential for delay and confusion is little different whether or not the airport is ATC controlled, and having somebody talking on the ground other than real ATC seems to me a little theatrical.

I have essentially zero experience of backtracking down runways in use so won’t comment on that one!

Well, again then, Philipp:

-) it is not unusual for the active runway to be reverted, even when it requires calling the person in charge to come and sign off the logbook. Didn’t I mention this?

-) I gave a clear example where I DID decide to land “the wrong way”. I agree that, at the end of all, there is “captain’s discretion”, and I think I can judge; but it is not to be applied lightly.

For further illustration: at my homefield there’s a good deal of glider activity. Even if they launch with a tugplane only, not with a winch, still a change of runway direction means a good deal of effort to them, so the decision is always taken reluctantly. And that again is why it is always discussed well in advance. Including discussion with the person in charge, by phone if necessary. When required, the person in charge will turn up to annotate the logbook – that is as was agreed.

You should not understand, far less should you imply, that our “person in charge” would ever go off and forget duty for the rest of the day. I never wrote so, and I never knew it to happen. For matters serious, the pleincommandant will always be available. What I meant to say, and still stand by, is that at some of our fields nobody will bother to answer routine radio calls; hence the need to consult and respect the signal square, for authorative information. You can and must however trust that it is managed with due attention and care.

@Silvaire: thanks for a calm reply. I never heard of an airfield publishing a “calm wind runway” but it seems a good idea, if signal squares are not used. This gives at least a “default” option, helping to avoid anarchism.

I realise that I haven’t yet mentioned the usual solution, as you did: arriving to one’s destination, one tunes in the aerodrome frequency, and usually learns what runway is being used soon enough. But one should always be aware there could be NORDO traffic around, rare though it is here.

BTW what is an ASOS?

And yes, I am in the same boat as you: never had to perform a backtrack as yet. Perhaps it is as well to think it over BEFORE doing it in real life!

@bosco: well, sorry, but yes you do seem to have taken my meaning, yes. And I did write up what I was taught to be law and order. Though of course I stand ready to be corrected, there used to be more Belgians round here, weren’t there?

But I can’t understand the doubt in your last phrase: it seems obvious to me that (emergencies excepted, as in the example I cited) if a lawful and safe landing cannot be made than one needs to divert? What’s wrong or dangerous or difficult about diverting, anyway?

BTW radio announcements are always optional, and can never affect the legal consequences, at non-controlled fields where transmissions are not recorded.

[[later edit]] and perhaps I should have made it more clear that, as regards infractions, Belgium is a Latin country: even if one does commit an infraction, that doesn’t mean one will get prosecuted, not by a long way.

BTW what is an ASOS?

Hi Jan, ASOS is Automated Surface Observation System. A lot of airports in the US have it. You tune it in when inbound and an artificial voice gives you the wind, altimeter setting and cloud cover information at the airport. Its similar in function to ATIS at a bigger airport but ASOS is continually updating instead of being recorded once per hour.

The difference at the small uncontrolled airport, using ASOS, is that the pilot is expected to choose his own runway, and ASOS is one tool that helps him start doing that before he’s close to other landing traffic. You can also tune and use an airport ASOS to keep your altimeter setting accurate as fly overhead on a VFR cross-country.

It is always right to look for no radio traffic at small airports in the US. My small aircraft has been flown twice across the country with only a handheld radio, and if the batteries quit, that’s what you become! Also in most airspace there’s no requirement to have a radio at all (i.e. Class E), and out in the country people fly small planes without them.