Aviate – Navigate – Communicate – … – Deal with idiots
MikeWhiskey wrote:
Here we are talking of what? A deviation of 50m? 100m?
Look at the charts of LSPL, RWY05. After departure and in a go around, you are supposed to go straight ahead and turn after the village of Bleienbach. Well, I turned outbound too early, crossing parts of the village. The mistake was absolutely mine so it was also correct and actually helpful that I got debriefed on it.
50-100m, the distance does not matter. These airfields go to tremendous lengths to tell people how to fly circuits so that the least impact is made, have a look at the excellent instruction sheet they have. Everyone disregarding that or flying sloppily like I did torpedizes this. Consequently I understand why people get upset about it, particularly if pilots at fault start discussing.
Clearly, the way the guy acted was not quite cricket… but in any case the first thing I do if someone screams at me is to ask myself if there is a good reason to it. 90% of the time there is.
MikeWhiskey wrote:
This BS story reminds me about the issue EDKB Bonn Hangelaer had a while ago. There some clown provided huge effort to bust every pilot who was not exactly following the published traffic circuit.
Our airfields are all in way too close proximity to inhabited areas. That is a fact. Therefore, most of the time the published circuits are the results of years of negotiations with the communities and the effort to get them to tolerate the noise produced. If we insist on the tolerance normally given to these circuits, this tolerance will go away before we know it. One or two violations such as the one I did 10 years ago can cause massive problems. I would have fully understood if I and possibly the ATO involved would have been banned from flying there or even gotten a fine. Unless there is a very good reason, these traffic circuits are precisely to be followed. Clearly, if there is a traffic conflict or whatever, that is a good reason. But otherwise, there are none.
I had a similar experience in Altenrhein when I first flew there also about that time after my long break and took the old route outbound, having missed the fact that they had changed the departure route. The tower also called me out on this, on frequency, and demanded a call after landing. I was told in no unclear terms that a repetition would result in a fine. Again, he was right and I was wrong and even negligent by not having checked the departure properly.
Well, the lessons came home. I have not knowingly busted a traffic circuit since as I take time to prepare and carefully check landmarks e.t.c. as much as possible. If someone then still screams at me, well, there is the GPS track to prove what happened. Depending on it would be my reaction.
Frans wrote:
To answer the question myself: Deescalate the situation, say sorry, and go away. Even when they blame you for nothing. How would you react to such situations?
I had a similar situation a few weeks back flying into a nearby airfield. I was approaching from the west, the runway in use was 07 so theoretically I could have asked for a straight in but as I’d heard the circuit was busy, I elected to fly further at least 2 miles north of the field and the pattern (it was a standard left hand pattern, 400 feet above the circuit altitude with the intention to fly parallel to downwind, descending to pattern altitude and perform a 180 turn to join where crosswind and downwind meet, traffic permitting.
That day one pilot was flying what Paul Bertorelli would have called a nuclear bomber circuit – I was about half a mile away west of where the pilots should turn onto base from downwind, more than a mile north of where the circuit is known to be, when an aircraft zipped underneath me. I could tell he was way outside of the circuit because there’s a factory which is used to denote the turn to base. The aircraft was, as I said, at least half a mile to the north of that factory and half a mile west of it – way out of the circuit; I’d also seen it approaching and was keeping an eye on it, had remarked to my passenger about the position of the aircraft, wondering what he was up to, when the pilot called out:
“Hey, that’s not a good idea, flying towards us when we are in the circuit”.
I just told him: a) I’m four hundred feet above circuit altitude, if you can’t be trusted to fly at least close to circuit altitude, you shouldn’t be flying. b) I’m way north and west of the pattern, as are you; if you need to fly bomber circuits to land, perhaps you should get refresher training or your eyes checked, you’re more than half a mile past the point where you should turn from downwind to base.
A snigger came over the radio…..followed by "Oberst Rudel flies again….. ignore him, he always flies that way, he is “beratungsresistent”
FYI Hans Ulrich Rudel was an acclaimed German Stuka Pilot, Beratungsresistent is a nice germanic way of saying “immune to any advice for self improvement”
Perhaps the most appropriate reply to such incidents, while still in the air would simply be “Roger”. Perhaps with “Life of Brian” pronunciation (Wog-Are)
Then deal with any issues arising while on the ground.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
have a look at the excellent instruction sheet they have
Is that great sheet published in any official aeronautical publication such as the AIP?
Were are the fines for not flying visually with zero meters tolerance stipulated?
I could not care less for local “rules” like that. Of course, I will do my due diligence and study all official aeronautical publications and do proper pre-flight planning. But when it comes to flying the approach to a new field, I would rather make sure I do it in the safest manner possible rather than focusing on not deviating 30 cm from some imaginary line in the air.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
50-100m, the distance does not matter. These airfields go to tremendous lengths to tell people how to fly circuits so that the least impact is made, have a look at the excellent instruction sheet they have. Everyone disregarding that or flying sloppily like I did torpedizes this. Consequently I understand why people get upset about it, particularly if pilots at fault start discussing.
It’s brilliant sheet for noise and circuit, can they have it in the airport AIP? or just put it in the Notams? in UK, we get lengthy phone briefs when flying to glider sites with +200hp or unlicensed airports out of hours, I once had 35min phone call talking about swamps, churches & stables…pity all that useful knowledge is not shared in AIP/Notams as list of Lat/Lon coordinates or better as SkyDemon .FPL format file, you download from their website and fly as magenta line 
Well of course with the current policy of the CAA or NATS to only put licensed airfield in the AIP and NOTAM, you won’t see glider airfields soon.
Yes true not all of them are in CAA AIP (lot are in UK MiL AIP) but like many unlicensed airfields everything can be put in the aerodrome website?
Here are two good examples,
https://www.damynshall.co.uk/flying_in
https://eghj.extremelynice.net/eghj/
Noise Procedures, circuit information, PPR online forms, power/flap settings, radio calls, opening hours and if there is a festival on the runway or it’s waterlogged…you don’t have to call anyone on 30min phone call, what if you/they don’t speak English ?
Dimme wrote:
Is that great sheet published in any official aeronautical publication such as the AIP?
The VAC is of course in the AIP and also on it it should be perfectly clear how the circuit is. This explanatory document is published on the site of the aerodrome to help newcomers to avoid the trouble spots. The address of the website is in the AIP as well I think. As you have to check the sites anyway for PPR information in many cases, I think it’s a good idea to look at the pilot information available.
I know quite a few aerodromes which put such supplementary information onto their site. It simply shows that they do go way beyond the “necessary” to help people to cope with the sometimes less than ideal circuits. Personally I think it shows just how much work goes into keeping airfields open and publicly acceptable.
Ibra wrote:
It’s brilliant sheet for noise and circuit, can they have it in the airport AIP?
If you have a look at the actual VAC, it shows pretty much the same, without the photographs of course. But also the noise relevant areas are clearly marked yellow and the circuit is there the same way. I can’t access the AIP from where I am but I found a PDF elsewhere which shows what that looks like:
The yellow areas are noise sensitive and need to be avoided.
Obviously there are others which take things further. But that is not where we want to go really: Things such as compulsory introduction flights or online tests or both, such as Zurich (online test), Zweisimmen (where it’s “recommended” but you won’t get permission without it) or Samedan (online test and familiarisation flight)…
Dimme wrote:
I could not care less for local “rules” like that. , I would rather make sure I do it in the safest manner possible rather than focusing on not deviating 30 cm from some imaginary line in the air.
Frankly, @Dimme, that’s showing disrespect for the people who put down a lot of effort at keeping their airports open and with a minimum of restrictions. Maybe you don’t have that kind of problem at Eslöv and certainly not at Sturup.
We have such local “rules”, as you call it, at Sundbro, imposed on us by the regional government (Länsstyrelsen) and the courts with possible prosecution resulting if they’re not followed. We’d love to have them published in the AIP, but as you know the Swedish AIP only publish VACs for airports with ATS units.
Certainly, our “lines” are 100’s of meters or more wide at their narrowest and not 30 cm, but you can create a lot of trouble for our club if you fly over the wrong house.
